Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Free tuition at US public Universities?

Collegiate athletics are often justified on the basis of driving alumni loyalty-- and donations.

I simply have to assume that this claim has SOME validity, though it's probably also somewhat dubious, and difficult to really evaluate. ETA: As in Bostonian's example above, for instance-- if one team has an "unexpected" win, guess what? Someone else has had an unexpected LOSS. (Yes, Captain Obvious, but my point is that we in the Pac 12 states are woefully familiar with this particular process, let's just say.) It's a wash, in the end. Other than the improvement in VISIBILITY, I mean.

Social media is probably a far more effective tool, honestly-- but then again, social media didn't exist 20 years ago when all of the new college athletics facilities capital campaigns really got rolling.

It's also true that a big name-brand athletic presence may drive applications. Then again, places without big name athletics seem to do okay there, too. When's the last time that the UChi or Reed went to the Rose Bowl, KWIM?

Agreeing with HowlerKarma and adding the observation that 1.8 points on the SAT seems, well, negligible to me.

Donations are included under Revenue in the NCAA figures.

Most people don't know what a "Reed" is.

I'm pretty sure that when I hear the word "Reed" the emotional resonance I feel is precisely zero.

Granted, educated people can't tell the difference between Penn and Penn State.

Which is really, really funny to me.

This problem is caused the massive origination of credit that has no business existing in the first place. It's actually *very* adaptive, in the Darwinian sense, until suddenly, it isn't.

Law schools just hit the "isn't" point and it sure is fun to watch.

Hmmm.

You know, I haven't heard any rumblings about going after collegiate football programs for the entire brain damage problem that the NFL just got whacked with.

Hmmm.

Need to look into that one.

There is oneof the major issue, the only selection criteria for education at that level should be purely academic and the only sports spending there is any justification for is for degrees that include a sport aspect and facilities to promote general health and fitness for students. At high school there is a reason to provide sport to keep kids engaged but not at a level that detracts from academic excellence.

I've heard the same thing, Dude, and we live nowhere near one another, thus making it highly unlikely that it's the same source.

I also think that administrators and AD's tend to make "alumni giving" = "promoted by nationally competitive men's athletics program" without considering that not ALL alumni giving which is "uncategorized" is actually related to athletics.

That's what I meant about that particular line item. It's very easy to conflate the two things, but unless you choose to compare, for example... alumni giving at Stanford and UChi, you're not comparing apples to apples there.

That Penn State digression made me curious to see what the profit as a percent of revenue was overall, and when you subtract total subsidies and total expenses from total revenues, you're looking at a loss of 27%.

Only 7 schools had a positive return of 10% or more.

At the other end of the spectrum is Missouri-Kansas City, where expenses already exceed revenues even before you factor out the subsidies. Throw out those revenues, and you're looking at a loss of $10.3M, which actually exceeds revenues ($9.3M). So the taxpayers/students/fans in Missouri are living the old sports saw, "We're giving a hundred and ten (point six-two) percent!"

Okay, this is completely insane. Millions for the coaches, nothing (including classes, apparently) for the players except maybe permanent brain injuries, and it mostly seems to run at a loss. And then we have to have big honking hikes in tuition every year while we hire more and more adjuncts who lack job security and benefits (but they're cheap). I can't help but wonder if some of that tuition money is going to sports. All this at places of higher learning.

Just when you think you've hit rock bottom in the pit of American educational badness, your pick goes through the floor and you discover an entirely new set of caverns to explore.

I just came on line and read the whole thread. It went all over the map, from college tuition, to whether to push trades, to Penn State child molestation and the effect on athletic cash flow.

I think the trade thing is interesting. In planning to buy a house, I have been watching renovation shows and this guy up here, Mike Holmes has this big foundation to push kids going into trades. 30 years ago, people wanted their kids to go to college instead of becoming a plumber. But then you ended up with all these liberal arts degrees in the new millenium without good job prospects. I met a number of young people who, after getting a liberal arts degree -- and in debt, were now going for an Associates in Xray technology or something practical, that could have been had without the 4 years of expensive college prep. I think it is more about parental attitude.