Breaking - Biondi Has Resigned

[JMM28]

I am as well. I don't think hiring a non-Jesuit means that the school will sacrifice its identity in any way. Get the best person for the job.

It will certainly help for future government TIF and assorted moneys.

[BillikenLaw]

I am as well. I don't think hiring a non-Jesuit means that the school will sacrifice its identity in any way. Get the best person for the job.

As long as it's someone who will focus on improving our deteriorated academic rankings, I'm all for it.

Oh, and get us into the Big East please

[SShoe]

This is true. Also, AF, I don't think Bizzle made it a money issue. You said, "put up at least some capital to make things happen" in your argument. This was in the post after saying: "More relevant though is that people who feel buildings should be saved should examine the economics and raise capital to save them. If the idea makes sense, they should be able to raise the capital assuming they are either unable or unwilling to put their own money into them." It has an "only property owners shall have the right to vote" ring to it. You're also doubling down by saying "these days people blame the rich," which I don't think is applicable here (or true in general, but that's another argument). People are blaming SLU and Biondi not for being powerful and having a lot of money, but for steamrolling projects through without going through the process that applies to everyone else (e.g. making a mockery of the preservation board with the Pevely project).

+1

[jbizzle09]

I am not sure I understand why you and others turn so many things into just a money issue. I have several friends who were not and are not rich who decided to run for local office because they wanted to have more of a say in their community. They made a relative sacrifice within their means, got involved, put in a lot of hard work, and made a difference.

When we first bought a building, we barely could afford it, but we believed in it, took the risk, and made the financial sacrifice to make it happen.

I have several friends who scrounged up the money, found the time, and built businesses, big and small, including real estate rehabbers, developers, agents, etc. To suggest that this cannot be done or that some how society is unfair in how this gets done is just not healthy. Is it hard? Absolutely!!!!! Does it always turn out fairly? Absolutely NOT!!!! But that is friggin' life! People get cancer and die - it's not fair, but it happens and when it does, because there is no one to blame (other than Biondi ) there are no protests; people just accept it. But take someone who starts a business and is successful, then immediately certain people start saying, "Well, he just knew the right people" or some BS. And the guy who fails, if he falls prey to this mentality, starts blaming everyone else for his failure.

This misguided and unsettling notion that anyone is telling people to "STFU" is one of the most divisive things in society. I never said that; you may have inferred it, but that is on you, not me. It seems that when someone does not get what they want, the immediate, knee-jerk reaction is to blame someone, these days, the rich, and then, instead of working for progress, it is an all out effort to attack and destroy the someone who is the target of blame. I have never understood this mindset. It totally puzzles me.

You stated 'If they are not willing to do that, then they should be willing to accept the way things are.' The immediate impression I got from that statement (in context with the rest of your statements) was that only people who have invested time, money or direct work into an endeavor, a project, whatever, should be the only ones who can express an opinion on that. Based on that, it would seem your perspective is that even if this is something that may directly impact people in the area, because they work and/or live there, they should be willing to except the way things are because they don't have any direct 'skin in the game'.

In regards to the rest of your post, which seems to be going into a certain philosophical direction, I understand that there are people who take chances in this world, that utilize whatever little they have to build their dreams, to make a difference, and so forth. In fact, I did that just a few short years ago, when I left a very secure, well-paying job with a large bank and took a chance at going at it on my own. While it eventually worked for me, I don't have the attitude that everyone needs to be an entrepreneur and take their own destiny in their hands in order to make a difference in this world. It seems to me that you tend to have that worldview, though. Perhaps it is the Ayn Rand quote you use in your signature line that has led me to that conclusion.

My opinion is that if someone is even indirectly impacted by a decision, whether it is a new building, business, street, etc., they should be allowed and encouraged to have their voice heard, even if it eventually is on the losing side. Grievances should be heard, and in fact, encouraged to be stated out loud. If you are concerned about how something is going to impact your everyday life, then you should make it known to those directly responsible for said project. If nobody supports your opinion, despite your best efforts to make your grievance known, than yes, you should eventually drop it and live with the effects.

Finally, people in power, whether the 'rich', people in office, people with influence, really should not be so defensive about criticism. Whenever a person rises to a certain societal position, and their decisions impact a number of other people, then they are opening themselves to a lot more criticism than someone who is known to a lot fewer people. Therefore, the 'blame' gets directed towards them far more than it will another person making an average wage at an average job. And that is because their sphere of influence is much greater than the majority of people. To expect that everyone is going to respect and/or love you due to the societal position you have achieved is pie-in-the-sky thinking, even if you reached that position through nothing but hard work, sweat, tears and having never exploited anyone along the way. People who make their way up the societal ladder need to realize this, that it is nothing more than a normal part of human nature.

