Friday, August 08, 2008
In light of Wednesday's post, an alert reader sent me a link to this article from Academe, which is published by the AAUP. It's a faculty-driven attack on high administrative salaries, drawing particular attention to some particularly obtuse Presidents.
At the risk of being drummed out of the administrative guild, I have to admit that it's about 90 percent right. Ostentatious compensation packages are abuses of any nonprofit. They're especially offensive when combined with pitiful raises for the rank and file.
That said, the figures thrown around in this article bear no relationship at all to my daily world. There isn't a dean at my college who makes six figures; they range from about 75k to just over 90k. In other words, they make about what most senior professors make. The President here makes far less than the deans listed in the article do. A quick glance at the Chronicle salary survey suggests that my cc isn't unusual; eye-popping administrative salaries are rare in the community college sector. There may be a chancellor of a statewide system somewhere who's raking it in, but that's pretty much the level you'd have to hit to find anything in a league with what the article notes.
And that's part of what I like about the community college sector.
Community colleges keep costs down in any number of ways. For the most part, cc's don't have high-profile athletics, or opulent student centers, or so many of the trappings of the 'arms race' that four-year college Presidents talk about when they talk about tuition increases. The ones I've seen have instead poured what little money they do have into the classroom or laboratory. (The reason we're still strapped, despite such frugality, is a combination of lower tuition and lower per-capita public aid than the other sectors receive. If we achieved aid parity, we'd be in very, very good shape.)
Frustratingly, part of the reason we get less public financial support than other sectors is our lower prestige. The history of American transfer payment programs suggests that transfers to the poor will usually be much more vulnerable politically than transfers to the upper-middle class; that's why welfare as we knew it ended, but the mortgage interest deduction is considered holy writ. (Alternately, compare the relative fates of 'national health insurance' and 'federal deposit insurance.') Since cc's are identified in the public mind with 'losers,' we don't have the appeal of the Flagship Universities, which combine exclusivity and football in a way we just can't.
The way to fight that inherent disadvantage is to show over and over again that we're good stewards of what resources we do receive. Show the student success stories, the positive community impact of grads who stay in the area, and the clear focus on a clear mission. These are slow and boring, and they achieve their impact over time, but they're effective in their own ways. But that only works if they aren't counteracted by a single blowhard in a President's suite raking in indecent sums. A single ill-chosen bit of conspicuous consumption can undo years of patient goodwill-building.
(Where I take issue with the article is in its denigration of search firms. The traditional system of administrative hiring, which the article glosses over, is the old boys' network. Bringing some procedural regularity to searches strikes me as a good idea, rather than as a sign of corruption. And expanding searches beyond the people already on campus can be an effective way to bring new perspectives, different experiences, and people without local baggage. Beware appeals to the Golden Age.)
Yes, good administrators should be paid well enough to stick with the job through the headaches. (I've noticed that some of the same people who complain about high salaries also complain about high turnover, without noticing the contradiction.) But you don't go into higher ed – particularly community colleges – to get rich. The best administrators aren't in it for the trappings or the power; in this setting, power comes from trust, which is lost anyway the minute people decide you're in it for the money. Professors are routinely cast as idealistic, but the best administrators are, too. The point of doing this job is to make the colleges worthy of their students. Ostentatious salaries are perversions of the mission, and betrayals of public trust. Have at them.
Perhaps part of the controversy over super lucrative salaries in the upper administration comes from presidents being hired to do more than one person is capable of doing. They may be paid a lot through some real relation ship to what's being expected of them. But, in my experiences (not knowing any of my former presidents' salaries), I've only seen three kinds of them: There were humble, down to earth presidents who weren't halo clad saviors and who delegated well, there were high-level administrators who were so focused on the few things they thought they could accomplish that they let other areas fall apart, and then there were arrogant jerks who screwed up all kinds of things without remorse.
I'm just going to imagine that the arrogant jerks made more money. Because, they were hired in for the express purpose of singlehandedly steering large Midwestern state Us toward brand new directions. And, it was most likely precisely that singlehandedness that caused so many problems. I think, then, it's only natural to question why someone associated with either the pains associated with change or painful missteps should earn so much money.
So, why not just not have a president? Why not divide those responsibilities among a group of equal top admins? (No, not the board.)
To another point, perhaps good deans, stuck in middle management between the faculty the upper administration, should get a small raise each and every time someone above them forces them to implement something stupid in the face of faculty who become inflammatory at every single little stupidity.
I know Ohio University, where that article came from. You don't have to leave the town it sits in to realize you are in Appalachia. A salary of $200,000 goes a long way in that area. You might need 7 figures to live the same way near American University.
Look at it another way: Spread that million dollar increase across the 20,000 students who pay for it and you find it added "only" $50 per year to each student's tuition bill and future loan balance.
I'm actually all for deans, presidents, middle management types getting their due. Most of them work harder and longer than I do, and I like that just fine. Most of them have to make tougher decisions that I do, and I like that just fine, too.
Many of them eat heavier meals than I do, which means, all told, that I'll live longer.
But there are ethical questions when things get out of hand. The problem is "out of hand" would seem to be a very slippery place from which to judge.
Just give me a little more than what you think might make me happy--it won't take much--and take a little less than you would be embarrassed by if word got out, administrator person.
It really pisses me off that some a-hole like Bill Gates or William DeBakey (who, frankly, never did anything to improve anoyone else's lot in life) made 10,000 times more than a solid, hard-working illegal day laborer hanging out at the corner of MLK and Cesar Chavez . . .
Viva La Revolucion!
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite!
The King Is Dead, Long Live . . .
oh never mind
If you're not kidding, then you truly are a very confused professor.