(05-27-2018 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (05-26-2018 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (05-26-2018 03:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: By the way, next time someone brings up how unfair it is that kids have to subsidize athletics (in other words, they dont like paying to to subsidize the kids on athletic scholarship), keep in mind that every kid paying the full cost is subsidizing those who are not paying the full cost of tuition. If your going to get rid of athletics, get rid of this too.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-studen...1389324456
The article almost gets it right, but what is actually happening is that the schools are just engaging in price discrimination, charging those who can afford to pay more. But the "more" isn't subsidizing the "less". The money goes in to one big pot, the university.
If anything, price discrimination - charging the rich and middle class more - just means the school has more money to pay for more bloated administrative bureaucracy, and athletics. The poorer kids aren't getting that money.
What? If they are paying less, thats same as giving them the money to help pay for their college. Im sure the middle class kids taking out loans would love to get the lower price.
Not always. E.g., let's say i buy an airline ticket three months in advance for $400. Then, the day before the flight, another passenger buys the same class of ticket i bought, but for $800, because the airline knows he's desperate so jacks up the price as the flight approaches. Is his $800 subsidizing my $400 ticket? Of course not, it couldn't, because the airline couldn't know that this customer would even materialize to buy it. The airline would be happy to fly me for $400 in any event, as that covers the cost of transporting me plus a profit. The extra $400 it gets from the last second buyer is pure extra cream.
Plus, there's a big difference between the type of PD that schools use for tuition, versus athletics subsidies. The former relies on information asymmetry - the school has the rich person's financial information, so makes an offer based on (a) their perceived ability to pay, and (b) the rich family's lack of information that others are getting their kids in for less. But if the rich family finds out about (b) and objects, the school will usually bargain down the price.
IOW, that tuition price is negotiable. In contrast, the athletic fees for subsidies are usually blanket and mandatory.
Finally, some subsidies, even if they are mandatory, are justifiable, whereas others aren't. E.g., perhaps it's the case that all students in a high-revenue college, like Business, subsidize facilities in lower-revenue department like European History or Romance Languages. That's justifiable, because Romance Languages is a valid part of the academic mission of a university and so should be maintained. Plus, it actually helps the Business student, because without departments like Arts and Humanities, they wouldn't be attending a "university", rather they would be attending a stand-alone business trade school, and their Business degree has more prestige and value when it is issued by a "university".
Intercollegiate** Athletics isn't, so there isn't the same moral justification for it.
** The same isn't true for on-campus intramural athletics, which is justifiable in a Platonic sense.
/
EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
