The California State University system made headlines yesterday when it threatened to cut enrollment by 10,000 students next year if the state didn't front it more money. Chancellor Charles Reed said CSU had to make more cuts to a budget already $215,000 below what it needs, and that it currently serve 10,000 students for whom the state gives no money. But when it comes to top staffers, well, that's a different story. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Reed and his Board of Trustees recently approved salary increases of up to nine percent for nine vice-presidents, and hired 11 more at salaries as high as $225,000.

I'm thinking it's time for a career change to college administration, because these guys have it good. For example, the VP of student affairs at CSU Monterey came on board in February 2007 and less than 18 months later, he gets a $22,500 pay raise, from $117,500 to $140,000. The new vice-chancellor for university relations gets a salary of $240,000, plus another $40,500 to cover brokerage commissions, escrow fees and other costs for selling his home in Sacramento. Wait, is this a state school system or Wall Street these people are working for?

From the pages of the Wall Street Journal this morning (subscription required) comes a new survey that reveals what we've all long suspected. Where you go to college does indeed matter in terms of pay.

Payscale, Inc., an online provider of global compensation data, recently released the findings of a yearlong study in which it surveyed 1.2 million bachelor's degree holders with a minimum of 10 years of work experience. The subjects' alma maters ranged from state schools to the Ivy League. It didn't survey those with advanced degrees, law or business degrees.

The median starting salary for Ivy Leaguers is 32% higher than that of liberal-arts colleges, according to the survey. And that lead grows as a graduate's career progresses. Ten-plus years into their careers, Ivy League graduates earn 34% more than graduates of other schools.

When it come to recruiting and retaining people who are motivated to do well, some companies are getting creative -- really creative. Back in May, we told you about Zappos, an online shoe retailer that pays new trainees a thousand bucks to quit, the idea being that the people who turn down the cash in favor of a job really want to be there.

Today's Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) on another new trend: some employers let workers choose their salary. Those who opt for a higher salary have more limited bonus potential. The idea is to give workers a chance to have more skin game, while providing flexibility to those who need a more reliable stream of income.

One potential problem with this program -- and incentive-based pay in general -- is that earnings can fluctuate wildly based on broader economic conditions over which the individual worker has no control. Opting for a low base salary and higher potential bonus can amount to little more than a big bet on the future direction of the economy.

But that's a criticism of incentive-based pay in general, and one that can perhaps be mitigated by tying pay to relative performance -- an employee whose production falls 5% when the industry as a whole is off 10% should not be penalized. But giving workers greater control over how they are paid is a good idea, and one that should help companies recruit better people.