YOU determine your pay…
YOU determine your health insurance…
YOU determine your time off…
YOU determine the days of the week you will work…
YOU determine your pay increase…
YOU determine your retirement account.
THIS IS CONGRESS.
The “House” - the “Senate”…
Do you still wonder why folks try to get a piece of this?
Yeah! Yeah! Wherever you ‘came from.’
"I wanna shove all my beliefs on everyone…(erm…don’t say so in your campaign ‘stuff’ …) and get to VOTE on the GOOD STUFF with a bunch of Co-Conspiritors for MY RETIREMENT…
Yeah.
Why the HELL should I work at a mill? At the 7-11? At a college? As a recycler? As a cop? As a teacher? As a landscaper? As a mom? As a dad? As an artist? As an entertainer? As a garbage collecter? As a State employee? As an FBI agent? As a political operative?
Sure it matters. If a university hires a good football coach (competitive market) and that coach goes on to win or place high in the BCS and thus rakes in MILLIONS of dollars by going to a BCS bowl game. Meanwhile he has alumni donating to the tune of 50 MILLION dollars a year MORE THAN the previous year, I’d say he was a good hire no?
Mac Brown at Texas. He was making about 3 mil a year, they gave him a raise to 5 mil a year. However you want to look at the numbers, it made fiscal sense.
Money that comes from the State to fund collegiate education doesn’t go towards the pay raise.
It would be similar to if Congress wanted a raise, he had to poll his constituents to see how many donations could be raised in order to do so. I see no fault there.
You mean students who have not yet had a chance to do anything and are trying to improve themselves to be marketable in a competitive economy? Students who often struggle mightily to pay their tuition as it is? Those sniveling, do nothing whiners?
Most Division I schools lose money on both football and athletics in general. More often than not, it does not make fiscal sense to pay a lot for athletic staff. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/16/ncaa
Yup. Same smug little bastards who don’t have a fucking clue how the world actually works, and who have yet to demonstrate any significant accomplishment. Rather than whining about how “unfair” it is for someone at the top of their profession–ie, a college president–to make a decent living after years of preparation to reach that point in life. Those kids don’t know what it takes to go from broke ass college kid eating ramen noodles to high end executive eating prime rib. They think they are somehow entitled to go from where they presently are—ie, nowhere important–to the top of the mountain without actually putting in the blood, sweat and tears to get there. Self-Entitled little shits need a good swift kick in the ass.
Indeed. Football and basketball are cash cows, provided you have winning teams and personnel that the alumni like. Hire a good coach, recruit the best players, and your alumni donate more money, you earn more on ticket sales/concessions/broadcast rights. Enough to underwrite less popular sports, like women’s lacrosse, as well as significant parts of the university’s infrastructure.
Paying a few million bucks a year to a winning coach is an investment that gives big returns.
Seems to me they are whining that someone who makes near $1 million/year wants to bilk them out of more money. Basically taking money from the very people least able to afford it.
They aren’t getting bilked out of anything. The president isn’t using the tuition increase to renovate his yacht, he’s using it to run the university. Salaries, maintenance, security, insurance, retirement, all the overhead has to be covered. If government money isn’t enough to cover it, then tuition has to go up or the school goes out of business. TANSTAAFL!
UW cut jobs and programs this year. Did the executives take a comparable cut in salary? How about his perks such as a free mansion to live in and $12,000/year car salary (with a paid driver)?
Seems he hasn’t had a pay raise in two years but then he is the second or third most highly paid public university president currently. In lieu of a pay raise he got a sabbatical (estimated worth $450,000) and a five year contract with the possibility of a pay raise next year.
If the country has to take a bite of the shit sandwich not sure why you think this lot should be exempt.
He’s got a contract, negotiated between sophisticated parties at arms length. Whoever hired this guy knew what obligations the university was facing, and decided the guy was worth the contract price.
Unless you’re George W. Bush. But this is the real benefit. Plenty of execs get limo service also, and living in a fishbowl might not be such a big perk. Theater tickets are tiny, especially when you consider that you can’t just sneak in. Secret service isn’t a real benefit. I don’t consider the money my company shells out for me to travel much of a perk, and certainly not part of my pay.
Is it not possible to make a decent living on less than $900,000 a year?
It appears the average salary for the president of a public university is $427,000, and the rate of increase of this salary is somewhere between five and ten times the rate of earning increases for the general public, and tuition is being raised at more than double the rate of inflation.
You can use your lazy ad hominems against college students all you like, but there ought to be somebody asking some questions about why a college education is getting more and more expensive, why so many universities (stock market crash notwithstanding) have astronomical endowments, and whether very large salaries to university leaders are in the best interests of the students, alumni, and faculty of the institutions.
The approach you seem to be advocating – that if someone can pull a large paycheck, then they have earned it, and nobody has any right under a capitalist system to question it – ironically shows a lack of the intellectual curiosity that colleges are supposed to instill in young people, but also ignores the fact that we are principally talking about people who run institutions on the public dime.
You have not struck me as the kind of fellow who usually lets the expenditure of taxpayer funds go unquestioned, so I wonder what your real agenda is with your argument here. Maybe just an axe to grind with grass-smoking hippie college students, that listen to loud music that is hard to understand? Or is it something else?
Again, one role of a university president is to raise money. If s/he’s actually any good at that job, the salary is well worth it to the students - whose tuitions and experience at university are in some part affected by the success of the president in pulling in the cash.
Which is better for the students - a president making $1 million who raises $100 million in donations, or a president making $100,000 who raises $50 million in donations?
Of course if there is no difference between the two potential presidents in ability to raise funds, the university’s regents would be foolish to pay $1 million rather than $100K.
LOL. “People I know” were smoking dope and cranking Led Zep before the current generation of college kids were born. Oddly enough [del] we[/del] they voted for Reagan, too. That ain’t my issue.
My issue is with the whole attitude of “He’s got more than I have. No fair. WAH!” that seems to be the mantra of the left these days. LIFE is not fair. Never has been, never gonna be. Some people are better/smarter/wiser/luckier/harder working than others. Some have the skills to command million dollar salaries. Some barely have the skills to ask whether the customer would like fries with that. This is not a problem to be solved, this is reality. If you want to go to the top of the mountain, you’ve got a chance to get there, but it is up to you to capitalize on that opportunity. If you fail, suck it up and try again.
The world owes no one a living. You play the hand you’re dealt as best you can.
Problem is it is difficult to know. Sure a given president may pull in $100 million but can we assume no one else could? Personally I seriously doubt this is the only guy on the planet who can do the job. Second highest paid public university president and near double the average? Seems to me his skill is at negotiating contracts. His university faced a $73 million shortfall and he cut jobs and programs. Perhaps necessary, things are tough all around, but I am hard pressed to think he is the only person who could have done that. Unless you can show that UW is faring far better than its peers elsewhere around the country that may show this guy’s stupendous leadership ability I am not really seeing a big justification for this salary. Best so far is maintaining “continuity” in a difficult time.
But this is the real benefit. Plenty of execs get limo service also, and living in a fishbowl might not be such a big perk. Theater tickets are tiny, especially when you consider that you can’t just sneak in. Secret service isn’t a real benefit. I don’t consider the money my company shells out for me to travel much of a perk, and certainly not part of my pay.