Another factor is the more than lucrative TV sports contracts, and the sports apparel contracts. Does this money count as revenue?
Even if it does, it probably does not cover costs outside of the athletics program. If you've got a 4th edition of Maasik and Solomon's Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers laying around, take a look at Eitzen's "The Contradictions of Big-Time College Sport" in chapter 8. Admittedly the data cited is oldish (mid-90s, mostly) and the article is mostly about Title IX issues, but Eitzen shatters some popular notions about just how much money is made by college athletics.
"About fifty out of the NCAA's eight hundred member institutions make more money on their athletic programs than they spend. The losses are covered by their schools' general revenue funds.(f. 18) It is commonly believed that men's basketball and especially football bring in the funds that pay for the rest of the athletic budget. But, for the most part, this is a fiction. The NCAA reported that only 17 percent of its member institutions made money on their football programs in 1995, with a majority of Division I programs reporting a deficit and 45 percent losing an average of $628,000 in 1995.(f. 19)" (p. 648)
"Successful programs (mostly in football) do generate donations to the university but almost exclusively to the athletic programs rather than to the general operating budget of the university.(f. 24) And if an athletic department happens to generate a surplus, the money almost always stays with it and is not distributed to the academic budgets." (650)
"The rationale advanced to justify this unequal largess to one sport is that football underwrites women's sport. This is a myth. Only about one-third of Division I-A football programs make a profit; one-third of them run an annual deficit that averages more than $1 million.(f. 37) The truth is that at most schools students pay for football through mandatory student fees and university subsidies." (653)
The gist here is that even if "more than lucrative" contracts related to a university's athletics program exist, the money from them probably doesn't cover the costs of the program and it definitely doesn't go into the rest of the university.
The crises, as I get them from the article, are that 1) escalating tuition will price middle class students out of attending and 2) "pure" science is threatened. The effect of #1 is that students from middle class backgrounds that cannot afford a 4-year degree will not be middle class anymore since they'll only qualify for jobs that don't need degrees. The effect of #2 is that most scientific research will be done under the money of those that can afford it, but they will then feel (and possibly legally have) some ownership of the results of said science. Breakthrough technology/medicine/whatever will belong to BigCompanyX instead of to the scientist, the university, the state, or the federal government.
I'm still uncertain as to what counts as revenue. Did this guy factor in jersey sales, sweat shirts, and other apparel that is bought at the bookstore and is directly related to the sports team via the branded logo of the school (which at Div. 1-A schools is largely for the express purpose of marketing the team)? What, exactly, is he basing his figures on (cause I don't have the book). Have other people come up with different figures? And if sports programs don't make money for universities, why are they there? I've read that the increased enrollment following winning championships is also a myth, so what is the draw? I suppose that's what doesn't make sense to me. Granted, I'm thinking only of Div. 1-A schools here and he's writing about all Div. 1 schools. I dunno. This is all hurting my head and I'm tired. The long and short of it is that building at state schools has been rampant for the past decade, and even if athletics programs do not contribute, they have probably gotten better about being a drain on university resources. That, coupled with extra research funding, alumni donations, and other sources of income might account for at least some of the shift away from tax dollars.
That, coupled with extra research funding, alumni donations, and other sources of income might account for at least some of the shift away from tax dollars.
It's not that state universities are shifting away from tax dollars: it's that states are cutting funding for their universities and driving those universities to seek funding elsewhere. The ties to the "elsewhere" are what's problematic.
The revenue you keep trying to find through sportswear is exactly the kind of privatization that is the problem. Let's assume that Big State U somehow does have a profitable football team and somehow does sell enough sweatshirts to actually make turn a profit. If that's the case, then the university becomes that much more beholden to Champion or Starter, the outlets for the clothing, and the football team. Were you planning to flunk the star player because he never came to class or turned in any work? Think again -- he scored two touchdowns last weekend, whipped the crowd into a frenzy, and indirectly sold enough t-shirts and foam fingers to cover your salary for the class he's supposedly in.
Since I don't believe sports actually turn a profit and pay for things outside of themselves, let's look at another example. Again, you teach at Big State U, but Big State has cut its funding for its universities. Big State U's comp department has had to look elsewhere for funding: they found Colossal Corporation's endowment fund. Colossal Corporation gets a tax break for their generosity and they get their name on a classroom or something. Then you decide you want to teach Lucy McLefty's new book Colossal Corporation's Big Lying Lie and the Liars that Lied It in your classroom. Colossal Corporation casually mentions to the department head that "times are tough and there is some doubt as to whether or not we'll be able to afford funding your department next year." Your department head casually mentions to you that "times are tough and there is some doubt as to whether or not we'll be able to afford funding your job next year."
