Going to D-1 didn't effect admissions for ULM. Going from D-2 to D-1 actually DECREASED attendance significantly at home games (which were almost non-existent in the early years after the change. We were actually National Champions as D-2 but never have a winning season as D-1. That doesn't bring in students. It does, however, bring in money. LSU paid us a lot of money to lose to them at home this year. A group of sorority sisters and I went to the game, but we all rooted for LSU. (Hey, we've all been lifelong LSU fans, and ULM has done everything in their power to kill off any alumni support of their football program.) The only exciting thing about the football program in recent years was the surprise win over Bama three or four years ago in Saban's first year.

Nope, no automatic merit scholarships - and because of the UT/A&M auto-admit program for top 10% (or 8 - they may have changed it) of public school grads more and more quality students are going OUT of state. You would not believe the number of Katy senior women going to Auburn, Bama, LSU and OK schools - if you look at the Katy Panhellenic records you can pinpoint when the 10% rule came into effect because of the jump in out of state students.

When I was applying, the Top 10% rule applied to all publics, not just UT and A+M. Did that change?

Just to stir the pot, I'll add that Harvard allows single-sex organizations not only in the athletic arena, but also for singing/musical theater groups. The rationale is the same as with athletics: a biological, physical difference between men and women that relates directly to the activity at hand. In practical terms, certain activities -- ice hockey, singing high-voice repertoire -- can't work unless the group is single-sex.

Discuss.
________
WHITE WIDOW SEEDS

Georgetown says the same thing, yet the school also allows Knights of Columbus.

I’m pretty sure some of them might be baritones. ;)

Our school had a male only acapella group. I don't know enough about the school's policies to be able to say whether they skirted the rules or followed them specifically. The question may come down to, "Are they student organizations or are they teams." And since the acapella group competed, they may have been able to abide by different rules. Just a guess though.

ETA: There's an anti-discrimination clause (and a "must have a Jesuit mission clause") but in the same section they use an example of a men's club sports team without any sort of explanation for why the exception would be made. I'm tempted to email the VP of Student Life just to ask. Throw my totally worthless alumna weight around or something. :p

The Crimson mentions meeting spaces / social spaces acquired by fraternities and sororities in the following article:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...es-sigma-rush/

Excerpt:

“. . . Greek leaders . . . [said] that the purchase of spaces by fraternities and sororities may have contributed to increased interest.

Sigma Chi has had a house on Arrow Street for ten years and Sigma Alpha Epsilon recently purchased an apartment on Harvard Street, according to the fraternities’ respective presidents.

Delta Gamma said on its Facebook page that it acquired an apartment last year and a member of Kappa Kappa Gamma said that the group is in the process of purchasing its own space.

Phillip J. Morris ’12, president of SAE, said that it was possible that the club’s recent acquisition of a social space contributed to the increase in rush numbers this year.

Morris also attributed the increase in rush numbers to the collaborative efforts of both fraternities and sororities to expand the Greek presence on campus.”
. . .

Comment or question: are apartment and house prices in the areas around the Square still high-to-breathtakingly high? Or have the Great Recession and burst housing bubble created greater affordability?

It does apply to all of them. However the vast majority of those who are able to get admitted that way want to go to UT and A&M. So there are a much smaller number of spots available at those schools for freshmen to be admitted under other criteria.

@ the bold - Yea, I know that. I was just confused by her wording. Thanks.

The nature of a (non-profit, public) college budget is that projections have to match up to the dollar - I'm sure you'll understand why, if you consider the accounting issues for a bit.

Obviously they won't at the end of the year (although it will be close) - last year, I believe the final #s put a couple hundred grand back into the general fund, but I don't have a source readily available (just what I recall from the last time I used this example).

Yeah I know, that's the intended budget, my point is that those are indeed estimates - the budget, not the financial reports for years past.

It's pretty common for people to assume it just applies to UT and A&M since those are the only schools that are really negatively affected by it.

OK - well, here are the actuals for '08 (pg 10) and estimated for '09 (pg 42) showing an operating profit (latest of each I can find). I think you underestimate the accountability required of a public institution's projections here, but hey.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2009_comp_fiscal_rpt.pdf
http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2010_f...udget_narr.pdf

Hopefully that's soup-to-nuts enough?

