With Universities Salaries Up, Does Quality Suffer?

If you read the Ledger a last week, you might have caught this Editorial opinion on Higher Education.

The CL calls out the funding of the big 3 Universities' Presidential salaries, and poses the question to the state, who should pay for competitive funding of our State's education leaders?

Its is now noted that Ole Miss Chancellor Robert Kayhat and Mississippi State President Doc Foglesong both make just under 1/2 million dollars, at $429,000. USM President Martha Saunders is now raking in over $345,000 after only 2 months on the job.

Why is this important? Well apparently Mississippi "four-year colleges increased tuition by an average of 6 percent this year - the ninth hike in 10 years." Who's covering that? Students and middle class Mississippi. They though are not receiving any help from Uncle Sam while Stafford loans are still capped at $23,000 a year. Nor from the economy, which has not helped the problem that now Higher Education costs 29% of a family's yearly income.

Private foundations, such as alumni associations and University foundations, front the cost of most of these Presidents' salaries. However the State picks up the base pay and any State wide increases.

So if everyone's looking after who is at the top, what about those kids who the State promises to educated as the next generation of leaders?

Recently Ole Miss was ranked the #2 Party School in the nation.

Mississippi State has had two reports of sexual assault in one week of students returning to campus. However it should be noted that the more recent assault that the student " had fabricated the details of the alleged assault," and it was not a rape as previously stated.

Mississippi State is the only one on the Princeton Reviews "Best College Values", while Ole Miss makes it to their best 366 Colleges in America list (unknown ranking) , leaving out USM on both categories.

Southern Mississippi has 65% of undergrads on financial aid;
Ole Miss stands at 40%;
And Mississippi State comes in at 52%. On average the state has 52% of its students on aid, most likely student loans.

The point? Are we having this discussion too late? Or is the Ledger bringing up a valid issue just in time?

Their editorial conclusion is a good start "The state should pick up the full salary costs and let foundations help in other areas of need, as in tuition aid." But I for one would like to see real talk coming from our leaders in 2008. I have my own solutions, but I need something for my 3rd post ;)