Do colleges spend too much money on athletics?
November 5th, 2010 at 9:41:03 AM
permalink
Edit: To clarify why the initial post of this thread has nothing to do with the thread title, this thread was initially a hijacking/sidetracking of another thread (all my fault), and it just kept getting farther and farther off topic, including wandering into the area of colleges spending money on athletics. The Wizard wisely moved these posts here to regain consistency of the original thread.
O.K., on an earlier page of this thread, I led discussion astray for a while by mentioning the bag of marbles experiment I conducted as part of a statistics course in a Management curriculum. I closed one of my comments by saying I had also done something in that course with a deck of cards and with dice but that I wouldn't burden the thread with those. Well, the quote from J.F. is just too reminiscent, so I am going to post another distraction -- ignore it if you like.
In the first class session of that course, I was rambling on about what kinds of things we were going to study and what kinds of errors people frequently make when considering probabilities or interpreting statistics. I pulled a deck of cards out of its box, telling the students that the deck contained the 52 cards that they would normally expect. I then asked, "If I cut this deck somewhere near the middle, what is the probability that the card I find will be red?" The students indicated that it should be 50%. I then asked whether they would bet $1 against my $1 on my guess that it would indeed be red. There was the typical student indifference to this.
I then asked whether they would bet $1 instead against my $10 on my guess that it would indeed be red. Rather than jumping on this great opportunity, the students became appropriately suspicious of the guy at the front of the room. At that point, I fanned the deck wide to reveal that it had been prearranged with the spades on top, then hearts, then diamonds, with the clubs on the bottom. So long as I cut the cards within 1/4 deck of the middle, I could be quite confident that the card would be red. The students had initially made the mistake of assuming that "cut this deck somewhere near the middle" was equivalent to making a random selection. That provided the first lesson on the very-common problem of non-random sampling.
Next I revealed that the very top card was the ace of spades (like in the quote from J.F.). Then I proceeded to shuffle the deck numerous times with both ruffle shuffles and overhand shuffles, adding a variety of cuts to the deck. I turned over the top card, and we saw that once again, the ace of spades had found its way to the top. I repeated that shuffle/cut/reveal process several times, with the ace of spades always finding its way to the top. I asked the students whether they thought this was just by chance or perhaps something was really wrong, which they certainly felt there was. I asked them how many times the ace would have to appear on top before we could be confident that something was amiss -- once? twice? fifteen times? I then revealed that it was a magic shop trick deck, with shaved edges. I had the ace of spades in reversed from the other cards, and it was quite simple, even for me, to get the ace back to the top of the deck whenever I wanted.
While that could have just been an amusing card trick, the point was that by collecting data and knowing what should normally be encountered, we could detect when something was out of the ordinary, not just as a feeling but by calculation. And if we knew enough about what pattern should be expected, we could know how many observations were necessary to distinguish random coincidence from something fishy. And that would be of value to those students in their management careers, be they in manufacturing, finance, or many other fields. I thought that using a little entertainment with cards was a reasonable way to try to build the students' interest in studying the course material.
I'll leave the dice bit for another day, if ever. Or maybe I have posted it before and, in my senility, have forgotten.
Quote: WizardQuote: J.F.... By the way, an example Royall uses throughout is the following. Someone turns over the top card of a deck. It's the Ace of Spades. Which is more likely: a normal deck or a deck consisting of 52 Aces of Spades? And by how much?
O.K., on an earlier page of this thread, I led discussion astray for a while by mentioning the bag of marbles experiment I conducted as part of a statistics course in a Management curriculum. I closed one of my comments by saying I had also done something in that course with a deck of cards and with dice but that I wouldn't burden the thread with those. Well, the quote from J.F. is just too reminiscent, so I am going to post another distraction -- ignore it if you like.
In the first class session of that course, I was rambling on about what kinds of things we were going to study and what kinds of errors people frequently make when considering probabilities or interpreting statistics. I pulled a deck of cards out of its box, telling the students that the deck contained the 52 cards that they would normally expect. I then asked, "If I cut this deck somewhere near the middle, what is the probability that the card I find will be red?" The students indicated that it should be 50%. I then asked whether they would bet $1 against my $1 on my guess that it would indeed be red. There was the typical student indifference to this.
I then asked whether they would bet $1 instead against my $10 on my guess that it would indeed be red. Rather than jumping on this great opportunity, the students became appropriately suspicious of the guy at the front of the room. At that point, I fanned the deck wide to reveal that it had been prearranged with the spades on top, then hearts, then diamonds, with the clubs on the bottom. So long as I cut the cards within 1/4 deck of the middle, I could be quite confident that the card would be red. The students had initially made the mistake of assuming that "cut this deck somewhere near the middle" was equivalent to making a random selection. That provided the first lesson on the very-common problem of non-random sampling.
Next I revealed that the very top card was the ace of spades (like in the quote from J.F.). Then I proceeded to shuffle the deck numerous times with both ruffle shuffles and overhand shuffles, adding a variety of cuts to the deck. I turned over the top card, and we saw that once again, the ace of spades had found its way to the top. I repeated that shuffle/cut/reveal process several times, with the ace of spades always finding its way to the top. I asked the students whether they thought this was just by chance or perhaps something was really wrong, which they certainly felt there was. I asked them how many times the ace would have to appear on top before we could be confident that something was amiss -- once? twice? fifteen times? I then revealed that it was a magic shop trick deck, with shaved edges. I had the ace of spades in reversed from the other cards, and it was quite simple, even for me, to get the ace back to the top of the deck whenever I wanted.
While that could have just been an amusing card trick, the point was that by collecting data and knowing what should normally be encountered, we could detect when something was out of the ordinary, not just as a feeling but by calculation. And if we knew enough about what pattern should be expected, we could know how many observations were necessary to distinguish random coincidence from something fishy. And that would be of value to those students in their management careers, be they in manufacturing, finance, or many other fields. I thought that using a little entertainment with cards was a reasonable way to try to build the students' interest in studying the course material.
I'll leave the dice bit for another day, if ever. Or maybe I have posted it before and, in my senility, have forgotten.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:19:44 AM
permalink
Sounds like you made a great teacher; one that made learning fun and interesting. Most of my statistics teachers spent the entire class period going through proofs, and never slowing down to see if the class understood a word he was saying.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
November 5th, 2010 at 10:36:51 AM
permalink
I only took one statistics/probability course in my life, in the late 60s while I was living in New Mexico. The professor was German, with a moderately thick accent. Language and accent were not the major factors in the communication problem -- most of us in the class generally had no clue what he was talking about.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:22:42 AM
permalink
I had two calculus classes with an exchange teacher from Poland who had an extremely thick accent, and very bad English. The whole class basically had to teach themselves. Even with fluent English speakers, I think there is a big problem with the way math is taught at the college level, at least at my own UCSB. Too much emphasis on theory, and too little on application. Almost no class interaction; strictly the "choke and puke" method of teaching.
At the risk of going off on a completely different topic, I can't help but wonder if the community colleges get more effective teachers than the prestigious universities. While at UCSB they had to lay off a lot of teachers due to budget cuts. They, of course, laid off the young ones with no tenure, who were generally enthusiastic good teachers. All the tenured dead wood remained.
At the risk of going off on a completely different topic, I can't help but wonder if the community colleges get more effective teachers than the prestigious universities. While at UCSB they had to lay off a lot of teachers due to budget cuts. They, of course, laid off the young ones with no tenure, who were generally enthusiastic good teachers. All the tenured dead wood remained.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
November 5th, 2010 at 11:58:38 AM
permalink
I have heard some people say that when they were in classes with large enrollment, they were essentially prohibited from asking questions -- too many people asking too many questions during the class session supposedly would stifle progress through the material. From the front of the room, I actually had a different experience: in large classes, students were more hesitant to ask (or even answer) questions, even if I tried to encourage it. Perhaps an element of student shyness in large groups. In small classes, we could usually get open discussions going.
One of my favorite (and perhaps devious) techniques when covering new material was to ask a question to which the answer was essentially obvious and get a student to express the answer. My technique was devious because I usually did this when the "obvious" answer was the incorrect one. I did this as a way of pointing out right up front the errors that students were likely to make, so that they could avoid making the error later, perhaps on a test or even later in their careers. Unfortunately, it didn't take many examples of this technique in a given course for the students to catch on, and then I would have one heck of a time getting any student to speak up and actually say the "obvious" answer.
