She's not really the highest paid. Most of it was a 10 year grant that finally vested. If you amortize the money over the 10 years, she's not paid more than other presidents. If anything having the pay as a retention package was probably smart and a better deal for the university.
The Chronicle of Higher Ed has a more detailed story
<a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Behind-RPIs-Highly-Paid/150441/" rel="nofollow">http://chronicle.com/article/Behind-RPIs-Highly-Paid/150441/</a><p>Of interest:<p><i>"Most of the former top-level administrators at RPI who spoke with The Chronicle would do so only on the condition of anonymity, saying they still feared retaliation from Ms. Jackson because of her broad influence not only in higher education but also in politics and business. "</i>
Looking at the underlying app/data from the Chronicle, it's surprising to me that the presidents of Stanford, Harvard, and CalTech receive comparatively low pay (under $1M): <a href="http://chronicle.com/factfile/private-ec-2014#id=13995_243744" rel="nofollow">http://chronicle.com/factfile/private-ec-2014#id=13995_24374...</a>
I'm more impressed that she makes <i>almost</i> as much as the highest paid NCAA coach[1].<p>[1] <a href="http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/" rel="nofollow">http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/</a>
It doesn't say what she's done for the college, other than she's been "fantastic". I suppose she's brought in a lot of money from fund raising and contacts she has.<p>I wonder if she's liked by the faculty and students? Boards will often overlook a lot if the president brings home the bacon.