Hunter and Brogan from "Extra Group" pose the following questions about this week's readings. Choose one to respond to (but if you want to respond to both you can):
Critics argue that too much of ASU’s budget is spent on athletics--football and basketball in particular. In an attempt to lower subsidies for sports, ASU is pushing for their athletic programs to become "financially self-sustaining" in the near future. Is this a realistic goal? Should ASU spend more on educational activities as opposed to athletics?
After reading about how ASU spends its budget, how do you feel about the hikes in student tuition? How might ASU justify its high salaries for top administration?
After reading the article about how ASU spends their budget and the salaries staff have, i am disappointed in how unfair the head administration is. Teachers are well aware that the average salary for their job is not a significant amount, but salaries compared to the staff who do not physically teach classes should not be a huge difference. The professors teaching classes everyday are the reason each and every student is paying absurd amounts of money to attend the school, if it wasn't for them not nearly as many students would attend ASU therefor the administrators of the school would not be earning nearly as much money. The way administration chooses to pay the staff from high salaries to low salaries, in my opinion is downgrading to extremely important people who make ASU that much more appealing for students to want to attend here. If I came to visit ASU and it was filled with garbage, dirty classrooms and not maintained i would not want to attend school here, but luckily we have custodians who do all the dirty work and help make ASU appealing. Crow is far from the main person who makes this school appealing, the reason he gets paid so much is because of hundreds of other staff which from the looks of it, he does not appreciate them. I do not agree with how my tuition money is being disbursed through out the school, I would not be as frustrated with how high tuition is if i knew it was going to something/someone i thought was important. For example, from reading about how much money is given to the athletic programs i assume part of my tuition is going to the athletic programs, which i disapprove of because i do not attend football or basketball games, but if part of my tuition was going towards a teacher who was helpful, spent extra time with me and genuinely cared about my goals i would be 100% satisfied. I think the administration is being selfish by the high salaries a small percent of the ASU staff gets, and is taking advantage of our tuition because not enough people have protested against how our tuition is being disbursed. If tuition is raised, then the salaries for all staff should be raised as well.
ReplyDeleteTo the first question, I think ASU's actual goal for their sports program is to become profitable, on top of covering their costs. It is a reasonable goal. A University is a business and it’s possible to make it profitable, but I am not a business major and do not know much about ASU’s sports program (and not much specific information was given in the articles to analyze its chances of profit). I personally think ASU should spend more on its educational activities, programs, and institutions. Students come here for education. The sports program is entirely ASU’s business. In spending more on education, it benefits the students (the common good) vs. the wealthy elite (ASU).
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the big picture, a better sports program may lead to more enrolled students (through fame), then profit, which can then be used to fund better educational programs. In the long run, ASU may then turn into an outstanding University, hopefully comparable to an Ivy League school. Or not.
To the second question, I greatly dislike the hikes in student tuition, because the money that my peers and I are paying go to invest in ASU’s sports business rather than benefiting the educational institution, the reason why we’re here. ASU might justify the high salaries for the top administration because they, like doctors and lawyers, have invested greatly into their education and should profit from it.
I would like to respond to the first question, not because of any deep, insightful eureka moment or incredible insight, but because of how congruous it is with the fallible logic that the article is written. Before I say anymore, I would like to clarify - this is not an attack on the author of the question or the question itself; to the contrary I think that it is the natural question to arise from the article because of the way it is written and I believe it is critical that it be addressed.
ReplyDeleteThe author rants on for pages about how much of a waste the money going into the sports program is, and how much better it could be spent on other things ("other things" is never once clarified in the article so this is how I will refer to them). With such powerful and language and conviction, I am not surprised that he was able to get people to side with his point of view, which he articulates somewhat clearly and supports with facts. But the disconnect here occurs in the failure to understand the difference between arguing a position supported by factual evidence and just repeating your position enough times to make people believe you. I feel that the article is guilty of the latter. But one must also be very careful in their choice of diction for such a heated issue as this, otherwise your facts deteriorate and become confusing.
The article presents a very basic question: are we spending too much money on our sports program? The question is straightforward and simple, and the answer is more complex than any of us as individuals can comprehend. To decide the answer to that question, one needs a panel of businessmen, sales associates, analysts, administrative officials, and members of the sports communities. And how do they decide on an answer? They look at the facts. This is a position that the Critical Situations textbook has brought up time and again: is someone using facts to support their issue, or are they just arguing for the sake of arguing? I cannot answer the question as to whether or not we are spending too much money on sports. I am not a businessman or an economist. But I am a mathematician, and I can tell you that AT LEAST 95% of the people who read this article don't understand what the numbers the author spits out mean. I know that I don't. And the reason that the question posed by the discussion leaders is so important to me is because it emphasizes just how confusing the author has made this article.
Numbers are an interesting subject to think about in terms of human psychology. Numbers themselves are a fabrication of the human psyche, a representation of the things we see around us every day. But this representation breaks down eventually into what is known as “number numbness”, or the inability to comprehend large numbers. Think about 100. Just about anybody can do this. Now think about 100 million. The mind can’t comprehend how much that is; there isn’t enough processing power. In the context of the article, we see numbers like $75 million spent on the program since 2005. What does that really mean? It means about $10 million a year. Does that help? Not really. And yet these are the facts that the author bases his argument upon, and when his foundation is undecipherable, his argument falters. This, in turn, translates into misinterpretation of his argument, which is perfectly captured by the question posted on our blog: should ASU spend more on educational activities as opposed to athletics? That seems like a noble goal – take away money from a failing program and divert it to education. But the author has blinded his audience so much with a convoluted overload of numerical incomprehensibilities that this question completely overlooks what that money means to the program, and quickly becomes a non sequitur. What the author has done is divert attention away from what the money does and instead focuses on the amount. But let’s look at a breakdown directly from the text:
ReplyDelete“In 2011, ASU's subsidy was $10.7 million… ASU and UA each get the equivalent of 315 tuition waivers for student athletes annually, which in fiscal 2011 were valued at nearly $5 million at ASU and nearly $6.4 million at UA. Waivers exempt a student from paying all or part of tuition, which is revenue the university is not receiving. Both athletic departments also kick in cash from their own budgets to cover other financial aid for athletes, including room and board, fees and books.”
What does this mean? That our “noble” goal of cutting funding from athletics and diverting it to education is in reality just cutting the financial aid to athletes. Half of the subsidy that ASU gave to athletics program went to pay for tuition, room and board of individuals who have given up every second of their spare time to represent their school in one of the most recognized departments in any school: athletics. But this isn’t what the author was saying is it? Yes, I do think that the money going into the athletic program could be better spent, and yes I think that someone should reevaluate how we spend our money. But I do not think that we should take scholarship money away from people who give up job opportunities and social lives to represent their school and give it to people who scored well on a test. I think we can make the program self-sustainable. But again that needs a panel of experts, not a college freshman who read a single article on the issue. I don’t want to say that anybody’s opinions on the issue or wrong, because I believe they are actually valuable opinions and are important to contribute. But I do not believe that we can make black and white judgments on an issue this complicated without consulting more than one source. As we have seen clearly, we have already misinterpreted the intent of the author once, and a question with million dollar repercussions needs more careful analysis than we have the time to perform.
