Skip to main content

University CEOs


Slate has an interesting article on the high remuneration of US university presidents and vice-chancellors, whose pay in real terms has increased substantially over the past two decades. Is this a further manifestation of the higher education bubble (see earlier post) in the US? Have increased tuition fees resulted in higher university CEO pay? 

According to the study carried out for Slate, it seems that the upward movement in pay comes from the fact that a couple of decades ago, the pay of university presidents was benchmarked against the private sector instead of the public sector. Consequently, as executive pay has gone up in the private sector over the last few decades so has the pay of university CEOs. 

Could there be another reason? One possibility is that the expansion of the university sector over the past few decades has resulted in universities becoming large, diverse and complex organizations, and in order to attract the best managerial talent, universities have to pay more. University CEOs have to be top-notch academics and good at managing large complex organizations. As most academics make poor managers, the talent pool may be pretty small! Hence the premium paid to university CEOs.

Another explanation is that, as with corporation CEOs, university CEOs have captured the mechanisms through which university CEO pay is determined. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis, but it nevertheless needs some serious consideration. There is maybe a PhD topic here - the evolution of the governance and performance of universities.

BTW, this phenomenon is not just limited to the US - VC pay in the UK is also very high (click here and here). This may simply reflect the fact that universities operate in a global market, and that US universities set the benchmark for other countries.


Popular posts from this blog

How Valuable Are Connections?

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Amir Kermani, James Kwak and Todd Mitton have written a paper on whether firms connected to Timothy Geithner benefited from these connections. They do so by looking at how stocks of these firms reacted to the announcement that he was a nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008. They find that there were large abnormal returns for connected firms. Below is the paper's abstract and the full paper is available here . The announcement of Timothy Geithner as nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008 produced a cumulative abnormal return for financial firms with which he had a connection. This return was about 6% after the first full day of trading and about 12% after ten trading days. There were subsequently abnormal negative returns for connected firms when news broke that Geithner's confirmation might be derailed by tax issues. Excess returns for connected firms may reflect the perceived impact of relying on the advice of a small ne

Bitcoin Bubble?

According to Robert Shiller , speaking at Davos, Bitcoin is a perfect example of a bubble - story here . Shiller sees Bitcoin as a backwards step in the evolution of money.   George Selgin , a free banker, takes an opposing view - click here .  Although he doesn't believe that Bitcoin is money, he sees its development as a fascinating turn in the evolution of money. In particular, he lauds the fact that Bitcoin production is constrained and cannot be infinite. There is a short video below where Bitcoin explain how it works.

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles, co-authored with my colleague Will Quinn , is forthcoming in August. It is published by Cambridge University Press and is available for pre-order at Amazon , Barnes and Noble , Waterstones and Cambridge University Press .