skip to main | skip to sidebar

Follow by Email

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Accountability on the Quad

A SERIES of recent scandals involving players receiving money, cars and other improper benefits, along with violations by recruiters and sports agents, has debased the already tarnished reputation of college sports. Schools like the University of Miami, the University of North Carolina and the University of Southern California, to name just a few, have been in the news more for abusing the rules than for teaching their students. 

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is supposed to hold colleges and universities accountable, but it has been reluctant to police with any stringency the growing number of violations. The assumption that the N.C.A.A. can develop safeguards and mete out punishment for those who violate its rules is wishful thinking. The N.C.A.A. is simply not up to the task; college trustees need to take charge instead. 

In 1991, I introduced a bill in the House of Representatives aimed at reforming college athletics. My bill would have granted the N.C.A.A. an exemption from antitrust laws, which would allow it to constrain the extraordinary growth in athletic spending by schools. Under my proposal, the distribution of money from broadcast fees and other income would have been based not on winning or losing, but on the academic performance of the athletes, gender equity, and the breadth and diversity of the sports programs. The bill would have rewarded those schools promoting the values of higher education. 

My attempt at reform failed, and in the 20 years since, things have gotten worse. There is just too much money involved in the multibillion-dollar industry that is college athletics to expect the participants to police themselves. Bloated college sports budgets, with coaches who earn millions of dollars, often more than college presidents, have created a situation where the tail is wagging the dog, with the result that colleges are losing control over their own athletic programs. 

Moreover, once the N.C.A.A. does get around to punishing violations, the culprits have often moved on. To take one notorious example, the $4 million-a-year football coach at U.S.C., Pete Carroll, resigned in January 2010, just as the N.C.A.A. was investigating accusations that the former player Reggie Bush had accepted improper gifts from agents. Mr. Carroll was subsequently named head coach of the Seattle Seahawks with a five-year, $30 million-plus contract. By the time the N.C.A.A. announced sanctions against the U.S.C. football team, in June, he was safely gone. 

Universities take pride in the success of their sports teams, but their reputations suffer when things go wrong. If they truly want to prevent scandals, they need to take control. And the people who can and must make this happen are the trustees and regents of these institutions, not the presidents, who are less equipped to stand up to the economic pressure from alumni and fans. 

Currently, many boards are too cozy with athletic departments; their members forget that their job is to protect the institution — not the coaches, not the boosters and not the fans. But if they want to avoid embarrassment and scandal, they need to be much more involved in maintaining standards.
Many institutions have a laissez-faire attitude toward their athletic departments; given the profits from sports broadcasting and the fervor of alumni and fans, their reluctance to rein in athletic directors, coaches and players is understandable. But trustees and regents have both a legal and an ethical obligation to do what is right for their schools. 

If more colleges and universities would adopt the recommendations of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, we’d see fewer violations of N.C.A.A. rules and of the law. Among the recommendations are these: regents should approve annual athletic budgets and significant capital expenditures; athletic departments should undergo annual audits by independent auditors; each school’s board should have a committee to monitor compliance with N.C.A.A. rules and student performance; and boards should approve compensation of coaches and directors. 

Some schools are beginning to recognize the wisdom of these proposals. Regents at Kansas State University now conduct annual audits of the athletic department. Regents at the University of Michigan sign off on athletic departments’ operating and capital budgets. Both the University of Colorado and Georgetown University have panels dedicated to athletic issues. The boards at Texas A&M University and the Universities of Wisconsin and Oklahoma must approve any changes in compensation for the highest-paid athletic personnel. 

These are encouraging changes. The N.C.A.A. should be more rigorous in keeping colleges compliant with its rules, but true accountability rests with individual boards. The schools would then not need to respond to the disgrace of violations and penalties, but could prevent the scandals in the first place.

Data Show College Endowments Loss Is Worst Drop Since ’70s

The steep declines are forcing colleges and universities across the country to contemplate wage freezes, layoffs and a halt to construction projects.
The drop found by the reports is the biggest in the value of college and university endowments since the mid-1970s, said John S. Griswold Jr., executive director of the Commonfund Institute, which manages money for educational institutions and other nonprofits.

“It’s been very sudden in some ways,” Mr. Griswold said. “There were people predicting the decline a year ago or more, but I don’t think anyone could claim to see the extent of this. These are unprecedented numbers.”

The reports, prepared for the National Association of College and University Business Officers by the financial services company TIAA-CREF and the Commonfund Institute, drew on data from 796 institutions for the 2008 fiscal year, which ended June 30, and on additional statistics gleaned from a follow-up survey with 435 for the period from July 1 to Nov. 30.

