BlogU

  • Administrative Salaries

    By Dean Dad August 7, 2008 11:11 pm

    This should be fun...

    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.

Advertisement

Comments on Administrative Salaries

  • pot meet kettle
  • Posted on August 8, 2008 at 11:40am EDT
  • From the article:
    "Their allegiance is not to the institution where they hang their hat temporarily but rather to their own careers, their next positions, and friends and mentors in their mutual admiration club."

    Well, now that's just the pot calling the kettle black. One of my observations about faculty is that their allegiance is rarely to the institution. At best it is to the department. Typically, faculty allegiance is to the discipline, of which the department is merely the local manifestation. "Mutual admiration club" is the best descriptor I could imagine of academic disciplinary association meetings!

  • Posted by Phil on August 8, 2008 at 2:50pm EDT
  • "One of my observations about faculty is that their allegiance is rarely to the institution. At best it is to the department. Typically, faculty allegiance is to the discipline, of which the department is merely the local manifestation."

    I'm not sure what value anecdotal "observations" have about such matters (I am sure that it's very little), but for the record my observations (after 25 years teaching at public and private institutions, both large and small) is that the picture is highly mixed. At the most prestigious research institutions, faculty allegiance is often to the department or discipline, but at most of the other places I've taught, it has very definitely been to the institution. For one thing, it is much harder for faculty to move around (particularly if they have tenure) than it is for administrators, so they typically have a stronger vested interest in the long-term success of their college or university. And I write this as a faculty member who became an administrator precisely in order to move.

  • Posted by The Masked Belles-lettrist , associate prfoessor on August 9, 2008 at 8:05am EDT
  • I believe the attack against faculty is out of line. I and most of my colleagues do not teach at research institutions, and we are not those superstars who are hired with tenure by the highest institutional bidder. We are mostly teachers, and we love what we do. We are committed to the institutions at which we teach, and thus when conflict arises with an administration, it poses a serious problem. I work at a two-year college in a small southern town that is in the process of becoming a four-year school. I am committed to the school's mission, and in fact, I have my dream job. It is that commitment by faculty that makes ethical lapses like salary compression such a drag on insitutional morale. It is that commitment by faculty that makes so very painful the cynical application of a merit pay system that does not result in real rewards for teaching, service, and publication. At my college, faculty want to stay. It is indeed the administrators who come and go--we have had four deans and three presidents in eight years.