But if it's generic, surely it applies to all overpaid admin lackeys - whether they work in a bank or a university? Which is the only possible extrapolation if you're saying that you aren't specifically talking about university chancellors. Or are you saying that it's OK to be paid in excess of £400,000 a year if you're part of the education service, but not if you're part of a merchant bank? And if we all have the equal opportunity to get a job as a university chancellor, then it is also fine for the holder of that role to rip off students and taxpayers to the tune of ten student nurses wages for signing a few papers and attending a few six-course dinners? Just trying to get to the root of what you're actually saying, because it's far from clear...
Ah Willy. Most people want to earn as much as they can. There's nothing wrong in that and most who see political issues differently to me agree with that. What I resent is the idea that someone should feel entitled to wealth because of who they were born to and trying to justify a society where the opportunities to earn are closed off to the privileged few. I've read and re-read my post and the ones just before it. I thought we'd moved on from the very narrow and specific subject of University chancellors which if you recall I waded in to in the first place because Goldie gave us one of his withering insights that left wing Chancellors are to blame for massive levels of student debt. If he had left it at University chancellors we might not have had a debate at all.. The proposition is straightforward . There are no nuances or hidden meanings. People want and do ask for as much as they can get. A person's political persuasion has , or should have, no bearing on whether s/he is entitled to be paid the going rate. Just because you like and can afford Champagne or Claret is irrelevant. It's how you behave and what you do for your society that matters and whether you got that position because of merit rather than because you or your father knew someone or could pay someone.
Does anyone actually know the political leanings of these university chancellors? Seems everyone's arguing based on an assumption (or know more than they've said on here).
So yes then - you're quite happy with a university chancellor pulling in over £400,000 a year at the expense of students who end up loaded with debt - simply because he can. Thanks for the clarification. So much for the equality of opportunity you mentioned a few posts back - he's getting rich off the backs of the young people who he is saddling with sometimes crippling debt for years. But that's all ok, because - hey, wouldn't we all? No, Yorkie - we wouldn't all do that. Earning that much money isn't bad. Earning it for a glorified admin job, whilst passing on huge debt to students to pay for it, IS bad.
As a rough estimate, each chancellor is costing each student in the region of £20 a year. Just for that one person. I would like to see them justify to every student what they do that adds £20 to the value of their education. In fact, can overpaid mayors do the same act of justification?
It works out at something like £18 per student. **** knows how these people get into these roles but I don't think it's right to imply it's causing crazy fees.
There's way more than one person working at the university. When you look at all of the salaries, compare them with either private or public sector equivalent roles and then work that out as a percentage of the fees charged, it'll be far more of a contributory factor than you're making out. When we talk about the chancellor (actually, the £400k was being pulled down by a VICE Chancellor, as I recall) we're talking about the people who set the culture of the organisation. And if that culture is one of excessive salaries despite knowing full well who's actually paying for them, then I think we can justifiably raise our objections. Seriously, I'm happier with senior bankers earning huge sums off of profits than I am this situation, purely because of where the money for those inflated salaries in universities necessarily needs to come from.
Apparently by Raphael Cruz. Well, according to Trump when he was fighting for the Republican nomination and was up against Cruz's son Ted...
As I have said, I think that the university system in this country is screwed, and Vice Chancellor pay (or at least the furore around it) is indicative of this. But they are not 'glorified administrators' They are CEOs of large and complex organisations (the Chancellor role is an honourary one). For example Warwick University has a staff of 5,500, 27,000 students and a turnover of £500m. They are in an intensely competitive international business, attracting students, research and investment and complying with a stack of regulation, from basic health and safety and employment law to research ethics, while committing to large capital investments. As far as I can remember the £400k was for a position at Cambridge, one of the top universities in the world, and I'd guess that that is the top end salary. Most CEOs of similar sized businesses would get much more than this (the CEO of my firm, which is approximately 12 times bigger than Warwick Uni gets 40 times more than £400k). Would you apply your arguments to CEOs of NHS hospitals too - quite a few of them get over £200k pa?
I'd look at value given for salary earned, and where the money for the salaries comes from. Large private companies earn their revenue and pay salaries accordingly. NHS CEOs don't really get paid that much when you look at the kind of things that they are on the hook for - generally, any issues within the Trust land on their desk and they stand or fall based on the performance of the Trust. I don't ever recall any university vice chancellors losing their jobs over poor results performance. My point is specific to Universities and what appear exorbitant salaries, despite people's attempts to deflect onto other industry sectors. I think it's utterly disingenuous for people to complain about student debt and fees, and at the same time defend someone for earning such a huge salary.
When the authoritarians of the hard right or the hard left want to make progress in achieving their goals, they persuade the ordinary man to wage war on intellectuals. It gets done via a drip, drip, drip of slurs and half-truths - we all see the front pages of certain newspapers - that gain common acceptance - despite being incorrect. An educated population is the last thing they want. Educated people have opinions and don't do what they're told. Universities really are private businesses. They are exempt charities, just like Eton, Harrow and any other fee-paying school in the UK. Chancellors and vice-chancellors at large, prestigious universities are only 'glorified admin staff' if you want to persuade other people that they should see the university as an enemy. It's similar to the way the Mail and Express wages war on so-called 'benefit scroungers', the law courts or the BBC. Don't blame the university for looking after itself or its senior staff. It's like blaming a tiger for wanting to eat you - it's what they do. Just like banks do what they do. It's the government that supports these activities via the regulations that monitor them and the way they put public money into them.
Then University fees are fine then, right? And if the powers that be want to earn £500k, or a cool £1million, then that's also ok, because there's always students with deeper pockets, right? After all, if you stick two people in a room with a tiger, it'll eat twice as much - after all, it's what they do...
