Conquer Club

College and Debt

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: College and Debt

Postby waauw on Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:49 am

mrswdk wrote:
waauw wrote:Most of europe can offer cheaper and better education


Top 30 universities in the world:

US - 15
UK - 6
China - 4
Switzerland - 2
Singapore - 2
Japan - 1
Australia - 1

https://www.topuniversities.com/univers ... kings/2018


1. Your list only takes into account the quality of education, not the price which was addressed.
2. The US needs its top universities because its average colleges are of doubtful quality. The US thrives on attracting the smartest and the brightest from all over the world, instead of putting in the effort of educating their own average and sub-average students. Just take a look at the majority of their masters and doctoral students. Most of them are Chinese, Indian or some other asian nationality.
3. There's a reason why the UK, Switzerland, Singapore and Australia are on that list as well, and it's the same reason as the US, a reliance on foreigners.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: College and Debt

Postby mrswdk on Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:53 am

waauw wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
waauw wrote:Most of europe can offer cheaper and better education


Top 30 universities in the world:

US - 15
UK - 6
China - 4
Switzerland - 2
Singapore - 2
Japan - 1
Australia - 1

https://www.topuniversities.com/univers ... kings/2018


1. Your list only takes into account the quality of education, not the price which was addressed.


You said that Europe can offer ‘cheaper and better’ education. But looking at my list it would appear that ‘cheaper’ is that only part of that statement that’s accurate.

3. There's a reason why the UK, Switzerland, Singapore and Australia are on that list as well, and it's the same reason as the US, a reliance on foreigners.


i.e. other countries have better universities than continental Europe, but it doesn’t count because those universities are better due to doing things that continental European universities are bad at (like teaching and research)
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: College and Debt

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:43 pm

I have a friend who received her PhD a couple years ago in a social science field from a European university (whose name I shall not mention) and is stuck slumming it as a professor at some backhole university. This is partly due to the fact that there is a gigantic surplus of PhDs right now, the market is completely glutted in every field. However, also it's partly due to the fact that, as a general rule, U.S. universities refuse to hire people who received PhDs from a European university due to the lack of quantitative training done in Europe. Unfortunately for her, that was the entire reason she went to school in Europe to begin with - because the idea of a PhD in three years instead of five years was appealing.

In order to get a professorship in the U.S. you either need a Ph.D. from a U.S. university or you need to have taught for a decade or more in Europe and established a name for yourself, at which time you might get your golden ticket to come to the U.S. and teach and research in the big leagues.

On the other hand, I feel like Europe does a better job of undergraduate training. It takes four years to get a B.A./B.S. in the U.S. because the U.S. uses the B.A./B.S. as a finishing school and loads Chemical Engineering majors up on completely useless courses like History of Baroque Opera and French. Whereas, in Europe if you're a ChemE major you do nothing but study ChemE. (Ergo, the LL.B. was abolished in America 50 years ago, all lawyers have to go to graduate school and get a J.D. to practice law. But the LL.B. is still a standard credential in Europe and they seem to get along just fine.)
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 12041
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: College and Debt

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:51 pm

waauw wrote:A college spending oversized budgets on college footbal or basketball or whatever isn't in the education business, it's in the entertainment business.


Athletics is a means to an end. It's the same with the fraternity system. They create psychological connections between a university's alumni and the university itself. The result is that alumni donate large amounts of money the rest of their life back to the university. Universities which do poorly in athletics or have abolished their fraternity systems tend to receive less in donations, per capita, than other schools.

ETH Zurich - the best endowed university in continental Europe (outside of Finland, which a few years ago started a program to mirror the U.S. endowment model) - has a $500 million endowment. That's barely more than just the average endowment of an American university ($355 million). And, of course, the top 100 schools have multi-billion dollar endowments like the Yale endowment which has grown from £600 in 1701 to $25,000,000,000 in 2018.

Money spent on footballs and basketballs today, means more money available for test tubes and computers tomorrow, which means we can do things like put people on the Moon and invent the airplane.

