<p>
</p>
<p>University presidents are NOT like football coaches and star athletes. Though I dont like semi-professional sport leagues attached to academic institutions, college football and mens basketball coaches generally eat their own kills, like most star pro-athletes. Their incomes are directly linked to their win-loss records, ticket sales, TV revenues, and in some cases, direct contributions from boosters. </p>
<p>Though college presidents like to boast about the donations to the universities THEY have generated, but in general, the personality of a university president has very little to do with these donations. Large research universities all have development offices. Presidents may wine and dine and shake the hands of a few donors on occasion. Few donors give to a university because of the personality of its president. </p>
<p>Take the example of U Michigan Ann Arbor, which has been talked about a lot on this thread: U Michigan has been able to generate a large endowment and donations mainly because: 1. A large wealthy donor base; U Michigan has produced a large number of successful alumni over the last 170 years, they and their families have a strong emotional tie with the university and a sense of obligation; 2. Strong research (including a top medical school) and academic programs, which are built over many, many decades with strong public support. Does anyone believe that if the president of U Michigan Ann Arbor were appointed chancellor of U Michigan Flint, she would be able to generate the same kind of donations there?</p>
<p>I am not arguing that the university presidents are not important and do not make a difference, just that they shouldnt take credit for good weathers. I also believe the governorships and the presidency of the US are very, very important jobs, even though they are paid much less.</p>