Did he seem honest? Did he seem to care about the not-for-profit mission? Did the employees respect him? Or did he seem like a sleazy used car salesman?

If Anant were a highly-skilled, qualified executive acting in the interests of edX, I might have no problem with a high salary. Did Anant seem like that to you?

Did the teaching-and-learning on edX advance or regress since the MITx days? The focus on equity? The technology platform?

Did edX lead to major research breakthroughs? Did it impact the developing world?

And for that matter, how many URMs worked there? Were there leaders who had any knowledge of how less affluent people lived or who to build a platform for them?

Part of the reason lower compensation packages make sense is that people who care about initiatives like edX usually don't do it for the money. Paying Anant a megabuck a year exactly selected for the type of executive who worked his butt off to maximizes quarterly bonuses, rather than mission or long-term.

MIT and Harvard's top asset is in brand equity. Did you feel like the $800M -- let's call it $400M each -- which will in effect add 1% to Harvard's endowment and 2% to MIT's -- is worth the reputation hit?