[MusicCityBilliken]

Well, Laclede Town no longer exists. It was NOT rehabbed and there was no conversion; it was demolished, totally. Now there are both Harris Stowe and SLU buildings, fields, and greenspace in its place. Laclede Town was envisioned and built for young urban professionals who planners thought would come back to the city (that concept is nothing new), but the failure to address crime left it a burned out shell, about 50% occupied and almost 100% of that Section 8 type housing. It was an incredibly dangerous area.

If you would have preferred to have people commute to their jobs downtown via Manchester, Forest Park Parkway, and Market, then I guess you are right with respect to I-64. Of course, that type of a commute would have strangled development of downtown, but that's another story.

And just so you know, I have invested in projects to preserve buildings in different parts of town. Just because I do not believe every old building should be saved doesn't mean that I think every old building should be torn down. More relevant though is that people who feel buildings should be saved should examine the economics and raise capital to save them. If the idea makes sense, they should be able to raise the capital assuming they are either unable or unwilling to put their own money into them.

You may want to check out this link as it would throw into doubt your assertion that SLU had 'little or nothing to do with' the revitalization of Grand Center (aka The Great White Way).

http://www.grandcenter.org/about/district/history/

Surprised to hear what Laclede Town turned into. I lived in Laclede Town my senior year and when I was in the graduate program, 73-75. Remember the address, 210 Channing. It was nice and never had any problems. Can't say that when I lived in the Gries and was robbed. When I did my clinicals that hot summer of 75, used to hit the Laclede Town pool every night.

I have to say, when I was at SLU from 70-75 and did not return till 98 (to see Larry Hughes play against UAB & Houston), I was in aye on how beautiful the campus turned out. Bondi did an fantastic job in both land acquisitions & developing, the endowment was strong, standards for students improved and most important the basketball team had a couple NCAA's tourney appearances under its belt with attendance way up. Whether we liked him or not, that took outstanding leadership pulling all that together. I do think 25 years is long time, many major fortune 500 corporations don't let CEOs last that long for obvious reasons.

I thank him for his dedication and leadership and wish him a happy fulfilling retirement.

[AlumniFan]

You stated 'If they are not willing to do that, then they should be willing to accept the way things are.' The immediate impression I got from that statement (in context with the rest of your statements) was that only people who have invested time, money or direct work into an endeavor, a project, whatever, should be the only ones who can express an opinion on that. Based on that, it would seem your perspective is that even if this is something that may directly impact people in the area, because they work and/or live there, they should be willing to except the way things are because they don't have any direct 'skin in the game'.

In regards to the rest of your post, which seems to be going into a certain philosophical direction, I understand that there are people who take chances in this world, that utilize whatever little they have to build their dreams, to make a difference, and so forth. In fact, I did that just a few short years ago, when I left a very secure, well-paying job with a large bank and took a chance at going at it on my own. While it eventually worked for me, I don't have the attitude that everyone needs to be an entrepreneur and take their own destiny in their hands in order to make a difference in this world. It seems to me that you tend to have that worldview, though. Perhaps it is the Ayn Rand quote you use in your signature line that has led me to that conclusion.

My opinion is that if someone is even indirectly impacted by a decision, whether it is a new building, business, street, etc., they should be allowed and encouraged to have their voice heard, even if it eventually is on the losing side. Grievances should be heard, and in fact, encouraged to be stated out loud. If you are concerned about how something is going to impact your everyday life, then you should make it known to those directly responsible for said project. If nobody supports your opinion, despite your best efforts to make your grievance known, than yes, you should eventually drop it and live with the effects.

Finally, people in power, whether the 'rich', people in office, people with influence, really should not be so defensive about criticism. Whenever a person rises to a certain societal position, and their decisions impact a number of other people, then they are opening themselves to a lot more criticism than someone who is known to a lot fewer people. Therefore, the 'blame' gets directed towards them far more than it will another person making an average wage at an average job. And that is because their sphere of influence is much greater than the majority of people. To expect that everyone is going to respect and/or love you due to the societal position you have achieved is pie-in-the-sky thinking, even if you reached that position through nothing but hard work, sweat, tears and having never exploited anyone along the way. People who make their way up the societal ladder need to realize this, that it is nothing more than a normal part of human nature.

I agree with every word you wrote.

