(02-15-2017 10:46 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 07:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 12:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 11:35 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Tail wagging the dog. It's not football that attracts students to the U of Illinois. It's the fact that it is the school that gets the most resources from the state and can thus offer the most variety of subjects to major in. C'mon, most of the marketing is being done at the HS level with guidance counselors trying to funnel kids to school and showing the chart where you earn X amount of dollars based on Y level of education. Once again, for the vast majority of students, you are going to the larger state funded schools because of your parental income (middle class), your grade/test entrance exams (good to great, not brilliant) and your desire for the most diverse choices for majors. So let's get this straight. You are a HS student living in the state of Illinois, and you "discover" that the U. of Illinois exists because they play football in the B1G? Nevermind the fact that U of I has been mediocre at best for the majority of it's time in the B1G - just the fact they play in a "big boy conference" has gotten there name out to people who never thought to go there before??? You can't be serious. These land grant schools are making most of their enrollment decisions on in state students. Most of these schools are equivalent from state to state. Cookie cutter institutions. You go to the one that best fits your budget and course offering variety. "Big State U" will have the variety of majors and the economy of scale to have the resources you need to do well. Plus it will have the right cost - instate tuition break for the local student.

If CFB completely goes away tomorrow - the school rankings in the USNews, the name recognition for instate students and the fact these schools have resources based on research contracts and state funding will not change.

I'm serious as a heart attack. By the time a kid even enters middle school---long before he even has a clue what he wants to be when he grows up--he has heard the names of hundreds of schools thousands of times. Not once has he heard those names with any connection to academics. He has heard them in connection with sports. Hell---many kids already know where they want to go to school before they select thier major. They became fans of the schools sports teams long before they knew what a "major" was. There's a reason schools spend money and fight to stay in FBS.

More than half of college applicants have no idea what they want to major in. So half the kids deciding on a college aren't looking for the best astrophysics department. They are picking thier school based on some other appeal---probably just the one they "like" best.

You are correct, many kids are getting inundated with college names thru athletics. However, Ohio State killing it on the gridiron is not attracting Connecticut students. Alabama isn't attracting the best and brightest from the nation because of their trophies. Most of us are choosing which university to attend based on price, scope of degree offerings and geography. In fact, I didn't emphasize the geography point enough. A number of states have more than one prominent university, and I would contend that the students you described above are choosing the closest one that fits the bill for offering a wide variety of choices. Most of the P5 and G5 schools are commodity schools. An undergrad degree in English, mathematics, economics will basically be the same.

Your contention is that sports is the difference maker. It's not. It's a combination of price, quality and geography. Conference affiliation plays no role.

Alabama is the fastest growing flagship university in the nation. It aint due to the astrophysics department. There are mulitple reasons that football makes a difference. There are some kids who wont even consider a school that doesn't play major football. There are others who equate FBS football programs with prestige or being a "major" university. There are reasons that only one school has dropped from the FBS ranks over the lastvious reasons. quarter century.

Why would a taxpayer in Alabama want the school's enrollment to increase? What is the benefit?

Remember a student at a state university on average, pays only about 1/3 of the total cost of their education. It is probably a lot less when you consider the cost to build new classrooms etc. Who pays the rest? Taxpayers and donors.

Naturally school administrators want enrollment to increase for obvious reasons. Job security, ratings etc. No doubt winning football does increase donations, but a lot of that goes to athletics..

When my daughter was entering college, the State of Texas offered something called Tuition Equalization Grants to any student that would attend one of the private schools in the state in lieu of attending a State school. My daughter went to a private school and collected several thousand dollars in TEG grants.

Why did the State do this? Because of the cost to build new classrooms, housing etc. Plus the fact that the State pays a portion for the cost of each student's education.

So the argument that football increases enrollment at Alabama is correct........ BUT that does not mean it is a positive thing or is desirable for all concerned. Because is is not.

Sorry about that. I must have missed your response. I think the overall general answer is the legislature believes a highly educated workforce is the key to a successful economic future for the state.

One of the things the state legislature is concerned about is "brain drain". Bright kids who leave the state for college have a good chance of never returning. This brain drain is something the legislature wants to avoid (which is one reason the legislature is trying to develop more Tier One state supported higher education options outside of Texas and A&M).

That said, the reality is the state school system is receiving a lower and lower percentage of tuition support from the state. That's not limited to Texas---its a national trend. This year, due to lower oil prices and reduced tax revenues, all the state supported higher education options are facing budget cuts in the current legislative 2-year state budget session.

Long story short, the state's portion of tuition support for higher education students is dropping---not increasing---and has been for years.

On a side note---One area of savings for students attending school that I never see addressed is books. Ive got two kids in college and I know there are text books that are over $300 dollars for some courses (one accounting text was over that amount for example---many many text books are well over $100). It would not cost the state a dime to reform this aspect of higher education. If I can buy a printed hardback John Grisham book for $25, then no text book should cost much more than that (since we are not paying John Grisham millions to write it). Statewide standardization of text books for "basic" courses like history, government, English should be part of the reform. The same could be done for many courses in education, business, engineering, etc. Going to a digital books system on a common platform would reduce costs even further. I just think that's a place where simple state regulations could SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the actual costs of higher education for state students and it wouldn't cost the state a dime.