If they happen to be public university presidents.

The poor economy is finally putting the brakes on the skyrocketing pay of public-university presidents, The Chronicle of Higher Education found in its annual survey of executive pay.

The Chronicle, which surveyed 185 public institutions, found the median compensation for university leaders was $436,000 last year, a 2.3 percent increase over the previous year.  That was much smaller than past increases, which ranged from 7.6 to 18.9 percent in each of the previous four years.

I don't even have to check to know that those increases have been greater than inflation.

The Chronicle does not explain exactly what is included in what they call "total compensation".   Perhaps I am too cynical, but I suspect that it does not include all of the benefits that university presidents receive, just cash and those benefits that have direct cash equivalents.

No doubt those soaring paychecks and benefit packages only reflect spectacular gains in research and teaching at those public universities.

The presidential paychecks may not be a large part of a university's budget, but they set a pattern for all the administrators underneath the presidents.  And in our modern universities, there are more than a few administrators.  (All of whom, I am sure, contribute to the public good.)

We in Washington state can be proud that we have two presidents in the top twenty.  And that University of Washington president Mark Emmert has done such a great job that he can take a half year off — at full pay.  If that doesn't show that he is an effective leader, I don't know what would.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

(It is difficult to evaluate the work of a university president, especially over a period of a few years.  You can tell whether a president is a good fund raiser, but even in principle it is difficult to tell whether they are a good faculty recruiter, or whether they set a tone that encourages research and learning.)