Affirmative action for the 1%?

[BigMattTheHobo]

https://www.google.com/search?q=map+of+highest+paid+state+employees&client=chrome-mobile&espv=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sboxchip=Images&sa=X&ei=0SgyUr3yHOfA2QXonoDAAw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAA&biw=320&bih=460&sei=1CgyUrqtGKeS2AW_tYCQBg#biv=i|1;d|InJbkE3axzDyCM:


Map of state employee highest salaries

 

[FenderBender]

Pretty much your characterization of colleges, college attendance, and the college system as existing in some kind of free market.


Now we can talk, because instead of being confrontational for reasons not apparent, you are making your case. My case: I think alumni wield WAY too much power on college campuses, and it manifests the worst in sports. I don't agree with the crux of the article (villainization of donators) in accordance to your statement, though I'm not quite at the extreme you are. However, I see this as an opportunity...legacy admissions...to rally the masses to break power alumni wield in the athletic realm via peeling back the veil on legacy donations. This can lead to a fix of the incredible disservice college athletics does to the whole concept of "institution of higher learning" in a two part process. The masses can rally behind lifting the screen on the alumni donations under the guise of legacy "unfairness" and then ride that to fixing a broken college athletic system.

Before anyone argues with me about sports (football) generating money, I just heard a report on the local sports talk station on my way into work the other day that there are only a select few of the Division 1 schools that actually are sports revenue positive for the university; I was surprised, I would have thought it was all of D1. Nope, just a few D1, and certainly none of the lesser divisions. On top of that, the highest paid state employees (I know this is a convo about private universities, but this is interesting) pretty much in every state in the US are, wait for it...

...state school football coaches. Way beyond lawmakers, WAY WAY beyond university chancellors, etc. Most of these large athletic programs are graduating rejects who only know how to tie their shoes, but not spell shoes, and the overall level of academics suffers for it. The only way these programs stay afloat is through alumni interest, which means the alumni are serving as a detriment to the environment.

Break their power in legacy, you have the opportunity to break their backs in sports. The institutions themselves will not fold under the missing money, and alumni funding of grants and scholarships (think sports anyway for the vast majority) will dry up but it can be replaced, specifically because the cost of operations will come way down without athletic programs that are a drag on the academic part of things.

I typed without proofread because I was only going to take a 30 second break, so if I screwed up something I will fix later.

I think that the problem here is not alumni. If it's true that alumni demands for football, etc. are a detriment to the college and unsustainable financially, then why are the schools still operating? You can't operate in the red continuously and stay in business (unless you are state funded). And I think that is the crux of the problem. I'm familiar with the numbers saying that NCAA football programs represent a negative line item for most schools. If it was really true, then the schools would be bankrupt. This is entirely true unless you get money handed to you from the government.

And as for free market solutions, I went to a college that didn't have a football team. Believe it or not they do exist, and if consumers really don't want to support that kind of thing they can find places to do it. The most prestigious schools in the country are not known as athletic powerhouses and I think that is for a reason.

 

[Nocturnal]

I think that the problem here is not alumni. If it's true that alumni demands for football, etc. are a detriment to the college and unsustainable financially, then why are the schools still operating? You can't operate in the red continuously and stay in business (unless you are state funded). And I think that is the crux of the problem. I'm familiar with the numbers saying that NCAA football programs represent a negative line item for most schools. If it was really true, then the schools would be bankrupt. This is entirely true unless you get money handed to you from the government.

And as for free market solutions, I went to a college that didn't have a football team. Believe it or not they do exist, and if consumers really don't want to support that kind of thing they can find places to do it. The most prestigious schools in the country are not known as athletic powerhouses and I think that is for a reason.

You place way too much faith in the myth of the free market.

For colleges if sports actually lose them money that is perfectly possible. Why? Because they don't operate like a regular business. Alumni aren't interested in the solvency of the school or if regular students pay higher tuition so that a few athletes get a free ride. This is more a societal problem in my opinion. It is possible that the extra prestige and branding that come with competitive sports teams is a net positive to the school, or it could be that the handful of dudes in charge get boners when they think about a bunch of sweaty 20 year olds dominating other 20 year olds. Either way this does not serve society's best interests.

 

[FenderBender]

You place way too much faith in the myth of the free market.

For colleges if sports actually lose them money that is perfectly possible. Why? Because they don't operate like a regular business. Alumni aren't interested in the solvency of the school or if regular students pay higher tuition so that a few athletes get a free ride. This is more a societal problem in my opinion. It is possible that the extra prestige and branding that come with competitive sports teams is a net positive to the school, or it could be that the handful of dudes in charge get boners when they think about a bunch of sweaty 20 year olds dominating other 20 year olds. Either way this does not serve society's best interests.