    That's not to say we don't need a country like Belgium whose contribution to the human species is formulating new chocolate flavors. After all, we need your pomegranate chocolate to enjoy while we're busy mapping the human genome. It truly takes a village.
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 12041
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: College and Debt

Postby 2dimes on Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:52 pm

saxitoxin wrote:I have a friend who received her PhD a couple years ago in a social science field from a European university (whose name I shall not mention) and is stuck slumming it as a professor at some backhole university. This is partly due to the fact that there is a gigantic surplus of PhDs right now, the market is completely glutted in every field. However, also it's partly due to the fact that, as a general rule, U.S. universities refuse to hire people who received PhDs from a European university due to the lack of quantitative training done in Europe. Unfortunately for her, that was the entire reason she went to school in Europe to begin with - because the idea of a PhD in three years instead of five years was appealing.



Ha, llama responded perfectly to this when he told Duk his parable in response to the hooker for the price of a pack of Doritos. "The cheap man pays twice." Or woman as it were.

The whole point was to get a piece of paper that would get a particular job. Then to find out you bought the wrong brand. Bummer.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12645
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: College and Debt

Postby mrswdk on Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:23 pm

Does 'lack of quantitative training' mean 'lack of time'? That's like those stupid jobs in China where people can get paid more for doing the exact same job, just because they have a higher academic qualification.

Sounds like an American who does undergrad, masters then PhD in America can't finish education until the age of 29, and even then that's assuming they roll straight through without ever taking a year out to do something else. What a waste of a youth.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: College and Debt

Postby tzor on Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:04 pm

First of all, college is expensive. There are a number of reasons for this. But college is (or should) be an "investment." You need to look at the "Return on Investment" over the long term. This ROI is going to depend on the college and the area of study. Let's face it, "Women's Studies" just doesn't pay well (or pay at all, unless you manage to get your former teacher's job teaching those idiots who won't be able to make a single penny off what you have taught them).

First of all you have to think of your net pay (your pay minus the pay you would be getting for a job that only requires a high school diploma).

Here is a good calculator ... we never guess we Google it up.

Let's start off with "engineering." The University of California - Berkeley (gag gag) has a net 20 year ROI of $1,162,000 and that is for a total 4 year cost of $136,000. (Assuming if you live in California, otherwise the university drops to number 7 on the list.) (RPI is currently tied at 170th place.)

This is the real "key to college" something that a person known as a "guidance counselor" used to be an expert at. Consider getting an "Art" degree at Cornell (Far above Cayuga's waters, With its waves of blue, ...) which will have a 4 year cost of $250,000 and a 20 Year Net ROI of $264,000. It's not that you have to work 20 years to pay off that loan, but if you live like someone who only had a high school diploma you will need 20 years to pay off that cost. You had better have a good scholarship to lower that cost in the first place.

So as we can see, it's more than the "debt" but the job you can get with that debt. That's why lawyers still rock even though ... Oh my God the expense!
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: College and Debt

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:55 pm

mrswdk wrote:Does 'lack of quantitative training' mean 'lack of time'? That's like those stupid jobs in China where people can get paid more for doing the exact same job, just because they have a higher academic qualification.

Sounds like an American who does undergrad, masters then PhD in America can't finish education until the age of 29, and even then that's assuming they roll straight through without ever taking a year out to do something else. What a waste of a youth.


So like in a U.S. social science Ph.D. program like sociology or politics you often have to start with a year of statistics to learn how to do stuff like Chi Square calculations, the Bonferonni correction, and all such stuff. But in most European programs, as I understand it, there is no such training. Ergo, most European Ph.D. programs are a year or two shorter than comparable American ones.

On the one hand a European Ph.D. is good as you can finish fast (commonly known as "AoG'ing it"). The benefit to a U.S. program is that they're all fully funded so the universities pay students both in tuition and a monthly stipend; in Europe only a minority are fully funded so students pay the universities and also sometimes have to get part-time jobs while they're studying.
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 12041
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: College and Debt

Postby 2dimes on Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:00 pm

What's RPI?
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12645
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: College and Debt

Postby waauw on Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:24 pm

mrswdk wrote:
3. There's a reason why the UK, Switzerland, Singapore and Australia are on that list as well, and it's the same reason as the US, a reliance on foreigners.


i.e. other countries have better universities than continental Europe, but it doesn’t count because those universities are better due to doing things that continental European universities are bad at (like teaching and research)


No, it's because the anglo-saxon system allows more market economics for its education and continental europe uses more central planning. As always capitalism can generate the absolute best at the top, but also generates the immoral dredge at the bottom, whilst central planning evens the playing field a lot more around the center. Think of it as the pointy and the flat bell curve.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: College and Debt

Postby mrswdk on Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:35 am

saxitoxin wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Does 'lack of quantitative training' mean 'lack of time'? That's like those stupid jobs in China where people can get paid more for doing the exact same job, just because they have a higher academic qualification.