One of my favorite (and perhaps devious) techniques when covering new material was to ask a question to which the answer was essentially obvious and get a student to express the answer. My technique was devious because I usually did this when the "obvious" answer was the incorrect one. I did this as a way of pointing out right up front the errors that students were likely to make, so that they could avoid making the error later, perhaps on a test or even later in their careers. Unfortunately, it didn't take many examples of this technique in a given course for the students to catch on, and then I would have one heck of a time getting any student to speak up and actually say the "obvious" answer.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:06:02 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardAt the risk of going off on a completely different topic, I can't help but wonder if the community colleges get more effective teachers than the prestigious universities. While at UCSB they had to lay off a lot of teachers due to budget cuts. They, of course, laid off the young ones with no tenure, who were generally enthusiastic good teachers. All the tenured dead wood remained.
It used to be that teachers entering the work force--at all levels of education--were paid so badly that you pretty much HAD to be dedicated and enthusiastic just to stick around for the first few years (it's a little better now, thank Gawd). Teaching is rewarding, but the workload can be brutal, and it is often frustrating as well. I think that socially, we undervalue teachers (and I don't say that just because I'm a teacher), in the same inexplicable way that in many parts of the world, doctors are, socially and economically, no better than janitors. I wish I had a dollar for every time some moron twitted the opinion that teaching is "cushy" because we get three months off every year. When I hear that, I want to handcuff that person to me for a day so he can follow me around and see what a twelve-hour workday is really like. The VISIBLE portion of a teacher's day is when you see him in the classroom. The UNSEEN portion of the day is lesson plans, grading homework, buying supplies (EVERY teacher spends some amount of his or her own money and time this way), etc. etc.
If this social perception didn't pervade even the university level of teaching, I don't think UCSB, or any other university, would be so cavalier about laying off qualified teachers. Good teachers, qualified teachers, are a precious asset to a university, and to society--pretty much the only really important one to a university, if you think about it. You lay off the young teachers, you lose some of them for good---maybe they decide to chuck it all and go work for that junk bond company like Dad wanted them to.
I think it would be an interesting question to ask the powers that be at UCSB just how much money is flushed down the toilet of athletic programs, and how many teachers could be hired (or retained) with that money. Only nine of the country's universities make money on their football programs--all the others lose money. Our local university, with one of the most successful teams in the country, lost almost $4 million on that successful football team last year. At the same time, students were hit with two tuition increases totaling 23%. They aren't laying off teachers yet, but they're sure thinking about it. And the non-tenured ones will be the first ones to go. It's a dirty shame.
I would imagine that many talented teachers do indeed find safe harbor in community colleges, however, at least where I live, those community colleges are struggling to stay afloat, and increasing class sizes to the ludicrous extent that some classes have a dozen or more students sitting outside in the hall, straining to hear the lecture.
Whatever so-called vital, indispensible programs are being kept alive at the expense of funding schools and paying teachers, slashing education is eating the seed corn. We may survive the Second Great Depression that way, but we'll survive as a nation of undereducated, unproductive second-class world citizens.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
November 5th, 2010 at 12:26:10 PM
permalink
Since Doc tells stories, so will I.
I was teaching at a University, not statistics at the time, and a friend of mine with a Ph.D in Medieval Studies decided to take a beginning statistics course because she thought it might help her get into law school. The demand for medievalists was not great. Before an exam she asked me if I had any old exams she could look at. I gave her one, she took it, and I graded it. The only question she missed asked for an interpretion of the confidence interval that she had calculated in the previous question. She gave essentially the Wizards answer that we have been arguing about in this thread. I, of course, explained the correct answer. The next day I saw her just before she was to take the test. I asked her if she had understood the answer to the CI question. She repeated the correct answer perfectly. Since I knew her Professor, I told her to answer the question as she had done originally and not give the correct answer. She stared at me, paused, and finally said that she would think about it.
The next day I asked her how the exam went and did she get the CI question. She said that it was asked and that, against her better judgement, she gave the wrong answer. A few days later she said she had gotten the exam back. I asked how did you do. She said, I got a 100.
