The Chronicle of Higher Education recently released its annual survey of college presidential pay, and - surprise, surprise - in 2006-7, Ivy League presidents ranked among the nation's top earners. Of the Ancient Eight, Columbia's Lee Bollinger topped the list, receiving a whopping $1,411,894 in pay and benefits, followed by Amy Gutmann (Penn) with $1,088,786; Richard Levin (Yale) with $955,407; Ruth Simmons (Brown) with $775,718; Shirley Tilghman (Princeton) with $742,444; David Skorton (Cornell) with $730,604; and James Wright (Dartmouth) with $569,761. (Derek Bok, who was the interim president at Harvard that year, earned $0.)

Nevertheless, only Bollinger and Gutmann cracked the private school top ten, coming in at fourth and eighth places respectively. (For whatever reason, the Chronicle places private and public school executives in distinct categories; combine the lists together and Bollinger falls to fifth, and Gutmann, to tenth.)

If the highest salaries and benefits aren't going to Ivy presidents, then to whom do they go? Find out (the rather surprising results) after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

U.S. News & World Report wrote about yet another ranking system on its blog, The Paper Trail. Unlike other rankings, the Global Language Monitor's iteration eschews an arcane formula in favor of a more direct approach; it merely tallies up the the number of mentions a particular college or university gets in print and online, and orders schools accordingly.

Half of the top ten schools in the university category are from the Ivy League. As you'd expect, Harvard comes out on top. Columbia takes a surprising second, while Yale (8), Princeton (9), and Cornell (10), sit at the bottom of the top. The Ivies that no one's ever heard of fare worse: Penn is 11th, Brown is 30th, and Dartmouth - surprise, surprise - is unlisted.

Obviously, the rankings are biased toward large research universities, which explains why undergrad-focused schools like Brown and Dartmouth would do poorly. But then again this version is only measuring quantity and not quality - it doesn't profess to do anything else. It's refreshingly direct in its methodology, so, at least in our minds, it's a welcome addition to the dubious world of college rankings.

If you're anything like me, you've been sitting around wondering, "When will Harvard get the recognition it deserves?" The wait is over, my friend. In US News and World Report's 2009 "National University Rankings," Harvard surpassed Princeton for the top spot, ending 8 straight years of New Jersey rule. This comes on the heels of Princeton's first-place finish in the flawed but entertaining Forbes.com best college list.

Harvard, incidentally, was just ranked "Most Overrated" in Radar Magazine's guide to America's worst colleges. The guide cites Harvard's 25% virgin rate. But would you really want to have sex with that twenty-five percent? In other news, Cornell is listed as the runner-up to "Most Overrated." When you think about it, it's kind of a compliment. That is, until you read on and get to the part about Cornell's status anxiety and Ithaca's geographical advantages. To wit: "Thankfully, rocky gorges surrounding the campus continue to provide the sweet release of death for those Cornellians who just can't take it anymore."

But enough about suicide: following her venerable leader, Columbia advanced in the US News rankings. Yale and Dartmouth stayed the same. UPenn, Brown and Cornell all lost ground. The Liberal Arts Colleges are still unimportant.

Here's how the Ivies fared:

1. Harvard (ranked 2nd in 2008)

2. Princeton (ranked 1st in 2008)

3. Yale (ranked 3rd in 2008)

6. Penn (ranked 5th in 2008)

8. Columbia (ranked 9th in 2008)

11. Dartmouth (ranked 11th in 2008)

14. Cornell (ranked 12th in 2008)

16. Brown (ranked 14th in 2008)

After the jump, Harvard tells you she's embarrassed by all the attention.

Read the rest of this entry »