They found that while endowments gained in value by about 0.5 percent in the old fiscal year, they lost nearly a quarter of their worth in the subsequent five months, a period in which the financial markets sank.
“It’s a rolling contagion that hit us,” Mr. Griswold said.

The pain was spread among institutions large and small, private and public. When endowments were categorized by size, even the least affected — those worth more than $1 billion — were found to have lost an average of 20 percent. Those of $500 million to $1 billion saw the biggest decline, about 25 percent. Public institutions lost an average of 24 percent, private institutions 22 percent.

“Both public and private institutions are going to be very challenged, just in different directions,” said P. Brett Hammond, chief investment strategist of TIAA-CREF. “States are in trouble themselves, and the downturn in state support comes along with declines in investments. In the private sector, at the same time endowments have declined students need more help than ever.”

Cornell is facing a 10 percent budget shortfall for the current fiscal year because of a 27 percent decline in its endowment over the last six months, a drop in state financing and alumni giving, and students’ need for more financial aid, according to a report issued this week by the university’s president, David J. Skorton. To close the gap, the university plans to freeze campus construction and draw on $150 million in reserve cash and $35 million more from the endowment than was planned.

Syracuse University has already announced layoffs, and Dartmouth, whose endowment lost 18 percent of its value from July 1 to Dec. 31, has said they are inevitable.

“We continue to fund approximately 35 percent of the college-only operating budget through endowment distributions, and we do not have additional revenue sources that can replace this level of support,” Barry P. Scherr, Dartmouth’s provost, and Adam Keller, executive vice president, said in a statement issued last week.

“We anticipate that some of our endowment investments will continue to show losses,” they added, “and that many of our generous donors will be unable to give at the same levels for some time to come.”
Charles L. Schearer, president of the private Transylvania University in Lexington, Ky., said the endowment there, which finances about a quarter of the operating budget, had lost 28 percent of its value since June 2007. Transylvania has cut back on staff travel, declined to fill job vacancies, frozen overtime and halted all construction projects. The university is planning a major fund-raising push in the next year to help make up for the endowment losses.

“We’re going to have to capture some of that money back,” Dr. Schearer said in an interview. “We’re not looking at this as if there will be a rapid recovery. We’re anticipating a slow and gradual recovery.”
Sixty percent of the institutions responding to the follow-up survey said they did not expect to change the amount they draw from their endowments in the current fiscal year.
Mr. Griswold thinks that wise.

“People aren’t making snap decisions, decisions that seem based on a panic reaction,” he said. “That’s terrific. They should keep a steady hand on the helm.”

State Colleges Also Face Cuts in Ambitions


Ross D. Franklin/Associated Press
Great things were promised for Arizona State University in Tempe seven years ago, but that was before recession struck.

TEMPE, Ariz. — When Michael Crow became president of Arizona State University seven years ago, he promised to make it “The New American University,” with 100,000 students by 2020. It would break down the musty old boundaries between disciplines, encourage advanced research and entrepreneurship to drive the new economy, and draw in students from underserved sectors of the state.

He quickly made a name for himself, increasing enrollment by nearly a third to 67,000 students, luring big-name professors and starting interdisciplinary schools in areas like sustainability, projects with partners like the Mayo Clinic and Sichuan University in China, and dozens of new degree programs

But this year, Mr. Crow’s plans have crashed into new budget realities, raising questions about how many public research universities the nation needs and whether universities like Arizona State, in their drive to become prominent research institutions, have lost focus on their public mission to provide solid undergraduate education for state residents.
These days, the headlines about Arizona State describe its enormous cuts.
The university has eliminated more than 500 jobs, including deans, department chairmen and hundreds of teaching assistants. Last month, Mr. Crow announced that the university would close 48 programs, cap enrollment and move up the freshman application deadline by five months. Every employee, from Mr. Crow down, will have 10 to 15 unpaid furlough days this spring.
“The New American University has died; welcome to the Neutered American University,” the student newspaper editorialized last month the morning after the latest cuts were announced. 

While Arizona State’s economic problems have been particularly dramatic, layoffs and salary freezes are becoming common at public universities across the nation; the University of Florida recently eliminated 430 faculty and staff positions, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, laid off about 100 employees, and the University of Vermont froze some administrative staff salaries, left open 22 faculty positions and laid off 16 workers. 