I was teaching at a University, not statistics at the time, and a friend of mine with a Ph.D in Medieval Studies decided to take a beginning statistics course because she thought it might help her get into law school. The demand for medievalists was not great. Before an exam she asked me if I had any old exams she could look at. I gave her one, she took it, and I graded it. The only question she missed asked for an interpretion of the confidence interval that she had calculated in the previous question. She gave essentially the Wizards answer that we have been arguing about in this thread. I, of course, explained the correct answer. The next day I saw her just before she was to take the test. I asked her if she had understood the answer to the CI question. She repeated the correct answer perfectly. Since I knew her Professor, I told her to answer the question as she had done originally and not give the correct answer. She stared at me, paused, and finally said that she would think about it.
The next day I asked her how the exam went and did she get the CI question. She said that it was asked and that, against her better judgement, she gave the wrong answer. A few days later she said she had gotten the exam back. I asked how did you do. She said, I got a 100.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:41:50 PM
permalink
mkl, I have never reviewed the data on a national basis. For the schools that I am familiar with, the academic programs and the athletic programs are funded from completely separate sources (with one exception, noted later.) Eliminating the athletic programs would not mean more funds would be available for the academic programs. As for football programs specifically, I find some of your data difficult to believe. Many successful football programs are typically credited with generating excess funds that support the numerous non-revenue or limited-revenue sports. Of course, I am including not just the revenue from ticket sales but also radio/TV revenue, contributions designated for athletic programs, game concession and parking revenues, etc.Quote: mkl654321... I think it would be an interesting question to ask the powers that be at UCSB just how much money is flushed down the toilet of athletic programs, and how many teachers could be hired (or retained) with that money. Only nine of the country's universities make money on their football programs--all the others lose money. ...
The exception I mentioned to the separation of academic and athletic budgets is this (and it is particularly significant for football programs): contributions and other sources of revenue for the athletics programs are used in significant part to pay tuition and fees for the student-athletes, and that transfer of funds then becomes part of the academic budget. If the football programs and the football student-athletes were eliminated from the university, those funds would disappear from the academic budget, likely reducing funding to a greater extent than it would reduce academic costs.
A further important factor is that successful athletic programs provide positive marketing exposure for the university as a whole and have been proven to aid greatly in increasing contributions to academic or general fund solicitations.
November 5th, 2010 at 2:41:22 PM
permalink
Quote: Docmkl, I have never reviewed the data on a national basis. For the schools that I am familiar with, the academic programs and the athletic programs are funded from completely separate sources (with one exception, noted later.) Eliminating the athletic programs would not mean more funds would be available for the academic programs. As for football programs specifically, I find some of your data difficult to believe. Many successful football programs are typically credited with generating excess funds that support the numerous non-revenue or limited-revenue sports. Of course, I am including not just the revenue from ticket sales but also radio/TV revenue, contributions designated for athletic programs, game concession and parking revenues, etc.
The exception I mentioned to the separation of academic and athletic budgets is this (and it is particularly significant for football programs): contributions and other sources of revenue for the athletics programs are used in significant part to pay tuition and fees for the student-athletes, and that transfer of funds then becomes part of the academic budget. If the football programs and the football student-athletes were eliminated from the university, those funds would disappear from the academic budget, likely reducing funding to a greater extent than it would reduce academic costs.
A further important factor is that successful athletic programs provide positive marketing exposure for the university as a whole and have been proven to aid greatly in increasing contributions to academic or general fund solicitations.
It's somewhat of a question of who you ask, and what "revenue-neutral" means. It's also a matter of how you do the accounting. Our local university here is in the final stages of building a $235 million, whoops, $275 million, er, $380 million football stadium, to replace the existing one (which isn't all that old, and is perfectly functional). Will the cost of building that stadium (which will host a grand total of ten football games every year) be amortized against the revenues generated by the football team during the useful life of the new stadium? If so, I doubt that the football team would ever generate enough revenue to break even.
