Julio Frenk Interview

[TheOriginalCane]

Why did UM hire Frenk over Stavridis a few years ago? Stavridis interviewed with Miami for the Pres position when Frenk was hired. This was a mistake.

I agree with you 100%, it was a huge mistake.

The truth is simple (don't listen to the right-wingers who falsely invent some Frenk-Shalala connection), Frenk was hired for his medical/health background, as UM's Med School is (unfortunately) a super-high priority to UM.

And for the people who try to claim that Frenk was hired because he is "Mexican":

"Frenk was born in Mexico City, Mexico, on December 20, 1953. His father and grandfather, a *** who fled to Mexico from **** Germany, were both physicians."

Also:

"Frenk was born in Mexico City, the son and grandson of physicians. His ****** grandfather settled in a welcoming Mexico with his family after fleeing **** Germany in the 1930s as a refugee, Frenk said. His mother’s family emigrated to Mexico from Spain’s Canary Islands."

 

[TheOriginalCane]

From The Miami Herald, at the time Frenk was hired:

"Julio Frenk, the newly anointed president of the University of Miami, is a world authority on public health. He holds a medical degree and a Ph.D. and has been a dean at Harvard and minister of health in his native Mexico, where he launched a program that brought healthcare coverage to millions of people."

"At Harvard, Frenk quadrupled the amount raised by the school of public health, securing its once weak finances, and helped secure the 378-year-old university’s single largest-ever gift — $350 million from the family of Hong Kong real-estate developer T.H. Chan, after whom the school of public health was renamed."

"As minister of health under Mexican president Vicente Fox from 2000 to 2006, Frenk reformed the nation’s public-health system and introduced a universal health insurance program, Seguro Popular, that covered tens of millions of previously uninsured Mexicans. He previously had founded Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health."

"A major part of Frenk’s focus at UM will undoubtedly be its medical school, the fiscal and administrative demands of the university’s private hospital, and its strained relationship with Jackson Memorial, the public hospital which trains its students and for which UM provides doctors."

AND:

“It’s a brilliant move,” said Braman, who left the UM board after criticizing the university’s $275 million purchase in 2007 of the old Cedars hospital, which strained its finances and put the school in competition for paying patients with its partners at publicly subsidized Jackson.

“It’s not just the medical background; it’s everything that goes along with the medical background. This is a man who created the healthcare system in Mexico. What an achievement. He’s an academic, but there’s far more to him,” Braman said.

Linda Quick, president of the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association, said Frenk’s selection reflects the critical importance of his medical and public-health background to UM — just like that of the outgoing leader, Shalala, who came to the university in 2001 after serving as U.S. secretary of health and human services under President Bill Clinton.

“In both cases, it’s an acknowledgment that the medical and health sides of the university are major pieces and major revenue sources for the university,” Quick said.

 

[Rambodesambo]

Just give me a President that focuses on Academics but still understands the importance of the football program and how it impacts the school. Such a President will give a **** on the school's AD'S job performance, and will not tolerate an AD who is void of football knowledge.

 

[AUcane]

Athletics is not Frenk's job. Almost all University President's gave up that illusion years ago.

BoT is the center of power for AD hire/fire.

Frenk's focus is on institutional fundraising and academic ranking.

it’s not his job but based on how much $$ it brings in, he should be very keenly aware of the type of product that’s being fielded

 

[Fluffhead]

I agree with you 100%, it was a huge mistake.

The truth is simple (don't listen to the right-wingers who falsely invent some Frenk-Shalala connection), Frenk was hired for his medical/health background, as UM's Med School is (unfortunately) a super-high priority to UM.

And for the people who try to claim that Frenk was hired because he is "Mexican":

"Frenk was born in Mexico City, Mexico, on December 20, 1953. His father and grandfather, a *** who fled to Mexico from **** Germany, were both physicians."

Also:

"Frenk was born in Mexico City, the son and grandson of physicians. His ****** grandfather settled in a welcoming Mexico with his family after fleeing **** Germany in the 1930s as a refugee, Frenk said. His mother’s family emigrated to Mexico from Spain’s Canary Islands."

I think there was also a thought that he would be a massive fundraiser through Latin America and really set Miami up as a top destination for foreign students. That, obviously, has not come to fruition.

But yes, a significant part of it was the medical school, the ill-advised overspend on the UHealth hospital, the complexities that it created between that facility and Jackson, and the disaster that was Pascal Goldschmidt's time as dean.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I think there was also a thought that he would be a massive fundraiser through Latin America and really set Miami up as a top destination for foreign students. That, obviously, has not come to fruition.

But yes, a significant part of it was the medical school, the ill-advised overspend on the UHealth hospital, the complexities that it created between that facility and Jackson, and the disaster that was Pascal Goldschmidt's time as dean.

