Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Education - Public vs PrivateFollow

#152 Feb 15 2012 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Sure. But do you see how simply saying "let's nationalize our education system" doesn't do that?


Yet the countries with better education all have national education subsidies, with education requirements being determined and paid for at the provincial/state/district level. Id say that the facts show it does do that, but you aren't one for facts, so I won't.


idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It's obviously also important to note that we would specifically be placing education in the federal government's hands for the sake of equality. We aren't talking about a Chinese structure, we are specifically talking about one in which a major goal is providing an equal and quality education to every child.



Which is it? I'm responding to what idiggory is advocating. That's what I'm labeling "nationalizing the education system". I'm not sure how pointing out that other countries which don't use that model do better than the US somehow constitutes a counter to my disagreement with the "let's put it all in the federal government's hand" argument? I mean, doesn't rdm's statement better counter idiggory's than mine?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#153 Feb 15 2012 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
it just seems incredibly unfair that we get so little help and the student athletes get so much.
Make the school more money. I was with you on high school, you lost me when you moved on to secondary.


If we were talking about a private institution, that would be fair. But public shouldn't be for profit. Imo, at least. And the advantages they get are pretty absurd.

Rutgers, for example, has a separate tutoring program for athletes. The tutors make $25+ an hour (don't remember the exact figure, but I think it's $30). None of that comes out of the athletes' pockets. Normal tutors are minimum wage, usually tutor 2-3+ students at a time, and aren't subject to the same level of quality controls as for the athletes'.

My school is a public university and the perks for athletes shouldn't be that huge. I don't mind certain things--for instance, the fact that there's a separate clinic for athletes, so they don't need to fight for an appointment at the normal one. It exists, in theory, for sports therapy, but they are just as fully stocked on everything else as the normal one. Still, though, they are more likely to be injured, so I don't mind.

Having established rules that allow them to (within reason) move around tests or waive attendance requirements on those days? Fine--they can't control their sports schedule and are under contract to attend. Irritates me that the same is never extended to any other working person, but I'll ignore that as you can go through the hassle of getting Dean's approval (though good luck getting that before add/drop period is over).

But having systems in place specifically to ensure that they pass their classes, where everyone else is left to fail? That's not okay.


I'm not so sure about that specific example you provided. You have to keep in mind that student athletes have an obligation to the school practice and train for very long hours. Coaches pressure them to devote time to sports, and not academics. That makes it more difficult to find time to study, and to study well.

It's also time that they can't be working a part time job for cash, something that other students might be able to easily manage. Or, if they still tack on a job, there's even less precious time for academics.

Separate tutoring seems within the realm of reason to me, with that in mind. I highly doubt that many of them are surpassing their classmates regardless, if they're remotely like the student athletes that I'm familiar with.

Now, that's just that example. I tend to side against athlete benefits in most issues that come up (particularly with the notion of paying them).


This is exactly what my problem is, though. It's a one-sided argument. I know plenty of people working 30-50 hours a week who are still in school for a full time schedule. They don't have access to any superior tutoring sessions, but they have to work that hard because they don't have an athletics scholarship or other way to pay for school.

And plenty of other students are heavily involved in organizations in capacities that take a significant time commitment. Especially if they do work for one of the many volunteer organizations.

Time spent doesn't warrant superior tutoring, imo. Plenty of students invest just as much time and energy into other activities that athletes spend in sports. And many of them have better revenues for the school than the standard sports teams do. Those involved in our orchestra, or other Mason Gross Arts pursuits, for instance. They sell quite a few tickets, and I'm sure they bring more money in than volleyball does. And preparation for performances takes 4-7 hours of work a day in rehearsal. They don't get better tutoring to help offset that.

It's a double standard and I don't agree with it. Only football and Basketball really bring in funding for the school. And all the students central to that have scholarships or contracts with the coaches. It shouldn't be a standard that athletes, in general, receive superior services*.

