(03-09-2020 01:29 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ....bury those fees in fine print or on websites because they know they are morally wrong. They are soaking regular students to pay for athletes, and money losing athletic programs that stroke admin and high-roller alumni egos.

Doesn't an athletic program act as advertising for a University? I would venture to guess that a successful athletic program actually draws in students....i.e. that schools enrollment numbers increase directly because of the athletic program. So those fees could be considered nothing more than additional advertising money.

Statistically at State Universities a student's tuition and fees pay for approximately 1/3 of the cost of their education. The taxpayers (and donors) pay the remaining 2/3.

There have been reports that for the last 5 years, over 50% of graduates can not get a job in their chosen field of study. There is not much demand for Social Justice majors, etc.

So is increasing enrollment per se really a good thing for taxpayers?

(03-18-2020 11:00 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Bear Bryant's 1957 salary is $161k in current dollars. So a very comfortable living, but not rich. Hard to say a 50-60x increase in real dollars isn't a huge increase.

I didn't say it wasn't a huge increase - it was. But that wasn't the issue, it was getting paid relative to other top university personnel.

Yes, Dabo and Saban are getting paid 50x more than Bear was 60 years ago. But revenues have risen to justify that.

What isn't justified is G5 coaches paying their coaches 15x more than Bear got for negative ROI.

Just checked on USC Upstate's current tuition versus that fee ... the sports fee represents about 10% of the total tuition cost. Which is preposterous.

(03-18-2020 11:16 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:29 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ....bury those fees in fine print or on websites because they know they are morally wrong. They are soaking regular students to pay for athletes, and money losing athletic programs that stroke admin and high-roller alumni egos.

Doesn't an athletic program act as advertising for a University? I would venture to guess that a successful athletic program actually draws in students....i.e. that schools enrollment numbers increase directly because of the athletic program. So those fees could be considered nothing more than additional advertising money.

Statistically at State Universities a student's tuition and fees pay for approximately 1/3 of the cost of their education. The taxpayers (and donors) pay the remaining 2/3.

There have been reports that for the last 5 years, over 50% of graduates can not get a job in their chosen field of study. There is not much demand for Social Justice majors, etc.

So is increasing enrollment per se really a good thing for taxpayers?

Link? Everything I've read indicates tuition and fees are covering 60% to 70% of costs at state universities and the 1/3rd covered by tuition and fees hasn't been the case in several decades.

That would be useful information with the state budget sessions coming up here.

(03-18-2020 03:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 11:16 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:29 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ....bury those fees in fine print or on websites because they know they are morally wrong. They are soaking regular students to pay for athletes, and money losing athletic programs that stroke admin and high-roller alumni egos.

Doesn't an athletic program act as advertising for a University? I would venture to guess that a successful athletic program actually draws in students....i.e. that schools enrollment numbers increase directly because of the athletic program. So those fees could be considered nothing more than additional advertising money.

Statistically at State Universities a student's tuition and fees pay for approximately 1/3 of the cost of their education. The taxpayers (and donors) pay the remaining 2/3.

There have been reports that for the last 5 years, over 50% of graduates can not get a job in their chosen field of study. There is not much demand for Social Justice majors, etc.

So is increasing enrollment per se really a good thing for taxpayers?

Link? Everything I've read indicates tuition and fees are covering 60% to 70% of costs at state universities and the 1/3rd covered by tuition and fees hasn't been the case in several decades.

That would be useful information with the state budget sessions coming up here.

No, I do not have a link. Do you have a link for every thing you have read?

(03-19-2020 10:38 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 03:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 11:16 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:29 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ....bury those fees in fine print or on websites because they know they are morally wrong. They are soaking regular students to pay for athletes, and money losing athletic programs that stroke admin and high-roller alumni egos.

Doesn't an athletic program act as advertising for a University? I would venture to guess that a successful athletic program actually draws in students....i.e. that schools enrollment numbers increase directly because of the athletic program. So those fees could be considered nothing more than additional advertising money.

