Today Sun Mon
It is forcast to be Chance of Snow at 10:00 PM EST on February 11, 2012
Chance of Snow
-2°/-3°
It is forcast to be Chance of Snow at 10:00 PM EST on February 12, 2012
Chance of Snow
2°/-5°
It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 10:00 PM EST on February 13, 2012
Partly Cloudy
3°/-2°

14 Comments

news

It’s a Sunshine Day


Ryan Bigge—Toronto’s least ironically named freelancer and, according to the first issue of Spacing, a former “magaging editor” of Adbusters—last year estimated that Richard Florida pulled in $170 000 a year from U of T. When the 2008 Public Sector Salary Disclosure (Sunshine) list was released, Bigge took the figure of $169,999.98 to mean that his guess was only two cents off. What Bigge failed to take into account, however, was that the 2008 list was actually the disclosure of salaries for 2007, and only included money paid out for that period. In other words, because Florida was only hired away from George Mason University in July ’07, the money on the list covered just the half-year he was at U of T.
On Tuesday, the 2009 list (of disclosures for 2008) came out, and Florida is indeed pulling in about that much per semester. This includes his job heading up the Martin Prosperity Institute, which also has a name that is much less ironic than it sounds. Florida is thus the university’s seventh highest-paid professor and its eleventh highest-paid staffer overall.
The compensation was of course set before the current meltdown, which is seeing U of T’s endowment suddenly shrink by nearly a thirdthe direct result, according to the Globe, of the university having made extremely risky, “U.S.-style” investments for short-term gain without regard to the long-term risks. This shitty strategy cost U of T $1.3 billion on its investments last year, hence the plan to make up the losses via the de facto 25–70% tuition hike, something you’d have no trouble bearing if your mom or dad pulled in the $494,598.04 of U of T’s highest-paid employee—John Lyon, the Managing Director of Investment Strategy.

20090401Lyon.jpg
Bad investment.

One Star article quotes Angela Hildyard, the school’s $287,403.52-a-year “Vice-President Human, Resources & Equity” (as opposed, evidently, to those administrators who are not vice presidents of humans) as committing that “salaries will be frozen for senior academics and administrative leaders this year.” A different article in the same Star, however, only says that there will be a “Voluntary freeze for all administrators from dean level and up.”
Indeed, the university’s Towards 2030 plan calculates that a scenario with “A one per cent reduction in salary increases saves $8.5 mm [sic] per year”—which would in theory cover 85% of the shortfall intended to be bridged by the flat fee. The report says that even more money could be saved by adjusting starting salaries but warns against meddling with these; starting salaries are “driven by market forces and the international competition for leading faculty, so there will be continued upward pressure on salary and benefits costs if we are to compete for talent….it is likely that our best people would move to other universities for higher salaries.” And here we thought that people chose Toronto because of how bohemian we are.

Comments

  • http://null octpatp

    Yeah, those stupid administrators and professors. How dare they not work for free! Canada should be insulated from the international academic market, and who cares if no one good or interesting will want to work at U of T if we only pay them in donuts and scrap metal! No one actually goes to U of T because it has good faculty. None of the undergrads enjoy bragging about U of T’s reputation, which, by the way, never helps them get a job. Who cares about its scholarly reputation? Let all the best faculty leave. I’d rather be taught by obscure mumblers who haven’t published anything since they got tenure in the mid-1970s anyway.
    You’re right that the investment strategy was a crock. Forget that the endowments of every other university in North America (Harvard down 30%, Yale down 25%) tanked this year too–U of T deserves special punishment.
    Here’s my investment strategy: Withdraw the billion dollars all at one, build the world’s biggest mattress, stuff all the cash underneath, and bury it on Front Campus, where it’ll never be affected by the stock market. Great idea.
    Even better, tell the students (who have the biggest stake in the university and deserve to run it) where the money is, so that next time they want to drop $50 at the Madison they can just stop by with a spade and withdraw whatever they need. It’s the people’s money!
    Question for the next article: How much of U of T’s operating budget actually comes from endowment money?

  • http://undefined montauk

    Goldsbie, it was one thing when you said administrators and professors should work for free.
    I was almost on board when you recommended they be paid in donuts and scrap metal.
    And I admit, you were right on the money when you said that U of T should pull out of the stock market altogether.
    But I think Octpatp and I are in agreement that you went a bit far by suggesting that Hitler should be resurrected as the new dean.