*Another example, there are athletics-exclusive dining halls that serve much higher quality food than the standard ones. The best meal plans average out to like $12 a swipe. It's not okay to pay that much and still have that kind of distinction.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#154 Feb 15 2012 at 6:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that funding is often separated based on departments. So while one portion of the Art department might earn some money, the Athletics department as a whole earns a hell of a lot more. Now, I don't necessarily agree that this should confer special benefits to athletes directly, but at the end of the day, that's more of an internal decision for a school to make and they ought to have the freedom to make it. If the school decides that they are better off economically by attracting good players to their Athletics programs by providing benefits, then they should be able to choose to do so if they want.

You're free to attend a school with different focuses if you want. No one's forcing you to go. Which I think kinda dovetails back into the earlier question of choice. The issues with inequities of spending at the College level are less problematic exactly because every student has a choice of which college to attend. This is not as much the case with K-12 education in the US, so spending choices have a more direct and unavoidable consequence for the students.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#155 Feb 15 2012 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
Your argument would apply if these sercives were management by the athletic department. But the athletics department doesn't cut a check to dining services or the tutoring department.

And if the athletics were paying for themselves, it would be another thing. But they aren't.

Here is the sources of revenue for Rutgers NB. We get 37.2% of our funds directly from tuition and fees paid by students. 19.5% comes from the state, with another 19.8% from federal grants.

Students are currently paying for all housing, dining, and auxiliary services (it's a 1:1 ratio). That means MY tuition dollars are (well, were) being used to provide the athletics students superior dining options--the athletics department doesn't pay for it.

Instruction and support services are, together, (4.7+29.8=) 34.5%. Student services brings that to 38%.

Currently, our sports programs are taking in more than they are putting out, and it is <5% of our overall budget. Yet these students get superior treatment from many unrelated services that the sports program does not pay for.

That's what I have an issue with. If the athletics department was self sufficiently paying for these services, I'd have no issue with it. But as of right now, they aren't self sufficient and yet their students are getting special treatment that I have to pay for.

I'm find paying for tutoring, despite never having had to take advantage of it. I'm not okay with our tutoring departments arbitrarily selecting one group of students for vastly superior treatment when many others are just as in need of help, if not far more.

That's my problem. Athletics isn't getting special treatment because it is providing other students with additional funding for their services. It's getting special treatment while simultaneously running the largest deficit it has had in years.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#156 Feb 15 2012 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Then write an angry letter to the Dean and explain to him that the reason you are no longer attending Rutgers (and paying tuition) is because of this practice. Vote with your dollars. No one's forcing you to attend that school.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Feb 15 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
You're right, I could drop out and waste four years of investment (because it's absolutely true that no other school is going to accept that I've finished all of my general reqs. and the reqs. for both my majors). But that's just stupid. I shouldn't have to boycott my education because I don't agree with how the school is spending money.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#158 Feb 15 2012 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

You're right, I could drop out and waste four years of investment (because it's absolutely true that no other school is going to accept that I've finished all of my general reqs. and the reqs. for both my majors). But that's just stupid. I shouldn't have to boycott my education because I don't agree with how the school is spending money.


No, you shouldn't. You should have gone to a better school that didn't place as much stock in athletics. Princeton is quite adequate for some areas of study and nearby. Transfer there?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#159 Feb 16 2012 at 3:47 AM Rating: Good
Princeton is an Ivy League school... Nothing against Digg, but Rutgers has nowhere near the exclusivity that Princeton does. Not to mention how much more expensive tuition is there as well.

It's easy to suggest that someone go to a university that doesn't give athletes such an unfair edge, but from what I've seen, these particular schools are usually good schools for their cost. In Oregon, UO is one of the best (if not THE best) public liberal arts school. If I wanted to go to a school that didn't have such a strong focus on athletics, but still provided a good education, I'd probably have to go to Reed or another private school, which would charge close to twice as much in tuition. Oregon just doesn't have that many options when it comes to good public schools.

And seriously, I don't want to hear people go "What about teh jocks!?" because they don't have time to get a part time job. They don't @#%^ing need to get one. They get their tuition covered, their room and board covered, and probably a lot of their personal expenses and other school supplies costs covered as well. They don't need more money.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#160 Feb 16 2012 at 8:29 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
How does the school's athletic program affect you as a student in any meaningful way? Very little, if any, of that money comes from the general budget, but rather is generated from the revenue from the program itself. Is it just the idea that "wahh, these guys get a free ride because they play football"? I go to a university with fairly well-off basketball and football programs and I don't give two sh*ts what happens with the athletes. Even supposing they get a degree they don't really deserve, it doesn't change my life any.

