I tend to agree. However, I don’t think you can totally absolve the athletes in all this. Yes, theirs is a response to the profligacy here, but they did respond and they are part of the problem. However, I totally agree that if the universities would act like adults, stop the win at all cost approach, and get back to honest competition among student-athletes, we might be able to rescue the entity known as college athletics.
It will not go back. It has been this way since at least the 60s when Dodd was upset at other programs for over-signing and cutting players. Money didn't create the unethical behavior, it only amplified it.
Really? Well I guess there is an exception. But it doesn't matter if they pull for Tech or not - they can pull against us if they like, as long as they tune in.
I think the problem is the same in the athletics side of academia as it is on the academic side of academia. These university presidents and administrators are so accustomed to begging for money and supporting the egos of big donors (alumni and friends), that they have lost sight of the educational side of higher education.
Except, I believe the Ivy League schools you listed do make school free, based on income. I looked it up for Princeton. If your family's income is $65k or less, Princeton covers 100% or tuition, room, and board. I believe they also cover all the books and supplies. At around $170k, it still covers 100% of tuition but doesn't cover room and board. All the way up to $250k, they still cover over half of tuition. It isn't free for everyone, but it does go a long way in making those colleges affordable for everyone.
Yes, it's been that way for a good long time. In 1996 they called it "Need based". In our case they required us to fork over the equivalent of 40% of our income. The student took out loans that were capped at $10k (back then) and they required the student to work on campus.
When I typed universities act like adults that was it. Full stop.
I can tell you from personal experience that in 1987 Yale and Princeton weren't doing that. In 2019 those threshold numbers were a lot lower at Princeton and Harvard.
I don't have any personal experience to confirm what they say. I remember seeing a news story about a student from a lower middle class family, and her plan to go to Princeton sometime last summer. She was going to get a full-ride scholarship based solely on her mother's income. The story had sub-stories and quotes from other students in similar situations who had been at Princeton for a few years. As @LongforDodd said, those students had to work on campus for some number of hours per week. I might be mis-remembering, but I think there were some complaints about not having as much free time and lifestyle money as more wealthy students. However, they were going to school, making the grades, and on track to graduate without their family having to pay, and without going into debt.
I don't doubt the story is true, but it isn't available to everyone that needs it to be able to go to school there. I have an issue with schools and the government tying a student to their parents regarding higher education when they're no longer living at home. That's a penalty that needs to go away. Of course, this leads to a host of educational reform that needs to happen (and probably will) with universities.
Isn’t Princeton private? Can’t they make their own rules?
Princeton is private. All the Ivy schools are private.
And? Can’t they create their own criteria for who is admitted or not? Public schools are a different matter, but a private organization should be able to decide for itself.
Yes, they CAN make their own rules. That wasn't my point. My point was that they could easily cover all the educational costs for all the slots with meritorious student candidates with a fraction of what their endowment earns each year, but they choose not to. They'll never spend their endowment; they don't even spend the yearly income of their endowments. They certainly can do whatever they want, but I can also criticize them for their choices.
I'm not sure where you jumped the scratch, but we're not talking about who is admitted. I was talking about choices they're making about what could be done with the HUGE endowments they have.
I think you were talking about educational reform. And yeah, I jumped the scratch (whatever that means) that private organizations shouldn’t be compelled to do things they don’t want to do.
What I meant by that was that you hopped from one discussion about higher education to a different topic about the same thing (jumping the scratch in a record; moving from one part of a song to another part of the same song). This is an old discussion about personal rights/liberties versus the societal rights/liberties. I will stay away from the politics of it and merely speak to the philosophical aspect.
is my way to let you all know I've been drinking bourbon, at least a little, and my posting may be a little...edgy?)
I agree with you. Since much of the endowment money came in the form of before tax donations, there are tax law issues, but I believe private universities should be able to use the endowment in ways they decide helps the university.
Depends on the bourbon.What I meant by that was that you hopped from one discussion about higher education to a different topic about the same thing (jumping the scratch in a record; moving from one part of a song to another part of the same song). This is an old discussion about personal rights/liberties versus the societal rights/liberties. I will stay away from the politics of it and merely speak to the philosophical aspect.
I have found that unless the people/person being discriminated against is not part of a protected class, then there is nothing illegal about excluding them. However, that's a slippery slope. Philosophically, we have the right to do what we want (at least in this country) as long as it doesn't put someone in harms way (including oneself).
To your point above, my comment was never about who merited being admitted. My comment was that the schools have the resources to remove money from the educational equation and make it based purely on merit, but they don't. By right, that's their choice; but, it also is my right to criticize them. This discussion was never about choosing who gets in or left out.
(
