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.
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