First-rate finalist

The announcement of G.P. “Bud” Peterson as the finalist for Institute President lets us breathe a sigh of relief. Peterson’s background is reassuring that he will be an effective leader for Tech and continue taking the Institute to new heights.

As an engineer with experience at all levels of public university administration, Peterson should be attuned to the varying concerns across departments as well as the unique problems that public institutions face. At the same time, his tenure at Colorado reflects his ability to ensure interdisciplinary collaboration.

We hope that other aspects of his background, such as his beginnings as a teacher, will also manifest themselves at Tech. A renewed emphasis on teaching quality is needed and would be readily welcome. Peterson’s publication history also reflects a commitment to research and should add to the credibility of Tech as a top-tier research institution.

His short time at Colorado could be cause for concern, but if Tech is ultimately a better fit we hope that Peterson views the Institute as a final destination. Further, his achievements during his limited time there, which include increasing fundraising by 80 percent and restoring the university’s stained reputation, suggest that he is both effective and fast.

Finally, Peterson is willing to reach out and maintain a strong relationship with students. According to Colorado’s student government, students have been well represented in his executive committees. Even with his hectic schedule after the announcement he took the time to speak to the Technique this week—what we hope is an important first step towards open communication with the student body.

When Wayne Clough was interviewed by the Atlanta Business Chronicle in 2007, he said that whoever did his job would need to be an “80 mile-per-hour person.” Considering what we know about Peterson we think that description fits him.

The Consensus Opinion reflects the majority opinion of the Editorial Board of the Technique, but not necessarily the opinions of individual editors.