04-08-2021, 09:27 PM
I'm not so naive as to say that the data hasn't been manipulated to look as big as possible, or that the University is beyond reproach. Akiddoc's post reminds me that while I was at Stanford, the University was going through the infamous indirect cost scandal. However, incremental funding (which is similar but somewhat different than marginal cost) has a very specific meaning, and would exclude unrecoverable fixed costs. Since this was a carefully worded letter to the community, I doubt that it wasn't vetted internally (including by a lawyer) or that the word was included accidentally. Had they written "We have calculated that the total incremental funding needed to permanently sustain these 11 sports at a nationally competitive varsity level exceeds $200 million." I don't think that would have changed the reaction and it would have allowed them the latitude to inflate the required funding.
But I have no doubt that the University and AD found other ways to make that number sound scary. For example, in multiple places they talk about the sports being "in a position to achieve competitive excellence on the national level", so it is entirely possible (maybe likely) that they benchmarked against the costs incurred by the highest cost programs, possibly adjusted for cost of living in the Bay Area, to calculate the costs required to achieve competitive excellence on a national level.
BC
But I have no doubt that the University and AD found other ways to make that number sound scary. For example, in multiple places they talk about the sports being "in a position to achieve competitive excellence on the national level", so it is entirely possible (maybe likely) that they benchmarked against the costs incurred by the highest cost programs, possibly adjusted for cost of living in the Bay Area, to calculate the costs required to achieve competitive excellence on a national level.
BC