^^^This guy understands, and he truly knows what he is talking about on each and every item that he cites.

For all of Frenk's "accolades" and "accomplishments" on his resume, he may have stabilized the med school situation, but he is not responsible for any major positive initiatives. No "major donor" comparable to whom he landed at his prior job.

 

[Gatorhater]

Correct. The President is the chief fundraiser and brand manager, not chief academic.

Also, it’s insane that UM b\views Blake‘s job as fundraising. That’s a nice to have, but there is a development arm, and a President to shake the tree. James’s primary job is give them something to sell, athletically.

I wonder if they ever ask their counterparts at Bama how hard it is to raise funds there since Saban got there. It must be impossible to raise moeny with all that horrible winning. Who the heck would want to donate to a school with a good football team.

 

[AlexCane]

I happened to stumble on his interview live several weeks ago.

It was very underwhelming. It doesn't really seem he has much of a concern about athletics. He mentioned that athletics plays a vital role in the community and the entire college experience. That's an easy, canned answer.

Jackie Nespral actually asked him a couple good questions about the state of the football program and the lack of improvement/progress. Again, some canned answer about this being Manny's first year, improved recruiting to bolster the holes, etc.

I wouldn't spend much time trying to find a link. Substantively, it was pretty empty.

If you ask me, he's not going to get in the way of the football team but he's also not going to go out of his way to support it either. Indifferent is how I'd describe him.

 

[Ethnicsands]

I wonder if they ever ask their counterparts at Bama how hard it is to raise funds there since Saban got there. It must be impossible to raise moeny with all that horrible winning. Who the heck would want to donate to a school with a good football team.

The donation analysis is complex, because you have to address what is marginally impacted, and the overall pool is driven by factors that can cloud efforts to identify the marginal impact. There are rich old alumni who will donate eventually. Markets go up and down, impacting donations in many ways. Some schools have more rich old alumni than others. Some have a super wealthy alumni whose giving has a bog impact. Some schools have other capital campaigns going on for various reasons. When Oil is up, some schools get oil money. Ditto tech, biotech, etc. You have to zero those forces out.

For UM, are marginal/discretionary donations (or applications) impacted by particularly good or bad football?

It’s hard to imagine it hurts, that’s for sure.

 

[Gatorhater]

The donation analysis is complex, because you have to address what is marginally impacted, and the overall pool is driven by factors that can cloud efforts to identify the marginal impact. There are rich old alumni who will donate eventually. Markets go up and down, impacting donations in many ways. Some schools have more rich old alumni than others. Some have a super wealthy alumni whose giving has a bog impact. Some schools have other capital campaigns going on for various reasons. When Oil is up, some schools get oil money. Ditto tech, biotech, etc. You have to zero those forces out.

For UM, are marginal/discretionary donations (or applications) impacted by particularly good or bad football?

It’s hard to imagine it hurts, that’s for sure.

Good analysis. I think that look on Donna's face with a sad little 50K check in her hands at the bowling ally tells us where UM falls. I wrote checks that big in the late 70's and early 80's because of Howard. If UM was some sort of "we don't need your money" school like Harvard, she would not be climaxing over that check. It has plenty of money but not "***** you" money. If enough big donors rebel then it could matter but not as much as when they hired Howard. That ACC check is probably the biggest check they get and it comes regular.

 

[Tad Footeball]

We are not F$U. We are not a landing spot for Republicans with no immediate future in the Republican Party.

Jeb Bush does not have the academic background. Period.

Condoleezza Rice is more likely, but post-Shalala, it is highly unlikely that we would ever hire a president who has been active in day-to-day politics. That's why Stavridis is more likely, because even if you think you know his political ideology, he has never been as in-your-face with it.

And, he would likely be acceptable to either side of the political spectrum:

"He was considered as a potential vice-presidential running mate by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 and as a possible U.S. Secretary of State by President-elect Donald Trump in the fall of 2016."

Look, one of my School of Business majors was Politics. But that department is not powerful or prominent enough to warrant bringing in a big-time politician to run the entire University.

Stavridis is probably as political a president as UM is willing to hire at this point.

I'm not married to the Jeb Bush idea and I'll gladly take Stavridis and would LOVE Condi but the background in academics for that position isn't nearly as important as you make when you outright dismiss Bush.

See Mitch Daniels as the current president of Purdue. Almost an exact same career trajectory.

 

[Fluffhead]

I wonder if they ever ask their counterparts at Bama how hard it is to raise funds there since Saban got there. It must be impossible to raise moeny with all that horrible winning. Who the heck would want to donate to a school with a good football team.