Boohoo, it's unfair. Suck it up and focus on your own life. Quit this immature bullsh*t where you have to rail on somebody for being better off than you.
#161 Feb 16 2012 at 10:11 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Athletic scholarships are a good way for kids from poorer backgrounds to get into University, though. Which is nice.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#162 Feb 16 2012 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Athletic scholarships are a good way for kids from poorer backgrounds to get into University, though. Which is nice.
I agree, but in the grand scheme of it all, that's such a small number it's more of an added bonus than an arguing point.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#163 Feb 16 2012 at 10:27 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Quote:
How does the school's athletic program affect you as a student in any meaningful way?


I believe they are under the false impression that their tuition is going towards athletics programs instead of their education. Which is a pretty hard thing to prove either way. However I can say with some certainty that those athletic programs do a pretty fine job of paying for themselves, having been to many college games at The Big House (UoM) it only holds 110K, and with tickets being about 100 bucks a piece well, you can do the math on that one.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#164 Feb 16 2012 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
How does the school's athletic program affect you as a student in any meaningful way?


I believe they are under the false impression that their tuition is going towards athletics programs instead of their education. Which is a pretty hard thing to prove either way. However I can say with some certainty that those athletic programs do a pretty fine job of paying for themselves, having been to many college games at The Big House (UoM) it only holds 110K, and with tickets being about 100 bucks a piece well, you can do the math on that one.


I go to a public institution, and our budget is easily available. It's not hard to prove at all--it's an established fact that our athletics program is draining far more funds than it is bringing in. Rutgers' athletics department has a deficit of $27 million. Individual sports might make money, but the program overall is being supported by tuition dollars, not by their own revenue.

We also spend more on our athletics department than any other public institution in the country, with 40% of the budget coming from institutional subsidies ($8.5 million was directly from student fees). Our spending on the program has increased by $27 million per year. And all this time, we've had salary freezes and layoffs for professors, reduced section numbers with increased class sizes, a very tangible turn in favor of lectures over normal classes or seminars, and a significant increase in the number of classes taught by grad students.

We are also facing a significant issue when it comes to faculty who are increasingly uninterested in remaining at the University. Many of our programs are some of the best in the nation, and the tenured professors could easily get jobs at other prestigious universities. They all took a pay freeze two years ago, and did so willingly. But they are also getting less work than they used to on top of it, because they are more expensive to utilize than grad students.

End result? MANY of our top professors are becoming increasingly disinterested about remaining at the university. This won't affect me directly, but it WILL hurt future students.

When our current president took office, he gave them a large spending increase, but mandated that sports needed to be self sufficient within 5 years. That was a decade ago, and they are still costing the university money.

If we had been funneling $27M more per year into maintaining the integrity of our academics in the economic downturn, things wouldn't be so clearly different where academics are concerned.

So, no, I'm not confused. The Rutgers budget issues are well known, and they are a large part of why our president resigned this year.

Maybe the athletics program COULD produce revenue. But not with the university increasing its spending on the program so much every year. There's no chance they'd close that gap for a very long time.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#165 Feb 16 2012 at 11:21 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
******
25,561 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Rutgers' athletics department has a deficit of $27 million.
Smiley: eek
That's a hell of a lot of money to spend on sports. More than the budget of most professional Football clubs in the Netherlands.

Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Athletic scholarships are a good way for kids from poorer backgrounds to get into University, though. Which is nice.
I agree, but in the grand scheme of it all, that's such a small number it's more of an added bonus than an arguing point.
It's also not hard to argue that it's a bad thing that kids from poorer backgrounds need an athletic scholarship to be able to get into Uni.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#166 Feb 16 2012 at 11:25 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/rutgers-boosting-athletics-at-expense-of-academics-fails-to-emulate-texas.html

Seems to me like your school is just a sh*tty example of sports.

