@Corbett: This whole tax bill was shoddily thought through as it was purely to satisfy donors and special interests.
“This whole tax bill was shoddily thought through as it was purely to satisfy donors and special interests.”
Wow, alert the media. That NEVER happens in our system.
https://thebestschools.org/features/highest-paid-college-professors-america/
https://harvardmagazine.com/2017/05/harvard-discloses-leaders-compensation
I suspect that you’re wrong, assuming that those “needs” include student financial aid.
If you were right, then it wouldn’t really matter whether a school had a lower endowment (<$500k/student) or a higher endowment (>500k/student) for purposes of financial aid. However, it doesn’t seem to work that way in the real world.
In the real world, for example, Harvard and MIT (endowment >$500k/student) offer significantly better financial aid than BU or Northeastern (endowment <500k/student). If you don’t believe it, then run the NPCs or check College Scorecard for yourself. And the same would be true for (say) Princeton vs. Lehigh, Williams and Amherst vs. Bates and Colby, Berea vs. Centre, Stanford vs. Santa Clara, etc.
So my suspicion differs from yours. Here’s my suspicion: if the endowments of Harvard or MIT shrank to BU or Northeastern levels, then the financial aid offered by Harvard or MIT would shrink to BU or Northeastern levels.
Most of the profs on this list (7 of 10) are at schools that are **not** subject to the new endowment tax.
And most of the professors on that list of top 10 have substantial administrative, non-teaching roles. So, yes, the head of Yale’s investments is well-compensated and happens to have a faculty position, but his real gig is running Yale’s investments. Not your run-of-the-mill prof.