The donation analysis is complex, because you have to address what is marginally impacted, and the overall pool is driven by factors that can cloud efforts to identify the marginal impact. There are rich old alumni who will donate eventually. Markets go up and down, impacting donations in many ways. Some schools have more rich old alumni than others. Some have a super wealthy alumni whose giving has a bog impact. Some schools have other capital campaigns going on for various reasons. When Oil is up, some schools get oil money. Ditto tech, biotech, etc. You have to zero those forces out.

For UM, are marginal/discretionary donations (or applications) impacted by particularly good or bad football?

It’s hard to imagine it hurts, that’s for sure.

Here is the answer to your question, straight from their school president/chancellor's mouth:

"The question posed to the academic head of the Alabama University system was simple. As the highest paid coach in collegiate sports, was Saban worth it? Dr. Witt responds without hesitation, "Nick Saban is the best financial investment this university has ever made. We have made an investment that's been returned many fold," he tells Keteyian. "

Nick Saban called UA's "best financial investment" by chancellor

University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban delivered a team that has won three of the last four national championships

www.cbsnews.com

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I'm not married to the Jeb Bush idea and I'll gladly take Stavridis and would LOVE Condi but the background in academics for that position isn't nearly as important as you make when you outright dismiss Bush.

See Mitch Daniels as the current president of Purdue. Almost an exact same career trajectory.

Again, we are not Purdue. We are not a state school. Jeb Bush is never going to happen.

 

[dookie blaylock]

Athletics is not Frenk's job. Almost all University President's gave up that illusion years ago.

BoT is the center of power for AD hire/fire.

Frenk's focus is on institutional fundraising and academic ranking.

which he also sucks at.

 

[Empirical Cane]

which he also sucks at.

That's fair observation. He was brought to make Miami a Top 30 school and get the endowment machine rolling like at Harvard (tough task + impossible task).

 

[Tad Footeball]

Again, we are not Purdue. We are not a state school. Jeb Bush is never going to happen.

Yeahhhh, we actually are kinda Purdue.....minus the good engineering program.

I just don't get how you're so resolute that it's an insane idea. His name was repeatedly floated last time to the extent that he was forced to issue a statement that he wasn't interested.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Here is the answer to your question, straight from their school president/chancellor's mouth:

"The question posed to the academic head of the Alabama University system was simple. As the highest paid coach in collegiate sports, was Saban worth it? Dr. Witt responds without hesitation, "Nick Saban is the best financial investment this university has ever made. We have made an investment that's been returned many fold," he tells Keteyian. "

Nick Saban called UA's "best financial investment" by chancellor

University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban delivered a team that has won three of the last four national championships

www.cbsnews.com

Not to beat a dead horse, but if your argument is (as it was a few pages ago) that investment in football helps to drive improvement in academic rankings, I don't think Bama is a good exemplar, regardless of what their president says.

Between 2013 and 2020, their rankings in US News fell from 77th to 153rd. Of course, USN&WR rankings are subjective and not necessarily authoritative, and there are many other similar metrics I've not delved into. But still, on its face, it calls into question the validity of the president's words. Maybe as a business, the university is raking in more $$ than ever before as a result of the on-field success, but that hasn't translated to an enhanced academic reputation.

 

[Canedude08]

What an awful series lf logical fails.

Way to assume your conclusion. Let’s just agree this is a stupid argument in your part. You have no basis to assert this, and no reason to think it’s true. Kids make holistic decisions on where to go to college based on lots of factors, and social environment are amongst them, as are career opportunities, for smart kids as well as less smart ones.

This too is a bad argument, because it’s a complete red herring distraction. Football doesn’t help or hinder research grants or other support, to my knowledge, so you’re just mixing apples and oranges. Whether football helps general donations or not is the question.

Bad argument again, because you assume that the donations related to football are all earmarked to the AD. That isn’t necessarily true at all. The question is whether success in football (or lack of awfulness at it) helps overall giving, at least for some schools. And AD fundraising does also help the institution, because money is fungible. It can pay for opportunities and facilities that otherwise wouldn’t happen or would require other resources, not only for revenue producing sports, but for all scholar athletes.

What an obviously ridiculous strawman you’ve created. Has anyone argued that a school was ‘built solely on athletics’?

This is also a ridiculous comment. Schools that have been historically good at sports tend to be big state schools, in no small part because they have a big pool of students from which to draw athletes. They also have a bias towards the mean in average student talent, because of size and in some cases because of state mission / admission criteria. That doesn’t mean they don’t also have many terrific students and professors and departments. You’re fooled by the denominator and too impressed with brand. And it’s easy to pick on LSU, I suppose. Alabama is a good institution. So is Texas, UGA, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Nebraska, Cal, UCLA, etc. State schools tend to get a bad rap because insecure elitists feel the need to look down on them for self-validation.

False choice alert!!! Has anyone argued Miami should ‘mortgage it’s future’ for anything? The discussion is the opposite - what is the best path to a rosy future.