“What’s happening, everywhere, is what’s happening to Michael Crow,” said Jane Wellman, executive director of the Delta Project on Postsecondary Costs, Productivity and Accountability, an organization that studies spending by colleges and universities. “The trend line is states disinvesting in higher education.”
The picture varies by state. Dozens of states, hit hard by the recession, made midyear cuts in their financing for higher education. And yet, budgets are largely intact at some leading research universities, like the University of Michigan. 

Public universities everywhere are bracing for deep cuts in next year’s budgets, but the federal stimulus package, providing billions for education and billions more for research, should ease the problem somewhat.
Despite the cuts, Mr. Crow said he was sticking to his priorities, protecting his new programs and his tenured and tenure-track faculty members. And he is hoping to expand research, with, for example, renewable-energy money from the stimulus package. 

“I don’t retreat very easily,” he said. “The economy is shifting faster than the university can adjust, but we’re trying to protect students from the hurricane. We’re protecting the core of the core.”
But not everyone is convinced that the Arizona State model makes sense. 

“It may be that the idea of a 100,000-student research university was never very sustainable,” said Patrick M. Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, which promotes access to higher education. “In this economy, the places that have been trying to claw their way up the ladder, the ones whose aspirations have exceeded their financial vision, are going to have the toughest time. They can’t be all things to all people.”

But Mr. Crow thinks he can simultaneously broaden access for Arizonans, improve academic quality and increase research.

His university, he said, is an inclusive institution where there are 7,000 students with no family income at all and a growing population of American Indian students. Tuition in most programs is under $6,000 a year for state residents, in part because of a State Constitution provision that it be as “nearly free” as possible, which courts have interpreted to mean that its tuition must be in the bottom third of public universities nationwide.
Mr. Crow’s record for improving quality is impressive, too. He has hired more than 600 tenured or tenure-track faculty members, and last year, for the first time, won a spot on the National Science Foundation’s list of the top 20 research universities without a medical school, along with powerhouses like M.I.T. and the University of California, Berkeley. 

But not every university can be in the top 20. And in a time of shrinking state budgets, undergraduates at public universities will most likely pay the price in higher tuition, larger classes and less interaction with tenured professors. So it is a real question how many public research universities the nation can afford, and what share of resources should go to less expensive forms of education, like community colleges.

Monday, June 20, 2011

The New Math on Campus

IN DEMAND Tucker Piner and Kelly Bolick, center, at Pantana Bob’s. 
ANOTHER ladies’ night, not by choice.

After midnight on a rainy night last week in Chapel Hill, N.C., a large group of sorority women at the University of North Carolina squeezed into the corner booth of a gritty basement bar. Bathed in a neon glow, they splashed beer from pitchers, traded jokes and belted out lyrics to a Taylor Swift heartache anthem thundering overhead. As a night out, it had everything — except guys.

“This is so typical, like all nights, 10 out of 10,” said Kate Andrew, a senior from Albemarle, N.C. The experience has grown tiresome: they slip on tight-fitting tops, hair sculpted, makeup just so, all for the benefit of one another, Ms. Andrew said, “because there are no guys.”

North Carolina, with a student body that is nearly 60 percent female, is just one of many large universities that at times feel eerily like women’s colleges. Women have represented about 57 percent of enrollments at American colleges since at least 2000, according to a recent report by the American Council on Education. Researchers there cite several reasons: women tend to have higher grades; men tend to drop out in disproportionate numbers; and female enrollment skews higher among older students, low-income students, and black and Hispanic students.

In terms of academic advancement, this is hardly the worst news for women — hoist a mug for female achievement. And certainly, women are primarily in college not because they are looking for men, but because they want to earn a degree.

But surrounded by so many other successful women, they often find it harder than expected to find a date on a Friday night.

“My parents think there is something wrong with me because I don’t have a boyfriend, and I don’t hang out with a lot of guys,” said Ms. Andrew, who had a large circle of male friends in high school.

Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.

Needless to say, this puts guys in a position to play the field, and tends to mean that even the ones willing to make a commitment come with storied romantic histories. Rachel Sasser, a senior history major at the table, said that before she and her boyfriend started dating, he had “hooked up with a least five of my friends in my sorority — that I know of.”

These sorts of romantic complications are hardly confined to North Carolina, an academically rigorous school where most students spend more time studying than socializing. The gender imbalance is also pronounced at some private colleges, such as New York University and Lewis & Clark in Portland, Ore., and large public universities in states like California, Florida and Georgia. The College of Charleston, a public liberal arts college in South Carolina, is 66 percent female. Some women at the University of Vermont, with an undergraduate body that is 55 percent female, sardonically refer to their college town, Burlington, as “Girlington.”

