There is an interesting article in today's NY Times on executive compensation and who get paid the most in academia: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/education/23pay.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=salaries%20university&st=cse or http://tinyurl.com/cgpest (check out the multimedia section)
Because colleges/universities are centers of learning, promoting the development of valid knowedge, and serve as the storehouses of the wisdom of the ages, it is only fitting that this person earned the most in 2007: |Pete Carroll, the head football coach at U.S.C., received $4,415,714 |in 2007, about four times as much as the president of the university, |Steven B. Sample. They do love their footbal at the Uni of Southern Cal. The runner-up may be somewhat more acceptable: |Dr. David N. Silvers, the Columbia dermatologist, received $4,332,759, |compared with $1,411,894 for Lee C. Bollinger, the president of the |university. And he was not the only Columbia employee who out-earned |the president: Dr. Jeffrey W. Moses, a professor of medicine, received |$2,532,713. The info for the salaries comes from the Chronicle of Higher Education; see: http://chronicle.com/indepth/compensation/ (access to some info may require either a subscription or additional fees). Hmmm, if these are the jobs with the greatest positive reinforcements, shouldn't we all be motivated to get them? -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] P.S. On a somewhat unrelated note, Nate Silver, famed for baseball statistics and predicting the recent presidential election, also predicted the big winners for the Oscars ("New York Magazine" had an article on it last week). Using logistic regression, Nate provided probabilities for the different candidates for the top six awards. Result? He correctly predicted 4 of 6 winner or a .66667 hit rate (I believe someone claimed this was as accurate as having a chimpanzee throw bananas at pictures of the candidates as a method of choosing the winner). What does this say about the use of regression models for making predictions? How would using the "recognition heuristic" produced different results? I mean, how many people have really seen "Slumdog Millionaire"? According to www.boxofficemojo.com "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" drew twice as much in income and "The Dark Knight" has broken the $billion mark worldwide ($=proxies for number of people who have seen the films). Yes, I know, it depends upon the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, but still. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
