Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
SEC throws down gauntlet in football to NCAA
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IEEEWreck" data-source="post: 52634" data-attributes="member: 617"><p>This is a pretty interesting point to me. Structurally, all the schools and AA's are not for profits, and hypothetically should have leadership that guides a mission of educating people on the one hand or having a good time and eliciting alumni engagement on the other. </p><p></p><p>On the other hand, you list powerful (probably unintended) incentives to behave as though they were for profit institutions, but these goals are not universal and specific to roles within the system.</p><p></p><p>On the academic side, there's some interesting dynamics. The president has a monetary incentive to get more alumni donations. On the other hand, if those donations mostly perpetuate the football program the president doesn't really care except for some abstract notion of school notability. Stanford seems to think Football will be good for their coffers. On the other hand, GT has a lot of high profile donations from very wealthy alumni but none have a demonstrable link to football that I know of, despite the rich history of football at GT. </p><p></p><p>I like the empire builder theory of buracracies. In the absence of personal profit or threat, people tend to build up little fiefdoms that buff their personal image. Tuition skyrockets, but neither faculty nor faculty salaries increase meaningfully to the trend. Why? Well, we need 12 assistants making $60K a year for the Dean of Apparently Prestigious Foreign Stuff. Administration is so hilariously overbloated that in Georgia the Regents are merging two, three, and even four schools into one because one school had enough administration for itself plus its three nearest neighbor institutions. </p><p></p><p>I can totally see why that incents AA's to have giant, cash bloated operations. I'm not sure I get where the schools care one way or the other.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IEEEWreck, post: 52634, member: 617"] This is a pretty interesting point to me. Structurally, all the schools and AA's are not for profits, and hypothetically should have leadership that guides a mission of educating people on the one hand or having a good time and eliciting alumni engagement on the other. On the other hand, you list powerful (probably unintended) incentives to behave as though they were for profit institutions, but these goals are not universal and specific to roles within the system. On the academic side, there's some interesting dynamics. The president has a monetary incentive to get more alumni donations. On the other hand, if those donations mostly perpetuate the football program the president doesn't really care except for some abstract notion of school notability. Stanford seems to think Football will be good for their coffers. On the other hand, GT has a lot of high profile donations from very wealthy alumni but none have a demonstrable link to football that I know of, despite the rich history of football at GT. I like the empire builder theory of buracracies. In the absence of personal profit or threat, people tend to build up little fiefdoms that buff their personal image. Tuition skyrockets, but neither faculty nor faculty salaries increase meaningfully to the trend. Why? Well, we need 12 assistants making $60K a year for the Dean of Apparently Prestigious Foreign Stuff. Administration is so hilariously overbloated that in Georgia the Regents are merging two, three, and even four schools into one because one school had enough administration for itself plus its three nearest neighbor institutions. I can totally see why that incents AA's to have giant, cash bloated operations. I'm not sure I get where the schools care one way or the other. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
SEC throws down gauntlet in football to NCAA
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top