Related to Ivy thread-- but on a cost-benefit angle, so I didn't want to just add it to that one.


CCAP/Forbes has announced their list of top colleges.

Forbes 2014 Top Colleges (US)



This aspect of college expense drivers, though, was NOT something I've often seen coverage of in the national press:

Sacrificing College Quality on the Alter {sic} of Athletic Spending

(And---oooooooooo-- editorial staff at Forbes... alter =/= 'altar' for whatever that is worth, but I digress. It is an interesting error from a philosophical stance, since I think that most colleges are pretty wedded to the notion that athletic spending drives alumni donors, but CHANGE certainly isn't in the direction of reductions in program spending, at any rate.)

This is what faculty have said for a long time at academic institutions; that the athletic department mission and that of the institution as a whole are often worlds apart, and can only be adequately described as "operating at cross-purposes" much of the time. This is borne out by evaluations of student athlete GPA, majors, and graduation rates, etc.

Some interesting data on that subject:

College Athletics finances and subsidies

So if you sort that table in order of lowest to highest SUBSIDY, only a handful of programs actually have a zero subsidy from the general fund or student fees.

Interestingly, there are some big Division I programs that have VERY low subsidies, though-- and some Div II schools that have large ones.

If the subsidy is calculated as (expenditures - revenues), where revenues include ticket and jersey sales, and television rights, something important is being left out -- the value of athletic success for marketing the college. See The Flutie Effect: How Athletic Success Boosts College Applications. Am I the only one who knows nothing about "Gonzaga" except that it has had some basketball success? Mention "Alabama", and I think football, and I am less interested in sports than most men.

Academics have generally resisted efforts to measure how much students are learning in a way that can be compared across schools. So if they don't like the emphasis on amenities, sports, and post-college earnings, they have partly themselves to blame. College is usually discussed by policymakers as an investment good, since it's tough to justify subsidizing fun. In reality, it is both investment and consumption.

I'm less interested in sports than Bostonian, and I somewhat agree.

College possess famous trademarks with value that is present in their *trademark* intellectual property (through the Lanham Act, etc.) because of sports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

Their commercial fame is related to sports as well as academics.

These are dual purpose entities with a truly commercial arm.

*Notice of Attorney Advertising/Professional Experience: This post was brought to you by an intellectual property attorney with experience in providing trademark advice to academic institutions. Call now for a free consultation! As seen on TV!*

Driving admissions and name recognition, however, is a far cry from driving success at the primary mission of an academic institution.

The study cited by Forbes indicated that the temporary spike in alumni donations is: a) just that, temporary at best, and b) diverted TO the athletic department immediately in any event, probably driving (in terms of the big picture) opportunity cost trade-offs like NOT investing in research centers in order to fully fund new sports facilities.

It's admittedly quite a complex thing, and I should also add that I have not read that research (referenced by the writer of the Forbes piece).

I know plenty about Gonzaga, fwiw. But this may be a regional thing.

Googling "Gonzaga", the first link is to the school's web site, and the second is to the ESPN site for its men's basketball team.
So I'm not alone in equating Gonzaga with basketball.

That's kind of the goal of the commercial arm of the institutions.

I don't know what a Gonzaga is or where it is, but I know that it's always in that basketball office gambling thingy that happens in March every year.

It's a muppet.

No. I know my Muppets. You're thinking of Gonzo. I love Gonzo.

I know about Gonzo but have no idea about Gonzaga. Is there a vaccine for Gonzaga?

Sticker shock may result in lifetime immunity, from what I have heard.

And, interestingly, many higher ed institutions are actually scrambling to get students to attend football games-- attendance is down. Perhaps the students are starting to see where their interests lie.

The cost of health insurance is a significant factor in the expense of higher ed-- I don't think that's usually talked about, but I think it matters.

For public unis, the recent years of plunging state funding is a big factor.

Guessed but didn't realise that this stuff went on...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2014/07/30/the-invisible-force-behind-college-admissions/