Who Are the Best College Presidents?
College presidents are under more public scrutiny than at any point in recent memory, and for good reason. The prior academic year ended with widespread campus protests, leading to the resignations of college presidents at several well-known institutions. Now, many are wondering if last year’s events will repeat themselves, or if college presidents will rise to the occasion.
For all the recent focus on college presidents, little information exists on which ones are “best” at their job. While evaluating their performance is a somewhat subjective task, the lack of attention given to the individual accomplishments of college presidents is drastically different from other sectors, where chief executives are routinely evaluated based on the outcomes of their institution. Given the many challenges facing American higher education, it is time we start paying more attention to the track records of college presidents.
In a new report for the American Enterprise Institute, I evaluate the performance of more than 400 current and former college presidents. In doing so, I rank them across three dimensions: their ability to keep tuition affordable, their ability to improve student success, and their ability to expand access for historically underrepresented student groups. Not only are these outcomes critical to students and taxpayers alike, but they are also commonly included in the mission statements of colleges themselves. (My ranking method is explained in detail in the full report, along with my method for choosing which college presidents to rank.)
So, according to these metrics, who are the “best” college presidents? The top-performing current college president is James Harris (University of San Diego), followed by Renu Khator (University of Houston) and Heather Wilson (University of Texas At El Paso). Since taking over as president, each of these individuals has dramatically increased access, success, and affordability at their college. On average, each year, these presidents improved graduation rates by more than one and a half percentage points, reduced out-of-pocket tuition costs per student by nearly $200, and increased the enrollment of students from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds by nearly a full percentage point.
On the other end of the spectrum, some college presidents have done a poor job of improving these metrics. Sarah Mangelsdorf (University of Rochester), Ken Gormley (Duquesne University), and Kent Syverud (Syracuse University) find themselves at the bottom of the rankings. These individuals have all been in charge at a time when one or more outcomes used in the rankings have gotten worse at their institution. For instance, the average out-of-pocket tuition cost for undergraduates attending the University of Rochester has increased by approximately $750 per year (after accounting for inflation) since Sarah Mangelsdorf became president in 2019-20. And at Duquesne University, graduation rates have dipped by nearly a full percentage point since Ken Gormley took over as president in 2016-17.
Interestingly, college presidents at the most prestigious universities in the country, such as the presidents of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, usually appear in the middle of the rankings. While these institutions commonly boast strong records on student success and access for historically underrepresented groups, their presidents, on average, end up doing little to improve upon these outcomes -- ultimately contributing to why they do not appear higher up in the rankings. (The rankings reward college presidents who improve outcomes, rather than rewarding college presidents who maintain already-strong outcomes.)
The full list of rankings is available on AEI’s website, here. Keep in mind that my method for ranking college presidents is just one possible way of judging the performance of college presidents. The job of college president is full of challenges, and my focus on improving access, affordability, and student success is not meant to downplay the other important duties and responsibilities that college presidents have.
That said, these rankings can provide a helpful nudge for policymakers to better hold college presidents accountable for their institution’s outcomes. Right now, college governing boards – the entities usually in charge of holding college presidents accountable – have little information about the performance of their own college’s president relative to the performance of college presidents at peer institutions. Governing boards should begin using data such as these to evaluate the accomplishments and achievements of their president, and if needed, to enact changes that lead to performance improvements.
The bottom line is that more attention needs to be paid not just to how college presidents react in the face of a crisis, but to how these individuals accomplish measurable goals and objectives of their institution. Strong leadership starts from the top, and holding college presidents accountable for improving access, affordability, and student success could be a helpful first step in driving improvements in these outcomes.