For example (from above article) UoT:

Quote:
About two-thirds of the university’s $143.6 million in revenue came from football, a program that has produced Associated Press writers’ poll national champions three times. The sport is so popular that the school can demand a donation on top of the ticket price for 46,634 of its seats, while Rutgers can do that for 5,950.
Texas athletics has been pouring funds into academics for years and endowed two faculty chairs at $1 million each, according to spokesman Nick Voinis. Once the 24-hour Longhorn cable TV network starts this month, athletics and academics will split $10 million a year in expected new revenue, he said.



66% of the total revenue of UoT is provided through one sport. This sport props up all the academics in the University.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#167 Feb 16 2012 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Athletic scholarships are a good way for kids from poorer backgrounds to get into University, though. Which is nice.
I agree, but in the grand scheme of it all, that's such a small number it's more of an added bonus than an arguing point.
It's also not hard to argue that it's a bad thing that kids from poorer backgrounds need an athletic scholarship to be able to get into Uni.
That was poorly worded, but yes.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#168 Feb 16 2012 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Seems to me like your school is just a sh*tty example of sports.
They're probably trying to produce the situation you've shown with other schools and that doesn't happen overnight. It takes time to build that sort of athletic program that generates income for the school. Or some dumb luck and winning a championship you never should have.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#169 Feb 16 2012 at 11:40 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Seems to me like your school is just a sh*tty example of sports.
They're probably trying to produce the situation you've shown with other schools and that doesn't happen overnight. It takes time to build that sort of athletic program that generates income for the school. Or some dumb luck and winning a championship you never should have.


exactly, but you can't boo hoo over something that clearly has shown success in numerous instances around the country either. Rutgers is a pretty sh*tty athletic school, it has been for sometime. They are making in roads in some areas (primarily football). But as shown above UoT has a very successful program that they have been funding heavily for nearly half a century (at least), which pays off big, because they have good teams in Football and Basketball each year.

UoM and MSU are also strong athletic schools and academic schools because their strong sports (in football and hockey) bring in revenue which is then spent on academics, (and funding their athletics).

You can't bitch about the whole system when it works all over the country, some schools just suck at sports, and thus have no fans, or commercial value. Can't say ive ever seen anyone rocking the R, but I see Longhorns, Tarheals, Wolverines, Fighting Irish all over the place. Those schools are some of the best athletic schools in the country, and all boast very respectable academics as well.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#170 Feb 16 2012 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Seems to me like your school is just a sh*tty example of sports.
They're probably trying to produce the situation you've shown with other schools and that doesn't happen overnight. It takes time to build that sort of athletic program that generates income for the school. Or some dumb luck and winning a championship you never should have.

That's what the plan was. Only real problem I have with it is the constantly increased spending. We do sell the bulk of our football tickets, but it's ultimately not paying for the program. And the reason it isn't is because of spending increases every year.

A few years back, we dropped $100M on stadium upgrades, too, to boost the value of ticket sales. And they would have paid for it in the long run, but we just keep increasing the athletics budget. Which is a serious issue, because there's a hard cap on yearly ticket revenues, and it can't overcome the rising deficit.

We also just got royally f*cked because our head coach is leaving Rutgers for Tampa. And he only just announced that. Apparently, our top players all have scholarship agreements through him, not through the school, so they will likely be heading to Tampa as well. Apparently, the 600% salary increase he got over the past 7 years wasn't enough.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#171 Feb 16 2012 at 12:30 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Quote:
Which is a serious issue, because there's a hard cap on yearly ticket revenues, and it can't overcome the rising deficit.


Ticket sales aren't what make sports teams money. Its the merchandise, and unless the big R starts being competitive every year their athletic program will continue to lose money. The Yankees don't make money on filling up the park, they make it selling those pinstripe shirts, and the hats, and the hoodies, and the other random crap with their logo stamped on.

That is how you make money with athletics.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#172 Feb 16 2012 at 12:33 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Yankees suck.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#173 Feb 16 2012 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Chicago charter school raking in big with fines for minor infractions. This has been a fairly large story around here the last few days.

Chicago Sun-Times wrote:
A Chicago charter school franchise often touted by Mayor Rahm Emanuel has pocketed some $387,000 in fees over three years by issuing demerits for “minor infractions” ranging from not sitting up straight to openly carrying “flaming hot” chips, parents and students charged Monday.

The list of forbidden conduct at the Noble Street Charter Network is “as long as my arm’’ but adds up to a “dehumanizing discipline system that looks a lot more like a reform school than a college prep,’’ Julie Woestehoff of Parents United for Responsible Education charged at a news conference Monday.

At Noble Street schools, four demerits within two weeks triggers a three-hour detention costing $5. More than 12 detentions lands students in a behavior modification class costing $140.
[...]
The biggest windfall, the FOIA showed, was garnered at Noble’s Rowe-Clark Campus, which raked in $28,935 last school year alone amid an enrollment of 538.


It's being suggested, and not so far proven, that lower performing students are/could be targeted with these fines for things like not making eye contact or not walking properly in order to push them out and make room for students with better grades.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#174 Feb 16 2012 at 12:50 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Yankees suck.


I agree, but they are a good example of a company that spends a huge some of money on sport, yet rakes in a retarded amount of money, and most of it has nothing to do with people entering the park.

(go Jays!)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#175 Feb 16 2012 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You're right, I could drop out and waste four years of investment...


idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
When our current president took office, he gave them a large spending increase, but mandated that sports needed to be self sufficient within 5 years. That was a decade ago, and they are still costing the university money.

If we had been funneling $27M more per year into maintaining the integrity of our academics in the economic downturn, things wouldn't be so clearly different where academics are concerned.

So, no, I'm not confused. The Rutgers budget issues are well known, and they are a large part of why our president resigned this year.


Do you see where you went wrong? We're not responsible for making your choices for you. You are. Part of being an adult and all that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#176 Feb 16 2012 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
Because it makes sense to pay 10k more a year to get an education that was no better?

My issue is with the fact that it's a state school. Maybe this is difficult for you to comprehend, but the fact is that my tax dollars would go to Rutgers even if I wasn't attending. Am I pissed that this is where my tuition is going as well? Hell yes. But my leaving wouldn't actually solve my problem, it would just make it worse by either reducing the quality of my education or increasing my debt.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#177 Feb 16 2012 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Which is a serious issue, because there's a hard cap on yearly ticket revenues, and it can't overcome the rising deficit.


Ticket sales aren't what make sports teams money. Its the merchandise, and unless the big R starts being competitive every year their athletic program will continue to lose money. The Yankees don't make money on filling up the park, they make it selling those pinstripe shirts, and the hats, and the hoodies, and the other random crap with their logo stamped on.

That is how you make money with athletics.


That was with reference to paying for the stadium, the contract of which is directly tied to ticket sales, not merchandising.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#178 Feb 16 2012 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Because it makes sense to pay 10k more a year to get an education that was no better?


So despite all the problems you listed, Rutgers is still a better education for a lower price than the alternative? What's the complaint then? Don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea of advocating for a better use of the schools money, but you presented this like the result was somehow a waste of your time/money/whatever.

If you're still able to get a good education at a good price, then it would seem like something is working. That's not to say it couldn't work better, but there's a whole range between "perfect" and "disaster". As a side point, I always find it amusing when people complain about such horrible things as high student teacher ratios and too many grad students teaching classes and not enough professors, etc. Once you get out of school and into the work force, you'll find that the challenges you face there will usually make the stuff you ran into in school seem silly in comparison.

Quote:
My issue is with the fact that it's a state school. Maybe this is difficult for you to comprehend, but the fact is that my tax dollars would go to Rutgers even if I wasn't attending. Am I pissed that this is where my tuition is going as well? Hell yes. But my leaving wouldn't actually solve my problem, it would just make it worse by either reducing the quality of my education or increasing my debt.


You've written your state legislature then?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#179 Feb 16 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,786 posts
iddigory wrote:
We also spend more on our athletics department than any other public institution in the country,

Cite? With many of the good to great athletic schools out there, I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe.

Edited, Feb 16th 2012 5:42pm by Kastigir
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#180 Feb 16 2012 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
Kastigir wrote:
iddigory wrote:
We also spend more on our athletics department than any other public institution in the country,

Cite? With many of the good to great athletic schools out there, I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe.