The gender gap is not universal. The Ivy League schools are largely equal in gender, and some still tilt male. But at some schools, efforts to balance the numbers have been met with complaints that less-qualified men are being admitted over more-qualified women. In December, the United States Commission on Civil Rights moved to subpoena admissions data from 19 public and private colleges to look at whether they were discriminating against qualified female applicants.

Leaving aside complaints about “affirmative action for boys,” less attention has been focused on the social ramifications.

Thanks to simple laws of supply and demand, it is often the women who must assert themselves romantically or be left alone on Valentine’s Day, staring down a George Clooney movie over a half-empty pizza box.
“I was talking to a friend at a bar, and this girl just came up out of nowhere, grabbed him by the wrist, spun him around and took him out to the dance floor and started grinding,” said Kelly Lynch, a junior at North Carolina, recalling a recent experience.

Students interviewed here said they believed their mating rituals reflected those of college students anywhere. But many of them — men and women alike — said that the lopsided population tends to skew behavior.
“A lot of my friends will meet someone and go home for the night and just hope for the best the next morning,” Ms. Lynch said. “They’ll text them and say: ‘I had a great time. Want to hang out next week?’ And they don’t respond.”

Even worse, “Girls feel pressured to do more than they’re comfortable with, to lock it down,” Ms. Lynch said.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Should Colleges Stop Fraternity Hazing?

To the Editor:
Re “A Pledge to End Fraternity Hazing” (Op-Ed, Aug. 24):
The pledge by David J. Skorton, the president of Cornell University, to end fraternity hazing at Cornell deserves tremendous praise. His bold action will inevitably be duplicated by other college administrators. His shift in awareness and this decision are perfect examples of the institutional change sought by the surging anti-bullying movement.
In the end, helping children and other vulnerable populations always comes down to what courageous, groundbreaking individuals will do. Those of us who are advocates greatly appreciate Dr. Skorton’s model leadership on hazing.

Director, New Jersey Coalition for Bullying Awareness and Prevention
Summit, N.J., Aug. 25, 2011

To the Editor:
David J. Skorton’s article reminded me of the hazing I avoided at Cornell University when the restrictions were not as emphatic.
The Greek system of fraternity and sorority membership has been a major part of student life on campus. It provided friendship and a sense of belonging and housing.
I remember a sleepless night spent in the fraternity basement with my pledge class as part of the ritual. The fraternity brothers offered some super-spicy food for breakfast, and I refused to eat it. I was told to eat or leave, so I left.
I ended up accepted anyhow and went on to be social chairman of that fraternity and then the Interfraternity Council, comprising all fraternities. The moral of the story is to just say no and assert your dignity when confronted with hazing.

New York, Aug. 24, 2011

To the Editor:
As a freshman at Mizzou (the University of Missouri) who just stepped on campus a week ago, I’ve already observed and heard the awful things that have gone on in fraternities and sororities.
I overheard one person say she went “fraternity hopping” with some friends, woke up all the boys in the frat house, and started drinking at 10 a.m. She said they kept drinking all day long and had to get up early for classes the next morning. There have already been people arrested here, and we’re only in the first week of classes!
I did not “rush” when I came to Mizzou because I don’t believe in the fraternity style of “let’s drink and party all day and night, wake up hung over and then stumble to our 8 a.m. class.” I believe in going to college to get an education and earn a degree, not to have a hangover every morning.
I feel sorry for the kids who “rushed” and those who ended up pledging because I believe that they don’t know what they’ve gotten themselves into. I hope for their sake that they turn their lives around and don’t make the same mistakes many others before them have made.

Columbia, Mo., Aug. 24, 2011

To the Editor:
As a Cornell undergraduate and fraternity man, I strongly disagree with David J. Skorton’s prescription for, in his words, “constraints on group behavior.” Having recently returned from a semester in Syria, I have some experience with regulations couched in terms of the common good.
Syrian state television endlessly expounded on the necessity of restricting rights because, allegedly, people left to their own devices would abuse freedom. Even here, we too often fall prey to the notion that an elite minority (in this case, college administrators) may restrict the liberty of its denizens “for their own good.”
We forget that liberty includes the real right to take risks, and yes, even to do stupid things (and suffer the consequences).
It is not up to Dr. Skorton, no matter how lofty his aims, to “bring students together in socially productive” ways. Thank you, but I’d prefer a beer.