Football and basketball are fairly popular sports. People enjoy watching fellow students compete against others to be the best team out there. Although it is an enjoyable event to watch and be a part of, I feel that it is playing too big of a role in universities currently, especially at ASU. After reading these articles, it makes me a bit sick in my stomach that most of our tuition money ASU receives is going directly to sports. Personally, I feel that a college education comes first before public sports. I can’t even comprehend the amount of money they spend on athletics. They have increased their spending limit on sport to 57 million! I can’t imagine what they could have done for education with that amount of money. I mean I have never been a huge sports fan, but I can’t believe ASU paid a football coach, Todd Graham, 2 million dollars just for coaching the team. We are a university, not the NFL. Our money should at least go to our educational programs. If we didn’t focus so much money on sports, we wouldn’t be losing as much money because the revenue from sports has been in the red for years. I can understand from a business point of view that they want football and basketball to make a profit so the school has access to more money. It would be great if sports were able to be self-stainable, but apparently they aren’t able to accomplish this goal. So I believe instead of pouring all the money into the sports budget, I think it should be more disbursed more evenly between our education programs, faculty, and sports. Yes, I still think sports should receive funding, but the budget needs to be cut down. If we can make a fantastic education program, more people will go to ASU and that is more tuition money for the school. At this rate, tuition will continue to rise because of the poor spending habits of ASU and less people will be able to afford to go here.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes down to it, sports is a main reason people are drawn into a school. ASU is the largest college in the United States which means that it receives an ample amount of enrollment money each year. I don't necessarily think that spending a portion of the tuition fees on sports is a bad idea especially when they are pushing for self-sustainment that could lead to even a profit. I personally don't go to the ASU football games (shame on me) simply because I do not enjoy football all that much. I am sure that there are football fans out there though that do not attend due to the lack of talent on our team compared to others. In order for this program to have realistic goals they need to build a reputation and focus on recruitment. I believe that the education side of ASU has already proven that it is among the best with its advanced technology and variety of classes. For how big this school is though, it is almost embarrassing the skill level of the sport's programs. To sum it up, ASU's goal of becoming self-substaining, I believe, is a realistic one and their educational programs are just fine the way they are. They will continue to grow and once sports become an independent program the school can focus on its curriculum for studies even more.
ReplyDeleteComing from a job that paid me $50k per year (the ceiling of that position) to again being an unemployed (for now) student, hearing that ASU dumps $10 million a year into sports kind of gets me on edge. But then again, I like watching a football game on Saturday and cheering on the Sun Devils. I played many sports in my high school days and remember that they underfunded out teams, making the student’s pay for equipment, time on the rink (hockey that is), and other fees for those extra circulars. Sports aren’t cheap, no matter what sport you are playing.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to college sports, student athletes don’t have to pay for any of those fees. Hell, they rarely have to pay for tuition. Why is that? It is for the same reason Tom Brady gets $5.75 million a year to play for the Patriots, talent costs money. In order for a college team to gain money from ticket sales, merchandising and donations they need to put a quality team on the field and that team at ASU must cost roughly $10 million a year.
Can ASU get sports to be self-sustaining financially in the near future, i.e. five years? I don’t see why not. Look at the game against Illinois last Saturday; the Sun Devil’s looked like a team that knows where they expect to be at the end of the season, winning an elite bowl game! Granted, being from Minnesota, I haven’t seen a quality college football team in… EVER! They put all their money into their hockey team, and apparently their newly coached basketball team. But I digress. Taking on the Pac-12 contract and the potential to bring in $36 million a year should help that cause. Seeing that football and basketball are the main sport attractions at ASU, trying to build those sports over the others makes the most sense. That isn’t going to make the college underwater basket weaving team happy but that is life.
Should ASU reserve more money for educational activities over sports, of course they should. ASU isn’t receiving huge donations from any professional football, basketball or hockey (HA!) teams, why should there be so much emphasis on using tuition/grant/donation money on sports? Well, if you want those teams to be self-sustaining a little help is needed at the beginning. Once those activities can support their own fees and such costs, money can be used by the funds they generate to help pay for other activities. I guess you could say we can put them on a repayment plan. If the athletic department and ASU funding board feels that within five years ASU athletics should be self-sustaining, put it in writing. Tell everyone that the needed funding will be set aside to get our sports programs to the top of the Pac-12 and once they are they can start using that extra funding those sports generate to help support other non-athletic activities and help to drop tuition for students.
After reading the "College Sports" article from the AZ Central Site, I am simply baffled at the true disbursement of ASU's funds. As an athlete I am conflicted with my honest opinion of the matter.
ReplyDeleteOn one side I understand the importance of a strong athletic department; I, myself, benefit from it.
In my own college search I looked at the sports programs at each of the schools, and their success. No one really wants to go to a school that is last in the nation for every popular sport out there; I knew I certainly didn't. To the blind eye, a university without an athletic program is a drab and lifeless program. Extracurricular activities, such as athletics, infuse a college campus with a certain thrill of livelihood that academics could not produce on their own. Maybe I am biased, but no matter how intense a math-a-lon may get, it does not compare to a football game, or a basketball game. Let's face facts, you're never going to get the same audience for a mathlete as you would an athlete.
On the other hand, I experience the same financial hardships the rest of the university experiences. I do believe the athletic department should be treated as a business aspect of the university budget. It should be fully self-sufficient. As an ideal, the athletic department should be funded through ticket sales, marketing deals, as well as corporate and private donations. I do not believe that any parts of the ASU educational budget should go to the funding of sporting events.
It is ridiculous to think that in the present state of the economy a student would be expected to pay a higher tuition rate in order to subsidize the construction of a new and improved Sun Devil Stadium. Any other business would be expected to be self-sufficient and have such an expense covered by profit, not by subsidies. The ASU athletic department should be no different.
In the case of ASU's payment of staff, I believe the top administrators should be paid at a higher rate than that of a custodian. Top members of ASU's staff have committed a portion of their lives to being educated to educate. For that choice they should be awarded with a higher salary as opposed to a person who has not made the same choices. Though lower-tiered faculty are still a strong necessity to the functionality of the university, they too, deserve to be paid according to their choices. If one chose not to pursue an education past high school, they rightfully deserve a salary that reflects that choice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about ASU's athletic budget I don't understand how we don't have better funded educational programs. If the school can afford to spend so many millions on our football and basketball programs they should be able to afford class related programs as well. I enjoy going to the football games and cheering in the student section along with everyone else but as much fun as that is it is not worth all of that money. The article quoted many ASU administrators saying that the goal for these athletic programs is to become self-sustainable financially, yet most of the people were very vague about when or even how this goal could be accomplished. A goal can’t be realistic until someone comes up with an idea to fulfill it. Until some sort of plan is put into place, beyond wishing for the program to suddenly become profitable, the athletic department will continue to drain money from the budget as we see tuition continue to rise and classes continue to lose funding. Our school sports are important and should be maintained but not to this degree. We are spending too much money on athletics and it is not getting us anywhere because the program is still not making enough money and our teams are not nearly successful enough to justify such a large budget.
ReplyDeleteThe money we spend on sports could easily be better distributed to pay teacher or janitorial salaries. Or without the money being funneled towards sports, tuition could be lowered since the money released from sports could go to other parts of the budget meaning less money would be needed. And it is not only sports sucking money up from the ASU budget, the salaries of the administrators are frighteningly high compared to other pay grades. I understand that administrators will and should be better paid than teachers and janitors because their responsibilities go beyond that of a teacher, but there is such a ridiculously large gap between the salaries. And the money going to administrators should be cut a little and funneled toward educational programs. ASU needs to be more fiscally responsible, spending so much money on sports and administrators rather than the students is not fair considering the high tuition students pay to go the university.
