God, I'm glad I'm not on that committee. It's a no win.
If you hire someone quickly, you didn't explore all the options.
If you take your time and explore your options, people say "You could have hired that person months ago." Which is a BS statement if Ive ever seen one. You don't truly know who the candidates are or who the best one is until you see who is interested and interview them.
The worst thing is there are candidates that people in the media or on message boards are talking like they are the miracle cure or something. If you don't get one of them, you've failed. Also BS. Not only do you have to select someone competent, but you have to find someone with a vision. More specifically, that vision has to be achievable and compatible with the vision the administration has for the University as a whole and that is applicable to Illinois.
So, say the committee likes George/Tiley but they aren't interested. Or their vision is to increase attendance by doing something the University doesn't want to or isn't allowed to do...maybe sell beer at football games or something. (As I recalled, the legislature had to take action for the Bears to be able to do so when they were playing here.) Then you have to move on. But you can't publicly say why you didn't choose the message board darling, so everyone thinks you screwed up.
Now, having moved on, say you aren't thrilled with the rest of the candidates. Do you hire someone because people on a message board are whining about how long it takes? Or do you go back to the drawing board and see if you can find some better candidates?
In other words, no matter what these people do, people on message boards will call them inept, incompetent, post pictures of dumpster fires etc. despite having no actual clue what's going on or why.
Step back a bit and realize that a lot of the posts on this forum are disparaging people who are trying to do the best job they can and that criticism based on speculation and media reports of questionable accuracy.
And then give a moment of thanks that YOU aren't the one under the microscope.
If you hire someone quickly, you didn't explore all the options.
If you take your time and explore your options, people say "You could have hired that person months ago." Which is a BS statement if Ive ever seen one. You don't truly know who the candidates are or who the best one is until you see who is interested and interview them.
The worst thing is there are candidates that people in the media or on message boards are talking like they are the miracle cure or something. If you don't get one of them, you've failed. Also BS. Not only do you have to select someone competent, but you have to find someone with a vision. More specifically, that vision has to be achievable and compatible with the vision the administration has for the University as a whole and that is applicable to Illinois.
So, say the committee likes George/Tiley but they aren't interested. Or their vision is to increase attendance by doing something the University doesn't want to or isn't allowed to do...maybe sell beer at football games or something. (As I recalled, the legislature had to take action for the Bears to be able to do so when they were playing here.) Then you have to move on. But you can't publicly say why you didn't choose the message board darling, so everyone thinks you screwed up.
Now, having moved on, say you aren't thrilled with the rest of the candidates. Do you hire someone because people on a message board are whining about how long it takes? Or do you go back to the drawing board and see if you can find some better candidates?
In other words, no matter what these people do, people on message boards will call them inept, incompetent, post pictures of dumpster fires etc. despite having no actual clue what's going on or why.
Step back a bit and realize that a lot of the posts on this forum are disparaging people who are trying to do the best job they can and that criticism based on speculation and media reports of questionable accuracy.
And then give a moment of thanks that YOU aren't the one under the microscope.