Ok, you're overestimating exactly how much I was emphasizing that point. It was an aside at best. Yay they're making a profit, that's nice for them, but it doesn't really matter to me as my position is based on principle more than profit.

And why would you think that I didn't think such reports existed? I'm well aware of reporting requirements for public institutions.

Your hand-waving of the initial data (which was intended only to show that the scale is in the hundreds of millions, which I think most people don't understand) and statement of disbelief of the numbers given is why I posted - I know you're smart enough to know this stuff exists, but you literally said "I don't believe ..." etc.

Your larger point, though, is that no amount of money is worth emphasizing money over principle? That seems ... awkward at best, since we can show that money furthers the ability to seek the things that colleges are designed to seek. Should schools stop (largely student-driven and uncompensated) research that lead to lucrative patents, as that isn't learning in its purest form? Aren't we ignoring the "life-learning" realities of modern colleges (who seek to take an active role in every part of student life) when we limit the type of education/profit connection to only the type of thing that happens in a classroom?

And what about the fact that football gives a very real educational opportunity to students who would otherwise not qualify for college at all?

Whether or not Title IX should apply to football programs in the way the statute is currently applied was our starting point, but I find it narrow-sighted to ignore the vast positives of major-college athletics while looking at the exceptionally small portion of actual students that are affected by the "seedy" parts of major-college football. We're literally talking 125 students out of 30,000.

Yes. I'm sure they've dropped somewhat, but there was never a "bubble" in the sense that the cost didn't have a rational relationship to supply and demand. There are always tons of new people wanting to live in Harvard Square, many of whom have a lot of disposable income, and a very limited number of spaces in a low-rise area defined by its walkability. Then, too, the university and groups like final clubs own a lot of the property. The upshot is that the number of spaces on the open market is always far too low to accommodate all the interest, so prices will stay very high unless there's some kind of radical change in the character of the neighborhood (giant upsurge in crime rates or something). The national housing/credit market has almost nothing to do with it.

A nice 2-bed-2-bath half a mile from the T station went for $400k or more in the year 2000. I haven't looked them up lately, but...the prospect of getting an apartment big enough for the membership to squeeze into is daunting. And an undergrad social space really needs to be closer to the T station than that. Each of the final club houses is a multimillion-dollar property, and nobody even lives there. The real estate situation is much, much more relaxed at Yale.

Well, the realness of the education that football players receive varies from school to school. Some major programs have abysmal graduation rates despite giving the players Mickey Mouse courses. It's not much of a gift in exchange for the millions of dollars the players generate for the schools. And if we're giving credit to the schools for opening their doors to poor and underserved students due to athletic talent, I'd rather see the generosity go to high schoolers who prepared themselves for college by studying hard. IMHO, people near the NCAA minimums generally are not ready for a four-year college.
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS

[QUOTE=KSig RC;2030339]Your hand-waving of the initial data (which was intended only to show that the scale is in the hundreds of millions, which I think most people don't understand) and statement of disbelief of the numbers given is why I posted - I know you're smart enough to know this stuff exists, but you literally said "I don't believe ..." etc.[quote] Because budgets aren't the same thing as the reality.

I really don't see television deals as comparable to research, internships or out-of-the-classroom learning. The latter are for the primary purpose of learning, the former are for the money. See the difference?

Hey, it's awesome, until you consider graduation rates aren't necessarily so hot and athletics are prioritized over scholarship even at non-D1 schools. How many people are we actually helping, and how many students are actually graduating with degrees and job skills rather than lost hopes at NFL/NBA/MLB stardom. I don't know that there's an answer.

I don't think I ignored the positives of college athletics, I've mentioned several times that they're important, and that they should exist, just not, in my opinion, in their current form. It is the prioritization of those 125 students OVER the 30,000 for the sake of the all mighty hand-egg that brings in the dough that bothers me.

[QUOTE=Drolefille;2030349]So I was showing the reality matches the budgets, almost to the dollar.

I really don't, to be honest. Should the school stop selling sweatshirts and keeping the profit? That's primarily for money, too.

Money is an enabler for so many things - it's why we pay students to hustle you for donations, even though you're only a few years out of school. Hell, some might even say that football is the easiest money the school makes, since it only requires 125 kids and associated staff for a massive amount of money.

That's fair - I guess it's 'glass half full' on some level, even if only 50% graduate, this still happens. It's not a primary benefit, but it is a benefit, and I agree that it comes with other attendant issues.

