Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="upstater, post: 3561397, member: 153"] The state subsidy doesn't cover the whole amount, so it all depends on how you look at it. Look at the Florida schools where OOS is in line with expenditures. Specifically, look at UofF. The rest of the budget includes revenue from research ($938m a year) and revenue from the endowment ($1.85b x 7% a year = $130m). That's over a billion right there, the majority of the budget. Tuition and state subsidy is a slice of that. I'm reading the posts here and many people are of the opinion that the high tuitions are due to bloat. I'll point out a few things: 1. Administrative costs over the last couple of decades have skyrocketed from 1% of the budget to between 7-10%. That's ridiculous. BUT, it doesn't explain the 1,000%+ tuition increase. 2. Tenured full-time faculty at top institutions have dropped from 75%+ two decades ago to -20% today. The vast majority of classes are taught by part-timers earning less than minimum wage. 3. Total expenditures (overall budget) is keeping pace with inflation. Not outpacing inflation. & this is being managed at a time when the school is spending on facilities, new technology which is ridiculously costly, and super high rises in employee health plans. Clearly, instruction is being slashed to be able to afford the rest. 4. So why are prices rising so fast? Consider these numbers: In 1990, the state of Florida spent $8,294 (# is adjusted for inflation to compare with 2010 dollars) per full-time student. 20 years later, it spent $6,150 per full-time student in real dollars. 5. In 1990, 56% of the U. of Florida's budget was covered by the state. In 2010, that number had dropped to 30%. I'm sure it has gotten worse in the last decade, as that has been the trend nationwide. Yes, the entirety of the tuition goes to the college. Our goal is to keep that head count aligned with our salaries and benefits. Of course it could. Many colleges already do. But the schools like UConn that operate units like a business (i.e. money-in/money-out of each unit) try to maintain a standard that is easily explicable to all units. My take on all this has always been that, even at the schools that are supposedly making a profit, the true budget is obfuscated in a way that withholds the truth from the real customers, the parents and students. In other words, ADs lose a lot more money than they show. If you listen to Jay Bilas, this is being done to hide the profits from the student athletes. But I disagree entirely. The actual losses are diminished and kept hidden so that the parents don't realize a huge chunk of that sports & recreation fee (now between $1k and $2k) goes to subsidize the AD. If parents really dug in there and realized their kid might finish with $5-7k in loans that is pure athletic subsidy, they might have a problem with it. I've read articles where U. Michigan and U. Texas owe half a billion dollars in loans for athletic facilities. The payments for these loans were not being made by the AD. But by the academic side. U. Michigan's AD just started defraying some of the cost of these loans for the first time within the last few years. But the Stadium was redone over 15 years ago, and the cost never appeared on the AD's balance sheet. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach