3 ms·
> sports investments, ballooning administration staff, or flashy construction projects Construction projects are typically the result of specific earmarked don
by philwelch 3y ago
> sports investments, ballooning administration staff, or flashy construction projects
Construction projects are typically the result of specific earmarked donations and sports investments often create lots of income. NCAA Division I programs should be thought of as a side business that generates revenue for the university.
Administrative staff is the major problem here. It’s also where most organizations tend to dump their excess revenue, and since the US has been aggressively subsidizing demand for universities for decades, they’ve had a ton of excess revenue to dump into administrative staff.
> TAs, grad students, adjunct professors
Most academic fields produce significantly more Ph.D.’s than there are tenure track positions or other full time professional careers. As a result, the grad student or Ph.D. exists in a competitive-verging-on-exploitative labor market. The typical grad student or adjunct is in the same position as the aspiring actor who has a day job in LA waiting tables. People always claim that this is because there aren’t enough tenure track positions, but I think that’s backwards. Why would you open up a tenure track position when you have a plethora of Ph.D’s who are apparently willing to work as adjuncts? If the universities didn’t produce as many Ph.D’s in the first place, the labor market would be more competitive and they would need to offer tenure track positions.
- kelipso 3y agoUniversities shouldn't have side businesses, don't they have some non-profit status that's specific to education? They should be heavily restricted to education and research alone.
- philwelch 3y agoI’m not a huge fan of the NCAA system myself. A lot of universities don’t have major sports programs, and that’s a respectable choice on their part. But NCAA sports are tremendously profitable for the universities that invest in them. No Division I school would actually save money, in the long run, by defunding their football and basketball teams. And when it comes to side businesses, sports pale in comparison to endowments. Edit: Just to clarify, my only point here is that criticizing these Division I schools for how much they spend on their sports programs is fallacious. If you have a different criticism of college sports, that's fine but I'm not sure why you're addressing it to me.
- Given_47 3y agoYea same I’m a big hoop nerd but the mainstream collegiate sports especially basketball make my eyes bleed. Literally infuriating to watch idk how people do. But something like Duke Basketball has been tremendously beneficial to Duke–in terms of brand awareness. Same with UT Austin and their football brand ($7mm on new locker room is insanity tho).
- selimthegrim 3y ago>No Division I school would actually save money, in the long run, by defunding their football and basketball teams. Tulane might be a counterexample to this especially since the 80s (although not lately)
- kelipso 3y agoWho cares about making money or not, plenty of ways to make money, but that's not the purpose of a non-profit organization dedicated to education.
- chaostheory 3y agoLess revenue for the school means higher tuition costs for everyone and less scholarships.
- kelipso 3y agoNo, more revenue means that revenue goes to paying for non educational stuff, admin bloat, etc.