Sadly, it is not humor, but real. Thanks to W for the link.
Infographic: Who’s The Highest-Paid Public Employee In Your State?
In May, a reporter at Deadspin released a carefully compiled map of the United States’ highest-paid public workers. After Reuben Fisher-Baum culled through state salary databases and various media reports, he tallied the findings.
The list of highest-paid active employees counts 27 football coaches, 13 basketball coaches, and 1 hockey coach. The leftover ten include five college presidents, a medical school chancellor, a medical school department chair, a medical school plastic surgeon, and a law school dean. (The math gets you to 51 positions because Minnesota’s football and basketball coach are each earning $1.2 million.)
Really, you were surprised? I believe that coaching salaries are outlandish but, as the article points out, they are not taxpayer funded.
ReplyDeleteWithout taxpayer funding, there is no public university. Without the university, there's no established name and community linkage to use to generate athletic revenue. That revenue, however, isn't typically returned to the institution. It's akin to using a company's name to sell products and then not sharing profits with the company. A small portion of one of those coach's salaries, if returned to the university, could fund an entire academic department(s) each year.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, every single one of those programs was initially built with taxpayer money so it's like saying that, now that we're profitable, early investors no longer have a right to any proceeds. If an athletic program loses money, however, taxpayers are still on the hook. Public risk, essentially private profit.
That reasoning is hollow. To argue that those schools do not benefit from successful athletic programs is ridiculous. The advertising exposure benefits alne are worth millions. Moreover, successful athletic programs build public and political support resulting in more public and private investment. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/do-big-time-sports-mean-big-time-support-for-universities/
ReplyDeleteThe entire point of the article is that more support is shown for athletics than for core university and public missions.
ReplyDeleteThat some students, politicians, and media - per your shared article - show more interest in and support for athletic rather than academic achievement reinforces rather than disproves the reasoning you describe as hollow.
Even setting aside the "values" argument for a moment, the increased enrollment example is a good one: tuition dollars don't come close to covering operating costs at a public university, often amounting to only 15-20% of the total. Thus, if a strong athletic department brings more students but does not transfer a commensurate amount of revenue to academic programs, university departments are left to provide services to a larger student body with the same or sometimes dwindling funding sources.
Students themselves are often asked to help fill that gap via higher charges (and many already pay an annual "athletics" fee) but, since the divide between amount paid and services received is already so large, tuition increases don't make up the difference, either. Ultimately, that means less money, time, and attention per student, i.e., a short-changing of those students who end up going into substantial debt to pay more for less than what they already had in many cases.
U of L, for instance, has had tremendous athletic success the past few years and has been noted as the most profitable university athletic program in the country. If that equates to academic and financial success elsewhere in the system, then why has the school been facing budget cuts and hiring freezes in conjunction with tuition increases during the same time period?
Your UL Budget Cuts are not based in fact. The state is giving Universities less tax dollars and requiring them to be managed like businesses. However, UL is not spending less, they are actually spending substantially more each and every year.
ReplyDeleteUL 2010-2011 budget increased 3.4% over the previous year; 2011-2012 Increase of 4.4%; UL budget 2012-2013 Increased 2.5% over 2011-2012; 2013-2014 UL Budget Increased 2.9% or about 14 million dollars. Many articles and President Ramsey said the successful athletic program was a major factor in this financial success.
Is UL getting less of our tax dollars yes, are they spending less money NO. They laid off workers because they chose to spend their money on R&D as opposed to educating but that's a different discussion.
You're leaving out some important details:
ReplyDeletePer their legislative action center, U of L has absorbed $106 million in state budget cuts over nine years. Though they didn't get an increase, this year will be the first that they haven't been cut in a decade. There have been 13 different state budget cuts in 12 years. So much for massive athletic spending leading to increased political support for academics.
Of the approximately $14 million general fund increase this year, $8 million comes from tuition increases, even though this year's tuition increase was comparatively smaller than previous years. Another $1.2 million comes from increased online course revenue. U of L tuition now covers a whopping 61% of operating costs, outrageous as compared to other state universities just a short time ago. Across the board athletic success has not led to a better deal for students. In-state, undergraduate tuition at U of L is now $406 per credit hour. At IU Bloomington, as an example, it's $278. Locally, IU Southeast (which includes KY residents in the Louisville area) is at $203.
Meanwhile, the U of L men's basketball team posted an annual profit in the $26 million range on about $40 million in total revenue, taking advantage of a sweetheart deal on a publicly financed arena.
Clearly, that revenue is not shared across disciplines as it is when generated by other university units. Also, while the general fund is seeing an increase of 2.9%, the athletic budget is being increased by 8% to $77 million. The school this year is taking out a loan for athletic facility upgrades that is larger than the general fund increase. A majority of the university will have to share a $14 million increase in dealing with a larger student population while a handful of athletic programs that serve a comparatively tiny, non-increasing portion of the student population will enjoy a $15 million influx of cash.
2012-2013.......IU instate tuition $10,024; UL instate Tuition $9,750. Please quit trying to mislead. Possibly this is the reason no one bothers to comment on this blog any longer. Look at the number comments 2-3 years ago, look at comments now!! !
ReplyDeleteThe hourly tuition rates were quoted directly from the respective university web sites on the day I posted them.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're citing are caps-- the point at which full time students will not be charged any more for taking additional hours in a given semester. They're not the same thing.
Those caps can be useful if a student can afford to drop everything and maximize their course load every semester. That's not possible for many.
Fewer than half, 49.5%, of IU students graduate within four years, meaning they aren't able to maximize those caps. Average spending to complete an undergraduate degree at IU is $76,484.
U of L doesn't fare even that well. Only 21.3% graduate in four years. Average spending to complete an undergraduate degree there is $100, 579.
When you measure out to six years, however, the graduation rates tend to jump by about 20%, meaning that many students graduate but do so via taking fewer hours per semester, paying the hourly rates I quoted.
If you really don't have much knowledge about the way universities actually work, I'd suggest refraining from making asinine allegations.