Based on the of the article on The Arizona Republic, the goal of having "financially self-sustaining" athletic programs in the future definitely feels overly idealistic. All concrete evidence evinces the difficult task of self sustaining these costly programs. "ASU's total spending on athletics has grown by 44 percent," and yet "ASU's ticket revenue... plunged in 2011", the recent past. The athletic department continues to receive obscene amounts of money ($10.7 million) as subsidy; how can it plan to be self-sustaining in the near future if "it has not issued any directive to end subsidies"?
ReplyDeleteSure, the ASU officials have come up with a few strategies, namely "the district" and "new television agreements" in order to increase revenue but I feel this bullish approach has run its course and that maybe it is time to prioritize the places all this money goes. According to the article the sports programs which are inundated with loads of money have been having "mediocre performance on the field for most of the past decade" which has led to "underwhelming ticket sales." These facts certainly do not predict a self-sustaining future for any of the athletic programs.
Thus, I believe that instead of chasing the impossible goal ASU can focus more towards spending on educational purposes. Sports are one of the few feel good factors/parts of anyone's life and an essential part of the college experience but it is critical not to let it overshadow the value and significance of education. If educational activities aren't the preferred place to make investments in a college, then the whole idea of pursuing higher education is rendered futile.
The two other articles about the spending of ASU's budget and tuition hikes did not really come off as a surprise to me considering the kind of wealth disparity and income inequality that pervades this country. For me, the hikes in student tuition cannot be justified if they're exclusively used to appease the top tier of ASU administrators. And therefore, there's also no way ASU can justify the large gap of salary between the top administration ("150 employees at ASU") and the "bottom 1,300 full-time employees." Teachers, as we are all familiar, have the one of the most underpaid professions which can make them feel underappreciated. It is baffling to me that teachers all across the nation have been paid according to their students' test scores; they are being paid to teach to the tests when in fact teaching is not a science, but am art.
I don't feel comfortable knowing my tuition money is helping to make a select group of perhaps undeserving people far, far more rich than the much more deserving, larger group of dedicated employees including custodians and professors.
Sports have always been a significant part of universities and ASU is no different. The university uses government subsidies to fund the athletic program here. ASU is trying to make the program more “financially self-sustaining.” I think this is a realistic goal. In the article, “College Sports Subsidies Remain an Integral Part of the Game,” many options to achieve this goal are listed. Such as: new television agreements with the Pac-12, courting big donors, and expanding fee-based athletic camps. I do not believe that making the program more self-sustaining financially will be easy, but I do think that it is possible.
ReplyDeleteThe article implies that ASU is spending millions of dollars on athletics and much, much less on educational activities. While this might be true, this does not mean that the administration is doing a terrible thing. I completely agree that more money should be spent on educational activities within the university; however, athletics are a major part of the college experience and, for some people, athletics is the only way a person can attend college. More money should be given to professors and custodians, but taking too much money away from the athletic program can keep several students from getting a chance to go to college on an athletic scholarship. Therefore, there should be a balance of where the money a university obtains between athletics and educational activities.
The main concern I have is to why we as students are attending a University rather than a college. I always believed it was for a higher education and to be challenged for future success. After reading this article it seems that the University has other concerns rather than higher education for its students. Are we as students attending ASU simply just for the sports teams? Are we paying loads of money just to watch a season of football and have our team win a couple of games? It is absurd how much money ASU tries to invest into its sports. It is reasonable to understand why they would invest so much money but the concern is whether or not it will gain a profit. The problem could be that all the money invested in the sports could end up being a total waste. It is possible that the sports will unlikely gain a profit or even stable itself without an amazing team. I believe it is a realistic goal but it is going to take a lot more investing for players and such. I do not think it is worth spending all this money when it is not guaranteed to be a success. It is possible for ASU to gain a reputation for a great sports program and in return bring in more students. This could gain a profit and allow more money for educational needs. I do not know much about the whole business aspect of this situation so I cannot put much input into this concern of spending. I do know that it would be better to spend the money on more educational purposes. We as the students deserve to have all the educational benefits we are losing out on because a load of money is going towards sports. It is not fair to the students who came for the main purpose of learning.
ReplyDeleteGoing to college is about far more than just getting an education. Without sports ASU would lose a large portion of its students simply because sports are a part of the college experience that many want to have. Maybe for in-state students the college search was different, but as an out-of-state student my college search was all about the peripherals. You quickly realize that after you pass by the schools at the absolute top of the education hierarchy, most of the schools left are fairly even in that department. So it becomes about things like weather, the looks of the campus, and, of course, the sports teams. ASU has to fund sports if it wants to maintain its place at the top of student enrollment in the country. It is an integral part of the college experience that cannot be replaced.
ReplyDeleteFor sports to become financially self-sustaining is obviously a goal that ASU should strive for but I don’t think it is a make-it or break-it situation. All progress made towards that goal benefits the university as they can then spend that money elsewhere, but it is more of a bonus than money that they actually need. They balance of money currently seems to be working just fine as we are all getting a quality education along with everything else that comes with the ASU experience. It was a choice to come here and you are buying more than just an education when you pay tuition. The ASU experience as a whole is included and I for one believe it is worth the current cost of admission.
Yes, I believe that the athletic programs goal of becoming self-sufficient is a very realistic goal but everything revolves around how well the sports teams perform. For the past ten years, ASU’s two main athletic sports which bring in revenue, football and basketball have done poorly. In the Arizona Republic article, they stated that ASU’s football record was 77-71 and that ASU has only “played in seven mostly low-level bowl game and lost five of them.” Although ASU’s school spirit is very high, students are less likely to buy a ticket to an ASU game if they think ASU is going to lose. This also applies to season ticket holders who are a part of the community. Why spend so much money just to watch the home team lose every home game? Thus, by “building up” the sports programs and putting more money into creating a better team, ASU is hoping that more money will “pour in… which benefits [the university] as a whole.” If ASU has a winning football team, the games will be more exciting which will attract students and community members, thus filling up the seats and bringing in a much needed revenue. In addition to better sports teams, the athletics department is doing many other things which will help make it more self-sufficient such as a deal with ESPN and Fox Sports to televise most of the games. These sorts of initiatives will allow the sports program to become self-sustaining but will also come to benefit the rest of the university.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article, the co-chairman of the Knight Commission, William Kirwan stated that “Too much money is being spent on something that is supposed to be an extracurricular activity” but what he chose to ignore is that football is just as much a part of the college experience as classes. I believe that ASU should spend equal amounts on both educational activities and on athletics rather than choosing just one side. In the first place, that is what drew me to ASU: the great school pride, upper level sports teams and a great education among other things. College may be the place of higher education but it is also a field to gather life experiences which will help us learn and develop as human beings. As regents’ Chairman Rick Myers said, “To think of sports as something that isn’t an integral part of the university experiences is inappropriate. Sports is part of the life experience we want people to have.” That does not mean that ASU should spend over ten million dollars in the area of athletics when some of that could have been better used in other areas.