I think, no, I know the quote from Ayn Rand immediately colors some people's views of what I may write which, to me, is just as bad as someone judging someone who is of a certain ethnicity, religion, political party, etc.

Most people who own Apple products love them. They were developed by many people working to pursue their own passions and build their own fortune, whether monetary, recognition, or place in society. People never turn down life saving drugs. Most of the research that develops drugs came from people who managed and financed a process with hope of being well rewarded while pursuing their interests. The railroads dramatically changed our country in ways that benefited millions. They were envisioned, financed, and built by people who were pursuing their own vision and their own fortune. Those are all good things and they all relate to what Ayn Rand said. She never said, "Oh, and by the way, be sure you crush the little guy as you build your fortune" (I can see the comments coming regarding the people conscripted into physically building things like railroads). Does it happen? Yes, because their are dishonest, selfish, nasty, greedy humans who come in the form of not only business owners and CEOs, but also in the form of bank tellers, TSA agents, retail clerks, union workers, etc. Dishonesty and avarice are human problems, not just rich people problems or CEO problems or University President problems.

My own economic view was impacted, in part, by coming from a very modest background, struggling financially to get through college (working three jobs to pay expenses and taking 18 to 21 hours a semester so I wouldn't have to pay for a fourth year) while at the same time watching some of my fellow students who refused to work, but were quick to join protests on campus about cuts in financial aid. If only they had put as much effort into getting a job as they did into their protests and letter writing.

Lastly, I think it is very important that everyone have a say as you eloquently suggest above. But I also think that if we lead people to expect that their say should have the same impact and the same relevance as the guy or gal who took the risk to buy the property and sweated the details and poured in the time/effort to make something happen, then what we are really doing is condemning them to a life of false expectations and and abjectly devaluing their own abilities because we let them believe that they don't need to provide the same inputs to have the same benefits (i.e. the equal say in outcomes). It makes some people feel good to provide this false sense of place for others, but it is innately selfish because that good feeling alone does not translate into better lives for people and generally leads to false expectations that ultimately disappoint and then negatively color their outlooks. Hopefully, people understand that statement is allegorical in nature, but coincidentally applicable to the specific real estate situation at hand. This satirical famous short story by Vonnegut helps in understanding some of my thoughts: http://www.nexuslearning.net/books/holt_elementsoflit-3/Collection%204/Collection%202/Harrison%20Bergeron%20p1.htm

This would be a great thing to discuss over a beer. In the meantime, I am REALLY HAPPY that this Biondi saga is hopefully over and that, for the most part, we have had a relatively civil discussion about all these issues. (Much more happy about our recruiting success if truth be told!!!)

[willie]

Surprised to hear what Laclede Town turned into. I lived in Laclede Town my senior year and when I was in the graduate program, 73-75. Remember the address, 210 Channing. It was nice and never had any problems. Can't say that when I lived in the Gries and was robbed. When I did my clinicals that hot summer of 75, used to hit the Laclede Town pool every night.

I have to say, when I was at SLU from 70-75 and did not return till 98 (to see Larry Hughes play against UAB & Houston), I was in aye on how beautiful the campus turned out. Bondi did an fantastic job in both land acquisitions & developing, the endowment was strong, standards for students improved and most important the basketball team had a couple NCAA's tourney appearances under its belt with attendance way up. Whether we liked him or not, that took outstanding leadership pulling all that together. I do think 25 years is long time, many major fortune 500 corporations don't let CEOs last that long for obvious reasons.

I thank him for his dedication and leadership and wish him a happy fulfilling retirement.Laclede town started to diewhen a guy named JerrynBerger left. Berger was an employee of HUD and oversaw everything. He selected who could and couldn't live there. He kept everything in balance. How many blacks-whites-students-professionals- non- professionals could live there.He social engineered the whole complex. It worked very well for a long time but when he left the balance changed and went down hill quickly.

[willie]

Laclede Town started to die when a guy named Jerry Berger left STL. Berger was an employee of HUD and oversaw everything. He selected who could and couldn't live there.He kept everything in balance. How many blacks- whites- students- professionals- non-professionals could live there . He social engineered everything including the softball games.It worked for a long time but when he left the balance changed and it went downhill quickly.

[jbizzle09]

I agree with every word you wrote.

I think, no, I know the quote from Ayn Rand immediately colors some people's views of what I may write which, to me, is just as bad as someone judging someone who is of a certain ethnicity, religion, political party, etc.