I've heard the argument that many football teams are, in effect, subsidized by contributions from benefactors/alumni, but that doesn't hold up. If the football team didn't exist, then at least some of those contributions would go to the UNIVERSITY, not to pay for this year's collection of hired thugs and entertainers. I think it's idiotic for someone who wants to give money to a university to give it to the university's football team instead. At the same university I mentioned above, students wait over a year to be able to live in university housing. The university is struggling to find funds to build additional dorms, and has been trying to find that money for years. But there's money to build a football stadium! (Also, a shiny new $35 million speshul library for duh sthudent athletes to sthudy in--the regular library has books and stuff, so it's no good to them.) So even if the new stadium and athletes' library are being funded by contributions (and it's actually pretty hard to find a detailed accounting of that one way or the other), that money would be better spent on the UNIVERSITY, not on the university's hired entertainers.
I do not see how paying tuition for "student athletes" benefits anyone but the athletes themselves. Those persons are given a pseudo-education--there is no way anyone could spend 50+ hours a week practicing and playing and be an actual college student as well--at the expense of whoever would otherwise have been admitted to the university if those slots had not been taken. Because the football team here is famous, the student athletes (an oxymoron if ever there was one) get free passes: exemptions from having to take midterms or finals, no homework assignments, waiver of prerequisites, and most of all, cushy treatment from instructors, even if they don't show up for classes. Then they get degrees in Applied Sports Science, which include academic credit for playing football. They also get preferential admission into all those tough classes like Sprinkler Technology and The Social Impact of "The Simpsons".
I completely disagree that a successful football team gives the university favorable marketing exposure. It gives the university's FOOTBALL TEAM favorable marketing exposure. I suppose there are some high school graduates who base their decisions on which school to apply to based on how good of a football team they have, but that should only make a difference to those who don't actually care about getting an education. I consider it grotesque that a university's worth is judged on the relative success of its athletic teams, rather than its students' academic success, the quality of its faculty, or the accomplishments of its alumni.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
November 5th, 2010 at 3:52:33 PM
permalink
mkl, I don't know how the finances are handled at your local university. Typically, schools with major athletics programs have athletic associations whose budgets are completely separate from the budget of the university itself. Is the new football stadium being paid for by the university or by the athletic association? Most commonly, such new facilities are paid for by the athletic associations, and they get a lot of the funds through contributions designated specifically for that facility. Then, at least in recent years, athletic associations get added revenue by adding a sizable "seat charge" onto the price of season tickets. If a fan doesn't choose to pay this "voluntary" contribution, then he/she can't get the season tickets for the seats they would like to have. There is enough demand for season tickets for good programs that this method actually works.
Yes, the same contributors can contribute to academic programs as well as to athletic programs. I contribute to both types of programs at one of the schools I attended, and I formerly gave similar support to another. (I can't afford to keep it all up at both places any longer, so I still contribute to the private school and no longer send money to the public school, where I both attended and worked.) But ending a football program and ending contributions to support that program would not necessarily lead to overall increased contributions to the academic programs. In fact, I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction.
I understand that you do not believe that a successful football team gives the university itself favorable marketing experience. I have read comments from quite a few university presidents who disagree with you. Athletic success results in both increased contributions and increased interest from prospective students in general; i.e., the school got some "free" advertising (free in the sense that the academic programs received promotion paid for by the athletic activities). Here is the abstract from an academic study titled "A Reexamination of the Effect of Big-Time Football and Basketball Success on Graduation Rates and Alumni Giving Rates":
I am disappointed to hear how student athletes are treated at your local university. I had a hundred or more football players (plus many other athletes) who took classes from me over the years, and every one of them was required to perform the same assignments and take the same tests and were evaluated in the same manner as any other student in my class. One exception to this (and it was fairly rare) was when an athletic team had an away event which required the student to miss a scheduled class. In each such case, I received a written notice about this from the athletic association explaining the need for the student's absence, and the student-athlete was required to make up the required work, including tests or exams, upon return to campus.
Yes, the same contributors can contribute to academic programs as well as to athletic programs. I contribute to both types of programs at one of the schools I attended, and I formerly gave similar support to another. (I can't afford to keep it all up at both places any longer, so I still contribute to the private school and no longer send money to the public school, where I both attended and worked.) But ending a football program and ending contributions to support that program would not necessarily lead to overall increased contributions to the academic programs. In fact, I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction.