Edited, Feb 16th 2012 5:42pm by Kastigir


Notice I said public. We've been tossing them 15-40M more per year, so now their deficit is larger than their budget. And since they can't sustain their budget...

Cite 1, Cite 2, Cite 3.

Some fun facts from these:
1. Schiano was (and is until next year when his resignation is in effect), the top paid NJ employee in the nation, and one of the best-paid college coaches in the nation... despite never having won a championship... or even getting us to one. He makes over a million a year more (he makes 2.5, next makes 1.3).
2. We have been on the list of schools operating with the largest losses in athletics (and I THINK we are now number one, but this past years list hasn't been released yet, afaik).
3. $22-26M has been transferred to the program, per year, since 2008, despite the fact that such was SUPPOSED to be impossible, given the contract regarding the stadium. Athletics were supposed to finance themselves from that, creating a surplus to pay back for the stadium. Instead, they are operating at a loss, and student costs are keeping them afloat.


And @gbaji, part of the reason I chose a public institution was because my rights were supposed to be a main feature of its operation, given that it (unlike private schools) was part of the state.

As someone who screams about public funds being used for even the most appropriate expenditures, I can't even remotely understand why you'd see no problem with this system. It's a massive waste of public dollars, and exploits the students in the process.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#181 Feb 16 2012 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
and exploits the students in the process.
Exploiting people is good.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#182 Feb 16 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,786 posts
idiggory wrote:
Notice I said public. We've been tossing them 15-40M more per year, so now their deficit is larger than their budget. And since they can't sustain their budget...

Cite 1, Cite 2, Cite 3.

According to a link on a page of one of your cites, UNLV, which is a public university actually subsidized their athletics to the tune of 34 million making Rutgers #2 at 26/27 million. So, while your claim isn't completely true, you're close. As to your coach being overpaid, there are other coaches making close to, or more who also haven't won championships. I rate that claim false.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#183 Feb 16 2012 at 8:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And @gbaji, part of the reason I chose a public institution was because my rights were supposed to be a main feature of its operation, given that it (unlike private schools) was part of the state.


And that's the crux of the problem, isn't it? You place responsibility on the state to manage education, and trust it to protect your rights within that context, and are then shocked when the state fails to do what you wanted. The conservative answer is: Don't give the state that power/authority in the first place.


Quote:
As someone who screams about public funds being used for even the most appropriate expenditures, I can't even remotely understand why you'd see no problem with this system. It's a massive waste of public dollars, and exploits the students in the process.


Of course I see a problem with this system. The difference is that I expect this sort of failure, so I'm not surprised when it happens. I don't scream about how my tax dollars are being wasted because in this specific case they were used in ways I don't like or agree with. I scream that my tax dollars are being wasted whenever we attempt to use government mechanisms to do things like this in the first place.

You wait until some specific result occurs which you don't like. I start complaining the second some dim bulb starts talking about how great things would be if we just created some government program to do something. I know that's the start of the problem. But you attempt to separate such things into "appropriate" or "good" categories and "not appropriate" or "bad" categories. My point is that any government spending will result in outcomes that some of the population will not want or like. Which is why our first thought should be to find any other way to accomplish something and use government only when it's the last resort and/or only means available.


Do you see how waiting until you realize that the spending is wasteful is almost always too late?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#184 Feb 16 2012 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And @gbaji, part of the reason I chose a public institution was because my rights were supposed to be a main feature of its operation, given that it (unlike private schools) was part of the state.


And that's the crux of the problem, isn't it? You place responsibility on the state to manage education, and trust it to protect your rights within that context, and are then shocked when the state fails to do what you wanted. The conservative answer is: Don't give the state that power/authority in the first place.


Yet you think it makes sense to trust a private company, with a profit motive, to do so?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#185 Feb 16 2012 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And @gbaji, part of the reason I chose a public institution was because my rights were supposed to be a main feature of its operation, given that it (unlike private schools) was part of the state.


And that's the crux of the problem, isn't it? You place responsibility on the state to manage education, and trust it to protect your rights within that context, and are then shocked when the state fails to do what you wanted. The conservative answer is: Don't give the state that power/authority in the first place.