Sounds like an American who does undergrad, masters then PhD in America can't finish education until the age of 29, and even then that's assuming they roll straight through without ever taking a year out to do something else. What a waste of a youth.


So like in a U.S. social science Ph.D. program like sociology or politics you often have to start with a year of statistics to learn how to do stuff like Chi Square calculations, the Bonferonni correction, and all such stuff. But in most European programs, as I understand it, there is no such training. Ergo, most European Ph.D. programs are a year or two shorter than comparable American ones.

On the one hand a European Ph.D. is good as you can finish fast (commonly known as "AoG'ing it"). The benefit to a U.S. program is that they're all fully funded so the universities pay students both in tuition and a monthly stipend; in Europe only a minority are fully funded so students pay the universities and also sometimes have to get part-time jobs while they're studying.


I’d assumed you meant stats training but then other people started wittering on about pure number of years spent studying so I got confused.

Chi squared is considered PhD level in US social sciences? :lol: I did that during my undergrad. Would have already learned it in high school if I hadn’t dropped maths after age 16.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: College and Debt

Postby DirtyDishSoap on Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:59 am

tzor wrote:First of all, college is expensive. There are a number of reasons for this. But college is (or should) be an "investment." You need to look at the "Return on Investment" over the long term. This ROI is going to depend on the college and the area of study. Let's face it, "Women's Studies" just doesn't pay well (or pay at all, unless you manage to get your former teacher's job teaching those idiots who won't be able to make a single penny off what you have taught them).

First of all you have to think of your net pay (your pay minus the pay you would be getting for a job that only requires a high school diploma).

Here is a good calculator ... we never guess we Google it up.

Let's start off with "engineering." The University of California - Berkeley (gag gag) has a net 20 year ROI of $1,162,000 and that is for a total 4 year cost of $136,000. (Assuming if you live in California, otherwise the university drops to number 7 on the list.) (RPI is currently tied at 170th place.)

This is the real "key to college" something that a person known as a "guidance counselor" used to be an expert at. Consider getting an "Art" degree at Cornell (Far above Cayuga's waters, With its waves of blue, ...) which will have a 4 year cost of $250,000 and a 20 Year Net ROI of $264,000. It's not that you have to work 20 years to pay off that loan, but if you live like someone who only had a high school diploma you will need 20 years to pay off that cost. You had better have a good scholarship to lower that cost in the first place.

So as we can see, it's more than the "debt" but the job you can get with that debt. That's why lawyers still rock even though ... Oh my God the expense!


Think about this for a moment and maybe this is where you steered for the worse...

Pick a career you'll enjoy?

:o

If everyone had this above mindset, do you think anyone would willingly become a teacher? What about arts and entertainment like theater?
There's a plethora of careers out there that have a degree requirement, and sometimes, or even more often than not, they're low paying. Take into account as well with families such as kids, schools, healthcare, cars, commuting, mortgage, etc. All of these things would be impossible to calculate if you're coming from high school to college.

You can use that line of thinking if you'd like, just bear in my you'll more than likely be miserable for it. But hey, moneeeeeeey! Debt free though right? Society demands you be a miserable piece of shit or we'll put you in debt!

Or you can pick a career you enjoy, Waking up with a big smile on your face, going to work everyday, where it's nothing but rainbows, unicorns and blowjobs. However, you're in debt for the next 20 years, because your hot ass wife decided to get preggo, and you need a soccer mom car, taking your two to four kids to their little league game, so you can watch them fall on their face. So on and so forth.

Point is, your line of thinking blows.
Dukasaur wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.

Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.

ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class DirtyDishSoap
 
Posts: 8721
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:42 pm

Re: College and Debt

Postby jusplay4fun on Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:16 am

I see several key points within the discussion here (in no particular order):

1) The role of sports and its impact on cost for a degree;

2) The impact of the take over of the Loan program by the US Federal Program;

3) The type of degree and its relationship to the likely salary that degree will allow;

4) The role and impact of internet degrees;

5) Quality of colleges and universities;

6) Overall costs, which maybe the one issue that ties all of these together.

I will offer a few comments shortly and will research some others that are beliefs (and opinions) that I want to support with facts and citations.

JP
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6004
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: College and Debt

Postby jusplay4fun on Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:30 am

I have read (and information here in this forum thread, Top 30, supports the notion) that the USA has the best GRADUATE level schools in the world. The USA is able to get some of the best students in the world in many areas; STEM is likely a focus (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). (POINT #5)

Even when I went to college a while back, I had professors from many nations as I pursued and earned a STEM degree.

I think that the entire loan program ruins the need to control costs for higher education ("College") in the USA. The costs have been climbing and out-pacing inflation since at least the 1980s. I think the costs go up at least 3-4% per year. I know my son started at a state supported college at about $13,000 per year and 4 years later it was up to $17,000 for the annual cost, an increase of about $1,000 per year. That is about 7.7% per year for that time period.

Basically by allowing any student access to money via loans, there is NO need to limit costs by colleges. It is merely added to the loan amount that lenders claim can be re-paid by a "good" job upon graduation. Point #2

Obviously some degrees are very worthwhile (STEM, as one big example; many medical fields is another). Many other degrees is only a degree and the likelihood of financial gain is low (the arts, music, painting, sculpting, and the like) are not worth it from a financial perspective, as students do not earn much upon graduation. That fact I looked up a while back. I have on reason to change that assessment, based on what I know about the degrees and income earned from them. (Point #4)

JP

jusplay4fun wrote:I see several key points within the discussion here (in no particular order):

1) The role of sports and its impact on cost for a degree;

2) The impact of the take over of the Loan program by the US Federal Program;

3) The type of degree and its relationship to the likely salary that degree will allow;

4) The role and impact of internet degrees;

5) Quality of colleges and universities;

6) Overall costs, which maybe the one issue that ties all of these together.

I will offer a few comments shortly and will research some others that are beliefs (and opinions) that I want to support with facts and citations.

JP
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6004
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: College and Debt

Postby tzor on Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:22 pm

2dimes wrote:What's RPI?

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, New York
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: College and Debt

Postby jusplay4fun on Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:51 pm

Here is a news article to shed light on the finances of college athletics in the USA:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/why-students-foot-the-bill-for-college-sports-and-how-some-are-fighting-back/2015/11/30/7ca47476-8d3e-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html

The bottom line is that student tuition fees do not pay for athletics, but a separate student fees are used for that purpose.

They are not a huge addition to the cost of college, but can be a few hundred dollars per year added to the cost of college. That is a small part of the $20,000 fees for one year of college education at a typical state supported colleges.

This is what I have learned about point #1 (below).

JP


jusplay4fun wrote:I see several key points within the discussion here (in no particular order):

1) The role of sports and its impact on cost for a degree;

2) The impact of the take over of the Loan program by the US Federal Program;

3) The type of degree and its relationship to the likely salary that degree will allow;

4) The role and impact of internet degrees;

5) Quality of colleges and universities;

6) Overall costs, which maybe the one issue that ties all of these together.

I will offer a few comments shortly and will research some others that are beliefs (and opinions) that I want to support with facts and citations.

JP
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6004
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: College and Debt

Postby jusplay4fun on Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:14 pm

I think with some research you can learn that College Football is the main revenue maker for most colleges. Most of that money is used to support other sports programs. How many people go to a college golf match? But football can put hundreds and thousands of fans in stadium seats. After football, men's basketball is the next big money maker. The same is true at the high school level, too.

At some schools, women's basketball can make money (think UCONN).

There are unique sports at some schools that draw large crowds; ice hockey comes to mind as a possible revenue generating sports at a few colleges.

And much revenue is generated by TV and broadcast rights.

The first post here had some links, and I did not read them all. That may be a good place to start, warmonger.

Last point here (#7): I did not list paying athletes as an issue. That would add to the expense. On principle, I am not opposed to the idea, BUT will mean that non-athletes will FURTHER subsidize the education of the athlete.