I understand that you do not believe that a successful football team gives the university itself favorable marketing experience. I have read comments from quite a few university presidents who disagree with you. Athletic success results in both increased contributions and increased interest from prospective students in general; i.e., the school got some "free" advertising (free in the sense that the academic programs received promotion paid for by the athletic activities). Here is the abstract from an academic study titled "A Reexamination of the Effect of Big-Time Football and Basketball Success on Graduation Rates and Alumni Giving Rates":
Quote:To determine the impact on the academic mission, the models in this study test whether there is statistical evidence that student graduation rates or alumni giving rates are influenced by pigskin or hoop success for major universities after adjustment for key academic variables. Using a sample of big-time sports universities and models comparable to other research, the evidence presented in this article indicates that having a highly successful football team has a positive impact on both the overall graduation rate and the alumni giving rate. In contrast, a successful basketball team has no significant effect on either of these key measures of academic success.
I am disappointed to hear how student athletes are treated at your local university. I had a hundred or more football players (plus many other athletes) who took classes from me over the years, and every one of them was required to perform the same assignments and take the same tests and were evaluated in the same manner as any other student in my class. One exception to this (and it was fairly rare) was when an athletic team had an away event which required the student to miss a scheduled class. In each such case, I received a written notice about this from the athletic association explaining the need for the student's absence, and the student-athlete was required to make up the required work, including tests or exams, upon return to campus.
November 5th, 2010 at 4:19:20 PM
permalink
Quote: Docmkl, I don't know how the finances are handled at your local university. Typically, schools with major athletics programs have athletic associations whose budgets are completely separate from the budget of the university itself. Is the new football stadium being paid for by the university or by the athletic association?
I understand that you do not believe that a successful football team gives the university itself favorable marketing experience. I have read comments from quite a few university presidents who disagree with you.
I am disappointed to hear how student athletes are treated at your local university. I had a hundred or more football players (plus many other athletes) who took classes from me over the years, and every one of them was required to perform the same assignments and take the same tests and were evaluated in the same manner as any other student in my class. One exception to this (and it was fairly rare) was when an athletic team had an away event which required the student to miss a scheduled class. In each such case, I received a written notice about this from the athletic association explaining the need for the student's absence, and the student-athlete was required to make up the required work, including tests or exams, upon return to campus.
There is ostensibly a separate athletic budget, but the athletic association's shortfalls (and there has never been a year without a multimillion-dollar shortfall) are paid for from the general university fund, so they might as well be the same budget, in that accounting-wise, the profits or losses from the athletic fund are folded into the general budget. The new football stadium is being paid for partly from a large bequest given to the university, and partly from the general budget. The original bequest was supposed to pay for 50% of the cost of building the stadium, but now it's more like 35%, due to cost overrruns.
Not to discount what the university presidents said, but I would expect that any university president who came out and said that the university's football team was a waste of money and resources would soon be looking for another job. In THIS town, that would be like the mayor of medieval Rome saying that churches were a waste of good building materials.
I absolutely cannot believe that there is any CAUSAL correlation between success of the football team and student graduation rates. Really, could there possibly be such a thing as a student who is about to drop out, but decides to tough it out after the team goes 9-2 and gets a spot in the Fruit Bowl? (I suppose there COULD, but he wouldn't be statistically significant.) The correlation would, of course, have to be tested in the reverse direction: do a flurry of students drop out after the team finishes the season 0-10? Are they wreathed in shame? Sounds implausible to me.
Yes, in our university, football players have star power. Last year's team featured three felony arrests, which resulted in ONE suspension (for a couple of games), and ultimately, three misdemeanor convictions. Strings were pulled. I had one side of beef in a class I was taking a few years ago--a nice guy, but as thick as a brick (wall). He showed up ONCE for class--the first class meeting. He told me later that he got a "B" in the class (a "student" athlete needs to maintain a 3.0 GPA to remain eligible for the team).