Most people who own Apple products love them. They were developed by many people working to pursue their own passions and build their own fortune, whether monetary, recognition, or place in society. People never turn down life saving drugs. Most of the research that develops drugs came from people who managed and financed a process with hope of being well rewarded while pursuing their interests. The railroads dramatically changed our country in ways that benefited millions. They were envisioned, financed, and built by people who were pursuing their own vision and their own fortune. Those are all good things and they all relate to what Ayn Rand said. She never said, "Oh, and by the way, be sure you crush the little guy as you build your fortune" (I can see the comments coming regarding the people conscripted into physically building things like railroads). Does it happen? Yes, because their are dishonest, selfish, nasty, greedy humans who come in the form of not only business owners and CEOs, but also in the form of bank tellers, TSA agents, retail clerks, union workers, etc. Dishonesty and avarice are human problems, not just rich people problems or CEO problems or University President problems.

My own economic view was impacted, in part, by coming from a very modest background, struggling financially to get through college (working three jobs to pay expenses and taking 18 to 21 hours a semester so I wouldn't have to pay for a fourth year) while at the same time watching some of my fellow students who refused to work, but were quick to join protests on campus about cuts in financial aid. If only they had put as much effort into getting a job as they did into their protests and letter writing.

Lastly, I think it is very important that everyone have a say as you eloquently suggest above. But I also think that if we lead people to expect that their say should have the same impact and the same relevance as the guy or gal who took the risk to buy the property and sweated the details and poured in the time/effort to make something happen, then what we are really doing is condemning them to a life of false expectations and and abjectly devaluing their own abilities because we let them believe that they don't need to provide the same inputs to have the same benefits (i.e. the equal say in outcomes). It makes some people feel good to provide this false sense of place for others, but it is innately selfish because that good feeling alone does not translate into better lives for people and generally leads to false expectations that ultimately disappoint and then negatively color their outlooks. Hopefully, people understand that statement is allegorical in nature, but coincidentally applicable to the specific real estate situation at hand. This satirical famous short story by Vonnegut helps in understanding some of my thoughts: http://www.nexuslearning.net/books/holt_elementsoflit-3/Collection%204/Collection%202/Harrison%20Bergeron%20p1.htm

This would be a great thing to discuss over a beer. In the meantime, I am REALLY HAPPY that this Biondi saga is hopefully over and that, for the most part, we have had a relatively civil discussion about all these issues. (Much more happy about our recruiting success if truth be told!!!)

AF, I am glad that you didn't get overly defensive towards my replies to you, or take them too personally. I also agree that it is the type of discussion that seems to be an 'at the bar, over a beer' type. Mostly, I like that you always tend to express your ideas in a very coherent manner, even if I may not agree with them. I personally feel that leads to good discussions.

[brianstl]

The three most successful neighborhood projects in St Louis history are Soulard, CWE, and Lafayette Square. They didn't involve tearing down as many historic builldings as possible to create large tracts of land.

[Bobby Metzinger]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Great White Way," but of the major buildings that were rehabbed in and around Grand Center over the last two decades, SLU had little to no direct involvement. This includes, but is not limited to, the rehab of the Continental, Metropolitan, the PW Shoe Lofts building, the Moolah theater and apartments, Warehouse Fixtures building, and all of Midtown Alley (Pappy's building, Locust Street, etc.),

Interesting that you brought up Laclede Town, which was a public housing property constructed in the 1950s to partially replace an entire historic neighborhood (Mill Creek Valley) that was completely demolished to make way for I-64, Harris Stowe, SLU's expansion, and eventually the corporate campus of Wells Fargo. Planning theory then, which obviously still resonates with some of you, was to clear entire swaths of the city to make way for progress. Unfortunately, "progress" came partially in the form of a badly failed public housing project that made the area unsafe. Eventually SLU fixed that mistake by converting much of it to student housing. Seems to me that we could replicate the success of the Laclede Town conversion with rehabs of other, imo more marketable buildings, such as say a building like the Pevely.

"Great White Way" is sarcasm for calling Grand Center a mini Broadway.

[AlumniFan]

"Great White Way" is sarcasm for calling Grand Center a mini Broadway.

You would offend a lot of older people with that comment. They certainly did not think of that in a sarcastic manner at all.

[Bobby Metzinger]

You would offend a lot of older people with that comment. They certainly did not think of that in a sarcastic manner at all.

I was simply stating that most people refer to Broadway in New York City as the "Great White Way." The OP who made reference to Grand being dubbed that was the first time I've heard that expression used anywhere else but NYC. It's like calling the Post-Dispatch the "Grey Lady." No offense on the post, sir. Carry on.