After reading William Hamilton's article about ASU's budget, I cannot say that I am surprised at all. The increases in student tuition continue to skyrocket and of course, they are going to the top administrators. I am very torn between to beliefs on this matter. The first belief I have is that the students, including myself, are struggling to pay for ASU because of the ridiculous amount of money we are charged. I have thousands of dollars in student loans to pay off with the help of my parents. I am very fortunate to have my family to help with tuition, but a lot of students at ASU are not so fortunate. Many students have to pay their own way through college at the young age of 18 with a minimum wage job. These students have to work almost full time just to make enough money while attending school. That sounds like a crazy schedule to me just to pay for the "top administrators" at ASU.
ReplyDeleteAnother belief I have about this situation is that these administrators worked hard, studied hard, and succeeded in earning qualification to proceed with their careers. So, why shouldn't they be paid a good amount of money? My personal belief is that you create your own success in this world and those administrators at ASU chose to take a path that led them to great wealth and success from all of their hard work in the past. So naturally, part of me believes that they earned their right to success and wealth. Yes, I understand this situation from a students' or parents' point of view and believe that the tuition is crazy expensive, but these administrators have earned their right to the wealth because of all of their hard work. Isn't that why we are going to college too? Don't we all want to be successful and wealthy and see all of our hard work pay off?
Another thing that really bothered me in Hamilton's article is that he was disturbed by the amount of money that the custodians are being paid compared to top administrators. There is obviously a reason for that. Those administrators studied and worked their way to to the top, so they should be paid a significantly larger amount of money than the custodians who merely clean our restrooms. I know this may sound very harsh, but my belief is that you get you work for in this world. I am very grateful for the custodians because they keep my campus looking clean, but their line of work is much different than the administrators, thus the salary difference.
I meant to say "two" not "to" in the 3rd sentence.
DeleteFirst of all, I would like to comment that I thought these articles were only intended to bash ASU because I noticed that none provided any solutions to the problems/issues brought to light. As such, I did not appreciate this because I happen to really enjoy coming to school here. Now onto the questions.
ReplyDeleteIs self sufficiency a realistic goal? To this I would respond that yes, self sufficiency is a realistic goal. However, this goal will not come around immediately but it is as the administrators suggest,that in order to become self sufficient, the athletics department still needs some up front funds (the ones provided by the subsidy). The way I would suggest fixing this is by giving the department specific goals to accomplish by the end of the year and assuming the department succeeds, they still recieve the subsidy the next year. This would continue until the department no longer needs the subsidy, or only at a significantly lower value. If however, the department does not succeed in its goals, then the subsidy is lowered and the contracted faculty recieve a pay cut to compensate the difference and they try again. In this way, the department still keeps recieving the funds necessary to move toward self-sufficiency and the staff is urged to accomplish the tasks with the threat of pay cuts.
To the second part of this question I say yes academics should recieve more funding than athletics but not to extremes. I would say that the budget breakdown should be between 65-70% for academics and 30-35% for all extra curricular activities. In this way, the university keeps sight of its main goal, teaching the students, instead of having their views swayed by athletics. While still an integral part of college life, athletics are not the main reason why we students attend universities and the spending of the budget should reflect this fact.
After completing the readings about how ASU spends its budget I feel extremely disappointed in how my tuition money is being dispersed throughout the institution. The increase in tuition would be far less frustrating if the money was being invested in ensuring a stellar education with teachers and professors that exceeded the standard expectation. The significant difference in salaries among all ASU employees provides the assumption that some contribute much more than others. Personally, I think that the teachers who are present every day in class lecturing, and providing one on one assistance to struggling students deserve sufficient compensation. Teachers are primary stakeholders in the realm of education and have such a significant impact on an individual’s education that I feel they should be receiving a proper salary. I feel that the administration lacks this insight and are in some sense of the word self-serving. In my opinion, the higher administration is concerned with maintaining their positions and salaries rather than ensuring an excellent education for their students. Each students education should be the most important priority to the University, and with such immense increases in tuition, there should be proper justification. I feel that investing our tuition into sports programs and activities, takes away from the main reason that I am attending this University. I want to receive an education so that I can further my career and become successful. I don’t know what sports and physical activities have to do with my education. In my opinion, many of us are paying for something that we are not a part of nor want to be a part of. The top administration is concerned with ASU in comparison to other Universities most primarily in regards to sports activities. I think that we deserve to receive the education we are paying for, and if we are paying more for tuition then we deserve the opportunity for that money to be invested into receiving an even better education.
ReplyDeleteI applied to six schools on the east coast, three in the Midwest, and Arizona State. Out of those ten schools, ASU was one of the cheapest, and I am from out-of-state. The "Fiske Guide to Colleges 2011" listed ASU as one of their 'Best Buys'. I know that everyone's financial situation is different, but tuition increases are still keeping this school on the lower end of the college price range.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I am not happy about the way that this school appears to be spending its money. I disagree with Andrew about the quality of the first article--I think that while we are not used to understanding what $75 of $10 million looks like, we all understand the disconnect in logic of attending a university that continuously pours money into a money-losing athletic program. Also, I did not think that the authors were not ranting--the tone of the article was certainly not indifferent, but neither was it overly emotional. It quotes numerous sources, has no shortage of facts, and incorporates various perspectives: students, ASU administrators from different departments, and administrators of other schools. I think that the source of frustration that people got from reading the article came from the facts presented in the writing, which are concerning. I agree with Sharang that the athletic department here at ASU was too vague about how they would become self-sustaining, and that it is an unrealistic goal.
Athletics are a part of college life--I understand that, and I admire Michael Crow's desire to give students a chance to play sports "that aren't traditionally moneymakers, but generate a lot of interest from students and fans". And it is true that as readers we are not aware of the decisions that go into the athletic budget, but I don't understand why we would give a larger percentage of athletic subsidies than other schools and not see a payout. That just does not make sense.
I did feel that the second article was ranting. While I would love to argue that Michael Crow doesn't deserve a $487,000 salary, I do not know how his or any of the top administrators' salaries are calculated. I agree with Vanessa that a disconnect between the administrators and the janitors' pay is typical in the American economy, and it comes from the difference in education that each job requires. Hamilton called the janitors "overworked" but did not specify how they were overworked, and he did not included the pay of most professors at the university, which I think would have made his argument more rational.
So to sum up--I am not happy with the budget decisions that this university seems to be making. I feel like I have a right to be upset about the amount of money put into athletics that could be enhancing the quality of education of the school because I have been supplied with enough facts to have an informed opinion. I do not like that our administrators' salaries put them in the top 1% of American workers, but I do not have enough information on how administrative salaries are calculated to have an informed opinion.
There has been and will continue to be more and more whistle-blowing in the media about college sports teams getting huge and uncontrollable. I have my reservations about that. The games have long been more than just games; professional sports are a huge business, and college sports feed those professional teams while earning plenty of revenue for the universities themselves. Completely ending a program of tuition waivers to attract exemplary athletes is simply out of the question. While I shudder to think that sports in which one is not actively involved have become major considerations for choosing a university, as Austin K. asserts, they do serve as wonderful arenas for personal betterment, an exciting respite from a long week's studies, and a considerable potential income from ticket sales.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we as a culture, not only at Arizona State but across the country, have to draw boundaries for our national obsession with sports. What recently happened at Penn State is a perfect example of the dangers we face in the culture we have developed. As children we were always told that a sport is "just a game", and that at the end of the day we can hold our heads high regardless of winning or losing. Apparently somebody out in Pennsylvania forgot that crucial element, because a serial child molester was allowed to remain on the coaching staff simply because he helped the team win. Somebody has to lose in a sporting event. It is fundamental to the design of the games we play. We therefore cannot base our financial security at this university on the Sun Devils bringing home the trophy and raking in the ticket sales. We cannot allow the football coach to have a greater influence over campus culture than the President of the school himself, as seemed frighteningly apparent to me during the Freshman Pep Rally at the beginning of the year. Bad things happen when we forget the real reason that people SHOULD be coming to college: to become educated citizens.
