(06-30-2017 08:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 08:03 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  When student fees + "school funds" dwarf ticket sales + contributions (earmarked by donor to athletics), you are running an athletic department at the expense of academics, it's far bigger than the fan base support justifies it being. Those numbers for some of the schools are really sad, and yes, I know, if USF was on the list, we'd look sad too.

If they are involuntary fees.

IMO, they are sad even if the fees are 'voluntary'. For one thing, even with a vote, many students are forced to pay who don't want to. E.g., let's say that back in 2009, the students voted to pay an athletic fee. Maybe the vote was 60% to 40%, so right off the bat, 40% of students are being forced to pay a fee they don't want to pay. To be truly voluntary, the student should be free to volunteer to pay it if he/she wants, but not be compelled to by the vote of others.

Furthermore, now it's 2017, eight years later, and no vote has ever been held since, so who knows if the current students want it? To be more democratic, the fee should automatically be up for a renewal vote every three years or so, but that doesn't happen. The fee takes on a life of its own, most students may not be even aware of it, it's just rolled in with all the other fees they pay without really knowing why. For another, oftentimes these votes aren't student grassroots efforts, they are promulgated by egoistic administrators, the real driving force behind them, they paint a rosy picture to students about how great the school will be if it has Big Time Football or somesuch, and then nobody is held accountable when that doesn't happen.

It is completely voluntary. If you don't want to pay it, go to school somewhere else

(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can. Not really sure why your being so salty. Lets be honest here---athletics is essentially the marketing department of the university. UH for example has a 1.5 billion dollar budget. The 45 million dollar athletics budget (which is really effectively the schools primary marketing arm) is essentially being subsidized by alumni donations and ticket buyers (26 million in free money from folks that have already left the university). So, who is being subsidized is all in how you look at it. Its really a pretty ingenious way of getting much of your marketing paid for by others---while providing a popular amenity for existing students. The increasing enrollment and grad rates would tend to indicate this form of marketing is working well for UH (at least thus far it is).

(07-03-2017 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can.

First, re enrollment, it could be sheer coincidence. E.g., I saw a report that said Houston's Graduate School of Social Work is one of the fastest growing in the country right now. It would surprise me if many social work grad students made their attendance decision based on Houston's willingness to transfer millions in tuition to athletics each year.

Second, that choice argument seems similar to arguments that redneck companies that wanted to discriminate made 50 years ago, such as "well, we don't serve african-americans but so what, they can always choose to go to a business that does, because there are that do". Wasn't persuasive to the courts. Point is, a university exists for academics. If I'm a student and Houston has a program I think fits best for me but I also dislike my tuition going to Chase The Dream Of Big Time Athletics, I shouldn't have to possibly sacrifice that academic fit to attend a less-fitting university that isn't chasing that dream with my tuition dollars. That's a choice no student should have to make.

Student fees are bad, but at least there is a modicum (not much, but a modicum) of choice involved because usually they are the result of a student vote. Institutional transfers are even worse though because they are made by ambitious administrators without student input.

Racism... Really???

(07-03-2017 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can.

First, re enrollment, it could be sheer coincidence. E.g., I saw a report that said Houston's Graduate School of Social Work is one of the fastest growing in the country right now. It would surprise me if many social work grad students made their attendance decision based on Houston's willingness to transfer millions in tuition to athletics each year.

Second, that choice argument seems similar to arguments that redneck companies that wanted to discriminate made 50 years ago, such as "well, we don't serve african-americans but so what, they can always choose to go to a business that does, because there are that do". Wasn't persuasive to the courts. Point is, a university exists for academics. If I'm a student and Houston has a program I think fits best for me but I also dislike my tuition going to Chase The Dream Of Big Time Athletics, I shouldn't have to possibly sacrifice that academic fit to attend a less-fitting university that isn't chasing that dream with my tuition dollars. That's a choice no student should have to make.

Student fees are bad, but at least there is a modicum (not much, but a modicum) of choice involved because usually they are the result of a student vote. Institutional transfers are even worse though because they are made by ambitious administrators without student input.