Statistically at State Universities a student's tuition and fees pay for approximately 1/3 of the cost of their education. The taxpayers (and donors) pay the remaining 2/3.

There have been reports that for the last 5 years, over 50% of graduates can not get a job in their chosen field of study. There is not much demand for Social Justice majors, etc.

So is increasing enrollment per se really a good thing for taxpayers?

Link? Everything I've read indicates tuition and fees are covering 60% to 70% of costs at state universities and the 1/3rd covered by tuition and fees hasn't been the case in several decades.

That would be useful information with the state budget sessions coming up here.

No, I do not have a link. Do you have a link for every thing you have read?

Have an iced beverage and chill out.

(03-20-2020 08:57 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 10:38 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 03:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 11:16 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:29 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Doesn't an athletic program act as advertising for a University? I would venture to guess that a successful athletic program actually draws in students....i.e. that schools enrollment numbers increase directly because of the athletic program. So those fees could be considered nothing more than additional advertising money.

Statistically at State Universities a student's tuition and fees pay for approximately 1/3 of the cost of their education. The taxpayers (and donors) pay the remaining 2/3.

There have been reports that for the last 5 years, over 50% of graduates can not get a job in their chosen field of study. There is not much demand for Social Justice majors, etc.

So is increasing enrollment per se really a good thing for taxpayers?

Link? Everything I've read indicates tuition and fees are covering 60% to 70% of costs at state universities and the 1/3rd covered by tuition and fees hasn't been the case in several decades.

That would be useful information with the state budget sessions coming up here.

No, I do not have a link. Do you have a link for every thing you have read?

Have an iced beverage and chill out.

I do not need one. Thanks any way.

(03-18-2020 11:16 AM)texoma Wrote:  Statistically at State Universities a student's tuition and fees pay for approximately 1/3 of the cost of their education. The taxpayers (and donors) pay the remaining 2/3.

That is an old statistic, and very much obsolete. PEW research from 2017 has the state and federal share of total University funding at about 34%, which is just about the reverse of that statistic ... on average 16% federal, 18% state, but obviously as a national average, that covers a wide range of variation.

(03-21-2020 08:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 11:16 AM)texoma Wrote:  Statistically at State Universities a student's tuition and fees pay for approximately 1/3 of the cost of their education. The taxpayers (and donors) pay the remaining 2/3.

That is an old statistic, and very much obsolete. PEW research from 2017 has the state and federal share of total University funding at about 34%, which is just about the reverse of that statistic ... on average 16% federal, 18% state, but obviously as a national average, that covers a wide range of variation.

Yes, for the past 20-30 years, one of the key trends in academia has been for state governments to cut funding for their state colleges, meaning that schools have to generate more revenue themselves via donations and tuition.

This has happened just about everywhere, not just in conservative states with tax-cut mentalities. Reasons include yes, a desire for lower taxes, but also the "crowding out" of money due to rising state spending on health care and pension promises made to state workers.

The result is that while circa 1990, taxpayers were directly funding about 2/3 of a state school student's education, it's now flipped and is more like 1/3, or even less. Of course this varies from state to state, for example, in Louisiana, it is down to around 20%.

Students at NDSU provide around 50% of the total revenue for the university, but that doesn't mean the state picks up the other 50%. The way I'm reading the budget, the State of ND only provides about 20% of the operating budget. The remaining 30% comes from other sources. However I do have to note that 25% of the revenue is just listed as "other" in the budget I'm reading. It's possible some of that is from the state.

The state does also pay for some capital projects every biennium, but even that has changed dramatically. Prior to the 70s, those projects were almost 100% paid by the state. During the 80s, we saw the first big project where the state paid less than half. By the 2000s, more buildings were built or renovated using private money than public. Today, it's extremely difficult to get a big project through, no matter the need. (This is only true for NDSU; other ND universities have a much easier time getting money.)