Agreed.

Let's walk through this word salad and point out why most of it is mental *********ion.

1) Donations that are earmarked for football are earmarked. In other words, they will not go to the school whatsoever. It's the same reason why the huge donations that go to the med school can't be used to pay for new coaches and athletic facilities. There are legal ramifications involved. That said, the people that tend to donate to academic causes aren't swayed by an athletic department. Why? Because they understand that the athletic department is an independent entity. How do I know this? Look at the schools that raise the most money and have the largest endowments. A large percentage of those schools are dreadful athletically, in fact, most of them don't even try to have major college sports. Yet, schools with big time athletic successes lag behind in a lot of cases. A perfect example of how athletic successes don't line up to fundraising success is Miami in the last 20 years. Momentum I and II were highly successful, despite the football program being mediocre throughout the period. If people are making academic donation decisions based on the athletic department, how did that happen?

2) Large state schools tend to do well in athletics for multiple reasons. A)Large donor pools, made up of alumni. When you graduate 8,000 kids every year, that's a lot of people you can hit up for money. It's not an accident that outside of Southern Cal and Notre Dame, Miami is the only private school with any significant, sustained football relevance in the last half century, and SC is an outlier when it comes to student demographics for a private institution. B) Being located in places where athletics are the only source of entertainment. When the SEC says "It just means more", they are right, but they are leaving something out. It means more because there's nothing else to do. You ever been to Tuscaloosa or Clemson? There isn't a major professional franchise nearby . When you are the state's major entertainment source, people are going to be far more generous in regards to providing the tools needed to provide an entertaining product.

3)Let's look at the big name, high interest state schools, and note how many of them are worthwhile in football. Most aren't. There are a few Texas, Michigan and Ohio State types, but the typical big time football factory is a lowly ranked, regional institution. There's a reason why LSU is the butt of jokes. You can try to play the "Elitists look down at them" card, but there's a reason why they aren't taken seriously. Having one good program doesn't change perception. There's a reason why despite spending more on college athletics than any other conference, the SEC also had the lowest rated academic institutions in the Power 5. Compare that to a school like Cal. Cal stinks in football, has always stunk and most likely always will. Yet, they are one of the best state institutions in the country. UCLA is the same way. UVa has been mediocre AT BEST in football for most of the last 75 years. I know you are going to say "UVa won a title in basketball", and I hear you. Ever wonder why the good academic schools that do try in athletics tend to be good in sports like basketball, lacrosse and baseball? It's an easy explanation. Those sports require fewer kids, it requires fewer institutional sacrifices. Think about it, to have a good basketball program, you need 1-3 elite guys, and 4-8 solid guys(There are only 13 scholarships issued) If you have that, you should be consistently good, especially if you hit on a coach. You need dozens of good players to even be competitive in football, especially at the major conference level. It's a lot easier to keep 1-3 top end, but academically questionable kids eligible, than it is to have 4-5 times that, like you do at the football factory schools.

 

[Fluffhead]

Not to beat a dead horse, but if your argument is (as it was a few pages ago) that investment in football helps to drive improvement in academic rankings, I don't think Bama is a good exemplar, regardless of what their president says.

Between 2013 and 2020, their rankings in US News fell from 77th to 153rd. Of course, USN&WR rankings are subjective and not necessarily authoritative, and there are many other similar metrics I've not delved into. But still, on its face, it calls into question the validity of the president's words. Maybe as a business, the university is raking in more $$ than ever before as a result of the on-field success, but that hasn't translated to an enhanced academic reputation.

They are two entirely different discussions. One was fundraising, which this article touches on. I am going to trust that school's chancellor and my time as a consultant where we had multiple large athletic associations as clients to see how winning and investing in your program impacts donations. If you want an example closer to home - do you think it is a coincidence that Miami was not able to get a large lead gift for the IPF until it spent some of its own money and hired Mark Richt? Do you think that maybe having Mark Richt, an established coach, lead those efforts vs. Al Golden helped show donors that Miami was at least a little serious about investing into the program?

The second is athletics impacting academics, which I never said they did. What I did say is that Miami is not an Ivy League school, nor is it a Duke, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, etc., not mentioning larger state schools that are better academically. Miami is also not a large state school with a massive alumni network to lean on when you graduate and are looking for a first job. What I did say is that athletics is part of the college experience, and Miami is not good enough in any other area to not offer it to prospective students. You can go to a big state school for less money, have the same (if not better) job prospects, and have that large part of a college experience.

 

[miamifan007]

Athletics is not Frenk's job. Almost all University President's gave up that illusion years ago.

BoT is the center of power for AD hire/fire.

Frenk's focus is on institutional fundraising and academic ranking.

Contrary to belief, was Donna for or against football?