I see what you're saying, but students are prioritized differently all the time - I got to register first and got preferential housing, for instance, due to the program I entered through.

The skill set of those 125 is obviously very valuable, and the ROI on that prioritization/scholarship money is absurd. Much higher than on a lawyer or doctor on average, and much higher than a moe like me.

Shouldn't be about ROI, should be about the benefit of the students, not the benefit of the school.

As I said, it's about the principle. For me.

ETA: And no, selling sweatshirts is not comparable. Find something comparable, then compare it, and ask me, and we'll discuss it.

ROI does equal benefit. Tangible, delicious, dollar-value benefit.

Well, if you believe some of the guys on here, NPC rush definitely stems from the bolded. ;)

On another note, I didn't know that the NCAA hates directional names. Maybe that's why all the schools in Missouri are changing and screwing me up so I don't know where the heck our chapters are.

Not necessarily.

Directional names
 

I don't know that the NCAA "hates" them - I think athletic departments and some administrators believe that directional names indicate Podunk U.

I will try again to find the actual numbers, but in the case of my alma mater I believe the fact that the athletic department is NOT talking about all the money football is bringing in for US points to the fact that like the vast majority of programs, it is not self-sustaining or profitible. Yes, you can point to programs that make money hand over fist; you just can't say it is true of most of them.

I am not indulging in hyperbole when I say the Strutters are probably more profitible than the football team. You wouldn't believe what those alumnae give!

As to Texas' top 10 admission rule - yes, I'm aware it applies to all public schools, but as pointed out earlier, it is UT and A & M admissions which it has most affected.

Sorry, I'm just catching the end of this conversation. Hope you don't mind if I interject.

Don't remember where I saw the article, but TxState is funding the football program I think 9mil and change next year. That's a big jump and will go up again as they start WAC play.

The program for sure loses a ton of money. It is baseline funded at nearly the same rate as many years ago. The additional money comes from a fee assessment on students (they voted for it) to support the move to FBS.

I read an article (don't know if I could find it again) right after UT signed their new TV deal explaining that something like fewer than 50 programs in the country make a profit. Only a handful make enough to fund all other sports, and maybe half a dozen made enough to return any support to other university needs. Programs that make money tend to be a regional draw that would not support an NFL team, but serve the same market. Places like Austin, Alabama, Ohio State, etc.

In terms of enrollment vs money. TxState endured budget cuts by massively increasing enrollment. The trend in the economic downturn has been from 1st tier (UT/A&M) to cheaper 2nd tier (TxState) schools. They've massively increased enrollment from something like 12k to 32k in a decade. That money has sustained them. But they're supposed to be capped at 30k (so as not to compete with 1st tiers, and because they city wants more road money based on enrollment), so now they're talking about reducing enrollment while facing a 10% budget cut. And, because of the rapid enrollment increase, they're heavily overcrowded and under staffed. So, no matter what, it's going to hurt.

Which may or may not be true. I don't think it's hurt the University of Southern California.

I think it's ridiculous. One of the points made whilst trying to convince the alumni of Southwest Texas State University that changing the name to Texas State University would bring about Happy Pony Rainbow Land in San Marcos was that we didn't have a chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, and so many of the universities with chapters did not have directional names. :confused:

I'm pretty sure that it's not the name standing in our way. Nor is it our lack of a Division One sports program. Yep, I'd stake money on that, and I am not a woman who gambles.

The NCAA really does dislike directional names. USC is different because it's an elite school and a private school. No one knows where Northeast Louisiana University is, but you can figure out where University of Louisiana at Monroe is without going to Google. People also would get confused and wonder if they were watching Northeastern University. The alums of that prestigious university would not be amused. If every state has a Northeast and a Southwestern State University, you can see where the confusion comes in. It's a lot easier to have a gazillion University of (insert state) at (insert city).

USC isn't a directional school in this sense since it's private (and also apparently sits upon a bottomless pot of money!)

Very true, though it unquestionably has a directional name, which is what I was really getting at -- the directional name isn't in and of itself a problem for the school. (And I bet lots of people don't know it's private.)

Whatever the NCAA thinks, I've never been convinced that the University of State at Whatevercity is an inherently better name than, say, Eastwestern State University. The former may tell you where the school is without having to consult Google or the Wiki, but it also heightens confusion with and maybe even dilutes the cachet of the other Universities of State at Whatevercities.