Yet you think it makes sense to trust a private company, with a profit motive, to do so?


I trust the private company to operate based on what generates the most revenue. Remember when I said you could always go to a different school and thus not pay them tuition, and you responded that this didn't matter since it's a public university and thus receives funding from your tax dollars? By collecting taxes and using them to fund that university (in part at least), your freedom to choose where to spend your money has been taken from you. Your ability to ensure that your money isn't used in ways that you don't like or want is reduced. If the school was 100% funded by tuition and other internal revenue raising operations (ticket sales for events, campus stores, etc), then you could be 100% in control of how much of your money the school received. If you don't like the policies of the school, you can refuse to attend and thus pay tuition, you can refuse to buy tickets for their events, and refuse to buy their merchandise.


Thats how a private company, with a profit motive, ends out better serving the people. At the very least, you *never* have a condition where your money is being taken from your and given to them, and used in ways you don't like. Since this is exactly what you were complaining about, I hope you can see how this is relevant.

Edited, Feb 16th 2012 6:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#186 Feb 16 2012 at 10:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Its ok if you hate sports, but a good athletics program does good for the college in the long run, just like a good arts program or music program. If you can get to the point where it generates considerable revenue then you roll that into academic advances.

Just like UoT. The big R is an example of a school currently looking for a revenue source. Rome wasn't built in a day. Maybe one day Ill take down my Buckeyes banner and replace it with a Big R, doubtful, but maybe one day.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#187 Feb 16 2012 at 11:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Its ok if you hate sports, but a good athletics program does good for the college in the long run, just like a good arts program or music program. If you can get to the point where it generates considerable revenue then you roll that into academic advances.

Just like UoT. The big R is an example of a school currently looking for a revenue source. Rome wasn't built in a day. Maybe one day Ill take down my Buckeyes banner and replace it with a Big R, doubtful, but maybe one day.


And I'm fine with that, but not when it's costing tangible reductions in the quality of the education to get there.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#188 Feb 17 2012 at 12:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
466 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
We also just got royally f*cked because our head coach is leaving Rutgers for Tampa. And he only just announced that. Apparently, our top players all have scholarship agreements through him, not through the school, so they will likely be heading to Tampa as well.

Smiley: facepalm
No, they won't. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are an NFL team.
#189 Feb 17 2012 at 12:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
BonYogi wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
We also just got royally f*cked because our head coach is leaving Rutgers for Tampa. And he only just announced that. Apparently, our top players all have scholarship agreements through him, not through the school, so they will likely be heading to Tampa as well.

Smiley: facepalm
No, they won't. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are an NFL team.


Then either I have the team wrong, or there's something I'm missing. My source is our school paper, though, so I'd say it's the latter.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#190 Feb 17 2012 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
466 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
BonYogi wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
We also just got royally f*cked because our head coach is leaving Rutgers for Tampa. And he only just announced that. Apparently, our top players all have scholarship agreements through him, not through the school, so they will likely be heading to Tampa as well.

Smiley: facepalm
No, they won't. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are an NFL team.


Then either I have the team wrong, or there's something I'm missing. My source is our school paper, though, so I'd say it's the latter.


I take it you're not a sports fan? Let me clarify. The head football coach of the Rutgers Scarlet Knights college team left to take the same position with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers professional team. I'm not positive what the players' alternatives are. The incoming recruiting class may be able to ask the school to release them from their letter of intent to go to another college program they had passed on earlier, and the current players would have to sit out a year if they were to transfer to a different college, but I can guarantee they will not be playing for Tampa Bay this year.
#191 Feb 17 2012 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
For all I can remember, the players in question may have been delaying graduation specifically to play more years for Rutgers. No clue. Just know that many of our top players had their agreements specifically with him, not with Rutgers. They wouldn't need to ask the school to let them out of their contract, because they never had one with them in the first place.

Doing some quick searches through our school paper tells me that, since I last read up on it, a few of the players who had commitments with Schiano have, since then, made new commitments with Rutgers. But there are still a bunch who have not. We did luck out with the incoming recruits though, many of whom agreed to sign commitments with Rutgers instead of with Schiano (which their negotiations had previously been focused on). We did lose some recruits though.

