I do agree with the author that strategic pathways has been an irrational and highly political process. I speak to what I've witnessed as a UAF faculty member. My school was considered in the first phase of pathways. In our case, an economic impact report considering various options was conducted by a 3rd party hired by statewide, but it was performed after a desired outcome had already selected and was designed to support that outcome. In the case of awarding the state's sole education school to UAS, it was evident that the squeakiest wheel got the grease.  This is not effective leadership-- it is pandering!