[BostonCard]

The Wall Street Journal did a deep dive into Auburn’s finances (as a public university, their financial data is public, and also they went from being middle-of-the-pac in terms of affordability to the fourth most expensive public school in the country.  It touches on  issues that have been mentioned here (ie administrative bloat), as well as increased spending on athletics, a 140% increase in athletics spending over 20 years, a building boom, etc.  this is contrasted with the relatively small increases (and in some cases, decreases) in spending on academic departments, which does make one wonder whether Auburn (which I assume is a good stand in for any number of Universities) really just has a side-hustle in educating students.

Lastly, for all the talk about paying athletes, it is worth noting that the athletics department was subsidized with student fees, and while I’m sure a lot of bloat and coach salaries could (and should) be wrung out of the system, an athletics department where athletes are paid probably looks a lot different than today (basically, football, men’s basketball, and as many women’s sports as are needed to achieve title IX compliance).

Here’s the article:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/br...yURL_share

(May be behind a paywall, but I can try to get the shared version).

BC

[BostonCard]

The Wall Street Journal did a deep dive into Auburn’s finances (as a public university, their financial data is public, and also they went from being middle-of-the-pac in terms of affordability to the fourth most expensive public school in the country.  It touches on  issues that have been mentioned here (ie administrative bloat), as well as increased spending on athletics, a 140% increase in athletics spending over 20 years, a building boom, etc.  this is contrasted with the relatively small increases (and in some cases, decreases) in spending on academic departments, which does make one wonder whether Auburn (which I assume is a good stand in for any number of Universities) really just has a side-hustle in educating students.

Lastly, for all the talk about paying athletes, it is worth noting that the athletics department was subsidized with student fees, and while I’m sure a lot of bloat and coach salaries could (and should) be wrung out of the system, an athletics department where athletes are paid probably looks a lot different than today (basically, football, men’s basketball, and as many women’s sports as are needed to achieve title IX compliance).

Here’s the article:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/br...yURL_share

(May be behind a paywall, but I can try to get the shared version).

BC

[Giants]

1703778037[/url]']
The Wall Street Journal did a deep dive into Auburn’s finances (as a public university, their financial data is public, and also they went from being middle-of-the-pac in terms of affordability to the fourth most expensive public school in the country.  It touches on  issues that have been mentioned here (ie administrative bloat), as well as increased spending on athletics, a 140% increase in athletics spending over 20 years, a building boom, etc.  this is contrasted with the relatively small increases (and in some cases, decreases) in spending on academic departments, which does make one wonder whether Auburn (which I assume is a good stand in for any number of Universities) really just has a side-hustle in educating students.

Lastly, for all the talk about paying athletes, it is worth noting that the athletics department was subsidized with student fees, and while I’m sure a lot of bloat and coach salaries could (and should) be wrung out of the system, an athletics department where athletes are paid probably looks a lot different than today (basically, football, men’s basketball, and as many women’s sports as are needed to achieve title IX compliance).

Here’s the article:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/br...yURL_share

(May be behind a paywall, but I can try to get the shared version).

BC

A few questions come right to mind……

Setting aside the issue of student fees for a moment, is the athletic dept. a revenue producing entity?  Is it returning revenue to the “general fund”?  To what degree are donations to the academic programs influenced by the athletics component? Is there an assessment of the intangible value of a big-time athletics program?  

Note:  Perhaps these questions were addressed by the article.  However, I couldn’t get past the paywall.

[Giants]

1703778037[/url]']
The Wall Street Journal did a deep dive into Auburn’s finances (as a public university, their financial data is public, and also they went from being middle-of-the-pac in terms of affordability to the fourth most expensive public school in the country.  It touches on  issues that have been mentioned here (ie administrative bloat), as well as increased spending on athletics, a 140% increase in athletics spending over 20 years, a building boom, etc.  this is contrasted with the relatively small increases (and in some cases, decreases) in spending on academic departments, which does make one wonder whether Auburn (which I assume is a good stand in for any number of Universities) really just has a side-hustle in educating students.

Lastly, for all the talk about paying athletes, it is worth noting that the athletics department was subsidized with student fees, and while I’m sure a lot of bloat and coach salaries could (and should) be wrung out of the system, an athletics department where athletes are paid probably looks a lot different than today (basically, football, men’s basketball, and as many women’s sports as are needed to achieve title IX compliance).

Here’s the article:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/br...yURL_share

(May be behind a paywall, but I can try to get the shared version).

BC

A few questions come right to mind……

Setting aside the issue of student fees for a moment, is the athletic dept. a revenue producing entity?  Is it returning revenue to the “general fund”?  To what degree are donations to the academic programs influenced by the athletics component? Is there an assessment of the intangible value of a big-time athletics program?  

Note:  Perhaps these questions were addressed by the article.  However, I couldn’t get past the paywall.

[cardcrimson]

Interesting article, thanks for posting it. 

It certainly seems there is a trend around the colleges and universities in the US to outdo each other. Not with education per se, but with grandeur. Have been touring a lot of colleges the past year or so, and I'm amazed at the facilities. So, so different than when I was a mechanical engineering student living in Wilbur. The new engineering facilities at Stanford look more like a five star hotels than the old Terman. It seems like there is construction everywhere on campus, and I have to ask, why? They're no more students than there were (but there are a lot more administrators); is the education significantly better now than then? I have to wonder.

And it's not just Stanford, campuses everywhere are building. Dorms are fabulous compared to Wilbur in the 70s. The housing I toured at Auburn's rival is simply stunning, beyond my comprehension. Ironically, the worst dorm I've seen was at an Ivy, but it's closed now for a complete overhaul. Other new facilities are popping up all over, as well. Athletic facilities, both varsity and student, are incredible. The food offerings are amazing as well. Cafeterias are gone, replaced by upscale food courts offering a variety of options. Schools like Stanford may hate fun, but they sure like pampering the students; perhaps that's where the alleged "entitlement" of today's kids germinate.