(03-21-2020 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-21-2020 08:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 11:16 AM)texoma Wrote:  Statistically at State Universities a student's tuition and fees pay for approximately 1/3 of the cost of their education. The taxpayers (and donors) pay the remaining 2/3.

That is an old statistic, and very much obsolete. PEW research from 2017 has the state and federal share of total University funding at about 34%, which is just about the reverse of that statistic ... on average 16% federal, 18% state, but obviously as a national average, that covers a wide range of variation.

Yes, for the past 20-30 years, one of the key trends in academia has been for state governments to cut funding for their state colleges, meaning that schools have to generate more revenue themselves via donations and tuition.

This has happened just about everywhere, not just in conservative states with tax-cut mentalities. Reasons include yes, a desire for lower taxes, but also the "crowding out" of money due to rising state spending on health care and pension promises made to state workers.

The result is that while circa 1990, taxpayers were directly funding about 2/3 of a state school student's education, it's now flipped and is more like 1/3, or even less. Of course this varies from state to state, for example, in Louisiana, it is down to around 20%.

Also differs by institution. States are reserving limited resources for universities that act as economic generators STEM and graduating in state residents.

For this reason some of the more liberal arts oriented publics are down to 10% funding from the state.

(03-09-2020 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Schools like JM bury those fees in fine print or on websites because they know they are morally wrong. They are soaking regular students to pay for athletes, and money losing athletic programs that stroke admin and high-roller alumni egos.

Heck, Miami of Ohio squandered huge money buying its own tickets so it could report to the NCAA that it was reaching "attendance" targets for FBS. That is embarrassing and beyond the pale. Here's some rare candor from the article:

"Because Miami does not average 15,000 in actual attendance, Miami uses a portion of the student fee" to buy football tickets, said Claire Wagner, a spokesperson for the school.

Good Lord, good article.

I'm not going to read through this entire thread, but VA schools are actually more honest about how much students are paying towards athletics. Other schools wrap their subsidies into tuition and other methods. Except for a handful of top schools, they all do it. Thinking otherwise is being naive.

(03-23-2020 11:38 AM)2Buck Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Schools like JM bury those fees in fine print or on websites because they know they are morally wrong. They are soaking regular students to pay for athletes, and money losing athletic programs that stroke admin and high-roller alumni egos.

Heck, Miami of Ohio squandered huge money buying its own tickets so it could report to the NCAA that it was reaching "attendance" targets for FBS. That is embarrassing and beyond the pale. Here's some rare candor from the article:

"Because Miami does not average 15,000 in actual attendance, Miami uses a portion of the student fee" to buy football tickets, said Claire Wagner, a spokesperson for the school.

Good Lord, good article.

I'm not going to read through this entire thread, but VA schools are actually more honest about how much students are paying towards athletics. Other schools wrap their subsidies into tuition and other methods. Except for a handful of top schools, they all do it. Thinking otherwise is being naive.

I agree with that. It's like USF with football attendance - because we don't own our stadium, the organization that does, the Tampa Sports Authority, can report the Brutal Truth about how many people actually attend our games, whereas at schools that have their own stadiums they can fudge a lot more.

(03-23-2020 11:38 AM)2Buck Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Schools like JM bury those fees in fine print or on websites because they know they are morally wrong. They are soaking regular students to pay for athletes, and money losing athletic programs that stroke admin and high-roller alumni egos.

Heck, Miami of Ohio squandered huge money buying its own tickets so it could report to the NCAA that it was reaching "attendance" targets for FBS. That is embarrassing and beyond the pale. Here's some rare candor from the article:

"Because Miami does not average 15,000 in actual attendance, Miami uses a portion of the student fee" to buy football tickets, said Claire Wagner, a spokesperson for the school.

Good Lord, good article.

I'm not going to read through this entire thread, but VA schools are actually more honest about how much students are paying towards athletics. Other schools wrap their subsidies into tuition and other methods. Except for a handful of top schools, they all do it. Thinking otherwise is being naive.

Yep.

Another example is our band.

