Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="upstater, post: 3227040, member: 153"] No, it doesn't make any sense at all. Because the extra student requires 10% more labor that needs to be reimbursed, so now you're on the hole. I am telling you, professors and department budgets are literally paid by butts in seats. Adding extra students means more labor. Universities are corporatized now in the sense that money to fund even raises is distributed according to how many students take classes in a department, how many are majors, how many are serviced for their final projects. When departments are growing and have burgeoning needs to service more students, they need to hire people. That expenditure is taken right out of their limited budgets. Not to mention the caps on classes which literally means the 21st student can't even enroll so he/she needs to be put into a class with similar students who will require yet another instructor. Let me put it an even easier way. The taxpayer subsidy is reserved for in-state students. If it is generous, as it is in states like Virginia, that will mean that very few OOS students will be admitted. It is leaves the university wanting, the school will push to enroll more OOSs to make up the revenue shortage. This literally means that the number of OOS students are proscribed ahead of time. They know exactly how many they want/need. If you suddenly convert OOS to INS, there will necessarily be a revenue shortall in the budget. The North Carolina people, as shown in the article, are hyperaware of this. Which explains why the 2005-2006 experiment was ended a few years later when the school had a big budget cut. They immediately ended the program because they knew it would mean more money for the university. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach