Are university bosses really earning their six-figure salaries?

Analysis: As the row over vice-chancellors’ pay continues, Eleanor Busby looks at the arguments for and against their high pay

Students are paying up to £9,250 a year on tuition fees (PA)

Rows over pay for university bosses have been rumbling on for some time, but the strength of feeling among students and academics has not died down. They say the salaries are excessive and must be cut.

Thousands have demanded change but the University of Southampton’s vice-chancellor, Sir Christopher Snowden, has held on to his sizeable salary of £423,000 – making him one of Britain’s highest-paid university leaders.

Why is the anger still so strong? Students, who are paying up to £9,250 a year on tuition fees, and academics, who recently took strike action against university bosses over cuts to their pensions, do not feel the high salaries are fair in the current climate.

And in universities where staff are facing a number of redundancies, the six-figure remuneration packages that some senior leaders receive simply exacerbate existing tensions.

But it is not only staff and students who feel hard done by. Ministers have called out vice-chancellors for taking home hundreds of thousands of pounds. In fact, the Southampton boss was singled out by former universities minister Jo Johnson last year for a sharp pay rise over six years.

Even Theresa May hit out at university leaders after the University and College Union revealed that 95 per cent of vice-chancellors either sit on, or attend, the committee that sets their pay.

The Committee of University Chairs (CUC) published guidance in June suggesting that vice-chancellors should not be members of their university’s remuneration bodies, but that they should still be allowed to attend meetings – just not when their pay is being discussed.

It announced that universities will have to publicly justify their bosses’ salaries, which average more than £255,000, under a voluntary code.

However, despite efforts to create a more transparent system, Chris Sayers, chair of the CUC, said universities needed to recruit, retain and reward leaders to sustain world class organisations.

This argument is shared by many institutions. They say the six-figure pay packages are needed to attract the best in the field to lead the large and complex institutions, and to ensure that the higher education sector in the UK remains one of the best in the world.

The University of Southampton previously said a “post-Brexit strategy” justified paying Sir Christopher £423,000 a year, as it argued that world class leaders were needed.

And in the latest defence of his salary, the university has claimed that he is one of the most experienced leaders “with a proven record of delivering exceptional results”.

He has regained the institution’s place in the QS world top 100 universities, improved its standings in all national league tables and increased the income for world leading research, it argues.

And yet, despite this claimed success, the institution did not try to give Sir Christopher a pay rise this year. This move reflects a sign of the times. Even the universities that are brave enough to speak out to defend their bosses’ high salaries will find it difficult to justify pay rises while the spotlight shines bright.

It is unlikely that existing vice-chancellors will see their salaries cut while in post – as students have called for – but increasing pressure may result in some change when successors are recruited.

At this stage it is unclear how the row in the sector will play out. But the recurring backlash towards the University of Southampton suggests that the saga is set to continue into the new year and beyond.