Ithaca, N.Y., Aug. 24, 2011

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

The New Math on Campus 2

As for a man's cheating, "that's a thing that girls let slide, because you have to," said Emily Kennard, a junior at North Carolina. "If you don't let it slide, you don't have a boyfriend." (Ms. Kennard, however, said that she does not personally tolerate cheating).
Faculty members and administrators are well aware of the situation. Stephen M. Farmer, North Carolina’s director of admissions, said that the university has a high female presence in part because it does not have an engineering school, which at most schools tend to be heavily male. Also, he said, more young men than women in the state opt to enter the military or the work force directly out of high school.
And the university feels obligated to admit the most qualified applicants, regardless of gender, Mr. Farmer said. “I wouldn’t want any young woman here to think that there’s somebody we’d rather have here than her,” he said.

The phenomenon has also been an area of academic inquiry, formally and informally. “On college campuses where there are far more women than men, men have all the power to control the intensity of sexual and romantic relationships,” Kathleen A. Bogle, a sociologist at La Salle University in Philadelphia, wrote in an e-mail message. Her book, “Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus,” was published in 2008.

“Women do not want to get left out in the cold, so they are competing for men on men’s terms,” she wrote. “This results in more casual hook-up encounters that do not end up leading to more serious romantic relationships. Since college women say they generally want ‘something more’ than just a casual hook-up, women end up losing out.”

W. Keith Campbell, a psychology professor at the University of Georgia, which is 57 percent female, put it this way: “When men have the social power, they create a man’s ideal of relationships,” he said. Translation: more partners, more sex. Commitment? A good first step would be his returning a woman’s Facebook message.

Women on gender-imbalanced campuses are paying a social price for success and, to a degree, are being victimized by men precisely because they have outperformed them, Professor Campbell said. In this way, some colleges mirror retirement communities, where women often find that the reward for outliving their husbands is competing with other widows for the attentions of the few surviving bachelors.

“If a guy is not getting what he wants, he can quickly and abruptly go to the next one, because there are so many of us,” said Katie Deray, a senior at the University of Georgia, who said that it is common to see six provocatively clad women hovering around one or two guys at a party or a bar.

Since that is not her style, Ms. Deray said, she has still not had a long-term relationship in college. As a fashion merchandising major, she said, she can only hope the odds improve when she graduates and moves to New York.

At colleges in big cities, women do have more options. “By my sophomore year, I just had the feeling that there is nobody in this school that I could date,” said Ashley Crisostomo, a senior at Fordham University in New York, which is 55 percent female. She has tended to date older professionals in the city.

But in a classic college town, the social life is usually limited to fraternity parties, local bars or coffeehouses. And college men — not usually known for their debonair ways — can be particularly unmannerly when the numbers are in their favor.

“A lot of guys know that they can go out and put minimal effort into their appearance and not treat girls to drinks or flatter them, and girls will still flirt with them,” said Felicite Fallon, a senior at Florida State University, which is 56 percent female.

Several male students acknowledged that the math skewed pleasantly in their favor. “You don’t have to work that hard,” said Matt Garofalo, a senior at North Carolina. “You meet a girl at a late-night restaurant, she’s texting you the next day.”

But it’s not as if the imbalance leads to ceaseless bed-hopping, said Austin Ivey, who graduated from North Carolina last year but was hanging out in a bar near campus last week. “Guys tend to overshoot themselves and find a really beautiful girlfriend they couldn’t date otherwise, but can, thanks to the ratio,” he said.
Mr. Ivey himself said that his own college relationship lasted three years. “She didn’t think she would meet another guy, I didn’t think I would meet another girl as attractive as her,” he said.
Several male students from female-heavy schools took pains to note that they were not thrilled with the status quo.
“It’s awesome being a guy,” admitted Garret Jones, another North Carolina senior, but he also lamented a culture that fostered hook-ups over relationships. This year, he said, he finally found a serious girlfriend.
Indeed, there are a fair number of Mr. Lonelyhearts on campus. “Even though there’s this huge imbalance between the sexes, it still doesn’t change the fact of guys sitting around, bemoaning their single status,” said Patrick Hooper, a Georgia senior. “It’s the same as high school, but the women are even more enchanting and beautiful.”

And perhaps still elusive. Many women eagerly hit the library on Saturday night. And most would prefer to go out with friends, rather than date a campus brute.

