The Chronicle of Higher Education publishes an annual roundup of pay for American college presidents. It recently reported that Shirley Ann Jackson of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute earned $7.1 million in 2012 alone. (2012 is the latest year federal tax documents with this information are currently available.). Jackson’s figure reflects a retention payout, having been at the college for ten years. The board has now given her a second ten-year deferred compensation deal.
John L. Lahey and Lee C. Bollinger of Quinnipiac and Columbia universities, respectively, came in second and third. Both made more than $3 million apiece in 2012. Three dozen private college presidents earned more than a million, and a typical leader earns about $400,000 p.a
The fact is that colleges have, over the years, recruited boards composed of businessmen, for whom these vast salaries are normal. These boards have made colleges and universities simply businesses, not educational establishments. The huge incomes of the administrators are reflected in the unsustainable debts that students end up with on graduation. The effort goes into “facilities” – stadiums, swimming pools etc, and the institutions are sold to prospective students according to the buildings and accommodation, not the teaching or the learning. Now some people are graduating having learned next to nothing, and are unaware of the fact. The teaching is sub-contracted to assistants or poorly paid adjunct professors. These teachers might be very good, but have limited access to the student body. and can be sacked at any moment. And this is not even to mention the grade inflation that has been exported to Europe (Britain, anyway)
The attitude of the powers that be to high executive pay is summed up by the following quotation : “I’ll tell you what we hear from college boards when we ask them this question. They will say that the return that they get on the investment in a highly paid individual is tenfold what the individual makes, because of all of they do, in terms of fundraising and other things that are viewed as transformative.”
Do you get that? It’s all about return on investment, fundraising and things “transformative” of the college! Not a mention of the young men and women. How about transforming the students? Help them think for themselves, problem solve, understand how the real world works?
Higher education has been hijacked and few remember how it was or should be now. The purpose of a college education now seems to be to make money after graduating. I blame the business schools, who, I believe, started the rot.
(Figures from 2014 NPR in 2014)
Comment
Now comes the news that the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University , Professor Andrew Hamilton, has announced his intention to become the next President of New York University. Who can blame him, given the (presumed) huge salary on offer and the frustration of coping with the politics of a large number of semi-independent colleges.
I agree with you, Owen, all the more so since I received my education at the expense of the taxpayers ( bless them all!), and I think it’s terrible that students have to borrow such sums. Just one thing, though – the professors are not getting the money. That’s going to the administrators and into sports facilities etc. The teaching staff are often very badly paid, especially those who don’t have tenure.
There was a recent issue of the London Review of Books that described a situation where the teaching staff is harried and bullied, and have to account for every moment of their time, like any major corporation. The adminstrators treat education like running a factory. And furthermore, they have bought into the grade inflation so that no one knows whether a graduate is really smart or just modestly so. What is your situation with regard to university, by the way?