[Clock_Tower]

I just think it's funny the legend of the Pevely Building just keeps growing and growing. If only it were saved, it would spur mid-town development.

Should the building have been saved? Sure, probably. Why did Fr. Biondi want it instead of the Captain D's across the street? b/c Fr. Biondi wanted to buy up all the land between the medical school and the Frost campus and he used the ambulatory center as an excuse to get this piece of land. Bad idea?? probably not. That's what made the campus what it is over these past 25 years.

Where's the outrage for tearing down Scholars House? The old dorm next to the between Rec Center and West Pine Gym? And don't forget, it's not all Fr. Biondi as his predecessor (or 2) tore down DeSmet Hall. Talk about tearing down architecture, that was a real disgrace. Let's be honest: the worst move Fr. Biondi ever did was to tear down Clarks!!

Should every old building be saved? Probably not. I'm glad, though, that the Naugles/Del Taco spaceship building is still standing. In fact, we went inside for coffees and hot chocolates at the Starbucks there after a show at the Symphony this past winter.

[GOSLU68]

Some people are truly concerned with the soiled reputation of priests in the Catholic Church. I for one hope we get a Jesuit. People go to Webster U now-a-days and live near the school and do not even remember it was once the sisters of Loretto who got it started. A resurgence in the vocations of priests, brothers, and nuns will only occur if the majority of the population once again honor those people who dedicate their lives to fostering the rest of us.

A strong, academic who comes from the Jesuits could bring respect for the Jesuits, the Church, the University, the faculty and attract the students who want a Catholic education not just another school that rivals the tax supported BCS schools we sometimes imagine ourselves to rival. We are more than a city college.

Biondi may have been the patron of landscape architects; he may have been an accumulator of vacant land; he may have stifled the researchers who drive the prestige of the graduate and medical schools. He may have violated the reputations of any who opposed him but he has certainly laid out a known set of problems for his successors to set straight. This university is set to grow, again; to gain in academic prestige because Biondi set the table for all of these problems to be worked on.

You want in the Big East. We all should want a leader who will make Saint Louis University a top 5 Catholic school in the USA. I think that a Jesuit from a better school should be sent to guide us. Let's not rush to chuck our heritage when we have such an understanding of the schools strengths and weaknesses. Time to mend fences.

I want a leader who will bring a poet laureate to the English department; a working actor to the drama department; bridge the music department to the Saint Louis Symphony; bring publishing psychologists to the psych department; bring chemists and biologists who can wrangle research grants for the medical and graduate schools, build us a new fine arts school with some known artists that kids will want to study with, find us a politician with a national reputation to be an adjunct professor at the law school,etc. such as Paul Simons who affiliated with SIU after he stopped running for office. When I researched a graduate school to apply to I looked in the journals to see who was publishing. Young people want to study with respected academics who lead their field just like basketball players and better yet- coaches came to work for Rick Majerus. We never had known coaching assistants before RM. Time to step it up in all the departments. Put some polish on this solid institution.

There is no reason the next president can't fire on all cylinders instead of being so unidimensional.

[Box and Won]

My feelings toward Fr. Biondi can be summed up thusly.

[Band Legend]

Now that this Biondi thing has played itself out, I'm going on a one man crusade to ban emoticons.

[cheeseman]

I agree with every word you wrote.

I think, no, I know the quote from Ayn Rand immediately colors some people's views of what I may write which, to me, is just as bad as someone judging someone who is of a certain ethnicity, religion, political party, etc.

Most people who own Apple products love them. They were developed by many people working to pursue their own passions and build their own fortune, whether monetary, recognition, or place in society. People never turn down life saving drugs. Most of the research that develops drugs came from people who managed and financed a process with hope of being well rewarded while pursuing their interests. The railroads dramatically changed our country in ways that benefited millions. They were envisioned, financed, and built by people who were pursuing their own vision and their own fortune. Those are all good things and they all relate to what Ayn Rand said. She never said, "Oh, and by the way, be sure you crush the little guy as you build your fortune" (I can see the comments coming regarding the people conscripted into physically building things like railroads). Does it happen? Yes, because their are dishonest, selfish, nasty, greedy humans who come in the form of not only business owners and CEOs, but also in the form of bank tellers, TSA agents, retail clerks, union workers, etc. Dishonesty and avarice are human problems, not just rich people problems or CEO problems or University President problems.

My own economic view was impacted, in part, by coming from a very modest background, struggling financially to get through college (working three jobs to pay expenses and taking 18 to 21 hours a semester so I wouldn't have to pay for a fourth year) while at the same time watching some of my fellow students who refused to work, but were quick to join protests on campus about cuts in financial aid. If only they had put as much effort into getting a job as they did into their protests and letter writing.

