There's a version of this story where a college president sitting on a corporate board sounds like a win-win. You get a leader with a front-row seat to how the private sector actually runs, and the company gets someone who's spent years navigating competing interests and big egos. That's real value. But the piece from Josh Moody makes me pause, because it's asking a question that hits close to home for anyone who's ever looked at the top floor of their university and wondered what's actually going on up there: is this service about making the institution better, or is it just a personal windfall?
I'm a student. I'm not sitting in on those board meetings, and I'm not getting a check for showing up. But I do know what it's like to juggle multiple commitments. I've got classes, a part-time gig, and a club meeting that I promised to help with. The difference is, when I take on too much, I'm the one who pays for it with a late night in the library and a mediocre grade. When a president takes on too much, the cost is spread across thousands of students, faculty, and staff who might not even know their leader is spending their Tuesday mornings on a conference call about quarterly earnings instead of thinking about, say, how to make financial aid stretch further. That's the part that feels off. It's not that I think presidents shouldn't have outside perspectives. It's that the incentives have to be aligned. If the board service is making the president a better leader, great. If it's just a status symbol with a nice stipend attached, that's a problem. And I think it's fair for us to ask which one it is.
The article mentions these roles pay "handsomely," which is a word that does a lot of heavy lifting. For a student who's budgeting for ramen and rent, the idea of a six-figure check for a few meetings a year feels like a different universe. But I also get that a university president's job isn't just about showing up to class. It's about fundraising, donor relations, and making big calls under pressure. Sitting on a corporate board probably does sharpen some of those skills. The issue is transparency. We're told to trust the process, but trust is built on seeing how the sausage gets made. When the details are buried in a financial disclosure form that no one reads, it's hard to feel confident. I'd rather see a system where the value of that board service is measured, where there's a clear argument for how it benefits the campus community, not just the president's bank account. It's the same reason I appreciate it when our academic leadership puts out a survey for students to get a read on the room. It's not perfect, but at least it's a signal that someone is thinking about the people on the ground.
So what's my take? I'm not saying a president should never serve on a board. I'm saying the deal should come with guardrails. If a board seat is going to be part of the job, there should be a clear public rationale, a cap on the time commitment, and a real plan for how it filters back into better outcomes for students. Otherwise, it's just a side hustle with a nice title. And for a community that's already paying a lot for a degree, we deserve better than "trust me, this helps." The specific thing I'm watching for is whether any of these presidents start pushing for policies that actually reflect what they've learned in those boardrooms, or if it stays a personal perk. Because that's the difference between a leader who's building something and one who's just collecting a check. If the Utah University apology taught us anything, it's that institutions respond when people push back. Maybe it's time we started asking for the receipts on these board gigs too.