C'mon. Racism? Not even in the same ballpark.

There are schools with athletic subsidies and those without. There are schools wth ornate fountains and buildings while some online schools have little brick and mortar at all. There are very highly rated academic schools and diploma mills. Choices abound. Athletics is just a campus amenity---no different than the student life center. Just happens athletics appears to be a popular drawing card for some students.

I don't know if it's the same everywhere, but IMHO the biggest student rip off isn't athletic subsidies---it's books and required homework online modules. These routinely run $150 per class and some can be nearly $300. Frankly, no reason every classs needs to pay $100 bucks for an online homework module. The online homework modules effectively serves the same purpose a $10 paper workbook. If the online module isn't cheaper, then go back to the old paper workbook. As for books, if John Grisham can be paid millions for a book, yet a Grisham hardback can be purchased for less than $30----there is no reason a student should be paying $100+ for a text book written by a guy who was maybe paid a few thousand dollars.

Again, at least with athletic subsidies, a student has a choice. He can pick a school that spends little or nothing at all on athletics. Once a kid is on campus and takes a class---he has to buy the book and homework module required. He basically has NO choice but to pay the confiscatory going rate for the book and accompanying online module required for the class. It's a massive rip off.

(07-03-2017 08:15 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 09:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  A couple of things worth noting---for the most part, the state doesnt pay the budget for state colleges. Those days are long past. The state contributes toward the budget, but they dont pay anywhere near all of it. They pay about a thid of the cost on average these days.

Worse yet, the amount the states pay on a national basis is continuing to decrease, down from a peak of about 60% in 1975. If the current trend line holds, it will reach 0% by 2059. So, honestly, maybe the state shouldn't really have much say anymore. Let the market determine how the money is spent. There are plenty of colleges out there that spend very little or nothing on athletics. If you dont want any of your tuition to support athletics, then go somewhere with no athletics program. Whats wrong with a little freedom of choice? Given that the studet is carrying 2/3rds of the load---why not let the "customer" decide what he/she wants?

So it doesn't really matter if subsidies are coming from student fees or "school funds", as long as more is spent on academics and operations than what the state (taxpayers) actually provides. Nevertheless, I am glad to see the State of Ohio taking an interest in its universities; the challenge for them is going to be not appearing mean and heavy-handed if they start shutting down some sports programs (which would really reverberate throughout the G5). They will also need to determine the monetary values of university PR/marketing via sports and quality of student life when deciding what the cutoffs are going to be - difficult things to calculate.

There is a clear difference between student fees, voted on by students, and money coming out of the general fund with no vote by students (or the legislature for that matter).

Allocating expenses outside of government guidance is always problematic.

The cost of student trainers? Is it an athletic benefit or academic? The student trainers are required to do so much work to graduate and gain certification so the work done is in their minds academic. It provides a resource to athletics without the cost of hiring additional staff so it is athletic.

The school marketing team spends most of its day working on promoting school but will go out to football and shoot some footage to use in a video promoting football on social media. How much do you allocate to football? Do you allocate anything to it?

From a UC perspective: the AD is the bulk of our university's marketing arm. If it needs to be subsidized, so be it.

Hiring managers will only hire new grads from universities they have heard of. $20 million a year is a small price to pay to ensure that a hiring manager in Los Angeles or New York has heard of UC. For EMU or Youngstown State this strategy isn't worth $20 million because they aren't getting much publicity for sports. But it works for UC.

Most college presidents understand this. That's why Huggins was forced out at UC - no matter how many wins he had, he projected a bad image for the university.

(07-03-2017 11:04 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  From a UC perspective: the AD is the bulk of our university's marketing arm. If it needs to be subsidized, so be it.

Hiring managers will only hire new grads from universities they have heard of. $20 million a year is a small price to pay to ensure that a hiring manager in Los Angeles or New York has heard of UC. For EMU or Youngstown State this strategy isn't worth $20 million because they aren't getting much publicity for sports. But it works for UC.

Most college presidents understand this. That's why Huggins was forced out at UC - no matter how many wins he had, he projected a bad image for the university.