Lastly, I think it is very important that everyone have a say as you eloquently suggest above. But I also think that if we lead people to expect that their say should have the same impact and the same relevance as the guy or gal who took the risk to buy the property and sweated the details and poured in the time/effort to make something happen, then what we are really doing is condemning them to a life of false expectations and and abjectly devaluing their own abilities because we let them believe that they don't need to provide the same inputs to have the same benefits (i.e. the equal say in outcomes). It makes some people feel good to provide this false sense of place for others, but it is innately selfish because that good feeling alone does not translate into better lives for people and generally leads to false expectations that ultimately disappoint and then negatively color their outlooks. Hopefully, people understand that statement is allegorical in nature, but coincidentally applicable to the specific real estate situation at hand. This satirical famous short story by Vonnegut helps in understanding some of my thoughts: http://www.nexuslearning.net/books/holt_elementsoflit-3/Collection%204/Collection%202/Harrison%20Bergeron%20p1.htm

This would be a great thing to discuss over a beer. In the meantime, I am REALLY HAPPY that this Biondi saga is hopefully over and that, for the most part, we have had a relatively civil discussion about all these issues. (Much more happy about our recruiting success if truth be told!!!)

I would however beg to differ with your life saving drug example - It has been many years since drug companies have shouldered the risk of developing new drugs from start to finish. In fact, they rely heavily on the research that is done at universities and hospitals that are primarily funded by the NIH which is a government funded program. The drug companies in fact wait for the foundational and primary application work to be done and then they swoop in and buy it up. Without the NIH most of these new drugs would never have been developed - so government can do good!

[AlumniFan]

I would however beg to differ with your life saving drug example - It has been many years since drug companies have shouldered the risk of developing new drugs from start to finish. In fact, they rely heavily on the research that is done at universities and hospitals that are primarily funded by the NIH which is a government funded program. The drug companies in fact wait for the foundational and primary application work to be done and then they swoop in and buy it up. Without the NIH most of these new drugs would never have been developed - so government can do good!

I knew someone would bring up the NIH. The NIH is great, but if you really believe that the private sector wouldn't do a lot of this research without the NIH (and, in fact, many of these new therapies come from bio-tech companies first and not the NIH) I think you are being unrealistic. There are also a lot of public/private partnerships that significantly add to the development of new therapies (http://ppp.od.nih.gov/pppinfo/examples.asp).

[BillikenFriar]

+1

Some people are truly concerned with the soiled reputation of priests in the Catholic Church. I for one hope we get a Jesuit. People go to Webster U now-a-days and live near the school and do not even remember it was once the sisters of Loretto who got it started. A resurgence in the vocations of priests, brothers, and nuns will only occur if the majority of the population once again honor those people who dedicate their lives to fostering the rest of us.

A strong, academic who comes from the Jesuits could bring respect for the Jesuits, the Church, the University, the faculty and attract the students who want a Catholic education not just another school that rivals the tax supported BCS schools we sometimes imagine ourselves to rival. We are more than a city college.

Biondi may have been the patron of landscape architects; he may have been an accumulator of vacant land; he may have stifled the researchers who drive the prestige of the graduate and medical schools. He may have violated the reputations of any who opposed him but he has certainly laid out a known set of problems for his successors to set straight. This university is set to grow, again; to gain in academic prestige because Biondi set the table for all of these problems to be worked on.

You want in the Big East. We all should want a leader who will make Saint Louis University a top 5 Catholic school in the USA. I think that a Jesuit from a better school should be sent to guide us. Let's not rush to chuck our heritage when we have such an understanding of the schools strengths and weaknesses. Time to mend fences.

I want a leader who will bring a poet laureate to the English department; a working actor to the drama department; bridge the music department to the Saint Louis Symphony; bring publishing psychologists to the psych department; bring chemists and biologists who can wrangle research grants for the medical and graduate schools, build us a new fine arts school with some known artists that kids will want to study with, find us a politician with a national reputation to be an adjunct professor at the law school,etc. such as Paul Simons who affiliated with SIU after he stopped running for office. When I researched a graduate school to apply to I looked in the journals to see who was publishing. Young people want to study with respected academics who lead their field just like basketball players and better yet- coaches came to work for Rick Majerus. We never had known coaching assistants before RM. Time to step it up in all the departments. Put some polish on this solid institution.

There is no reason the next president can't fire on all cylinders instead of being so unidimensional.

