Reflections after visiting Texas A&M University this week

I have been very silent this week, the reason being Spring break in the schools over here and that enables us to take our son with us on a tour of some American universities. We drove from St Paul to College Station in Texas last weekend, a distance equivalent to Ås-Bardu where my husband’s family farm is. The difference being the much better roads here. We stayed at Texas A&M for three days, getting a feel of the Campus, talked to a lot of people about both science and university organization as well as giving a seminar on the science we are engaged in. The trip is financed through Fulbright and is part of the cultural and scientific exchange between USA and Norway that we participate in this year.

There was much interest in the fact that I am running for office as the Rector of UMB. I had appointments with the Department Head of Horticulture, the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies at the College of Agriculture as well as many scientists on Campus. They were all awestruck by the fact that we elect the Rector, and not only by the faculty; but also by staff, temporarily employed scientific staff and even students. I had to explain our process over and over again. This gave us ample opportunity to discuss this. At American universities, there is no such thing as electing their President or Chancellor; the president is chosen on the background of a thorough search amongst possible candidates in the country by a committee. There was great secrecy involved because external candidates would not want their names disclosed until it was clear that they might actually be chosen. At Texas A&M they said that they usually ended up with an internal candidate anyway. This surprised me, as I thought that the process of selecting a candidate for president of a university would ensure that an external candidate had a real chance of being appointed. But it turned out that the mere size and complexity of Texas A&M favors the internal candidate. But the secrecy that has to be fulfilled during the selection of presidents at American universities certainly does not seem to ensure the vote of confidence that the elected rector of a Norwegian gets. I see this vote of confidence as the real advantage of the system chosen by the Board of UMB. The election of the Rector enables the faculty, staff and students alike to engage in the discussions and presumably give their vote of confidence to the best candidate.

I hope that you take this opportunity to engage in the discussions on who should be the next Rector of UMB! My sincere wish is that as many as possible participate in the discussions and the election itself, to ensure a solid vote of confidence from all groups; your vote does matter! Show us that you care about who is in the lead of UMB and that you appreciate that you have been given the right to have your say in a real and substantial manner: by vote.

Trine Hvoslef-Eide