But still. “It causes girls to overanalyze everything — text messages, sideways glances, conversations,” said Margaret Cheatham Williams, a junior at North Carolina. “Girls will sit there with their friends for 15 minutes trying to figure out what punctuation to use in a text message.”

The loneliness can be made all the more bitter by the knowledge that it wasn’t always this way.
“My roommate’s parents met here,” said Janitra Venkatesan, a student at North Carolina. “She has this nice little picture of them in their Carolina sweatshirts. Must be nice.”

Friday, April 9, 2010

Many Specialists at Private Universities Earn More Than Presidents

Yale pays the most to its financial officer, David F. Swensen.
In fact, of the 88 private-college employees who made $1 million or more in the 2007 fiscal year, only 11 were chief executives, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education’s analysis of compensation packages of more than 4,000 employees at nearly 600 private colleges.
The top two earners were a football coach at the University of Southern California and a Columbia University dermatology professor, each of whom received more than $4 million.

Pete Carroll, the head football coach at U.S.C., received $4,415,714 in 2007, about four times as much as the president of the university, Steven B. Sample. Dr. David N. Silvers, the Columbia dermatologist, received $4,332,759, compared with $1,411,894 for Lee C. Bollinger, the president of the university. And he was not the only Columbia employee who out-earned the president: Dr. Jeffrey W. Moses, a professor of medicine, received $2,532,713.

“There are a lot of different spheres of influence throughout a university,” said Jeff Selingo, editor of The Chronicle, “and since medical schools and some specialties within them generate so much revenue, it’s not surprising that compensation reflects that.”

Mr. Selingo added: “Chief financial officers are highly paid because they are generally people who could get a job at a Fortune 500 company. What’s actually most interesting to me is that chief academic officers are getting so much. I think what’s happening is that they’re becoming the ones running the university day to day, as presidents are increasingly away from campus, talking to donors or traveling overseas to set up partnerships.”

The Chronicle’s data, which is taken from the Internal Revenue Service’s Form 990, do not include executives at public universities, who do not file that form. The figures, the most recent available, are from the tax filing for the 2006-7 fiscal year.

The pay for university presidents has risen sharply over the last decade — as has the gap between their pay and that of the average professor. At private colleges, The Chronicle found in its annual compensation survey, the average president’s salary is about $500,000.

Shortly after The Chronicle’s survey of presidential compensation was released in November, amid the nation’s financial meltdown, many public figures criticized the high pay, and a few presidents voluntarily gave back a portion of it.

“When you have college presidents making $1 million, you’re going to have $800,000 provosts and $500,000 deans,” said Patrick M. Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. “It may be reasonable for these people to be well paid, but if faculty’s getting 2 percent raises, I don’t see why senior administrators who are already high-paid should get much larger increases. It reflects a set of values that is not the way most Americans think of higher education.”

David L. Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, issued a statement on Friday noting that highly paid university employees are the exception, not the rule. The median compensation for all employees in the Chronicle survey is $160,493, he said, significantly less than comparably skilled and experienced professionals would earn outside of universities. The new Chronicle analysis of pay data listed the 10 highest-paid employees other than chief executives, the 10 highest- paid financial officers and the 10 highest-paid academic officers. Only Emory University and Vanderbilt University were represented on all three lists.

Vanderbilt had two of the highest-paid employees on the top 10 list: Dr. Harry R. Jacobson, the vice chancellor for health affairs, and Norman B. Urmy, the former executive vice president for clinical affairs, who stepped down in June 2006. Each had a pay package worth more than $2.4 million.

Vanderbilt also had the highest-paid academic officer, Nicholas S. Zeppos, who earned $1,046,751, and the second-highest-paid financial officer, Lauren Brisky, who earned $1,159,197 and is retired as of this month.
In 2007, The Chronicle has reported, Vanderbilt also had the highest-paid university chief in the nation — E. Gordon Gee, who forfeited about half of his $2 million compensation package when he left to become president of Ohio State University.

Mr. Zeppos then succeeded him as chancellor of Vanderbilt last March.
The executive vice president for health affairs at Emory, Dr. Michael M. E. Johns, received $3,753,067, The Chronicle found, while the chief financial officer, Michael J. Mandl, received $666,300, and the chief academic officer, Earl Lewis, received $536,540.

The compensation figures include deferred compensation, some of which is subject to forfeiture.
Generally, fertility doctors are among the highest paid.
At Cornell, Dr. Zev Rosenwaks of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility received $3,149,376, and at New York University, Dr. James A. Grifo, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, was paid $2,393,646. Both substantially out-earned their presidents.