In our consumer culture, supply and demand influence the decisions made by those in control of financial institutions. Michael Crow could fervently oppose college athletics and try to cut all funding from them completely. If the student body rose up and demanded otherwise, as I am rather sure they would, he would have to back down. If this school at large, not just administrators but the average students, prioritized financial efficiency over maintaining our monolithic football team, change might be affected. Until then we get to see Michael Crow work what magic he can with television contracts and subsidies and complain from the sidelines.
Perception and bias reflect personal interests and motives. I noticed in The Arizona Republic article that personal gain fuels the entire debate on athletics and athletic funding. The majority of the first section of the article is governed by two quotes about athletic funding in universities. However, the first quote comes from “…a 2010 report by the non-profit Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, an organization that urges greater focus on academics...” And the second quote comes from a critic who happens to be a “co-chairman” of the previous organization.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that, yes, athletic funding appears extravagant. But the arguments and statistics in the article are provided by people who have their own personal gain, or their own funding, salary, and popularity, supporting their viewpoints.
Critics also argue that the money spent on athletics could pay the salary for many more faculty members. But, according to The State Press article, many members in faculty are from experiencing bankruptcy. Also, I personally do not find reason that ASU would need to hire more teachers. Most of my class sizes are smaller than my high school classes.
Also, “In recent years, about half of the subsidy [for athletics] is in the form of tuition waivers granted by the Arizona Board of Regents…” Money in the form of a grant MUST be used for a specific purpose. That means that all of this grant money that is used to fund athletics could not be spent anywhere other than athletics. So, it is better, in my opinion, that the university spends the money granted because otherwise it would cease to benefit the university in anyway.
Overall, I think that this is a topic that I do not know a lot about. But I do know that I am on scholarship at ASU that covers part of my out of state tuition. I also know many other students from California who attend ASU because it is cheaper than their California choices. So even though the Cronkite News Services article says that, “Arizona’s four-year public universities posted some of the nation’s largest percentage increases in tuition from 2007 to 2010…” it obviously still provides academically for its students and maintains a competitive tuition rate.
So, yes, it would be great for ASU to have a self-sustaining athletic program. It would also be great for ASU to have a self-sustaining academic program. But that isn’t going to happen. People will always defend their perspective and their salary. Outside organizations will continue to evaluate funding in all aspects of the university. And as long as funding is not 100% equal to every single organization, there will always be a debate. So, I think that ASU should do what works for its individual environment. If that involves funding the athletic program, then that’s great. If that means hiring more faculty, then that’s great as well. But it should not succumb to pressure because pressure will never cease. Where there are finances, like in a university, there will always be arguments and pressure.
Even as a sports lover, I am very disappointed on how much this University spends on its sport teams. Arizona State should be investing on its students not sports. While Arizona State keeps raising tuition to fund their sports and high paid faculty, ASU loses potential students who are excellent scholars and have brilliant minds who can't afford the raising tuition. At the same time if we start to cut the salaries of the faculty they would just leave to a different university therefore crippling our academic departments. To bad we can’t argue the same about our athletes though. If we lose our best athletes because of a low budget sport programs, it would not hurt the whole student body who actually pay tuition. The argument for highly funding our sport programs is to bring awareness to nation about our University so enrollment rates can go up. I don’t know why we want to raise enrollment if we already have the highest student body in the nation. ASU can’t even handle all of these students. Our graduation rate is horrible! It is about 50-60 percent. Half of the people that I meet my freshmen year have already dropped from the University
ReplyDeleteIt saddens me to hear how much ASU's administration is being paid. Granted, I'm sure that they deserve a fairly high paying salary, but so do the professors and the others working for ASU on and off campus. I think it is a shame that professors are not paid as much as administrators- their job is honestly just as important, or dare I say MORE important. The administrators could justify their salary amount simply by explaining all the duties and responsibilities they undertake - but so can the professors. Also the majority of students' tuition money should not be going to athletics and administrators. Because if the students had a choice where to put their money, we would give it to the professors because that's what we're here for - to get an EDUCATION from our PROFESSORS. I believe ASU needs to reconsider how they are distributing their money.
ReplyDeleteWhile a salary of $225,000-$487,827 indisputably classifies as doing well in life and possibly better than necessary, professors and administrators at big colleges like ASU receive these high salaries because they deserve them. Isn’t the usual argument that teachers aren’t paid enough? This is a case where the people who are teaching lessons at a high level are teaching material to be used for the rest of a student’s life. I feel bad arguing for this side because it’s my money that supplies these very high salaries, but somebody who does a job that has as big of an impact on as many people as professors do deserves to be paid well. Professors also conduct research that has an impact on a society that is even bigger than the university that they are being paid at in addition to teaching. Students are often able to be included in this research which becomes more beneficial for the student if the professor is a well renowned (and therefore expectant of higher pay) person in the field of their study. So to answer the question, I am not opposed to the tuition hikes because of the better opportunities it provides in potential research with renowned faculty and the deserving nature of the impactful teachers.
ReplyDeleteIt is surprising to realize just how much of the ASU budget is used to finance sports. By no means is this a bad thing, society today values well-rounded individuals who excel in both academics and extracurriculars. However, I feel that balance is vital. The fact that an exorbitant sum of money is put into sports, some of which are not even extremely popular, does not appear very balanced to me. To say that these investments will prove to be self-sustaining is a very ambitious claim, but it does not seem to be realistic. The pattern in statistics suggests that this investment may prove to be problematic and cause ASU to lose money. The bottom line is that a little less stress should be put on athletics, and the focus instead should turn to academics. Funding for sports should not be stopped altogether however, but it should indeed by decreased, and that money used instead to further the education of students, such as through research programs, as well as to improve the salaries of professors.
ReplyDeleteAfter finish reading the article "College sports subsidies remain integral part of game" it is clear to me that ASU is very optimistic about the sport program revenue becoming greater in what it is today. I also find this article to be funny in a sense, because Mr.Crow talks how its more difficult fill in the Sun Devil Stadium in 2012 then how it was in 1965 when the stadium was filled up; i just wonder what has really change in the sports program that has decreased the volume of fanatics of ASU sports. Maybe because the entrance its to over price for some college student, or maybe their not really focusing on the most popular sport now a days. Who knows? But one thing for sure is that ASU is not bringing home the bacon these past years and they either have to step it up in finding a way to gain more revenue from their sports program or just start using that money for something that is important in every universities "education" that way instead of becoming a school known for sports and parties, ASU can become a institution that focuses and strives for excellence in their education.
ReplyDeleteI think the "realistic goal" that ASU is trying to reach will never be met. A valid point is that almost nobody really goes the game to enjoy that particular sport but in ASU they go so they can tail-gate and become intoxicated to then arrive at the game drunk, to then leave by half time because they already found out where the party is that night. Would you agree? Also in my view i see more student move away from that seen that ASU once had of being a sport and party school, I see more of a push in students to really better themselves in academics and the future of ASU a school we all love.
