As Tuition Rises and Programs Are Cut, Reporter Examines One College Excess
It was with a great deal of disappointment that we read the recent Tracy Jan post at the Boston Globe. With colleges cutting services and programs in the midst of an economic meltdown of epic proportions, Jan decided to do a little investigative reporting regarding a rather touchy subject.
In “Strapped Colleges Keep Leaders in Luxury,” Jan examines the current housing arrangements of a number of Boston area college presidents. The descriptors she uses to describe the residences certainly contrasted vividly with the non-stop news of employee layoffs, program cuts and tuition increases.
Opulence Reigns Supreme
Jan refers to MIT president Susan Hockfield’s home as a “stone mansion,” a luxurious beauty with wonderful views of the Charles River and its nonstop parade of sailboats moving up and down the waterway.
In the case of Northeastern president Joseph Aoun, it was a mammoth “five-story brick town house” featuring 9,000-square-feet and 7.5 bathrooms. It too had a location to die for, sitting just across the street from Boston Common.
Jan notes that these two leaders are not alone in their good fortune, that their “counterparts at other private colleges reside in luxury as well, many on centuries-old estates surrounded by well-tended gardens and lawns cared for by loyal staffs.”
But it was interesting to note the response of the schools when Jan sought to visit some of these residences. Only Wellesley president Kim Bottomly was willing to allow a Globe reporter and photographer to get an inside glimpse of one of these palatial homes (Jan notes Bottomly’s bedroom overlooking Lake Waban and speaks of at least two servants at the president’s disposal).
Jan is nothing short of realistic when she speaks of an opulence that stands in stark contrast to the current mood on campuses.
The “homes, many provided by universities as part of their presidents’ compensation, are the ultimate perk in this college-rich region, but one that increasingly appears to represent a bygone era.
“While the houses often serve an important ceremonial role and it is questionable how much money could be saved by their elimination, the very mention of them has elicited low-level grumbling on campuses and anxiety among university officials over the Globe’s request to tour them.”
Not a Simple Issue
Jan is right. It is truly debatable as to what savings might be available but the contrast with the current situation of others who work on campus is reminiscent of the blindness of those firms on Wall Street, especially those awarding bonuses just after being given a government bailout.
And the fact that most declined to allow the homes to be viewed added to the feelings that college leaders were out of touch regarding this issue. In fact, the answers used reeked of amazing ambivalence. According to Jan, school spokespeople indicated the presidents at MIT and Harvard simply were “not around” while their counterparts at Tufts and Boston University “should be afforded a measure of privacy.”
Those same spokespeople also attempted to put a positive spin on what others would categorize as a tad excessive, insisting that the homes served as a space for entertaining luminaries, hosting visiting dignitaries and wealthy donors, and even welcome students and neighbors.
Given this amazing perk, it is easy to see why so many have suggested that “presidents could take a pay cut to reflect the free housing they’re receiving.” Certainly, given the current college fiscal environment, one might expect schools to take a look at the cost basis for these buildings and the salaries of college presidents.
As tuition soars, in many cases beyond the means of the average student, more and more reporters will be placing pressure on schools to examine what might be deemed excesses. If schools are to handle that pressure, they will need to think twice about limiting access.
It sends the wrong message and only reinforces a view that colleges remain ambivalent to the cost concerns of the average student.