If there is any cachet in the name. University of Louisiana has no cachet, so naming every school in the system that name doesn't dilute anything. It pisses off all the alums that like the name of their school, but makes the sports powers that be happy. The LSU system is completely separate from the University of Louisiana system, so our one flagship school is safe from dilution except for the little known feeder schools LSU-A, LSU-S and LSU-E (but that's always been their names.) Anyway, the name change for many of these schools is not for prestige. It certainly wasn't for ULM. It was to fit the criteria for the NCAA so that more big name schools would pay us to come in for an easy win. We essentially wanted to make money using our student athletes. There was no intention of building a top notch football program or establishing a credible name in sports.


P.S. I don't disagree with you, MC. I'm just arguing the point from the side that is actually running the show. My school's alums lost this battle two years after I graduated. I'm just glad my diploma says NLU. There were rumors that it would change to ULM before we graduated, and I would have been highly pissed off!!

I'm glad Illinois hasn't taken the route of stripping directional names. It may be because the UofI (at UC/C/S and maybe soon Peoria) is its own system and so you can't change Eastern Illinois University to U of I Charleston. Additionally there's already an Illinois State U and there are two Southerns. We're too screwed up to change it now.

/not really screwed up

Right. Hence my "maybe." It all highlights that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work.

As a contrast to the University of Lousiana, there are people in North Carolina who still haven't gotten over the University of North Carolina becoming the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with six other Universities of NC at ____, and all but two of those changes happened over 40 years ago -- almost 50 years ago in the case of UNC-Chapel Hill and UNC-Greensboro, which before the 1963 change was the Woman's College of the University of North Carolina. But almost 50 years later, "UNC" by itself still means "UNC-CH" -- a designation one never hears in everyday conversation.

I'm not suggesting that other institutions have "cheapened" the UNC name (though others do say that), but I do think that potential, as well as the potential loss of distinctive identies, can be risks of losing directional or other names in favor of the University of State at Whatevercity.

I don't know about the NCAA, but from dealing in college admissions for a hot minute, the directional schools (with the exception of USC because it's private and has a storied history) indicate a second-tier status. I find myself guilty of it as well--UF: flagship! UCF: safety school. (I know it's totally not the case anymore, but I grew up in Florida during a time when UCF was NEVER anyone's first choice. It was UF, FSU, or out-of-state.) Let's not forget about USF, UNF, UWF.

There's a book--I think it's Snobbery by Joseph Epstein that discusses the curse of the directional school (with USC as the rare exception).

SWT was a member of the Texas State University system before it switched. I think there would be a firestorm if the rest of the universities in that system followed TxState's lead.

I find it weird that, with all the directional back-and-forth, University of Houston and University of North Texas seem to be thriving. UH was bumped up to Tier 1 status recently (joining UT, A+M, and Rice), and UNT is trying to move itself up as well.

Most Texans don't even know that Texas State has two campuses - Texas State - San Marcos and Texas State - Round Rock.

Count me as one of those Texans. How long has the RR campus been around?

I stand corrected - apparently all the yelling worked and it is now not being called TX State - Round Rock (which was what they were calling it about 2 yrs. ago) but the "Round Rock Higher Education Center - Texas State - San Marcos". Note that it is still "TX State - San Marcos".

It's all silly.

Interesting.

UTA has a similar setup with its Fort Worth campuses.

I wish the systems would focus more on getting more of our schools to Tier 1 status than worrying about "OMG THE NAME IS PODUNK"

Does every school have to be Tier 1, though?

We might have different definitions of what it means to be "Tier 1," so our mileages may vary, but when I think of top-tier schools in large states like Texas, I think of UT-Austin and A&M-College Station (or, in California, the UC system). Those schools have basically every major you can think of, and are major research universities. As a result, their admissions standards are very stringent.

Not every college has to be a Tier 1 Research University, or even Tier 1 in terms of US News's rankings. Especially in terms of public education in a state that's trying to keep its students in-state after graduation, a mix is best--some schools should focus specifically on the education of undergraduates with maybe a few Masters programs thrown in. Some schools should focus on commuters and non-traditional students. In fact, that very emphasis on undergraduate education and/or non-traditional students can preclude a university from ranking "high" on a national list.