You've conveniently ignored the main thrust of the author's argument and gone for something she spent almost no time on at all. The faculty salaries are not nea

You've conveniently ignored the main thrust of the author's argument and gone for something she spent almost no time on at all. The faculty salaries are not nearly as concerning as NYU handing out cash outside of compensation packages, and allegations of nepotism. She specifically cites one individual who was given use of a university-owned apartment despite not being affiliated with the university except familial connections - he was neither staff nor student. She also cites other individuals who were given loans by the university to purchase personal property, which were never repaid and in fact written off very soon after. She goes on to cite other examples of school administrators using NYU's funds as their private bank account. Extreme compensation packages is one thing (and arguably necessary), but corruption and nepotism is a whole 'nother ball game. In any case, the main thrust of the author's argument aside, her complaint about the professor salaries isn't the salaries, but rather the intent of the institution. Why does NYU have to compete with MIT and Harvard? The author laments the loss of an institution whose primary mission was the education of its citizenry, not competing for the wealthiest students from around the world. The author argues that NYU was not, and did not need to become, a "world class" institution, and that despite attracting world-class faculty talent from around the world it is failing at the mission of educating New Yorkers, both in its focus on international prestige at the expense of quality education, and in its poor finances compared to other high-end institutions that passes the financial cost of this glory-seeking directly onto students in ever-increasing sums.