Jack Stripling has the long and very interesting story in the Chronicle (may be gated if you are off campus):
… The fatigue with leadership turnover is palpable at the University of Washington. Professors, alumni, and local business leaders say they have simply had enough of what seems to be today’s typical college president, whom they view as overly opportunistic, increasingly corporate-minded, and downright greedy. Their concerns echo disenchantment elsewhere with higher-education administration. But at Washington, Mr. Young’s unexpected exit has provoked difficult questions about how the university, engaged in yet another presidential search, can best identify a leader of uncommon commitment and loyalty.
The past decade has been particularly disruptive to the university, says James N. Gregory, past chairman of the Faculty Senate: Every new president wants to “shake things up” and start programs — which may or may not be championed with the same enthusiasm by the next leader.
Many college presidents view higher education “as a checkerboard,” says Mr. Gregory, a history professor. “They are going to move around and get more prestige and more money. So their personal strategy is at odds with what universities really need.” …
It’s not just university presidents that are greedy. Senior administration ride the gravy train as well. These people are calling the shots for the faculty and staff unions at limiting step increases and cost of living adjustments. And the double family dippers are of the same ilk. One power couple at UO pulls down over half a million dollars a year in income.
I get the feeling (from a small sampling) that the admins were typically just offered a high salary, and they accepted. This is less greedy than just being the case of going with the flow. It doesn’t excuse the disparity and the admins are “riding the gravy train” as you say, but not many people suggest a lower salary than offered out of altruism.
I don’t get the double dipper comment at all. Should individuals be paid less for their individual work because of what their spouse makes? I know it isn’t the case for your comment, but that is weirdly similar to rationales used to pay wives less since the husband was already the provider.
Maybe going for an internal president should be more common? Given what came after him, the reputation of Dave F begins to glow. Kind of like Ike after a string of disastrous successors.
It would help if the universities and their various constituencies would not work so hard to destroy their presidents. I have in mind of course UO. Why anyone would want to lead the place I can’t imagine. Why, they might even demand a big fat salary!
unfortunately at some universities admin take that salary increase to the grave and do not always revert back to the “professor only” salary. Is this the case at UO?