Leaders in Pay

The Chronicle has released its annual survey on executive compensation, thereby spurring the annual, if not perpetual, debate on the price tag that comes with university presidents. And with growing economic concerns, there is a heightened scrutiny this year, especially among public research universities where it appears paycheck growth is the most lucrative.

But what is fair compensation? An internationally established principle of fairness, as outlined by an associate professor at Santa Clara University, ties the executives' pay ceiling to the workers' salary floor. In the US, for instance, most state governors are paid less than five times what their college-educated employees earn; this is often seen as a standard for fair pay. So if a contract staff member earns $49,000 a year, a multiple of five would set the maximum fair compensation for the university president at $245,000.

Of course, that's the fair pay argument, and generally looks at what is not being paid rather than what is. What, then, are some other arguments? Going back to the Chronicle's survey, it is apparent that presidents at public master's-degree universities tend to earn less than leaders of public research institutions. In fact, the median of $226,000 falls well shy of the $427,400 earned at research universities, where "the similarities [in tasks faced by presidents] are greater than the differences."

However, the single biggest argument this year is the current state of the economy. David Skorton, President of Cornell University, argues that "[w]e all must work to aggressively and systematically reduce costs to gain savings, even if relatively marginal, and use those savings to slow the rate of tuition increases."

And there are many presidents who share this viewpoint. James Ramsey, President of the University of Louisville, turned down a six-figure bonus to take the same raise as everyone else: $700. James Drake, President of Brevard Community College, received a 53-percent raise of $100,000 and said he would give it back to students to help pay for textbooks. Richard McCormick, president of Rutgers University, received a $100,000 performance bonus and announced he would donate that same amount to the university for financial aid.

Presidents earn their salary in part for their leadership, and responses such as those above illustrate visionary leadership in difficult times. The PR doesn't hurt either.

The Cause or the Symptom?

Recently, studies have been released that indicate the possibility of contract staff eroding the quality of education for students. According to the studies, part-time staff fail to provide important student services outside the classroom, even to those who need them most.

But who's to blame? One of the study's authors is careful to note: “We are not treating these faculties in a way that they are feeling valued.” The implication, of course, is that faculty cannot provide support to students if they are not themselves receiving support. After all, part-time staff are notoriously overworked and underpaid -- a point stressed last week, as Fair Employment Week was recognized here on campus.

In the end, quality teaching is not simply in the realm of professors. Any erosion of this quality is a greater institutional problem, and oversimplification of the matter does not benefit anyone.