It has nothing to do with faith. If you show me a better system I'd be glad to give it a try. You're simply ignoring the evidence or assuming you know what's better for other people than they do themselves.

If the extra prestige and branding make the school profitable then by all means I think they should be allowed to do it. If it doesn't then they won't make a profit and they'll lose business/fold. The only way that the school can continue to stay in business and provide something there is no demand for, is if they are guaranteed money regardless of what they did (i.e. federal funding).

When you say it doesn't serve society's best interests, what you mean is it doesn't serve your opinion of society's best interests, since it's not like society's best interests are a matter of objective fact. The problem with giving the federal government more authority to do things like this, is that when people disagree with you get in to power they use the authority you gave them to do things you don't agree with.

 

[chalupa]

If we want the federal govt out, eliminate the tax deductible status of the donations, eliminate govt grants, and eliminate any and all tax breaks given to the institutions...let them operate as a true business if that is what you want.

The university system will end up looking like the University of Phoenix or trump university with complete bs degrees and no real upside.

Or, we could try to break the power of the alumni system and right the ship.

 

[Nocturnal]

It has nothing to do with faith. If you show me a better system I'd be glad to give it a try. You're simply ignoring the evidence or assuming you know what's better for other people than they do themselves.

If the extra prestige and branding make the school profitable then by all means I think they should be allowed to do it. If it doesn't then they won't make a profit and they'll lose business/fold. The only way that the school can continue to stay in business and provide something there is no demand for, is if they are guaranteed money regardless of what they did (i.e. federal funding).

When you say it doesn't serve society's best interests, what you mean is it doesn't serve your opinion of society's best interests, since it's not like society's best interests are a matter of objective fact. The problem with giving the federal government more authority to do things like this, is that when people disagree with you get in to power they use the authority you gave them to do things you don't agree with.

A better system that what? Having zero regulation?

Yeah, there is a better system, it's the one we have. Due to human nature a free market never exists unless you set up guidelines to keep it as free as possible. That is the part you are missing. If you want evidence all you have to do is pick up a history book and read about how society was damaged before rules were put into place. I get the feeling that you are one of these absolutist types. You feel there should be zero govt. involvement and anyone who suggests that there should be government oversight into a particular area is some sort of anti-business commie type.

Of course. Why the hell would I think that X was best for society if I thought Y was better? You say that like you are some objective observer free from bias. Not to mention that you would have a major burden arguing that a better focus on education is not better for society compared to a culture of sports and privilege. Also, I don't believe I have ever stated that I want the federal government step in to resolve the thread topic. It is entirely possible to discuss an issue, and state why it is a problem without immediately saying "ok now pass a law congress!".

 

[FenderBender]

A better system that what? Having zero regulation?

Yeah, there is a better system, it's the one we have. Due to human nature a free market never exists unless you set up guidelines to keep it as free as possible. That is the part you are missing. If you want evidence all you have to do is pick up a history book and read about how society was damaged before rules were put into place. I get the feeling that you are one of these absolutist types. You feel there should be zero govt. involvement and anyone who suggests that there should be government oversight into a particular area is some sort of anti-business commie type.

There is a certain irony in assuming that I'm the type of "extremist" who labels you as an extremist and then dismisses you, and then dismissing me because of it. On that note, I get the impression that you're some sort of Communist who feels you have all the answers and labels anyone who suggests that people should have the freedom to make their own decisions as some type of anarchist nutjob.

You provide no evidence for what kind of harm this is causing, and instead imply that anyone seeking their own interest is some kind of "Marie Antoinette" caricature. If you want to have a philosophical debate about what rules are important for a government to have then fine, but I think it's a little off-topic. Sorry if I interpreted this to be an argument that some sort of government intervention is necessary, but I still maintain that you're simply scapegoating the rich and ignoring what value is provided with legacy programs.

If we want the federal govt out, eliminate the tax deductible status of the donations, eliminate govt grants, and eliminate any and all tax breaks given to the institutions...let them operate as a true business if that is what you want.

The university system will end up looking like the University of Phoenix or trump university with complete bs degrees and no real upside.

Or, we could try to break the power of the alumni system and right the ship.

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Frontline-College-Inc./70139469

If you get a chance, I highly recommend this documentary. It's a case study in how University of Phoenix and other for profit universities came about. It shows how we never consider the unintended consequences of government intervention. To be eligible for Pell Grants you need to be federally accredited. So investors buy accredited colleges that were on the verge of bankruptcy and then accept any student who can get a federal grant.

The cost of a college education is so obscured in the fact that we're convinced college is the only way to get ahead in this world. As a result we're cramming as many people though college as possible (whether qualified or not) and then they get out of college with loads of debt and no job prospects. The government intervention is the whole reason for the college bubble as it is.