361–370 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but they are in the wrong business, then. it is a sports business - what does it have to do with academia?
What it has to do with academia is that it provides lots of funds that can be spent on teachers and classrooms.
[1] http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alabama pays Nick Saban almost $7M/year. At first blush that seems outrageous. Then we find out that Alabama pulls in nearly $100M/year from football [0]. While not every school is so lucky, most (if not all) that are spending 7 figures on a coach are getting that money back and then some. [0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2016/02/24/the-unive...
Yes, but they are in the wrong business, then. it is a sports business - what does it have to do with academia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If humanities are so valuable, why aren't they valuable?
You're right, they're not valuable in the capitalistic sense. They're valuable if you don't want to live in the world depicted in Brazil (1985), or Neuromancer, or pretty much any cyberpunk dystopia.
For context, I give 8% of my humble income to charities that feed the hungry and care for the sick. Is my dollar better spent funding a play that few will ever wish to see?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alabama pays Nick Saban almost $7M/year. At first blush that seems outrageous. Then we find out that Alabama pulls in nearly $100M/year from football [0]. While not every school is so lucky, most (if not all) that are spending 7 figures on a coach are getting that money back and then some. [0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2016/02/24/the-unive...
Yes, but they are in the wrong business, then. it is a sports business - what does it have to do with academia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alabama pays Nick Saban almost $7M/year. At first blush that seems outrageous. Then we find out that Alabama pulls in nearly $100M/year from football [0]. While not every school is so lucky, most (if not all) that are spending 7 figures on a coach are getting that money back and then some. [0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2016/02/24/the-unive...
Yes, but they are in the wrong business, then. it is a sports business - what does it have to do with academia?
Collegiate sports teams are effectively the same as student tutors, student RAs, student librarians, or any other school-sponsored jobs that hire students. One could argue that they're even superior at schools like Alabama because they provide even more money to be used on scholarships.
Alabama could take away their football program, but they would 1) take away scholarship money from the 30-50 low-income scholarship athletes, 2) take away money that could be reinvested into buildings, facilities, teachers, or academic scholarships, and 3) reduce alumni donations (because unhappy alumni don't donate), which further reduces the funds available to the school.
It's one thing if a school has sports programs that aren't a net gain for the university. But for the schools where it is, any talk of them removing the funding is absurdly ignorant.
This is another example of the law of unintended consequences. While the idea of helping people become more educated is obviously beneficial to both individuals and the society as a whole, government loans - which are supposed to "help" - are a huge factor fueling ever-raising costs. The loans, in effect, subsidize the higher-education complex, rather than students. Many of us have been brainwashed to think that high…
Alabama pays Nick Saban almost $7M/year. At first blush that seems outrageous. Then we find out that Alabama pulls in nearly $100M/year from football [0]. While not every school is so lucky, most (if not all) that are spending 7 figures on a coach are getting that money back and then some. [0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2016/02/24/the-unive...
UoA made significantly more money than any other college team (some of which lose money). So using them as an example of why college sports is a net gain rather than a net loss is extremely (and purposely) misleading.
Plus even UoA spent $47 million on arena expansion in 2006 and then $65.6 million on further arena expansion in 2010. So it isn't like the football program doesn't have debt it has to repay the school (and incidentally many arenas are never funded from the programs that they house).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What it has to do with academia is that it provides lots of funds that can be spent on teachers and classrooms.
If they provide "lots of funds", why does it still cost $42K/year[1], then? [1] http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but they are in the wrong business, then. it is a sports business - what does it have to do with academia?
It also provides low-income youth an opportunity to get a college degree, and incentivizes kids from low-income communities to stay off the streets and focus on something productive (like sports). Collegiate sports teams are effectively the same as student tutors, student RAs, student librarians, or any other school-sponsored jobs that hire students. One could argue that they're even superior at schools like Alabama…
Collegiate sports teams are not like other school-sponsored jobs. Student librarians cannot make millions of dollars if they plied their librarian skills on the open market. At least some college football players could. Student librarians don't face high risk of physical injury, disability, or long term health effects as part of their job. College football players do.
Pulling in 100m in revenue to supply 50 scholarships doesn't seem like the right tag line.
Also see below, most college sports revenue does not get pushed back into general academics.
Most alumni donations are to the university's athletic association - that's because those donations comes with the perks that alumni want - seats, being wined and dine, shaking the coach's hand, etc.
Talk of removing funding is absurd because its a system that's been this way for a long time - of course it would seem absurb to change it.
Is this news? The global elites harvest young people for profit just as they do older people with subprime mortgages, etc. Sorry for sounding cynical, but that is just the way I think the world works.
While not news, figures like this: In the past 12 years, we have added a trillion dollars to that amount and gained about 4% in the overall college graduation rate. are important to publish sometimes. I don't think many people realize the scope of modern student debt, which has obvious (?) negative implications for the national economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a system where you revoke the degree for lack of payment would just create a system where revoked degrees would be equally valuable, since everyone would know they were the same, except for some bank being ripped off.
But you wouldn't be able to distinguish between "revoked degree" and "lied about a degree" so you would assume the latter.