When my son was touring colleges, he liked the fact that several schools on his list (e.g., Tulane, Rice, Pomona) had outdoor “social” swimming pools that were separate from the pools that were used for swim team and diving competitions. But he didn’t encounter any of the snazzy (and pricey?) on-campus waterparks described here:
But, like the article’s author, Jeanie Ahn, I have to wonder how often the cost of these alluring facilities translates into higher college price tags and thus greater student debt.
I should also point out that, although the social pool may have been a draw for my son when he made his final decision to attend Tulane, in the month that he’s been there it seems as if he’s always too engaged in other newer and more enticing activities to use it. So when places like the University of Missouri spend multi-millions on a rec center, I question whether the students who are subsidizing it will actually get their money’s worth. But, on the other hand, with so many students feeling stressed these days, adding an outrageous waterpark to the campus facilities may also add a much-needed dose of wholesome fun.
I’m not one of those people who thinks a college should be a stripped-down, bare-bones experience where academics is the only important thing. College is a time for growth of students, too, and I think having some fun things is important. Having a recreational pool is totally fine - especially in warm places like New Orleans and Lubbock. A lot of times students don’t want to do laps and the lap pools often need to be used by competitive swimmers.
But an indoor beach and a lazy river? Really? It’s particularly weird at public universities in a time when state legislatures are actually cutting funding to education and universities. I mean, maybe that’s part of the reason why in their minds - maybe they feel like they need to offer these amenities to attract students, particularly out of state students who are going to pay those non-resident fees. I suppose to them, why should the UCs, UNC, UVa, et al. get all of the OOS love?
I think calling these features a “water park” is a bit much. My kids’ undergrad has a lazy river with inner tubes, a water slide, a very large pool and large jacuzzi, at its Aquatics Center (not where the athletes are). The students love it…it’s next to the main fitness center. But, it’s not a “water park” in the sense of the extensive choices found at those.
As a Californian, I’d weep for the waste of water…but I can’t spare the moisture.
People are wising up to the “build it and they will come” mentality that schools like High Point are becoming notorious for. Nice amenities are all well and good, but these days people want solid academics at a bargain price. That said, it depends on the source of the funding. Often donations are earmarked for particular purposes. I donate to the marine lab and the library of my alma mater, for example.
@mom2coIIegekids and how did the University of Alabama pay for that lazy river? It’s all well and good to say that students love it, but Alabama is a public university which IMO has an obligation to keep costs low for in state residents. My concern is not that students enjoy it, I’m sure they do. It’s the cumulative effect this has on the ability of low income students to afford the school.
On the University of Oklahoma board there were a couple of prospective parents who bemoaned the state of OU’s gym. They compared it unfavorably to other intuitions whose fitness centers were state of the art and asked why Oklahoma’s could not look like that. Keep in mind that virtually every machine works, there are fitness classes at multiple intervals, and that the equipment rental service always has everything in stock. The expectations of parents and students are extremely high. In many cases, colleges are just responding to this demand.
My kid’s school (down South, lots of warm weather) has a lovely outdoor pool with lounge chairs, umbrellas, etc. When I asked my D if she’d had a chance to try it out, her text back was, “I’ve been operating on a mostly nocturnal basis, while the pool has not.”
It’s obvious if you can’t make the grade (pardon the cliche pun) purely on the academic side of the portfolio, then you need to create the accoutrements of leisure to appeal to a segment of the paying public.
Just seems like a good video story, show some water slides and scream “college costs too much”.
Beach type access to a pool is often part of making a pool more accessible to those with disabilities. Adding a bit of sand won’t cost millions. a 45 person hot tub for a college with 20,000+ students is OK. Those lazy rivers looked packed with students in the video, so per actual person served cost per usage might be higher than say a basketball court.
If you can attract more students especially full-pays, maybe this makes sense, if not, it’s that institutions problem.
Since I doubt these were built due to taxpayer referendum, I guess the question is, are the costs at these schools (cost = tuition + taxpayer subsidy) rising at an above average rate. For individual students, the decision becomes nice stuff vs. maybe academics and COA vs other schools without these amenities.
In a hot climate, I don’t think a leisure pool is a luxury amenity, and maintenance costs will be lower (also note that the atrium style pool enclosure in one or more of those videos is very energy and building cost efficient, especially if excess heat and humidity can be vented out through the roof in summer). Lazy rivers are just so popular in the south that this almost becomes microaggression against southerners. A hockey rink is a northern luxury, I am sure there are more.
I think the affordability of state universities to all their citizens needs to be addressed at the state government level, vote for someone who finds this a priority and negotiate what is affordable for your state (middle class at $20K too high, etc). Stop voting for people who find education to be a convenient source of revenue for other things and stop voting for people who just are cutting everything to reduce taxes.
One of the challenges that parents face regarding sending students off to college is to encourage their children to pay attention to their health. Weight gain and a variety of medical problems due to lack of exercise are a common issue for new students. An appealing dedicated (not used by athletic teams) on campus gym is very desirable. My sense is that despite the publicity to the contrary that’s what the University of Missouri built. Could they have built it for less? My sense is that it’s somewhat unlikely that they would have been able to build an attractive inviting gym for much, if any less. Could they have convinced a private enterprise to build a facility? If so students would have been charged monthly fees. There may not have been a viable private alternative. And what is the monthly student fee increase for the new gym? For a full time student the fee is $231 per semester. Students voted for the gym in 2012. The vote was 1013 for and 530 against. The one significant downside of the fee increase is that students pay it whether they use the gym or not. Well, in our adult lives, how many of us join a gym and from time to time use it infrequently?