JP

warmonger1981 wrote:
Neoteny wrote:I like football and college ball in particular but would happily give it up for affordable college. Thing is, those large programs essentially pay for all other extracurricular activities, so it has its defences from that perspective, but there are certainly other models to make these institutions work.

Also, pay the kids.




Well, money on Sports should be directed towards education I'm thinking. Cut some money for sports. I never heard of football programs paying for most other sports programs on a university. I'm not saying you're a liar but if you have some statistics to back it up would be nice. I'm always for learning new stuff.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6004
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: College and Debt

Postby saxitoxin on Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:21 pm

mrswdk wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Does 'lack of quantitative training' mean 'lack of time'? That's like those stupid jobs in China where people can get paid more for doing the exact same job, just because they have a higher academic qualification.

Sounds like an American who does undergrad, masters then PhD in America can't finish education until the age of 29, and even then that's assuming they roll straight through without ever taking a year out to do something else. What a waste of a youth.


So like in a U.S. social science Ph.D. program like sociology or politics you often have to start with a year of statistics to learn how to do stuff like Chi Square calculations, the Bonferonni correction, and all such stuff. But in most European programs, as I understand it, there is no such training. Ergo, most European Ph.D. programs are a year or two shorter than comparable American ones.

On the one hand a European Ph.D. is good as you can finish fast (commonly known as "AoG'ing it"). The benefit to a U.S. program is that they're all fully funded so the universities pay students both in tuition and a monthly stipend; in Europe only a minority are fully funded so students pay the universities and also sometimes have to get part-time jobs while they're studying.


I’d assumed you meant stats training but then other people started wittering on about pure number of years spent studying so I got confused.

Chi squared is considered PhD level in US social sciences? :lol: I did that during my undergrad. Would have already learned it in high school if I hadn’t dropped maths after age 16.


I DONT KNOW, IF I HAD A PHD DO YOU THINK I'D BE TALKING WITH THE LIKES OF YOU?

I was just rattling off some stuff as examples of what I meant, not as a syllabus, dumbo.
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 12041
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: College and Debt

Postby mrswdk on Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:22 am

Teehee, saxi doesn't have a 'D'.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: College and Debt

Postby jusplay4fun on Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:40 am

for warmonger:

JP

http://smartycents.com/articles/college-football-revenue/

info on Univ. of Michigan (2012-2013)

What you’re probably curious about is how the remaining $58,413,817 from Michigan football’s revenue was spent. It’s not uncommon for football and men’s basketball to be the only teams within an athletic department producing more revenue than the expenses generated for the team. In fact, other teams generating net revenue are the exception, not the rule. Michigan does have two other teams who generate net revenue: men’s ice hockey and men’s lacrosse.

Revenue Expenses Net Revenue

MEN’S TEAMS
Baseball $312,388 $2,190,623 -$1,878,235
Basketball $14,799,440 $6,488,836 $8,310,604
Football $81,475,191 $23,061,374 $58,413,817
Golf $32,305 $562,163 -$529,858
Gymnastics $48,403 $937,498 -$889,095
Ice Hockey $3,248,026 $3,086,799 $161,227


DirtyDishSoap wrote:
warmonger1981 wrote:Let's quit selling kids the idea that college is a must. Most get worthless degrees. Then stay in debt for years with a worthless degrees. But that's another story. Face it guns will never be banned. A social change is needed. Like a complete overhaul. And that's another can if worms.


Most employers want one of two or both things. A degree and/or job experience. Depending on the type of field, it's a requirement to have one. Obviously jobs that have you stacking bricks or mixing cement doesn't require a degree. But if you want to attend any curriculum with a desire to pursue a career that requires a degree, you'll probably live in debt for the majority of your life. Sounds fantastic, right?

I'd rather have them reduce these ridiculous fucking costs for colleges and universities so we don't live in debt to begin with. Start with taking away the funding for college football (blasphemy, sorry). The costs just to maintain these athletic programs are ridiculous, and it's money that can be better spent. Why do I have to live in debt so some other meat head can play football? That alone gives me 0 incentive to attend any sort of college/university. It's fucking dumb.

I'll be happy with whatever job that requires dip shit thinking. At least I don't have to worry about a student loan from twenty years ago.

