It may simply have been a coincidence, but the day on which President Hopkins announced that the university would no longer be hosting the first presidential debate, the Chronicle of Higher Education released its annual data on the taxable compensation received by public university presidents in the U.S.
On the list simply indicating total taxable compensation, Dr. Hopkins ranked 10th. These are the top 25:
On the list ranking the compensation of the public university presidents by the number of full-time students at their institutions whose tuition is required to pay their compensation, Dr. Hopkins also ranked 10th:
And on the list ranking the compensation of the public university presidents by the percentage of their institutional budgets required to pay their compensation, Dr. Hopkins ranked 11th (the dollar amount is the amount that their compensation represents out of every million dollars in the institutional budget):
Over the past several years, I have done a series of posts on the compensation of the presidents of Ohio’s public universities. In most years, those presidents have all ranked among the top 100 in the nation, and I have asked rhetorically what other rankings, of any kind, include all of Ohio’s public universities. I could ask something comparable with respect to the lists in this communication, but I am fairly certain that someone would counter that Dr. Hopkins’ compensation is in no way responsible for the current budget issues that his administration is attempting to address.
Perhaps. But there is a “trickle down” effect on salaries, in particular among the top tiers of university administration. In some later communications, we will focus more pointedly on that effect. But I will close this communication simply by pointing out that the state measures (see chart below) administrative overhead against course completions, and degree completions, administrative/student headcounts, and administrative/total expenditures, the results very much contradict the administrative assurances that we have addressed administrative bloat more effectively than many of the other public universities in Ohio.
Now, it is possible to rationalize our poor ranking on the first two measures by pointing to our being an “open-admissions” institution, but that does not explain our poor ranking on the third and fourth measures.