<p>Vedder verges on being a single-issue crank, but the analysis here is interesting, and one wonders how long students will tolerate being bled for an additional $800-$1000 per year in general fees to cross-subsidize athletic programs that are best known for losing to the big, semi-pro programs by forty points during the non-conference football season.</p>
<p>How</a> Poor Students Subsidize Unworthy College Sports - Bloomberg</p>
<p>Nobody is forced to pick a school with very high fees.</p>
<p>
No, but in the case of public universities state taxpayers are. Isn’t providing affordable access part of the rationale for state-supported higher education?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s a partial analysis. Most of the schools we are talking about here are non-flagship state schools (including my alma mater) that people pick, in part, because they need to go somewhere relatively cheap. Ridpath’s research suggests that many students aren’t even aware how much they are paying for this. As a guy who actually LIKES Mid-American Conference football, I’ve wondered how long students are going to tolerate borrowing an extra $3,000 to $4,000 over their college years to subsidize athletic departments most of them don’t really care about.</p>
<p>I have kids that really wanted college sports at their schools. And I know a lot of kids like that. It can be a deal breaker. Some schools who have dropped some of their male sports are struggling with the gender ratio. Not an issue for me personally; sports never entered the picture when I was looking at schools both for my self and for my kids, but my perspective was widened to take into account others’ views.</p>
<p>Interesting but… the moral of this article appears to be: If you can get into Universities like UCBerkley, Stanford or UMich rather than schools like U north Carolina do so. Not very ground breaking because these are already known as better schools. Now we know that they cost less for sports too. BTW what the hell could any university be doing with $1500 per student for sports anyway? They cant even pay their athletes!</p>
<p>“BTW what the hell could any university be doing with $1500 per student for sports anyway?”</p>
<p>I remember when I was a student and learned that college athletes have their uniforms laundered for them. Even their PRACTICE uniforms. (I lived under a rock, granted, but I was stunned.) Meanwhile, the dancers get to wash out their own sweaty tights night after night. It never made any sense to me, and still doesn’t. It costs money.</p>
<p>parallel report: LSU, Nebraska, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Purdue and Texas were the only schools to report no subsidy money in 2012.</p>
<p>In a word: Rutgers.<br>
[Most</a> NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/]Most”>Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you consider applying to Davidson?</p>
<p>The Rutgers deficit is why the AD was not allowed to fire the bb coach. Ended up costing more money than if they had fired him in November.</p>
<p>The fee does not seem to have impacted enrollment though- RU had a 7% increase in the number of accepted students who have decided to attend.</p>
<p>UW (Wisconsin) students get a lot of activities for their fees- a Big Ten school. Segregating the fees from tuition means OOS students pay the same fees instead of paying extra. Much better than needing to budget extra to be able to do many out of class events. The more I read the luckier I feel for my parents raising me in my home state. The small subsidy enriches the campus with the diversity of programs- so much more than football and basketball to watch or participate in (crew was a walk on sport in my day, may still be).</p>
<p>Rutgers is hoping the BIG membership will help close the athletic department deficit.</p>
<p>If they quit losing the sure thing games.</p>
<p>In the TV age winning and losing are not so important if you are in a conference with a good TV deal and equal sharing. But it would be nice if RU starts winning at least in football which appears to be very close as is. Just not sure of new coach. Makes some odd decisions on both players and plays. They have talent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, you mean you were stunned that athletes got an extra $1.00 or so worth of laundry done in exchange for playing on the team for 18+ hours per week?</p>
<p>If they’re being laundered, there’s a person / people doing so, which means it’s disingenuous to say it’s merely a dollar.</p>
<p>Sure PG, but its not like they are doing one guy’s dirty shorts at a time. Please think about it a little.</p>
<p>Do poor students pay more out-of-pocket at the big-sports schools, than they would have at the no big-sports school?</p>
<p>Are there “worthy” college sports and “unworthy” college sports?</p>
<p>I don’t care all that much, Bay. It’s just athletics, which is personally unimportant to me.</p>
<p>I know, PG.</p>