(07-07-2017 07:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 04:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 04:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  False todge -- by definition.

Students ALWAYS have a choice in tuition: that's literally the decision of choosing that school or not. If the school raises tuition too high, students go elsewhere.

there are many factors that play into where a student ends up going to school so your simplistic argument about "having a choice" is just that simplistic

students could be 2 or three years into a degree program only offered at the one school in their area when the ADMINISTRATION makes the decision to increase academic side transfers to athletics

there is no real "choice" for that student to uproot themselves and move to an area/school that offers that same degree program, that will take their transfer credits and that will have the same cost of living

a student could be set on a particular degree only offered at a couple of schools in the state and perhaps because one school being in a much more desirable place to live their program fills up faster and is more difficult to get into

so the "choice" of what school to attend for that degree program is several limited for that student

a student might have to live at home to save money so their "choice" is limited

a student might have a family, career, very good job as they work their way through school and thus their "choice" to up and move to a school that limits academic transfers is not there for them

so again only a simpleton sees it as "choose to go elsewhere if you are not happy with the administration of a school making a unilateral decision to increase academic transfers"

and taking that (very weak) side of an argument is all the worse in the case of an administration that has already admitted that their academic side transfers are not long term sustainable

it is not as you pretend where there are many readily available other options that offer the same degrees, admission requirements, same cost of living, same places to live (like with family), career choices ect for working/adult students to choose from especially in a particular area or even state and that all a student has to do is drive 12 miles to the east to school B that spends less on athletics instead of 12 miles to the west to school A that spends more on athletics

There is FAR more choice in the college you attend, the degree you pursue, and the price you pay than in most other areas of life. If your property taxes rise, your choice is to pay up or sell.

Bottom line----The school is going to pay "X" for marketing. The school is going to pay "X" for student amenities. My guess is that most of any funds you save by eliminating athletics and the university subsidy would simply be absorbed into marketing and student amenities. The cost of attendance would likely remain basically the same.

If you really want to do something that would significantly affect the cost of higher education, address the runaway cost of books and online homework modules. Those can combine to add $200-300 a class to the cost of attendance. For a student carrying a full load, it could be as much as $1500 for jsut books and modules.

The online homework modules can be replaced by a $10 workbook or the online services can get price competitive with that alternative. There is no reason for a the typical textbook to cost $100-$200 in an age where they can be loaded electronically onto a device pad or computer. If the state of Texas would simply standardize the base textbook for required courses (like government, history, etc) the state could offer a better quality education across all its state supported universities and eliminate one of the biggest student rip offs in higher education.

Actually if you want to control higher ed costs you change the financial model. Old model for state schools was a fairly generous appropriation from the state so tuition could be kept low and try to attract students since the state funding tended to be tied to enrollment. Now the model is to fund students more via scholarships, grants, and loans. The theory being that would force schools to compete for students to get the money. But it made many families price insensitive and the competition became over housing, rec centers, student union buildings, internet access, and amenities rather than price or quality of education.

The fix
Change the funding model. Create an index of test scores and GPA that shows a reasonable probability of academic success. Say something very similar to the NCAA initial eligibility standards level. Everyone at that level has a scholarship. That scholarship is X dollars with regional adjustments Houston a bit more than Lubbock and a bit less than San Francisco just like the Federal government does with its pay scale.

But here is the catch.
If a school accepts the scholarship it has to accept it as 100% payment of tuition, mandatory fees (parking fee is optional, a fee for all nursing students is mandatory) AND books, software etc. A school can still charge to park on campus, charge for housing and charge for meals without it being covered.

If the school accepts the scholarship for any qualified student it has to accept it for all qualified students.

A school doesn't have to accept the scholarship. They can offer their own scholarships and loans will still be out there.
Schools with massive endowments opting out of the plan will be forced to use more of the proceeds for scholarships. Schools lacking large endowments and unable to match the set price for their region will be in serious trouble.
The college publishing industry will be disrupted first.