Harvard newspaper doesn't want a 4th sorority

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[Drolefille]

[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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

[QUOTE=Drolefille;2030349]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Because budgets aren't the same thing as the reality.

So I was showing the reality matches the budgets, almost to the dollar.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.