In Athletics, Even Small Raises Outpace Other Pay Increases at Colleges

February 28, 2012, 5:45 am

The bump in base salaries among senior athletics officials was relatively small—2.3 percent for the 2012 fiscal year—but it’s significant considering the stagnation in pay across academe. Even more telling, the numbers don’t include coaches’ compensation.

Athletic directors at doctoral institutions had median base pay of $212,300 this year, according to the latest survey by CUPA-HR. That was 2.8 percent more than the year before.

Six ADs make at least $1-million, according to an October 2011 analysis by USA Today, with some seeing recent pay increases of $175,000 annually. That’s not the norm across all of the 1,240 institutions CUPA-HR looked at. But the jump in pay among senior athletics personnel–including those in finance, fund raising, and compliance–was bigger, on the whole, than for other campus leaders, including presidents, provosts, and deans.

At public colleges, athletics administrators were the only administrators whose raises broke the 2-percent mark.

CUPA-HR officials were not surprised by the pay trends for athletics administrators, they told The Chronicle‘s Andrea Fuller, given that funds for salaries in athletics departments can come from sources more varied—such as supporting foundations—than can the salaries of other administrators.

Although athletics pay was a bright spot among top college administrators, its 2.3-percent gain still was not enough to keep pace with inflation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

lizziec

True – the ire on these discussions most often is directed to the large, corporate for-profits and it is unfortunate that the smaller and dedicated groups of for-profits get lumped into this mess. You have my sympathies, but your evil cousins cause all their own problems
cwm4c

Nor should it be
tgroleau

“Ask, ask, ask. Prepare to be horrified.”

About 10 years ago I interviewed at a competing school. I met many different people throughout the day and asked every one of them what it took to get tenure. I got the exact same answer from all of them – new hires, newly tenured, senior faculty – until my last meeting of the day when I met with the NEW dean. He described roughly double the research output that everyone else had told me. When I pointed out that his answer differed greatly from all the other answers he said “it’s time to raise the bar”.

I didn’t get the job but I felt bad for the recent hires who were brought in under one set of expectations and then had a new set thrust upon them. At least I would have known what I was getting into. A couple years later, the dean moved on to a bigger position and left a mess behind.
polargrid

Establishing clear tenure criteria is critical. Many institutions, especially R1s, have 2 sets of tenure requirements: those spelled out in the university and departmental policy documents, and the constantly shifting “tacit” criteria that can be used to push a qualified candidate out of the “club.” Examples: he’s got 35 papers but not enough from his “primary project,” she didn’t get any job offers from other institutions; one of his old colleagues served on the editorial board of a journal he published in, so those papers “don’t count,” she only has 2 grants as PI and should have 3. Some universities are working hard to standardize, openly circulate and de-mystify tenure criteria so this kind of thing has a lower probability of happening, but unfortunately it’s still all too common. Candidates should get department heads and anyone else involved in the tenure and promotion process to commit in writing to exactly what the criteria are (including quantifiable metrics like the required number of publications and grants) and be prepared for a fight if the goalposts get moved at the last minute.
eudaimon

I have gotten the impression that tenure decisions are quite uneven, having seen some strong researcher/teachers fail to be promoted, while some real flunkies got tenure (at list in private, liberal arts colleges). In these cases the difference seemed to have to do with whether you had backing or not, and backing often required that one be as inept and incompetent as one’s backers. Are my experiences anomalous?
madamesmartypants

Wait, tenure should NOT come with a salary guarantee? If it didn’t come with a guaranteed salary,then a school could penalize you by arbitrarily changing the rules regarding how much funding guarantees salary, by what date you need to have secured funding, what types of funding count, etc. In essence, it wouldn’t be tenure–you know, the whole “you can’t fire me because you don’t like my ideas” thing–since having the power to substantially reduce an employee’s salary is as threatening and prohibitive as arbitrary firing.
matt1959

What are the differences, both structural and practical of tenure track versus non-tenure track? Have an advising practice of 17years – want to slow it down but continue it while teaching. Currently, a PhD candidate.
akprof

The results will still be largely an opinion poll!
ikswodnawel

We all need a benchmark and this one is as good as another. Wish they would add one point for sustainability but maybe next year!
12069838

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
educatorwhome

Why collect if you are not going to use? Enough already! The information is available from the federal government. Why provide another avenue for the colleges to pretend to look good to make it into your rankings?
http://mountainair-online.net VCVaile

What about NTT/Tenured faculty ratios?