Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="upstater, post: 5071344, member: 153"] Spell out what you're trying to say here. People have argued that the merchandise sales, as meager as they are, benefit academic departments. I said those are counted as athletic revenue, not academic departments. Let me give you an example of the kind of thinking that goes on inside universities now: it used to be the energies were put into attracting as many majors as possible to signal the health of the department. But just like private universities who measure health by how many full payers there are, public university departments are now also looking at the demographics. Because the administration has stated flat out that it loses money on every student who isn't a full payer. And they show this in the metrics. If some of these universities could, they would bar any kid whose state tuition is defrayed by a state program. I'm not sure what they are doing in admissions but I suspect they are making things harder on such students. This is the only way they can justify letting in all the out of staters and internationals. So, the point is, if you're dropping the tuition reimbursment to in-state, the bean counters are simply going to point out that the rest of the cost, which is subsidized by the university, will be billed to the departments. They are de-incentivizing departments who may want to attract athletes, kids on Pell Grants, etc. [/QUOTE]