Yep. That's why I posted on this topic the schools in Ohio in trouble if this passes are Cleveland State, Wright State and YSU. Those schools athletic department are subsidized at an 80%+ clip. Ridiculous.

So everyone will go to subsidizing out of school funds instead of student fees, that way the state can't intervene.

(07-03-2017 11:31 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  So everyone will go to subsidizing out of school funds instead of student fees, that way the state can't intervene.

Which will work so long as attendance/performance of the teams are good.

When they aren't a college president will decide to pull the plug on a few sports.

What you guys are forgetting is the subsidies remain because the State oversight allows it. The schools feel this is money they can draw and use to raise bit more donations from. That the return rate at most G5 schools is 15-20¢ on the dollar in the best scenarios and less than 2¢ in the more extreme cases (EMU) doesn't matter because that invested money is not coming out of the school's current operational budget but the state funds. When they clash the faculty give a fit.

It is very much a misappropriation of tax payer dollars, and in my opinion of a criminal nature, even if technically legal -- one has to use the Nixonian logic, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal"



*****

I agree on text books. It is an extreme case of the problem with the publishing house cartels. I am giving very serious thought to launching my own company to cater to academic publishing electronically, where the average book will cost $10 or less and the Professors/Authors will get $2-3 per book sale (this compares to less than 50¢ per sale now on those $150 hard cover books). The concept is an online personal library, and it will include book sharing and exchanges. It will follow you for life. The model, even at these low rates we should be very profitable. The concept actually has been in the works since I git pissed a few years ago at purchasing academic journals and books that I want to use for footnote references and found I was dropping $50-300 for two stupid footnote quotes. If some idiot is paying a grant for me fine, but it stifles independent researchers, as they need cash they don't have for these overpriced wonders -- or ridiculous delays waiting for library transfers of rare books.

(07-03-2017 01:11 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It is very much a misappropriation of tax payer dollars, and in my opinion of a criminal nature, even if technically legal

That darn "technical legality".


You're free to whatever opinion you decide to form, regardless if it has a logical basis or not. But you're not free to tout your opinion as if it were law.

(07-03-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can.

First, re enrollment, it could be sheer coincidence. E.g., I saw a report that said Houston's Graduate School of Social Work is one of the fastest growing in the country right now. It would surprise me if many social work grad students made their attendance decision based on Houston's willingness to transfer millions in tuition to athletics each year.

Second, that choice argument seems similar to arguments that redneck companies that wanted to discriminate made 50 years ago, such as "well, we don't serve african-americans but so what, they can always choose to go to a business that does, because there are that do". Wasn't persuasive to the courts. Point is, a university exists for academics. If I'm a student and Houston has a program I think fits best for me but I also dislike my tuition going to Chase The Dream Of Big Time Athletics, I shouldn't have to possibly sacrifice that academic fit to attend a less-fitting university that isn't chasing that dream with my tuition dollars. That's a choice no student should have to make.

Student fees are bad, but at least there is a modicum (not much, but a modicum) of choice involved because usually they are the result of a student vote. Institutional transfers are even worse though because they are made by ambitious administrators without student input.

C'mon. Racism? Not even in the same ballpark.

You missed the analogy, which was spot on, to complain about the form it took?

(07-03-2017 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can.

First, re enrollment, it could be sheer coincidence. E.g., I saw a report that said Houston's Graduate School of Social Work is one of the fastest growing in the country right now. It would surprise me if many social work grad students made their attendance decision based on Houston's willingness to transfer millions in tuition to athletics each year.

Second, that choice argument seems similar to arguments that redneck companies that wanted to discriminate made 50 years ago, such as "well, we don't serve african-americans but so what, they can always choose to go to a business that does, because there are that do". Wasn't persuasive to the courts. Point is, a university exists for academics. If I'm a student and Houston has a program I think fits best for me but I also dislike my tuition going to Chase The Dream Of Big Time Athletics, I shouldn't have to possibly sacrifice that academic fit to attend a less-fitting university that isn't chasing that dream with my tuition dollars. That's a choice no student should have to make.

Student fees are bad, but at least there is a modicum (not much, but a modicum) of choice involved because usually they are the result of a student vote. Institutional transfers are even worse though because they are made by ambitious administrators without student input.

C'mon. Racism? Not even in the same ballpark.

You missed the analogy, which was spot on, to complain about the form it took?

Analogy: A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based...

Student fees subsidizing College Sports / Slavery

(07-03-2017 10:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  There is a clear difference between student fees, voted on by students, and money coming out of the general fund with no vote by students (or the legislature for that matter).

I don't think there's much of a difference. The fees are voted for by the students. Let's say the margin is 55% to 45%. So right off the bat, 45% of students have a fee imposed on them they don't want. Doesn't make it feel any better that it's your fellow students who are holding you up for it.

Also, usually these votes are one-time only things. Students voted for a fee in 2010, but now it's 2017. Virtually none of the students who voted for it are still on campus, but this whole new campus population is paying for the fee anyway. At the least, the fee should be up for a renewal vote every 3 or so years to reaffirm that the current students want it, but that usually never happens.

Bottom line is that at non-power schools, big-time spending on athletics is an administrator and alumni idea, not a student idea.

(07-03-2017 06:13 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can.

First, re enrollment, it could be sheer coincidence. E.g., I saw a report that said Houston's Graduate School of Social Work is one of the fastest growing in the country right now. It would surprise me if many social work grad students made their attendance decision based on Houston's willingness to transfer millions in tuition to athletics each year.

Second, that choice argument seems similar to arguments that redneck companies that wanted to discriminate made 50 years ago, such as "well, we don't serve african-americans but so what, they can always choose to go to a business that does, because there are that do". Wasn't persuasive to the courts. Point is, a university exists for academics. If I'm a student and Houston has a program I think fits best for me but I also dislike my tuition going to Chase The Dream Of Big Time Athletics, I shouldn't have to possibly sacrifice that academic fit to attend a less-fitting university that isn't chasing that dream with my tuition dollars. That's a choice no student should have to make.

Student fees are bad, but at least there is a modicum (not much, but a modicum) of choice involved because usually they are the result of a student vote. Institutional transfers are even worse though because they are made by ambitious administrators without student input.

C'mon. Racism? Not even in the same ballpark.

You missed the analogy, which was spot on, to complain about the form it took?

Analogy: A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based...

Student fees subsidizing College Sports / Slavery

The similarity isn't in the details of the specifics of the analogy (obviously, a business refusing to serve someone because of their race is 1000x more morally reprehensible than a student being forced to pay an athletic fee), but in the nature of the arguments made to support both positions. I assumed that was clear?

But i guess not. So let's face it: The notion that students of university A are paying a fee 'voluntarily' because they could always choose to attend university B instead is just wrong. For starters, it ignores transaction and opportunity costs. Might as well say that your USA payroll tax is voluntary because you could always move to Aruba where they don't have one.

(07-03-2017 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can.

First, re enrollment, it could be sheer coincidence. E.g., I saw a report that said Houston's Graduate School of Social Work is one of the fastest growing in the country right now. It would surprise me if many social work grad students made their attendance decision based on Houston's willingness to transfer millions in tuition to athletics each year.

Second, that choice argument seems similar to arguments that redneck companies that wanted to discriminate made 50 years ago, such as "well, we don't serve african-americans but so what, they can always choose to go to a business that does, because there are that do". Wasn't persuasive to the courts. Point is, a university exists for academics. If I'm a student and Houston has a program I think fits best for me but I also dislike my tuition going to Chase The Dream Of Big Time Athletics, I shouldn't have to possibly sacrifice that academic fit to attend a less-fitting university that isn't chasing that dream with my tuition dollars. That's a choice no student should have to make.

Student fees are bad, but at least there is a modicum (not much, but a modicum) of choice involved because usually they are the result of a student vote. Institutional transfers are even worse though because they are made by ambitious administrators without student input.

C'mon. Racism? Not even in the same ballpark.