In my opinion i think ASU should stop doing the same thing over and over and investing much of the student tuition in sport and start doing something more sane and invest all that money in education, because we didn't come to ASU to see the Sun Devil football team choke every year, NO. We came to ASU to become a leader and prepare for the real world that awaits for us after our time in ASU. If we would stop being INSANE and start being SANE and change our course of action in this institution then maybe "surprisingly" will see a change in ASU academics.
To answer the first question, I do believe it's possible for the athletic program to become self-sufficient. However, 80 million dollars is far too much to be pouring into a goal that could be years or even decades down the road. And yes, ASU should make education a priority to sports, but realistically I don't see it happening. Sports are an integral part of America and the college experience and always will be. In regard to the second question, as a student, it's quite disheartening to sign my name to yet another loan this semester, knowing that roughly 80 million dollars of ASU's budget is going towards the athletic program. However, tuition continues to increase, but decreasing state funding is to blame? I see very little logic blaming a lack of funding as the reason for tuition increases, when the funds are obviously not being adequately dispersed in the first place. It amazed me how university administration could make a fairly simple concept such as budgeting seem like rocket science. I do think the salaries for top administrators is justifiable, although seemingly unfair when compared to the average professor's salary, they earned their position and therefore deserve it.
ReplyDeleteI agree to a few comments here to a certain extent, but as a student and a huge sports fan i do see where the money is going to use when pouring majority of it into sports. To me, college is a business which is true, you advertise your team by putting money in and the better they get *ASU* people will more often come to your school. Not just for extracurricular activities but for the community, think of the sports foundation as a base for socialism. With a good team, comes a greater school with spirit. Now i do agree to the point where Aimen was talking about "balance is vital," yes that is true but the fault here are the earnings from the sports. The earnings or gains should be used to fund the academic programs, to make it better. We have one of the top business schools opposing private schools, and a great design program, spending money into these programs too would also benefit the school.
ReplyDelete"The belief is that as sports programs get better, more money pours in and the university benefits as a whole. But there is no guarantee this will work." In the article is what i believe in, i am a transfer student from the East coast of New York City, and i came here because of the pac-12 division. One of THE best divisions in college. And i agree to an extent to this quote. It did drive me down here, so overall i feel that spending money on sports isn't a bad idea. If you look at it whole the only reason why this is an issue is because not enough is poured into academics but at the same time there is money... its not much but there's money going into academic programs and besides, we're still functioning fine. The better the sport programs the more school spirit students have, driving incoming students to come study. It's a win-win situation to me.
After reading the several articles on ASU's budget spending. I can't help but feel a little depressed about being a part of it, and a little deceived about how it works. As a student here, I enjoy taking part in extra-curricular activities such as sports, (by watching them, I am no athlete), and I enjoy the big university experience. It's fun to be a part of such a diverse crowd of people, and it's why I, and so many other students have chosen to come here. But college athletics, especially in the Pac-12, tend to forget that sports are meant to be extra-curricular. Most of the student athletes are trying to make a career out the sports, and a lot of prospective students and money is brought in by athletics. By cutting funding for such an area could prove to be even more detrimental than raising tuition.
ReplyDeleteI found it shocking the amount of money Michael Crow makes annually, from a public university in a state where education funding is being cut down more and more every year. And I find it incredibly ironic when William Hamilton said that he had angry e-mails from students calling him a "Communist sympathizer"because they don't agree with pay equity. As if pointing out unjust salary difference makes you "anti-American". For how America promotes it's "democracy" there sure is very limited political diversity. Anyway that is beside the point...I think that ASU may have difficulty justifying it's raises in tuition. In our current economic unrest, budgeting our spending is vital, and if raising tuition so that we can have the possibility of building a covered football stadium in a state that rarely rains, or if other nonsensical ways of spending money constitutes 'budgeting', I think we have some serious issues to be tackled in the near future.
I think it is a completely realistic goal for ASU to aim for its athletic programs to become financially self-sustaining. Athletic programs are going to exist regardless. ASU can continuously pay for a cheap athletic program that is less than mediocre until the end of time or ASU can pay a lot of money at once to build a great program that will pay for itself for years to come. The idea is that once ASU has a decent athletic program, it should receive a lot more recognition which in turn will draw in a lot more students/money. It's like anything in life, you have to spend money to make money. It just so happens that sports are the way to do it. Of course you could argue that if ASU spent all the money on education, ASU would be known for pumping out the future leaders of tomorrow and would therefore draw in more students. The problem is that it is much more difficult to get 70,000 students to succeed academically than it is to get 80 or so kids to win a football game. When it comes down to it, ASU is a business and spending money on sports is how they believe they will increase their revenue in the long run. Maybe (hopefully) a lot more money can be spent on educational purposes after the athletic program is self-sustaining and stable. One thing at a time. It sucks that athletics take first priority but hey, that's just the society we live in.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the tuition increases go, I can see where they are coming from when they say that the reduction in state support has affected tuition prices. But when you consider the fact that the top 150 administrators at ASU make a combined total of $33,636,738 and they spend millions of dollars on coaches.. I lose all sympathy over any financial issues they may be experiencing. No one person needs that much money, especially for what their jobs entail. It's idiotic and a complete waste of resources. And that's all I have to say about that.
Personally ASU should not spend more money on athletes than education. From reading the article I understand where their coming from with the whole “financially self- sustaining”, but what are the chances in actually reaching this. I see how ASU sees it, I mean if the football or basketball team makes it to regionals not only will the school be known, but it will receive sponsors that can then be added to education. But there has to be a realistic way of seen this, there has to be plan A and B and to rely on just sports to gain all the money needed for education is unreasonable. There are many things that can happen; this is not any kind of investment because education is being at risk. In the other hand if ASU spend the adequate amounts of money on education not only will this school be known for their priorities but for all the graduates that will change the world. Knowledge is stronger than sports. Majority of the people who attend college is for the education system not for sports.
ReplyDeleteI actually hate the student tuition it’s extremely high, I mean if I knew that most of my tuition was going to go toward my education not just athletes it would be a different story. But personally I don’t like it. Some students can’t afford that type of money, yet alone hold a full time job and pay it off. If majority of the tuition goes to sports then tuition should decreases and sports should learn to work with a reasonable amount of money.
Why does everyone else write so much? That makes my life really difficult as I have less I can talk about. But let's see what is available for discussion...
ReplyDeleteIt appears the majority of the posts were about the sports and administrators salaries. I'll go a different direction and say that ASU (I say "ASU" because Michael Crow isn't completely to blame and I don't know which one person or group of people is to blame) is doing quite well considering "Arizona’s universities were 'below the median rate for tuition and fees'" (Newman). Out of all the states, Arizona receives the least funding for education and it's remarkable that our schools can keep their tuition lower than the majority.
Being a school that has 70,000 students and two-thirds as many freshmen as University of Arizona's total student population, we have a few more bucks to spend. Therefore looking at total money spent isn't as accurate as looking at percent of money spent because we have more money to spend. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try and get the same bang for our buck as UA but it does justify our spending a little.
The proposal for a financial sustaining athletic department is not a realistic goal. The article talked about having buildings on the property by Tempe town lake that would create revenue for athletics but that would take years to start seeing progress. As always, people want to see changes happening right away. In addition, the fact that it takes too long for something to happen like tuition rates going down won't apply to the students now so why does it matter? Also, ASU SHOULD spend more on education than athletics but that doesn't mean they will because let's face it, sports have always been more entertaining and over glamorzied than other things. As a result, people will always put their athletes above anything else.