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
November 5th, 2010 at 5:40:40 PM
permalink
That is different from what I have seen, and I have no info on the school you are reporting on. The athletic association at the school where I worked was a corporation, pretty much separate budget-wise from the state-funded university. In addition to the athletic association paying the university for tuition and fees for scholarship athletes, there was one other budget interaction I just remembered. As I understand it, the athletic association paid for facility construction, transferred ownership of the facilities to the state university (probably for some sort of liability issues, don't know), rented the facilities back at a trivial rate for use in their athletic programs, and paid for maintenance, repairs, and upgrades. That's the way I heard it, but I don't know the detailsQuote: mkl654321... the athletic association's shortfalls (and there has never been a year without a multimillion-dollar shortfall) are paid for from the general university fund, so they might as well be the same budget, ...
Of course I don't really know what the causal factors are, but I suspect it is related to building a sense of identity with the university -- something like enhanced morale. Watch a TV football game and take a look at the student section where they are mostly acting like a bunch of idiots. The better the team is doing, the crazier they get. They're having fun, and the football success does indeed make students want to do what is necessary to maintain their affiliation and that comraderie, even if it means actually studying when the other students do.Quote: mkl654321I absolutely cannot believe that there is any CAUSAL correlation between success of the football team and student graduation rates. Really, could there possibly be such a thing as a student who is about to drop out, but decides to tough it out after the team goes 9-2 and gets a spot in the Fruit Bowl?
Yes, I know that sort of thing goes on at some campuses. It is unfortunate, and that doesn't have to be the case for a university to have a good athletics program.Quote: mkl654321Yes, in our university, football players have star power. ...
November 5th, 2010 at 6:15:20 PM
permalink
Quote: matilda
The demand for medievalists was not great.
Perhaps my favorite comment to date... Thanks, matilda...
November 5th, 2010 at 7:04:26 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI had two calculus classes with an exchange teacher from Poland who had an extremely thick accent, and very bad English. The whole class basically had to teach themselves. Even with fluent English speakers, I think there is a big problem with the way math is taught at the college level, at least at my own UCSB. Too much emphasis on theory, and too little on application. Almost no class interaction; strictly the "choke and puke" method of teaching.
At the risk of going off on a completely different topic, I can't help but wonder if the community colleges get more effective teachers than the prestigious universities. While at UCSB they had to lay off a lot of teachers due to budget cuts. They, of course, laid off the young ones with no tenure, who were generally enthusiastic good teachers. All the tenured dead wood remained.
My first year of college, I had the greatest calculus teacher ever; I understood the concepts perfectly, and aced both semesters. The equations and ideas were like puzzles, and I LOVE puzzles. The second year, I had a brilliant Taiwanese woman who spoke almost no English and simply gave assignments and wrote equations on the board. If it weren't for the curve, and the fact that almost no one else knew what was going on, either, I'd have flunked. (The only reason I'd taken the second year was that I found the first year so fascinating, I was majoring in English writing and needed 2 years of math or science as a requirement.)
A falling knife has no handle.
November 5th, 2010 at 8:03:43 PM
permalink
No great demands for someone with a PhD in Medieval Studies? You mean there is no Medieval Studies Association at that university? No separate budget? No uniquely designed courses absurdly lacking in content?
Athletic teams drive alumni donations. University pay scales climb, benefits are outrageously high, university funds are used to acquire faculty retirement housing, and the endowment funds that already exist are downplayed. That is the society we live in.
Schoolteachers, police, nurses... we have a great many occupations with skewed income benefits. Many Scandinavian countries favor uniform salaries and it may indeed have advantages. School teachers have formal tenure, DMV clerks have informal tenure. We get pretty much the same results.
Statistical sampling lessons? We tend to assume the deck will be shuffled and shuffled properly. We tend to assume a great deal in life. Often such assumptions are absurd other times they just turn out to have been wrong.
Athletic teams drive alumni donations. University pay scales climb, benefits are outrageously high, university funds are used to acquire faculty retirement housing, and the endowment funds that already exist are downplayed. That is the society we live in.
Schoolteachers, police, nurses... we have a great many occupations with skewed income benefits. Many Scandinavian countries favor uniform salaries and it may indeed have advantages. School teachers have formal tenure, DMV clerks have informal tenure. We get pretty much the same results.
Statistical sampling lessons? We tend to assume the deck will be shuffled and shuffled properly. We tend to assume a great deal in life. Often such assumptions are absurd other times they just turn out to have been wrong.