  • http://null octpatp

    Montauk, I’m glad you agree with me.
    For Goldsbie, here’s a serious question: If we accept your implicit arguments that Florida doesn’t deserve $340K a year, and that Lyon doesn’t deserve $500K a year, how much do you suggest they should be paid?
    More generally, what’s reasonable compensation for U of T professors? Should they be paid in the same ballpark as plumbers? High school teachers? Lawyers? Somewhere in between? If you’re going to complain about how much profs get paid, you need to advance alternative proposal for how much they should get paid.
    Keep in mind that becoming a professor requires twice as much post-secondary training as becoming a lawyer (and at least three times as much as becoming a high school teacher), and that academic salaries at US schools are substantially–sometimes two or three times–higher than average salaries at U of T. I point this out not because I think Canadian schools need to become more American, but because the academic labour market is international and American schools regularly try to poach the best profs at U of T, and the university needs to hang onto them.

  • http://www.publicspace.ca Jonathan Goldsbie

    I am grateful to montauk for addressing your previous comment, but I shouldn’t let her fight all my battles for me.
    My argument isn’t so much that they are overpaid (although I believe they are, it’s not something you can really objectively prove) but rather that:
    1) The university believes in the free market when it comes to attracting top staff but not when attracting top students. To argue, as they do, that higher tuition fees wouldn’t be a meaningful deterrent to qualified domestic students is as disingenuous as it would be to say that lower salaries wouldn’t be a deterrent to qualified staff. The irony in my article is intentional, and intentionally buried.
    2) They’re open to freezing salaries but not tuition.
    3) Generous compensation doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to get value for your money, just as a school that costs more isn’t necessarily better. U of T is paying top dollar for an investment strategist who is evidently not doing a very good job (though it’s of course not his fault that the markets bottomed out, you’d think someone in his position would be responsible for minimizing risk at least as much as for maximizing profit) and for an academic who’s best known for arguing that people choose where to work based on the extent of local cultural offerings and that that’s the best way to attract top people.
    4) The people who shape tuition policies (and advocate for their deregulation) aren’t themselves affected and thus lack comprehension of, and sympathy for, the average student and their economic situations. (On this point, Florida escapes blame.)
    and
    5) Lyon making what he does is akin to the bonuses given to executives of failing banks; the people who got us into this mess are doing quite all right, while the rest of us have to shoulder the burden of their actions.

  • http://undefined octpatp

    Goldsbie:
    OK, let’s have a real debate.
    1. If you believe professors are overpaid, but you can’t prove it, then why do you believe it? I return to my earlier question (which you haven’t answered): How much *should* professors be paid (I mean in what rough bracket)?
    2. I agree with your first point, actually. Charging a flat tuition on all students regardless of income is a kind of regressive taxation, because the tuition is a greater slice of income for low-income students than for higher, and the high-income students get tuition that’s just as government-subsidized than the low-income students. The university ought to: (a) set tuition at its real rate (i.e. the actual cost of educating one student), not at its current rate, which is heavily discounted by subsidies, AND (b) then give students discounts (or scholarships) indexed to income. In other words, students should pay as much as they can afford. If some rich kid from Rosedale can afford the real cost (whatever that is, maybe $25K p.a.), he should pay it. If you can’t afford to pay anything, you wouldn’t pay anything. How you determine need is tricky, but possible.
    3. Of course they’re freezing salaries but not tuition. You accuse the admin of not seeing things from the students’ perspective, but you’re guilty of not seeing things from the admin’s perspective. If you were the uni president, you’d see your revenue falling (because of the bad economy) and a big deficit opening up. Freezing salaries keeps expenses down, but still leaves a big deficit. So what would you do? You have two options: (a) increase revenue, either by getting more government money (and how likely is that when the gov’t has a massive deficit too?) or charge higher tuition; OR (b) cut costs, whether student services, faculty, or admin (and whichever of these you cut, The Varsity and OPIRG and their minions will wail). If you were the president, how would you handle the situation?
    4. Compensation doesn’t equate exactly to quality, but there’s a rough relationship between them. If you’re a great professor, and you have two job offers, both at good schools in good cities, but one offers you $50K more, what would you do? If you insist that this is irrelevant, you’re effectively arguing that professors should be teaching out of the goodness of their hearts with zero regard for money, so we return to question 1. You’re right that Lyon may not deserve an A for his work this year, but don’t be fatuous: The connection between risk and reward is finance 101. Is your position that the university should put all of its money in Canada Savings Bonds? Moreover, you want your investment manager to know something about finance and investing, which means it has to be the kind of person who has Bay Street experience, which means that you need to pay them at a rate that will lure them from high finance. This does NOT mean you pay them what they’d make at Goldman Sachs, but you can’t pretend that, if you offer $100K to someone who’s making $2 million, you’ll get the best talent (and again, for something as important as investment management, you need someone who’s good). And sure, U of T investment managers blew it this year, and maybe they don’t deserve their hundreds of thousands of dollars, but who in the investment business really did earn their salaries this year? And when the endowment gains 10% or 20% in a year (equivalent to hundreds of millions of dollars in U of T’s case), how can you say that the person who made that happen doesn’t deserve $500K? It’s a cost of doing business in the field, and a tiny expenditure for a huge reward (when the market goes up).
    5. So what if the people who set tuition aren’t affected? Is you position that the university president should live in a dorm, eat KD, and suffer just for the sake of sympathy? And again, I refer you to point 3. The university’s costs are rising, and it can’t control this. So what’s your solution? More government funding?
    6. Lyon’s salary is nothing at all like bank bonuses. A bonus is a reward for superior performance (or should be). A salary is compensation for doing a job. Perhaps you think high school teachers’ salaries should be indexed according to their performance too? (The teachers’ union would flip out if someone proposed this idea.) What about TAs? (CUPE ditto.) What about policemen?
    It’s always easier to oppose than propose, to tear down than to build up. So, be serious: let’s hear how you would handle the situation if you were uni president.

