4 ms·

They could pay what is justified if they wanted. University pay is usually topped by sports coaches (and not just head coaches, at many universities numerous a

They could pay what is justified if they wanted. University pay is usually topped by sports coaches (and not just head coaches, at many universities numerous assistant coaches make more than any executives at the school and all academic staff). There is no reason IT staff couldn't be paid at market rates. Poor management of IT is due to poor management not because "Universities simply cannot pay market-level salaries for IT staff."

alphonsegaston 10y ago
Right. There are nonsense "administrators" who make similar salaries to junior devs, but they can't afford market rates. I'm sure whoever is in charge of this bound-to-fail offshoring makes at least that much as well.
anonsssis 10y ago
Paying market salaries for IT would mean that the people who generate the income for the university/medical system (football coaches through merchandise, doctors through billable services, faculty through grants and teaching) would often be paid less then the personnel they hire. No board of regents will approve this.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Which of course tells about the thinking of boards of regents. Myself, I've often personally hired people who I have to pay more than I get paid.
justinv 10y ago
"University pay is usually topped by sports coaches (and not just head coaches, at many universities numerous assistant coaches make more than any executives at the school and all academic staff)." Coaches & sports staff at the high level you are referring to, are NOT funded by the university budget. They're funded by specific athletic funds that is from sports revenue & that boosters pay into. This is not an equivalent scenario - you're basically saying that a University should go set up an IT Booster Fund and have interested parties pay into it in order to pay these market rates - which they wouldn't (would you? I sure wouldn't). "The other problem with the salary comparison is that Alabama taxpayers aren't paying Mr. Saban, and so his salary doesn't take any money away from professors. One of the benefits to come out of the rampant commercialism of college athletics is that media conglomerates and sneaker companies are willing to pay huge sums for the broadcast and apparel rights. Thus, Mr. Saban will be paid out of Alabama's $70 million athletic budget, with little or no impact on academic departments."[0] [0] http://web.archive.org/web/20160325043141/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122853304793584959 http://web.archive.org/web/20160325043141/http://www.wsj.com...
- emj 10y ago
  But who pays for the infrastructure of the sports, from what I've seen of stadium and amenities investments it's almost always the public that pays for that, and in that case the state does pay a lot to the athletics funds. One have to be real careful when thinking that the abstract budgets are not related.
greeneggs 10y ago
UCSF doesn't even have any sports teams...

alphonsegaston 10y ago

Right. There are nonsense "administrators" who make similar salaries to junior devs, but they can't afford market rates. I'm sure whoever is in charge of this bound-to-fail offshoring makes at least that much as well.

anonsssis 10y ago

Paying market salaries for IT would mean that the people who generate the income for the university/medical system (football coaches through merchandise, doctors through billable services, faculty through grants and teaching) would often be paid less then the personnel they hire. No board of regents will approve this.

ptaipale 10y ago
Which of course tells about the thinking of boards of regents. Myself, I've often personally hired people who I have to pay more than I get paid.

justinv 10y ago

"University pay is usually topped by sports coaches (and not just head coaches, at many universities numerous assistant coaches make more than any executives at the school and all academic staff)." Coaches & sports staff at the high level you are referring to, are NOT funded by the university budget. They're funded by specific athletic funds that is from sports revenue & that boosters pay into. This is not an equivalent scenario - you're basically saying that a University should go set up an IT Booster Fund and have interested parties pay into it in order to pay these market rates - which they wouldn't (would you? I sure wouldn't). "The other problem with the salary comparison is that Alabama taxpayers aren't paying Mr. Saban, and so his salary doesn't take any money away from professors. One of the benefits to come out of the rampant commercialism of college athletics is that media conglomerates and sneaker companies are willing to pay huge sums for the broadcast and apparel rights. Thus, Mr. Saban will be paid out of Alabama's $70 million athletic budget, with little or no impact on academic departments."[0] [0] http://web.archive.org/web/20160325043141/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122853304793584959 http://web.archive.org/web/20160325043141/http://www.wsj.com...

emj 10y ago
But who pays for the infrastructure of the sports, from what I've seen of stadium and amenities investments it's almost always the public that pays for that, and in that case the state does pay a lot to the athletics funds. One have to be real careful when thinking that the abstract budgets are not related.

greeneggs 10y ago

UCSF doesn't even have any sports teams...