You missed the analogy, which was spot on, to complain about the form it took?

Because it wasnt spot on. African Americans were singled out on the basis of race and were flat out denied the right to go to certain schools. That's an entirely different world than economic choice. Economic choice is around you everywhere. Lexus is a better car than a Camry---but more people choose Carmry's because they are cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain. The courts don't require that Toyota remove options from the Lexus to make it into a Camry. Natucket cost more to live on than the Jersey Shore---but there is no court is going to require owners in Nantucket reduce their asking prices so those that want smaller mortgages can buy them. Everyone is required to have a license plate---but you dont have to pay extra for a vanity plate unless you choose to. Its up to you. If you dont want to pay for athletics, go to schools that dont spend a dime on athletics. Your in control.

Look, the states can dictate whatever they want---but in doing so they take away freedom of choice. Personally, I'd like to see a $10K online 4-yr degree backed by a major state supported institution that is a of solid quality, widely accepted as "legit" by the business world, and never even requires the student to step foot on campus until his graduation date. Thats whats needed to handle the highly price sensitive segment of the higher education market. There is no reason that cant be done in todays world where most everyone has access to the internet and computer.

(07-03-2017 06:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can.

First, re enrollment, it could be sheer coincidence. E.g., I saw a report that said Houston's Graduate School of Social Work is one of the fastest growing in the country right now. It would surprise me if many social work grad students made their attendance decision based on Houston's willingness to transfer millions in tuition to athletics each year.

Second, that choice argument seems similar to arguments that redneck companies that wanted to discriminate made 50 years ago, such as "well, we don't serve african-americans but so what, they can always choose to go to a business that does, because there are that do". Wasn't persuasive to the courts. Point is, a university exists for academics. If I'm a student and Houston has a program I think fits best for me but I also dislike my tuition going to Chase The Dream Of Big Time Athletics, I shouldn't have to possibly sacrifice that academic fit to attend a less-fitting university that isn't chasing that dream with my tuition dollars. That's a choice no student should have to make.

Student fees are bad, but at least there is a modicum (not much, but a modicum) of choice involved because usually they are the result of a student vote. Institutional transfers are even worse though because they are made by ambitious administrators without student input.

C'mon. Racism? Not even in the same ballpark.

You missed the analogy, which was spot on, to complain about the form it took?

Because it wasnt spot on. African Americans were singled out on the basis of race and were flat out denied the right to go to certain schools. That's an entirely different world than economic choice. Economic choice is around you everywhere. Lexus is a better car than a Camry---but more people choose Carmry's because they are cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain. The courts don't require that Toyota remove options from the Lexus to make it into a Camry. Natucket cost more to live on than the Jersey Shore---but there is no court is going to require owners in Nantucket reduce their asking prices so those that want smaller mortgages can buy them. Everyone is required to have a license plate---but you dont have to pay extra for a vanity plate unless you choose to. Its up to you. If you dont want to pay for athletics, go to schools that dont spend a dime on athletics. Your in control.

Look, the states can dictate whatever they wont---but in doing so they take away freedom of choice.

First, as my original comment shows, I was talking about discrimination against African Americans by businesses, not universities. Second, I thought it went without saying that a business refusing to serve someone because they are African American is infinitely more morally reprehensible than a school forcing a student to pay an athletic fee. Obvious, and not the point.

But since that analogy proved a distraction, let me just make the point without an analogy: IMO, universities are about academics. Therefore, no student should be in the position of having to choose between paying an athletic fee they find onerous and missing out on the academic program that fits them best. E.g., if I'm a mechanical engineering major, and I determine that University X is the best fit for me in terms of convenience, class scheduling, faculty qualifications, etc., but I also find their president's feverish drive to spend my tuition money trying to dress the school up for Power Football Conference membership repellent, I shouldn't be forced to choose between (a) holding my nose and paying those fees, and (b) instead attending a school Y whose academic programs are a worse fit but doesn't have the same onerous commitment to Big Time athletics.

(07-03-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Just happens athletics appears to be a popular drawing card for some students.

