How unfortunate that my DD was born without the requisite Y chromosome in order to give her a fighting chance at a big time football scholarship.

I blame my DH.

In all seriousness, it is crazy that institutions of (theoretically) higher learning will spend like that on athletic talent, but will basically tell the academic talent pool that they just need to be grateful they can get a seat, and oh, by the way, here's your tuition bill.

That's easy... some numbers from 2010...
Rank ----- School ---------------- Revenue --------- Expenses -------- Profit ------- Profit Margin
1 University of Texas (Football) $93,942,815 * $25,112,331 * $68,830,484 * 73%
2 Univ. of Georgia (Football) $70,838,539 * $18,308,654 * $52,529,885 * 74%
3 Penn State Univ. (Football) $70,208,584 * $19,780,939 * $50,427,645 72%
4 Univ. of Michigan (Football) $63,189,417 * $18,328,233 * $44,861,184 71%
5 Univ. of Florida (Football) $68,715,750 * $24,457,557 * $44,258,193 64%

Unfortunately, academics don't bring in billions of dollars.

From: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Finances/Revenue



Hey, isn't it lovely that the taxpayers and the academic students get to subsidize a billion-dollar industry?

To be fair... University of Alabama offers one of the best deals around to National Merit Finalists. Four years of tuition (in or out state), 1 year of on campus housing, $1,000/year, an iPad, and a $2,000 allowance that can be used for a summer internship. A lot of NMFs from families with limited financial means take them up on it.

I made a profit from one of those schools freshman year.

In fact, I recommend those types of schools because they are free, when the Ivies make you pay to attend them.

Does this moral have a story to go with it?

Exactly.

Undergrad *should* be free.

Because it's really high school.

And just to be clear, I'm only recommending the "free" approach when you want to maximize your GPA for professional schools, such as dental, medical, and law school (although law school is a complete mess at this point).

I don't know whether the same approach is used for Ph.D.'s since my experiences and my DW's family's (free/massively subsidized undergrad) experience consists solely of psychiatrist, dentist, lawyer, etc.

Well, sure, but now we're right back to "the institution's primary mission."

Those profits may drive alumni loyalty/donations, but otherwise, they do little for the academic community on campus-- other than provide more $$ to run the programs associated with the larger Athletic Department. Things that have to be there to satisfy Title ix, but aren't money-makers.

Now, I have no objection to funding the college education of young women who are volleyball or rugby talents and have few other routes to college.

But I have a big problem when a star volleyball player with a 1300 SAT can go for free and a kid just above the local median HHI and SAT 2000 can't go at all.

Personally, I think higher ed ought to shed the pro-sports farm system. But that's me. DH turned down athletic scholarships at two different top-25 schools because the coaching staff were not going to permit him to choose a STEM major. Too much time involved, apparently. And that was 30 years ago-- it certainly isn't better now, and few kids would feel able to walk away from a full ride like that.

Jon, I think the only moral to be drawn from your posts is that some students will not be truly happy anywhere or in any career, so they might as well pick the cheapest option. That is not true for all students, and some parents see it as appropriate to try to help their kids find a fit of schools and careers that WILL make them happy.

One of those schools is Duke, which came with a nice 75% discount for undergrad (merit scholarship) for my BIL, who is quite happy with his outcome.