RChildress107
Well-known member
My overall impression of Hatch after his first eight years is wary optimism.
He has undeniably done some great things for the university. The ongoing facility improvements, the continued success and growth of the graduate schools, and the small jump in the rankings are all indications that Wake is moving in a great direction.
However, Hatch still (after 8 years) feels disconnected from the University. In and of itself that isn't a huge problem, but it causes concern among those who care about Wake Forest's connection with Winston-Salem (which isn't much better than Duke's relationship with Durham) and for those who would like Wake to be a feasible option for NC students who don't live in the I-85 corridor.
What is sad/frustrating is that those two objectives (improving community relations and maintaining NC roots) could be achieved without sacrificing growth.
Noone is suggesting that Wake Forest should return to 1930, 1960, or even 1990. There are those, however, who believe the University Leadership should be cognizant of Wake Forest's past as they guide her into the future.
There is a line at which prioritizing growth might mean sacrificing our mission. I don't know that I trust the current administration to recognize that line.
He has undeniably done some great things for the university. The ongoing facility improvements, the continued success and growth of the graduate schools, and the small jump in the rankings are all indications that Wake is moving in a great direction.
However, Hatch still (after 8 years) feels disconnected from the University. In and of itself that isn't a huge problem, but it causes concern among those who care about Wake Forest's connection with Winston-Salem (which isn't much better than Duke's relationship with Durham) and for those who would like Wake to be a feasible option for NC students who don't live in the I-85 corridor.
What is sad/frustrating is that those two objectives (improving community relations and maintaining NC roots) could be achieved without sacrificing growth.
Noone is suggesting that Wake Forest should return to 1930, 1960, or even 1990. There are those, however, who believe the University Leadership should be cognizant of Wake Forest's past as they guide her into the future.
There is a line at which prioritizing growth might mean sacrificing our mission. I don't know that I trust the current administration to recognize that line.