ReplyDeleteColleges are, by nature, money-losing establishments. They rely heavily on government support and private donations for their operating costs, in supplement to oft-subsidized tuition and various expansion projects. Also, most of their expenditures are not dedicated towards turning a profit, such as businesses and for-profits are managed.Increased spending on the English department, for example, will not result in an increase in the sales of undergraduate research papers. Athletics is unique in this respect, as it can raise its own money outside of the standard university channels, and that that influx of money can be aided by investment in it from the university. The amount of money the college dedicates to this, however, is controversial. Scholarships and other tuition subsidies are a non-issue, as they are not unique to the athletic department. What does matter, though, is the percentage to which its staff and administration receives funding. Here, there is a demonstrated disparity between the coach and athletic department officials and the rest of the university, save those in the topmost echelons of the University's leadership.This is mostly due to the competitiveness of coaches' contracts. The first article explains at length the string of contract buy-outs and pay increases that go into the acquisition of one coach or another, and how this process leads to ever-higher costs to the university. Perhaps this is simply the cost of remaining relevant in a competitive environment such as college sports. But the fact is, the costs of college athletics are very real.
ReplyDeleteThe next question is to ask whether the money can better be spent somewhere else. The second article lays out how if certain salaries were cut, tuition would go down per student by a small percent, about 7 or 8. While the question of the legitimacy of the pay itself is a question, the notion is pointless, as that part of the tuition is going towards the pay of those administrators in the first place. None of the articles demonstrate any need on parts of less funded departments of the school (janitorial staff being an exception) in terms of finances, although there is no basis to deny that they exist either. But if the majority of the athletic department's budget was equally distributed between these other organizations (stressed equally, to not provoke further accusations of favoritism), would it make much of an impact in those group's financial situation? the half-a-million or so they would receive would be nice, no doubt, but there would always be a want for more money. Probably. But why bother with sports at all?Sports are as much a part of college as the education is. Many student athletes rely on college to help launch their professional careers, much as any other student does. And, with the amount of money already established that goes into sports on the national scale, this can breed big donors for the future. Add to this how sport institutions function as a sort of advertisement for the college, and it does justify itself.
There is now the issue of a self-sustaining future to consider. I don't know any of the numbers considering this, but I can guess. Assuming that they sell more tickets, make more money via things such as the PAC-12 windfall, reap financial gain from the development of the land that they own, and rake in alumni/fan donations, they may have a shot. But land takes time to develop, and donations are subject to the economic environment. Ticket sales may increase, depending on the performance of the team and the new coach, but they might not. It is not exactly a safe bet to stake one's financial future on the Sun Devils. At least the PAC-12 contract is set more or less in stone. So, is it plausible that the sports program can sustain itself? Maybe. Maybe not. But it is a good end to strive for, as it will lead to lower financial pressures on the university as a whole.
Arizona State is not the only university in the country that funds substantial amounts of money for their athletic and extra-curricular events instead of its classrooms, teachers, and students. Last year I lived in Hassayampa and my parents were paying for my out-of-state tuition. The living conditions in the freshmen dorms weren't up to the standard they were presented on the website which greatly disappointed me. A lot of freshmen students did not return for their sophomore year. One of the reason why they didn't come back, they were not satisfied with the quality of education they received during their time at Arizona State University which brings us back to the purpose of the article. ASU's funding for athletics increased up to 40% since last year (mainly due to the reconstruction of the Frank Kush stadium and hiring of the new football coach Todd Graham). As for the differences in salaries of the professors and the staff, it's unfair. I believe if Michael Crow paid more attention to the needs of the students that attend Arizona State then maybe the school's drop-out raid would be lower which of course would only bring more revenue.
ReplyDeleteI think the discussion about the football program is an interesting problem. The question asks if it's possible for the football program to become self-sustainable, and I say yes. As of the 2009-10 football season, 22 football teams turned a profit, with an average of 7.4 million dollars. Meanwhile the other 98 FBS teams had an average net deficit of 11.3 million. Those numbers sound terrible, and don't get me wrong they are, but that's actually in improvement from the previous year when only 14 teams turned a profit. So overall it's getting better nationwide, and it most certainly is possible to become a self-sustaining program; however there’s not a chance it's going to happen overnight. It will take time but it's possible. One challenge with this is that it's difficult to cut expenses to the programs when the majority of the expenses go to either coaches’ salaries and benefits or scholarships for student athletes. Not to mention that the football program hasn't exactly been stellar as of late, which most certainly does affect revenues. It’s tough, but possible.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about how Arizona receives the fewest amount of educational funding, it doesn't really come to any surprise to see tuition go up. It's going up everywhere so there’s really no reason to start pointing fingers. Unless of course you would like to blame the lack of educational funding then go right ahead. Anyways, despite the hike in tuition, ASU is said to still be in the middle of the pack tuition wise, which i guess is nice to hear. I just moved from California, where the state government has pretty much lowered education funding year after year. Every college in California is going up like crazy. College for one year for me was nearly twice as much for one year than it was for my sister ten years ago. Absolutely ridiculous, but students are facing tuition hikes everywhere so we'll just have to tough it out.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6665112
Personally, I am a sucker for sports. I know this is more of a "guy thing", but there is nothing I love more than watching a football game and I sure do get into it. However, I think ASU's priorities have gotten a little out of whack. I think it's great that they want students to get involved, and sports is a great way of doing that; still, education should be the most important thing. Without a doubt. And I think the jaw dropping amount of $57 million spent on athletics alone shows that education may not be the number one concern to the President and administrators. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love ASU and believe that a student's success is mostly in their own hands and this institution is concerned for our education, but I do think the way they spend their money is a little ridiculous. It is infuriating to me that $57 million is spent on athletics, yet janitors and teachers make a quarter of what they deserve. I think that should be our main focus rather than the football team's fortune on Friday nights. I think that at least in the near future, there is no way ASU is going to dramatically pull back funding for ASU athletics. I don't necessarily agree with that but I think that's exactly what will happen. William Kirwan put it perfectly in the article "College Sports Subsidies Remain Integral Part of Game": "Too much money is being spent on something that is supposed to be an extracurricular activity". Amen to that.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, many of the above comments stated that most students come to a university because of the sports. I'd just like to point out, that if they wanted to go to sports games, season tickets for slightly over 50 years for the same amount as one year's tuition, so they may want to consider the better buy here. It definitely seems obvious that ASU has placed a deep emphasis on sports, rather than education. It disgusts me, as a student here on a non-athletic scholarship, that so many tuition wavers can be given freely to those with a limited talent and future. In high school, I was president of three clubs, won metals internationally and statewide, became a National Merit Scholar, and graduated salutatorian. All for what? Just so I could still be a couple thousand dollars in debt within my first semester of college? Call me biased, but I hope I'm not the only one who sees anything wrong with this. Speaking just with the facts presented in the article, I do not believe ASU has a chance to become self sustainable in athletics in the near future. Based on this years ticket prices, to generate enough revenue to waive tuition for student athletes (according to the article, $5 million in 2011), ASU would need to sell 31,447 season tickets to students. That is to break even, only for tuition waivers. One must also consider the costs of equipment, power for stadium lights, gyms, and other athletic centers, and uniforms. So, bluntly put, athletic sustainability is a joke. However, why would ASU even want to become sustainable in athletics anyway? I think ASU is at the brink of a decision: sports or education?