[MusicCityBilliken]

Some people are truly concerned with the soiled reputation of priests in the Catholic Church. I for one hope we get a Jesuit. People go to Webster U now-a-days and live near the school and do not even remember it was once the sisters of Loretto who got it started. A resurgence in the vocations of priests, brothers, and nuns will only occur if the majority of the population once again honor those people who dedicate their lives to fostering the rest of us.

A strong, academic who comes from the Jesuits could bring respect for the Jesuits, the Church, the University, the faculty and attract the students who want a Catholic education not just another school that rivals the tax supported BCS schools we sometimes imagine ourselves to rival. We are more than a city college.

Biondi may have been the patron of landscape architects; he may have been an accumulator of vacant land; he may have stifled the researchers who drive the prestige of the graduate and medical schools. He may have violated the reputations of any who opposed him but he has certainly laid out a known set of problems for his successors to set straight. This university is set to grow, again; to gain in academic prestige because Biondi set the table for all of these problems to be worked on.

You want in the Big East. We all should want a leader who will make Saint Louis University a top 5 Catholic school in the USA. I think that a Jesuit from a better school should be sent to guide us. Let's not rush to chuck our heritage when we have such an understanding of the schools strengths and weaknesses. Time to mend fences.

I want a leader who will bring a poet laureate to the English department; a working actor to the drama department; bridge the music department to the Saint Louis Symphony; bring publishing psychologists to the psych department; bring chemists and biologists who can wrangle research grants for the medical and graduate schools, build us a new fine arts school with some known artists that kids will want to study with, find us a politician with a national reputation to be an adjunct professor at the law school,etc. such as Paul Simons who affiliated with SIU after he stopped running for office. When I researched a graduate school to apply to I looked in the journals to see who was publishing. Young people want to study with respected academics who lead their field just like basketball players and better yet- coaches came to work for Rick Majerus. We never had known coaching assistants before RM. Time to step it up in all the departments. Put some polish on this solid institution.

There is no reason the next president can't fire on all cylinders instead of being so unidimensional.

Maybe difficult:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/jesuits-face-a-shrinking-pool-of-university-presidents_n_3249611.html?utm_hp_ref=catholic-church

[cheeseman]

I knew someone would bring up the NIH. The NIH is great, but if you really believe that the private sector wouldn't do a lot of this research without the NIH (and, in fact, many of these new therapies come from bio-tech companies first and not the NIH) I think you are being unrealistic. There are also a lot of public/private partnerships that significantly add to the development of new therapies (http://ppp.od.nih.gov/pppinfo/examples.asp).

Actually, my son has his own lab at a highly respected research facility and he has said that the drug companies are not the major developers like they were 20 years ago - they are simply bean counters who have no interest in investing in R and D unless it is a sure thing - the problem is there is no sure thing in research especially in the beginning. These public/private partnerships you refer to exist because the NIH did fund the original work and are still funding a portion of these examples you provided. I only brought up the NIH because in your previous post you specifically talked about how drug companies were the ones developing the new treatments and all I wanted to do was set the record straight - they are living off of what the NIH funds now and for the last 15 years. With all the budget wrangling going on in DC the spigot is slowing being turned off and we will all be the worse for it. It is already happening - the US has lost its edge in this area and the best work is now moving to other countries.

[MB73]

Actually, my son has his own lab at a highly respected research facility and he has said that the drug companies are not the major developers like they were 20 years ago - they are simply bean counters who have no interest in investing in R and D unless it is a sure thing - the problem is there is no sure thing in research especially in the beginning. These public/private partnerships you refer to exist because the NIH did fund the original work and are still funding a portion of these examples you provided. I only brought up the NIH because in your previous post you specifically talked about how drug companies were the ones developing the new treatments and all I wanted to do was set the record straight - they are living off of what the NIH funds now and for the last 15 years. With all the budget wrangling going on in DC the spigot is slowing being turned off and we will all be the worse for it. It is already happening - the US has lost its edge in this area and the best work is now moving to other countries.

There is merit to this statement, but it is coming through the eyes of an individual in the lab-research environment. It is far more complex.

Part of the problem is the dozens of major pharmaceutical mergers that have consolidated R&D in the last 20 years (recent example, Pfizer acquires Wyeth, they consolidate, therefore fewer scientists... some Pfizer scientists in SL were even laid off).

The USA provides TOO much healthcare for patients. MD's have been conditioned to do whatever it takes to keep the patient alive... in the good old days, that was fine, but we do not have the money to do that any more, we are in massive debt.

