Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Education - Public vs PrivateFollow

#177 Feb 16 2012 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 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
******
35,008 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 ****** that this is where my tuition is going as well? **** 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
****
7,861 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
******
20,020 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
******
35,381 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.


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
****
7,861 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
******
35,008 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
******
20,020 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
******
35,008 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
****
7,547 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 ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#187 Feb 16 2012 at 11:43 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 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
**
493 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
******
20,020 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
**
493 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
******
20,020 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
****
7,547 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 ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#193 Feb 17 2012 at 11:17 PM Rating: Decent
******
20,020 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
**
493 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
******
20,020 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
****
7,547 posts
Great who invited stupid.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. 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: 46 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (46)