Athletic Spending - 2013
Athletic Spending - 2017
NCAA Finances
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6004
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: College and Debt

Postby DirtyDishSoap on Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:51 am

jusplay4fun wrote:I think with some research you can learn that College Football is the main revenue maker for most colleges. Most of that money is used to support other sports programs. How many people go to a college golf match? But football can put hundreds and thousands of fans in stadium seats. After football, men's basketball is the next big money maker. The same is true at the high school level, too.
JP


Definitely not true.

The bottom link marked "NCAA Finances" will show that is simply not the case for smaller colleges and universities, further, if that department just retains the money or allocates it back to the school. Ohio State for example:
This amount takes into account $77,139 that the athletics department transferred back to the school and - under a 2016 change in the NCAA's reporting system - is recorded as a revenue loss. This transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of money the department received from student fees and the school: $77,139.


Or Tennessee:

This amount takes into account $1,000,000 that the athletics department transferred back to the school and - under a 2016 change in the NCAA's reporting system - is recorded as a revenue loss. This transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of money the department received from student fees and the school: $1,000,000.
Dukasaur wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.

Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.

ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class DirtyDishSoap
 
Posts: 8721
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:42 pm

Re: College and Debt

Postby jusplay4fun on Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:43 pm

what is not true?

I put out lots of facts and you give a vague reference, to what? I have NO idea.

I guess I should have said MOST COLLEGES THAT have a Division I football program. I do not know what is done at Division III (3) or even Division II (2) college with their athletic funds.

In Big-TIme College Finance, $77K is small change.

JP

DirtyDishSoap wrote:
jusplay4fun wrote:I think with some research you can learn that College Football is the main revenue maker for most colleges. Most of that money is used to support other sports programs. How many people go to a college golf match? But football can put hundreds and thousands of fans in stadium seats. After football, men's basketball is the next big money maker. The same is true at the high school level, too.
JP


Definitely not true.

The bottom link marked "NCAA Finances" will show that is simply not the case for smaller colleges and universities, further, if that department just retains the money or allocates it back to the school. Ohio State for example:
This amount takes into account $77,139 that the athletics department transferred back to the school and - under a 2016 change in the NCAA's reporting system - is recorded as a revenue loss. This transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of money the department received from student fees and the school: $77,139.


Or Tennessee:

This amount takes into account $1,000,000 that the athletics department transferred back to the school and - under a 2016 change in the NCAA's reporting system - is recorded as a revenue loss. This transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of money the department received from student fees and the school: $1,000,000.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6004
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: College and Debt

Postby mookiemcgee on Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:04 pm

saxitoxin wrote:I have a friend...


Fake News!
User avatar
Brigadier mookiemcgee
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:33 pm
Location: Northern CA

Re: College and Debt

Postby jusplay4fun on Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:33 pm

Most of my attention is focused on BIG Colleges. You do not define small schools. DIvision 2 or 3, or NOT Power 5 conference schools? what are you trying to discuss?

JP

So, the short answer of where it all goes is that Michigan’s football revenue (along with surpluses from men’s basketball, men’s ice hockey and men’s lacrosse) goes to support two dozen other teams and nearly 650 other student athletes.

Kristi A. Dosh is an attorney and a sports business analyst who has reported for outlets such as ESPN, Forbes, Campus Insiders, SportsBusiness Journal, Outkick the Coverage on FoxSports.com, Bleacher Report, SB Nation and more. She’s also the author of a book on the business of college football, Saturday Millionaires.

http://smartycents.com/articles/college-football-revenue/
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6004
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: College and Debt

Postby tzor on Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:18 pm

jusplay4fun wrote:what is not true?

I put out lots of facts and you give a vague reference, to what? I have NO idea.

I guess I should have said MOST COLLEGES THAT have a Division I football program. I do not know what is done at Division III (3) or even Division II (2) college with their athletic funds.


RPI is division III in men's football (Liberty League) ... Unofrtunately RPI is also division I in men's ice hockey and the numbers appear to be cumulative ... College Factual

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute spent $3,416,198 on men's teams and received $3,557,502 in revenue.
I'm sure more revenue could be generated if we just didn't hand over hockey game TV rights to the student union who broadcasts it on YouTube for free (as opposed to the Ivy League pay per play on the internet).
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users