  • http://undefined torontothegreat

    >It’s always easier to oppose than propose, to tear down than to build up.
    You’ve just summed up Jonathan Goldsbie in better words than I ever could.

  • http://null octpatp

    Thanks for that. Still waiting eagerly for his reply.

  • http://null octpatp

    Still no reply…It seems that, when challenged, Goldsbie runs away.
    You’d think he’d be keen to stand behind his arguments and give a good thrashing to those of us who are too benighted to acknowledge his insight.
    Too bad: this could have been an interesting debate.
    Maybe montauk should come back to fight this battle for him?

  • http://www.publicspace.ca Jonathan Goldsbie

    Why do you assume that I just happen to have the time at any given moment to write a 777-word essay in response to yours? It’s been on my mind for a few days, but I haven’t yet had a 45-minute block set aside in order to craft a cogent response to all the points you raise. I hope you understand that it’s rather low on my list of priorities.

  • http://null torontothegreat

    good job on the hyperbole! Man you must be one busy guy Jonathan! Good job you don’t have any time to even comment on other blogs in the city due to your hectic schedule :P

  • http://null octpatp

    Hey Torontothegreat,
    Did you hear about the new Beckett play that’s just been found? It’s called Waiting for Goldsbie. Apparently it’s about an opinionated (but very very busy!) writer who’s too pusillanimous to respond to those who challenge his assertions. His opponents win every debate by default. It premiered in Toronto last week.

  • http://null torontothegreat

    HAHA. If you search his username on this site you’ll see every debate he gets into ends with him running away. He likes to complain but has no solutions for anything. His whole ‘crew’ seems to be like this, totally awesome!
    I’m assuming he’s practicing to be a city councilor one day.

  • http://null Svend

    Responding again would be low on my priorities too.
    I think Goldsbie outlined his views quite well and I agree with him.

  • http://null octpatp

    How nice that you agree with him. By saying that responding is and ought to be a low priority, you’re objectively saying that debate is pointless and not worth your time.
    It’s true that Goldsbie outlined his views quite well, but–and here’s my point–he provides zero rationale for them (see, for instance, point 1 in my April 2 post). It’s one thing to make a claim or state an opinion, but it’s something quite different to offer an argument and evidence to back them up. An assertion is not the same thing as an argument.
    Goldsbie called me on being facetious in my first response, so I decided to take him seriously and outline my arguments in the hope of having a serious, well-reasoned debate. He hasn’t given me the same courtesy in response.
    So, given your harmony with Goldsbie’s views, perhaps you’d like to offer a riposte to my critique in his place?