Is it? You can't even get 1/4 of your students to games. If they care so much why arent most of them filling stadiums?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(07-03-2017 08:10 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Just happens athletics appears to be a popular drawing card for some students.

Is it? You can't even get 1/4 of your students to games. If they care so much why arent most of them filling stadiums?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

For some students it is. For some it is not. Just as stone countertops in the dorms is a might be a big deal to some students. While others dont wont go to a school that has no dorms with private baths. Others want a campus with the right "feel". Others are strictly driven by how prestigious a school is within their intended area of study. Others have no idea what they even want to major in. Others have been fans of a certain school's sports teams from the time they were 10 years and old never had a question of what school they intended to attend. Others are driven strictly by price.

Basically, different strokes for different folks.

(07-03-2017 07:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 06:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, re enrollment, it could be sheer coincidence. E.g., I saw a report that said Houston's Graduate School of Social Work is one of the fastest growing in the country right now. It would surprise me if many social work grad students made their attendance decision based on Houston's willingness to transfer millions in tuition to athletics each year.

Second, that choice argument seems similar to arguments that redneck companies that wanted to discriminate made 50 years ago, such as "well, we don't serve african-americans but so what, they can always choose to go to a business that does, because there are that do". Wasn't persuasive to the courts. Point is, a university exists for academics. If I'm a student and Houston has a program I think fits best for me but I also dislike my tuition going to Chase The Dream Of Big Time Athletics, I shouldn't have to possibly sacrifice that academic fit to attend a less-fitting university that isn't chasing that dream with my tuition dollars. That's a choice no student should have to make.

Student fees are bad, but at least there is a modicum (not much, but a modicum) of choice involved because usually they are the result of a student vote. Institutional transfers are even worse though because they are made by ambitious administrators without student input.

C'mon. Racism? Not even in the same ballpark.

You missed the analogy, which was spot on, to complain about the form it took?

Because it wasnt spot on. African Americans were singled out on the basis of race and were flat out denied the right to go to certain schools. That's an entirely different world than economic choice. Economic choice is around you everywhere. Lexus is a better car than a Camry---but more people choose Carmry's because they are cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain. The courts don't require that Toyota remove options from the Lexus to make it into a Camry. Natucket cost more to live on than the Jersey Shore---but there is no court is going to require owners in Nantucket reduce their asking prices so those that want smaller mortgages can buy them. Everyone is required to have a license plate---but you dont have to pay extra for a vanity plate unless you choose to. Its up to you. If you dont want to pay for athletics, go to schools that dont spend a dime on athletics. Your in control.

Look, the states can dictate whatever they wont---but in doing so they take away freedom of choice.

First, as my original comment shows, I was talking about discrimination against African Americans by businesses, not universities. Second, I thought it went without saying that a business refusing to serve someone because they are African American is infinitely more morally reprehensible than a school forcing a student to pay an athletic fee. Obvious, and not the point.

But since that analogy proved a distraction, let me just make the point without an analogy: IMO, universities are about academics. Therefore, no student should be in the position of having to choose between paying an athletic fee they find onerous and missing out on the academic program that fits them best. E.g., if I'm a mechanical engineering major, and I determine that University X is the best fit for me in terms of convenience, class scheduling, faculty qualifications, etc., but I also find their president's feverish drive to spend my tuition money trying to dress the school up for Power Football Conference membership repellent, I shouldn't be forced to choose between (a) holding my nose and paying those fees, and (b) instead attending a school Y whose academic programs are a worse fit but doesn't have the same onerous commitment to Big Time athletics.

We're both USF, so please don't think of this being a douchey, but I don't believe universities are soley about academics. If all you care about is that, get an online degree from somewhere. IMO, college is about learning in all aspects including socially. The world is full of choices and I realize you are not a supporter of USF football. We didn't have football when I went to USF but I sure wish we did. I go to as many games as I can each season and donate money each year to our athletic programs. Football is only 20 years old at USF and hopefully as our alumni base continues to grow more people will donate so there is less need for internal funding. I fully support USF's desire to achieve P5 level athletics.