(07-21-2019 08:57 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote: (07-21-2019 02:23 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote: (07-18-2019 12:19 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote: FIU has 54k students, USM has 12k students. Of course we will have more in student athletic pot than y'all. If every program charged student the same, we would still collect more overall for student fees.
A better gauge is the burden on individual students, like this thread on Schools Athletic Fees.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-861596.html
FIU is $16.10 per credit hour
UAB is $25 football specific per semester + the athletic fees
UTSA is $20 per credit hour
ODU is $48.20 per credit hour
UNT is $16.25 per credit hour
Y'all can fill in the rest but from this I see UNT & FIU being the least burdensome to each student.
not really a meaningful comparison
in the case of north Texas state and UTSA the academic side support outside of student fees still comes off the backs of students because state funds cannot be used so the only other available money is just general tuition
so in the case of north Texas state from that graph "institutional/government support" is $10 million just like the student fees = $10 million so you can double that student burden to $32.50
in the case of UTSA "institutional/government support" is $5 million vs $12 million for student fees to add another 41% to theirs or $28 dollars
because that is not "government support" it is just strait tuition transfers or "institutional" support
True, but you also need to do that for all the others as well. Take USM for instance.
Budget of about $24M, but 25% student fees and 11% institutional support. Your algorithm counts both as student support so that is 36% of $24M = $8.64M. USM has 14,554 students so around $25 dollars. If USM budget is more than $24M then the true student fee per student is higher and much closer to what you calculated for UTSA.
$25 to $28 to $32 seems meaningful. Throw in cost of living where these schools reside and the $25 is probably more significant and burdensome than the $32 of Denton.
1. I used those two examples because I am familiar with the laws in Texas that prevent any state funds from being used in athletics thus the only possible source of other institutional funds is student tuition which means that money is off the backs of students
in some states they do allow state funds for athletics so that money might not come off of the backs of students exclusively, it comes off of all tax payers.....and some would say if the money was not going to athletics it would go to academics, but that is not necessarily true because the state might allocate zero additional academic dollars if there is not some athletic project to support (or they could allocate the money for academics, but no way of knowing that)
2. your cost of living comparison is meaningless because students at universities are not usually from that immediate area unless it is a very small regional school
and students at those universities generally do not reflect the economics of that immediate area (again unless it is a very small regional school or a community college)
so the idea that a cost of living difference between two areas somehow makes up for a larger or smaller tuition burden on students from athletics is quite the stretch
plus you most likely have any effect exactly backwards.....a higher COST OF LIVING means just that....IT COST MORE TO LIVE THERE and that does not always mean you have higher wages to support that cost of living especially in a college town where pay (especially for college student jobs) can be depressed because of an abundance of labor
so having a higher cost of athletics on your tuition in an area with a higher COST OF LIVING (which is not the same as a higher income level at all) means that the increased tuition burden from athletics hits you harder because you are already paying MORE to live in an area
if you were to include INCOME LEVEL in that analysis that might help, but again that is making the often false assumption that students drawn in from all areas of a state and region are at the same income level as the place where they decided to go to school.....because some might not be working at all and many will reflect much more of their own personal and family income level which would have nothing to do with an income level in the place where they go to school