[cardcrimson]

Interesting article, thanks for posting it. 

It certainly seems there is a trend around the colleges and universities in the US to outdo each other. Not with education per se, but with grandeur. Have been touring a lot of colleges the past year or so, and I'm amazed at the facilities. So, so different than when I was a mechanical engineering student living in Wilbur. The new engineering facilities at Stanford look more like a five star hotels than the old Terman. It seems like there is construction everywhere on campus, and I have to ask, why? They're no more students than there were (but there are a lot more administrators); is the education significantly better now than then? I have to wonder.

And it's not just Stanford, campuses everywhere are building. Dorms are fabulous compared to Wilbur in the 70s. The housing I toured at Auburn's rival is simply stunning, beyond my comprehension. Ironically, the worst dorm I've seen was at an Ivy, but it's closed now for a complete overhaul. Other new facilities are popping up all over, as well. Athletic facilities, both varsity and student, are incredible. The food offerings are amazing as well. Cafeterias are gone, replaced by upscale food courts offering a variety of options. Schools like Stanford may hate fun, but they sure like pampering the students; perhaps that's where the alleged "entitlement" of today's kids germinate.

[82lsju]

1703778037[/url]']
The Wall Street Journal did a deep dive into Auburn’s finances (as a public university, their financial data is public, and also they went from being middle-of-the-pac in terms of affordability to the fourth most expensive public school in the country.  It touches on  issues that have been mentioned here (ie administrative bloat), as well as increased spending on athletics, a 140% increase in athletics spending over 20 years, a building boom, etc.  this is contrasted with the relatively small increases (and in some cases, decreases) in spending on academic departments, which does make one wonder whether Auburn (which I assume is a good stand in for any number of Universities) really just has a side-hustle in educating students.

Lastly, for all the talk about paying athletes, it is worth noting that the athletics department was subsidized with student fees, and while I’m sure a lot of bloat and coach salaries could (and should) be wrung out of the system, an athletics department where athletes are paid probably looks a lot different than today (basically, football, men’s basketball, and as many women’s sports as are needed to achieve title IX compliance).

Here’s the article:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/br...yURL_share

(May be behind a paywall, but I can try to get the shared version).

BC

A few questions come right to mind……

Setting aside the issue of student fees for a moment, is the athletic dept. a revenue producing entity?  Is it returning revenue to the “general fund”?  To what degree are donations to the academic programs influenced by the athletics component? Is there an assessment of the intangible value of a big-time athletics program?  

Note:  Perhaps these questions were addressed by the article.  However, I couldn’t get past the paywall.

no paywall for me!!!

Auburn’s spokeswoman said that athletics is “self-sustaining” from ticket sales, donor gifts and media rights. But budget documents show the school reported taking about $6 million from student fees in 2016 for athletics, in today’s dollars. 
...
Auburn reported $110 million in total athletics spending on its 2016 budget documents, an increase of 140% from 2002.

[82lsju]

1703778037[/url]']
The Wall Street Journal did a deep dive into Auburn’s finances (as a public university, their financial data is public, and also they went from being middle-of-the-pac in terms of affordability to the fourth most expensive public school in the country.  It touches on  issues that have been mentioned here (ie administrative bloat), as well as increased spending on athletics, a 140% increase in athletics spending over 20 years, a building boom, etc.  this is contrasted with the relatively small increases (and in some cases, decreases) in spending on academic departments, which does make one wonder whether Auburn (which I assume is a good stand in for any number of Universities) really just has a side-hustle in educating students.

Lastly, for all the talk about paying athletes, it is worth noting that the athletics department was subsidized with student fees, and while I’m sure a lot of bloat and coach salaries could (and should) be wrung out of the system, an athletics department where athletes are paid probably looks a lot different than today (basically, football, men’s basketball, and as many women’s sports as are needed to achieve title IX compliance).

Here’s the article:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/br...yURL_share

(May be behind a paywall, but I can try to get the shared version).

BC

A few questions come right to mind……

Setting aside the issue of student fees for a moment, is the athletic dept. a revenue producing entity?  Is it returning revenue to the “general fund”?  To what degree are donations to the academic programs influenced by the athletics component? Is there an assessment of the intangible value of a big-time athletics program?  

Note:  Perhaps these questions were addressed by the article.  However, I couldn’t get past the paywall.

no paywall for me!!!

Auburn’s spokeswoman said that athletics is “self-sustaining” from ticket sales, donor gifts and media rights. But budget documents show the school reported taking about $6 million from student fees in 2016 for athletics, in today’s dollars. 
...
Auburn reported $110 million in total athletics spending on its 2016 budget documents, an increase of 140% from 2002.

[M T]

“An increase of 140%”?  I really don’t like statements that could be clearer.  That should mean that it is 2.4 times the amount in 2002. 

If my math is right, the Consumer Price Index increased 69% from January 2002 to January 2023.  So this increase is 3.5x faster than the CPI increase. 

I saw the LA Times article about how the Dodgers have recently committed $1B on 2 players.  It makes me wonder what percent of the US GDP goes to pro athletes.

[M T]

“An increase of 140%”?  I really don’t like statements that could be clearer.  That should mean that it is 2.4 times the amount in 2002. 

If my math is right, the Consumer Price Index increased 69% from January 2002 to January 2023.  So this increase is 3.5x faster than the CPI increase. 

I saw the LA Times article about how the Dodgers have recently committed $1B on 2 players.  It makes me wonder what percent of the US GDP goes to pro athletes.