One of the largest and most well thought of in the country. Won numerous awards. Routinely asked to march in Macy’s thanksgiving parade.

It has reached that status because our university music department is also well reknown nationally.

Jmu spends in excess of. $1million a year on expenses for the band.

Guess where that cost is charged? You got it. Athletics. With the student fee allocated to support it.

How many other schools have $1m in marching band expense wrapped inside a “student athletic” fee?

(03-22-2020 12:54 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-21-2020 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-21-2020 08:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-18-2020 11:16 AM)texoma Wrote:  Statistically at State Universities a student's tuition and fees pay for approximately 1/3 of the cost of their education. The taxpayers (and donors) pay the remaining 2/3.

That is an old statistic, and very much obsolete. PEW research from 2017 has the state and federal share of total University funding at about 34%, which is just about the reverse of that statistic ... on average 16% federal, 18% state, but obviously as a national average, that covers a wide range of variation.

Yes, for the past 20-30 years, one of the key trends in academia has been for state governments to cut funding for their state colleges, meaning that schools have to generate more revenue themselves via donations and tuition.

This has happened just about everywhere, not just in conservative states with tax-cut mentalities. Reasons include yes, a desire for lower taxes, but also the "crowding out" of money due to rising state spending on health care and pension promises made to state workers.

The result is that while circa 1990, taxpayers were directly funding about 2/3 of a state school student's education, it's now flipped and is more like 1/3, or even less. Of course this varies from state to state, for example, in Louisiana, it is down to around 20%.

Also differs by institution. States are reserving limited resources for universities that act as economic generators STEM and graduating in state residents.

For this reason some of the more liberal arts oriented publics are down to 10% funding from the state.

https://tuition.utexas.edu/learn-more/so...of-revenue
Texas has gone from 47% in 1984-5 to 11% state funding last year. The Available University Fund has remained steady at 12% (Income of the Permanent University Fund endowment). Tuition and fees have gone from 5% to 22%. Research grants have gone from 33% to 46%.

(03-25-2020 05:47 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  Yep.

Another example is our band.

One of the largest and most well thought of in the country. Won numerous awards. Routinely asked to march in Macy’s thanksgiving parade.

It has reached that status because our university music department is also well reknown nationally.

Jmu spends in excess of. $1million a year on expenses for the band.

Guess where that cost is charged? You got it. Athletics. With the student fee allocated to support it.

How many other schools have $1m in marching band expense wrapped inside a “student athletic” fee?

The rub here isn't the prevalence but more that tuition has exploded in cost in the past several decades -- soaring into places where it's now not hard to find 4-year degree paths at most universities and some entire universities have negative returns on investment. If you were to ask the students I think you'd find they'd kindly appreciate the alumni or an endowment cover those costs given the financial backdrop they're working in. But as you mention everybody does it. So it's like trying to find a cable TV company that doesn't suck. Good luck: they're all on the same page pretty much.

(03-26-2020 09:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 05:47 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  Yep.

Another example is our band.

One of the largest and most well thought of in the country. Won numerous awards. Routinely asked to march in Macy’s thanksgiving parade.

It has reached that status because our university music department is also well reknown nationally.

Jmu spends in excess of. $1million a year on expenses for the band.

Guess where that cost is charged? You got it. Athletics. With the student fee allocated to support it.

How many other schools have $1m in marching band expense wrapped inside a “student athletic” fee?

The rub here isn't the prevalence but more that tuition has exploded in cost in the past several decades -- soaring into places where it's now not hard to find 4-year degree paths at most universities and some entire universities have negative returns on investment. If you were to ask the students I think you'd find they'd kindly appreciate the alumni or an endowment cover those costs given the financial backdrop they're working in. But as you mention everybody does it. So it's like trying to find a cable TV company that doesn't suck. Good luck: they're all on the same page pretty much.

When I went to Texas, instate tuition and fees were just over $400 a year. They tripled in 1985 and have continued to go up since. Next year it will be $11,042.