Another part of the problem is the long term anti-pharmaceutical company narrative making big pharma the enemy of the people. Big pharma is on it's heels, threats from every direction.

I always laugh, some day these anti pharma people might be in the hospital, begging for a medication that will enable them to leave the hospital without the need for invasive surgery (simple example for civilians: Zantac taken instead of radical stomach surgery).

Sue the damn pharmaceutical companies, they cry now! Those bast*rds! Some day, they will worship the ones who make them healthy. The pharma companies perform miracles. Still so many complain, having bought into the brainwashing narrative.

It is a focused campaign, led primarily by one side of our political system. So, there are frivolous lawsuits galore (Quaid did not know his ass from a hole in the ground).

Think. Many posters here: your grandparents and/or parents/or YOU are possibly still alive because of these miracle medications (long term meds for cholesterol, diabetes, etc, keep people alive with good quality of life for a decade or longer than in the past).

SO the "bean counter" mentality accusation has some merit, the companies are becoming more and more vigilant, leery of taking risks in the new environment, and yes use NIH's work to their advantage. And they are more prudent but do not serve all as they had in the past: why invest in a product that will only serve a smaller patient population... they focus on the big ticket medications.

The greater cost is not the R&D in the lab, or the product materials and production, it is the extensive clinical trial process of the drug, testing thousands of patients of different race, age, medical condition, etc... all that data must be done using the scientific methodology and documented and submitted to the FDA. It takes years and years.

But do not say that the private sector big pharmaceutical companies are not still investing heavily in R&D. Sure, not to the percentages of revenue as in the past, I agree, it is a new economy and we have provided too much healthcare to patients in this country and it has to be diminished... but lets not make it as absolute as you imply.

[bills10]

There is merit to this statement, but it is coming through the eyes of an individual in the lab-research environment. It is far more complex.

Part of the problem is the dozens of major pharmaceutical mergers that have consolidated R&D in the last 20 years (recent example, Pfizer acquires Wyeth, they consolidate, therefore fewer scientists... some Pfizer scientists in SL were even laid off).

The USA provides TOO much healthcare for patients. MD's have been conditioned to do whatever it takes to keep the patient alive... in the good old days, that was fine, but we do not have the money to do that any more, we are in massive debt.

Another part of the problem is the long term anti-pharmaceutical company narrative making big pharma the enemy of the people. Big pharma is on it's heels, threats from every direction.

I always laugh, some day these anti pharma people might be in the hospital, begging for a medication that will enable them to leave the hospital without the need for invasive surgery (simple example for civilians: Zantac taken instead of radical stomach surgery).

Sue the damn pharmaceutical companies, they cry now! Those bast*rds! Some day, they will worship the ones who make them healthy. The pharma companies perform miracles. Still so many complain, having bought into the brainwashing narrative.

It is a focused campaign, led primarily by one side of our political system. So, there are frivolous lawsuits galore (Quaid did not know his ass from a hole in the ground).

Think. Many posters here: your grandparents and/or parents/or YOU are possibly still alive because of these miracle medications (long term meds for cholesterol, diabetes, etc, keep people alive with good quality of life for a decade or longer than in the past).

SO the "bean counter" mentality accusation has some merit, the companies are becoming more and more vigilant, leery of taking risks in the new environment, and yes use NIH's work to their advantage. And they are more prudent but do not serve all as they had in the past: why invest in a product that will only serve a smaller patient population... they focus on the big ticket medications.

The greater cost is not the R&D in the lab, or the product materials and production, it is the extensive clinical trial process of the drug, testing thousands of patients of different race, age, medical condition, etc... all that data must be done using the scientific methodology and documented and submitted to the FDA. It takes years and years.

But do not say that the private sector big pharmaceutical companies are not still investing heavily in R&D. Sure, not to the percentages of revenue as in the past, I agree, it is a new economy and we have provided too much healthcare to patients in this country and it has to be diminished... but lets not make it as absolute as you imply.

As a pharmacy student, I am studying these trends. I agree with much of what you say, except that R & D is hardly going into maintenance drugs at all, because our therapies are so effective already. No one would seriously need to consider buying the brand name drug instead of a much cheaper generic. Instead, with help from the orphan drug act, much more focus is being placed on developing large molecule drugs, or biologics, that will only help a very small portion of the population, and will be EXTREMELY expensive to cover the costs of development. We will probably not see another Lipitor in a long time

[jimbofive]

My feelings toward Fr. Biondi can be summed up thusly.

made guess about link in head. was wrong. oh well.