Private schools already face these issues (especially in the sciences, with expenses for stuff like labs) and, to some extent, counter them with astronomical tuitions. The threat to public schools is the one I mentioned in the previous post: if public schools are forced to become private, raise their tuitions, and bind themselves to their funding, then one of the most important avenues for transitioning from low income to middle income will be closed down to lots of people.
But it's precisely the causal link that you are talking about here that the article doesn't supply information for. What you have said is that states are offering less money to public schools, right? But this article bases that claim on the percentage of money the school gets from the state. All I'm trying to point out is that if the state gives the same amount of money (adjusted for inflation and a little growth for the university) but the university is also going out into the corporate sector a whole lot more than it did in 1991, then the percentage of revenue from the state would shrink because it is relative to the other sources of income. I'm not saying that state spending hasn't decreased, but I am questioning claiming that the whole decrease as represented by a percentage of revenue (when revenue isn't even defined) is misleading and I want the writer of the article to burn in hell. Oh, wait, no I just want to know what counts as revenue, how much money states are actually giving to schools and how that amount compares in adjusted dollars. The percentage of a school's gross revenue that is coming from the state is not really that insightful without this other information, but this article claims otherwise.
Even if it does, it probably does not cover costs outside of the athletics program. If you've got a 4th edition of Maasik and Solomon's Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers laying around, take a look at Eitzen's "The Contradictions of Big-Time College Sport" in chapter 8. Admittedly the data cited is oldish (mid-90s, mostly) and the article is mostly about Title IX issues, but Eitzen shatters some popular notions about just how much money is made by college athletics.
The gist here is that even if "more than lucrative" contracts related to a university's athletics program exist, the money from them probably doesn't cover the costs of the program and it definitely doesn't go into the rest of the university.
The crises, as I get them from the article, are that 1) escalating tuition will price middle class students out of attending and 2) "pure" science is threatened. The effect of #1 is that students from middle class backgrounds that cannot afford a 4-year degree will not be middle class anymore since they'll only qualify for jobs that don't need degrees. The effect of #2 is that most scientific research will be done under the money of those that can afford it, but they will then feel (and possibly legally have) some ownership of the results of said science. Breakthrough technology/medicine/whatever will belong to BigCompanyX instead of to the scientist, the university, the state, or the federal government.
Reply
Reply
It's not that state universities are shifting away from tax dollars: it's that states are cutting funding for their universities and driving those universities to seek funding elsewhere. The ties to the "elsewhere" are what's problematic.
The revenue you keep trying to find through sportswear is exactly the kind of privatization that is the problem. Let's assume that Big State U somehow does have a profitable football team and somehow does sell enough sweatshirts to actually make turn a profit. If that's the case, then the university becomes that much more beholden to Champion or Starter, the outlets for the clothing, and the football team. Were you planning to flunk the star player because he never came to class or turned in any work? Think again -- he scored two touchdowns last weekend, whipped the crowd into a frenzy, and indirectly sold enough t-shirts and foam fingers to cover your salary for the class he's supposedly in.
Since I don't believe sports actually turn a profit and pay for things outside of themselves, let's look at another example. Again, you teach at Big State U, but Big State has cut its funding for its universities. Big State U's comp department has had to look elsewhere for funding: they found Colossal Corporation's endowment fund. Colossal Corporation gets a tax break for their generosity and they get their name on a classroom or something. Then you decide you want to teach Lucy McLefty's new book Colossal Corporation's Big Lying Lie and the Liars that Lied It in your classroom. Colossal Corporation casually mentions to the department head that "times are tough and there is some doubt as to whether or not we'll be able to afford funding your department next year." Your department head casually mentions to you that "times are tough and there is some doubt as to whether or not we'll be able to afford funding your job next year."
Private schools already face these issues (especially in the sciences, with expenses for stuff like labs) and, to some extent, counter them with astronomical tuitions. The threat to public schools is the one I mentioned in the previous post: if public schools are forced to become private, raise their tuitions, and bind themselves to their funding, then one of the most important avenues for transitioning from low income to middle income will be closed down to lots of people.
Reply
--TR
Reply
Leave a comment