ReplyDeleteIf ASU chooses sports, they could potentially be like University of Nebraska, or another college where sports dominate the atmosphere. I'm sure it's nice to have a winning team (my high school never had one), but is that really worth it for the "alright" education you would be getting? After all, that is what you are paying for, right? In reality, a sustainable education is much more achievable, reasonable, and beneficial to students. Take a few other colleges for example: Harvard, USC, Princeton, and Brown. These schools pride themselves in education. What's more, affordable education. While filling out my FAFSA and applying to colleges my senior year, I stumbled upon an interesting fact: if I ended up in a place such as Harvard or Princeton, I would likely pay less in associated fees there rather than here at ASU. This seemed so shocking, seeing as tuition at any of these universities can cost up to $55,000 a year (including room and board). Why? They see education as an investment, in both the world's future, and their own. They set aside more money for aiding students and their families in paying for higher education. In a study of the nations top private universities, it was found that about 43% of the honors students at those schools donated back to the school as an alumni. What was the percentage of student athletes who gave back? Slightly more than half compared to the honors students, at only 19%. Clearly, a valuable education and good undergraduate experience can go a long way in terms of financial security for a university. All I can say is that if ASU keeps this up, I am definitely going to find it harder to donate back as an alumni because as a non-athletic student, I feel the lack of appreciation.
(Will post another comment, post was too long)
Seeing as I rambled on enough about the first subject, I'll continue to answer the second. It seems to me that the hike in tuition fees is not the fault of ASU or any other university that had to do the same. If the government really saw education as an investment for the future, they would not be cutting funds towards such things. In the Nordic countries, not only is tuition free for students, but they also get assistance for housing, food, and other necessities. Sure, they have to pay more in taxes, but most citizens are okay with this, because in the past, they received the same benefit. In a way, it's almost like reverse social security. Receive the benefits as a student, and in the future, you can help others receive such benefits. The citizens and leaders of such countries are okay with the idea, because it cannot be stressed enough that education is an investment for the future. Perhaps the government needs to sort out their priorities, such as maybe decreasing that $711 Billion (yes, BILLION) defense budget.
ReplyDeleteLastly, ASU might justify higher salaries for administrative work because they are actually harder jobs. Don't get me wrong, I think the teachers should be paid more because they actually work with the kids, but I think more often than not, people in positions of power such as Michael Crow actually have a hard job. Try being in charge of the university for a day, and I'd like to see if you would take a salary much lower than that. Again, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, this is just my opinion of ASU's logic, not my own. In reality, it can't be that hard to find a balance possibly, between administration, teachers, and other staff.
Take a look at this:
http://theunbrokenwindow.com/Higher%20Ed/Readings/Monks%20EER%20Young%20Gifts.pdf
After closely reading the article about how our tuition money is being spent here at Arizona State, I have come to the conclusion that this school prioritizes their needs very differently. I am well aware that we are a university that takes pride in our athletic programs, and we do our best to make sure that those programs have everything that they need. However, it makes no sense that our tuition goes to these programs without first covering the very people that make this place what it is first and foremost. This is a university, which means that there is a bigger sport to be played here in this arena and its called education. All of the students are here to receive a higher education that will give them a leg up when they graduate into the real world. With that being said "We" as a university cannot afford to pay the very people who are responsible for producing this higher education less money due to athletic programs. We have to remain mindful that the reason why we are a university is because we are dedicated to the achievement of student's higher education. If we have no professors then we have no university. If we have no custodians then we will not have any students because a dirty facility will makes this university less appealing to everyone. With that being a known fact, how could the people in charge of the distribution of money put so much of it toward a purpose that does not satisfy the university as a whole. I feel cheated by this system because all that this tells me is that I am not actually paying for my education alone. In reality I am paying for Brandon, Karl, Billy, and Zeke to play sports like football and basketball, despite the fact that I might not even be in attendance because
ReplyDeleteI cannot afford a ticket to come see the game. Tuition is so high that I cannot really afford to eat let alone to do much extra curricular activity, and I believe that this is unfair because it is almost a if the system does not want to meet the students half way. In other words, if this university is going to take money from students to place into the athletics program, at least allow those students to be able to come view the games at a generously discounted price. However, if students do not plan to attend any athletic events then their tuition should not have to go towards something that they do not benefit from. I understand that this university is an organization that has to make money as well, but this is a university first and foremost and the money being disturbed should reflect that.
I don't believe its reasonable to think that ASU's athletic program will ever be financially self-sustaining. Out of the 21 athletic teams only 2 of the teams actually make money. Along with that we give around 5 million dollars in tuition waivers to student athletes. In our culture athletics is so highly valued that i don't ASU will cut spending. What i do think they should do stop increasing spending. With in the last 7 years they have increased spending by 44 precent. For our school to be spending so much more money with no results it doesn't really make sense. I understand to remain a repairable college we need to have respectable athletics because thats what our society values. It is just seems extravagant that ASU spent $1,750,000 on breaking contracts to get a new coach. That just seems like unnecessary spending. So education benefits from athletics because if anything it brings students to ASU but i don't agree with the increase in spending.
ReplyDeleteI understand the increases of tuition. The increase in tuition is because of the growing number of students at ASU. I know that, out money is going towards building new buildings and growing our campus. So we can better accommodate all of our new students. This semester i have a class in one of the brand new buildings and this thing is state of the art. So i'm all for growth. Looking at the administration it is pretty jaw dropping now much they get paid. 36 members of administration gets 9 million about 7 precent of our tuition. Thats way to high its not fair that one man makes nearly half a million dollars off of our student loans that many of will struggle to pay off. So i appreciate the growth of our university but to see the salaries of some of the ASU employees thats not where i want my money going.
In my opinion, I think the money put towards the ASU athletics department is maybe a good investment. I mean yeah it sucks that the money isn't going towards teachers salaries or tuition, but I think the athletics department is the path towards gaining more money. Think about it. What are the two reasons students choose their school? I would say it's because of the quality of the school and the athletics. Not to put down ASU, but we aren't exactly the Harvard's or Stanford's in terms of quality of education, so we must build up our sports teams in order to get people hyped up about ASU and our sports. The way I see it, It's all just a process. More funding gets better sports. Better sports get more fans. More fans become potential students. Potential students mean more money for the university. So to answer the question "if I think the athletics department will be self sufficient in the future", I say YES, because in the long run, we will get more Sun Devil fans and ASU students with money in their pockets.
ReplyDeleteAnswering the first question, I feel this is a very realistic goal that may likely be achieved. Many other universities have athletic programs that are self-sufficient and there is no reason that ASU can't be one of the those universities. It will take hard work and commitment by all of the athletes and coaching staff to be prepared to compete at a high level. If the two biggest sports for revenue, football and men's basketball, become nationally ranked on a consistent basis I believe there is a very high possibility they will become self-sufficient. It seems that ASU is taking a "spend money to make money approach" when it comes to athletics that may be a good choice for them. With nicer facilities and nicer equipment it is a lot easier to get a high profile athlete to want to attend your university. Spending the money toward the athletic department is a wiser choice than elsewhere because it is an investment. Spending the money in educational activities will only be money spent with no return. Therefor i feel that this is a good idea but it will not be an immediate change. With patience this may be a boost to the ASU athletic programs and also become revenue for the University as a whole.
ReplyDelete