All I know is that some of our best, current, players signed their commitments with Schiano, not with the university. His leaving means they are free to go elsewhere. No news on any declaring intent to stay at Rutgers. Whether or not they'll graduate/be drafted/stay at RU, I have no clue. All I know is that they no longer have commitments binding them to RU.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#192 Feb 17 2012 at 10:45 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Quote:
The incoming recruiting class may be able to ask the school to release them from their letter of intent to go to another college program they had passed on earlier, and the current players would have to sit out a year if they were to transfer to a different college


Which is a stupid thing to do if you are trying to advance and athletic program. Generally you would want to keep your best athletes as long as possible. It is what attracts other athletes, and helps promote the team locally and nationally (internationally in the case of college football/basketball/hockey thanks to us Canucks.) It is what attracts dollars which is what the whole purpose of investing in an athletics program.

Quote:
All I know is that they no longer have commitments binding them to RU.

Their respective teams are not commitments? You really misjudge or misunderstand sports if you believe they have no commitment to the big R.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#193 Feb 17 2012 at 11:17 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
They might have personal, emotional commitments, but nothing official binding them to the university.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#194 Feb 18 2012 at 12:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
466 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Just know that many of our top players had their agreements specifically with him, not with Rutgers. They wouldn't need to ask the school to let them out of their contract, because they never had one with them in the first place.

Doing some quick searches through our school paper tells me that, since I last read up on it, a few of the players who had commitments with Schiano have, since then, made new commitments with Rutgers. But there are still a bunch who have not. We did luck out with the incoming recruits though, many of whom agreed to sign commitments with Rutgers instead of with Schiano (which their negotiations had previously been focused on). We did lose some recruits though.

All I know is that some of our best, current, players signed their commitments with Schiano, not with the university. His leaving means they are free to go elsewhere. No news on any declaring intent to stay at Rutgers. Whether or not they'll graduate/be drafted/stay at RU, I have no clue. All I know is that they no longer have commitments binding them to RU.


You may want to read this. Specifically, the box that says "Coaching Change".
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/nli/document+library/reference+guide+to+the+nli
#195Almalieque, Posted: Feb 19 2012 at 8:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That logic is applicable to everything (Just hire/make less of x, it'll save money). What makes military so special?
#196 Feb 19 2012 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
Quote:
That logic is applicable to everything (Just hire/make less of x, it'll save money). What makes military so special?


Nothing. That's why I wanted it included.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#197 Feb 19 2012 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The key thing is the mission or intent of the service. Is the intent or mission being met?

From a spending standpoint, the key thing is "Is the mission being met as affordably as possible. Spending (hypothetically) 3x more than you need to on a "mission" isn't okay just because the mission is being met.

This being, of course, a discussion on how to spend money.

Edit: I have no idea how "hypothetically" turned into "apathetically"

Edited, Feb 19th 2012 9:20am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#198Almalieque, Posted: Feb 19 2012 at 9:15 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're making the assumption that poor and athletic students can't earn other scholarships, i.e. academic.
#199Almalieque, Posted: Feb 19 2012 at 9:23 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) As a discussion on how to spend money, you should ask "Is the intent or mission being met?" If the mission is being met, then you ask the second question. Is there any place where we can cut spending. Doing so, makes accomplishing the mission the key thing in a discussion on how to spend money. As I said, not taking that in consideration will only result in you wasting MORE money on half-@$$ing a job.
#200 Feb 19 2012 at 12:05 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Great who invited stupid.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#201 Feb 19 2012 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
As a discussion on how to spend money, you should ask "Is the intent or mission being met?" If the mission is being met, then you ask the second question. Is there any place where we can cut spending.

That's like saying "We'll start with a Ferrari to drive to the store and, if it meets our needs, decide at a later date if we should save money by switching to a cheaper car" or "Let's lease a 150,000 sq ft building for our bread and jellies store and then see later if we should move to a smaller and more affordable building."

Works great if you have money to burn, I suppose. We don't.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 55 All times are in CDT
ElneClare, feelz, WindChimes, Anonymous Guests (52)