Story on cost of attendance stipend

[97and03]

 

Features Hair-Griffin and also contains good data on rival schools.

[Huff]

I hope every one who reads this board will read this article.    After reading it I was very grateful for what my family has and I think you will feel the same way. 

[outoftown]

I feel split about this. It is, of course, commendable that Deion helps his family who seems truly to need the help and seems to be struggling, and in that sense the COA has done something good here. The story clearly shows that he is someone to root for.

However, in a way, this is going in the wrong direction. Those stipends were less meant for students to help their families but rather to alleviate the need for families to financially help the students. That is why the money is supposed to be calculated on the needs of a student in the place he is, not about where he is coming from. It is dangerous territory if it becomes the responsibility of universities to ascertain the well-fare of not just student-athletes, but also their families (what would/does happen to those who are poor and do not have student-athletes in their family). Society needs to respond to poverty and need in general (the way it oughta do that may depend on your politics), but it cannot be a universities responsibility to do this in a direct financial way. What universities can do is providing the minimum of what it takes to attend to the universities education so its pupils can get the skills they can then use to escape poverty. COA is meant to do exactly that, and there really must not be an expectation created that it should become more.

[Aldo]

48 minutes ago, outoftown said:

I feel split about this. It is, of course, commendable that Deion helps his family who seems truly to need the help and seems to be struggling, and in that sense the COA has done something good here. The story clearly shows that he is someone to root for.

However, in a way, this is going in the wrong direction. Those stipends were less meant for students to help their families but rather to alleviate the need for families to financially help the students. That is why the money is supposed to be calculated on the needs of a student in the place he is, not about where he is coming from. It is dangerous territory if it becomes the responsibility of universities to ascertain the well-fare of not just student-athletes, but also their families (what would/does happen to those who are poor and do not have student-athletes in their family). Society needs to respond to poverty and need in general (the way it oughta do that may depend on your politics), but it cannot be a universities responsibility to do this in a direct financial way. What universities can do is providing the minimum of what it takes to attend to the universities education so its pupils can get the skills they can then use to escape poverty. COA is meant to do exactly that, and there really must not be an expectation created that it should become more.

Student athletes helped the NCAA to bring in $1 Billion

[FirefightnRick]

23 hours ago, Aldo said:

Student athletes helped the NCAA to bring in $1 Billion

And taxpayers and donors gave student athletes probably $1 Billion in education,.....something that used to be deemed of value in this country at one time.

 

Rick

Edited August 7, 2018 by FirefightnRick

[meangreenthirteen]

1 hour ago, FirefightnRick said:

And taxpayers and donors gave student athletes probably $1 Billion in education,.....something that used to be deemed of value in this country at one time.

 

Rick

If only "education" wasn't a nebulous and uncertain object and was a tangible asset. This comparison makes absolutely no sense and I have two degrees. The value of my education isn't a dollar amount. The value of profit that student athletes brought to the NCAA is.

[letsgiveacheer]

According to this website, student-athletes received 3.3 billion worth of athletic scholarships in 2015. 

http://www.scholarshipstats.com/average-per-athlete.html

[outoftown]

7 hours ago, meangreenthirteen said:

If only "education" wasn't a nebulous and uncertain object and was a tangible asset. This comparison makes absolutely no sense and I have two degrees. The value of my education isn't a dollar amount. The value of profit that student athletes brought to the NCAA is.

Except it isn't the NCAA that is paying COA, it is the university. And while the NCAA makes a great deal of money in average, the median G5 program has to subsidize sports because it all accumulates at the biggest programs like Texas and Alabama.

For most programs like UNT the value a student-athlete provided to the university actually is pretty nebulous and hard to quantify. UNT has been subsidizing athletics, so it has not directly made money. That said it has likely made those subsidies because there is value to the culture and advertising athletics brings, but quantification of that in dollars ought to be described as highly inexact at best. In other words -particularly for a public university like UNT -  the value a student-athlete brings is NOT a dollar amount, in the same way, the value of your education isn't a dollar amount. In fact, whether it is a profitable enterprise for the UNTs of the world is legitimately debatable. On this board, most will readily agree that the value of athletics to the university far outpaces what it puts in. However, you can easily find a few pretty well-educated folks outside of athletics who will opine that it is a monetary loser for UNT to have a football team.

Edited August 8, 2018 by outoftown

[Cerebus]

3 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

And taxpayers and donors gave student athletes probably $1 Billion in education,.....something that used to be deemed of value in this country at one time

In the late 90s the State of Texas covered 75% of the cost of educating a student.  Now they cover about 15-20% of the cost of educating a student.  That is why so many students and their families have to take out loans to cover the actual cost.  

The State of Texas used to value using tax payer money to pay for higher education, but they no longer do.  

[Christopher Walker]

3 hours ago, Cerebus said:

In the late 90s the State of Texas covered 75% of the cost of educating a student.  Now they cover about 15-20% of the cost of educating a student.  That is why so many students and their families have to take out loans to cover the actual cost.  

The State of Texas used to value using tax payer money to pay for higher education, but they no longer do.  

Yeeeeeeppppp.

7 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

And taxpayers and donors gave student athletes probably $1 Billion in education,.....something that used to be deemed of value in this country at one time.

Rick

@FirefightnRick, I'll pick you up to head down to Austin and lobby for this, yeah? 🙂

[Ben Gooding]

6 hours ago, meangreenthirteen said:

If only "education" wasn't a nebulous and uncertain object and was a tangible asset. This comparison makes absolutely no sense and I have two degrees. The value of my education isn't a dollar amount. The value of profit that student athletes brought to the NCAA is.

And you seem well equppied with the ability to articulate a point quite well. Coincidence? 

[UNTLifer]

7 hours ago, meangreenthirteen said:

If only "education" wasn't a nebulous and uncertain object and was a tangible asset. This comparison makes absolutely no sense and I have two degrees. The value of my education isn't a dollar amount. The value of profit that student athletes brought to the NCAA is.

You are basing this off of the end result of getting your education/degree.  I think what FFR is referring to is the cost of attending that they are provided, tuition, room, board, books, meals, etc...It is easy to apply hard dollars to that.

[FirefightnRick]

6 hours ago, Cerebus said:

In the late 90s the State of Texas covered 75% of the cost of educating a student.  Now they cover about 15-20% of the cost of educating a student.  That is why so many students and their families have to take out loans to cover the actual cost.  

The State of Texas used to value using tax payer money to pay for higher education, but they no longer do.  

15 to 20 percent of $3 Billion must pay for a lot of nice shoes?

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/24302808/north-carolina-suspends-13-football-players-least-one-game

 

Rick

Edited August 8, 2018 by FirefightnRick

[oldguystudent]

14 hours ago, Cerebus said:

In the late 90s the State of Texas covered 75% of the cost of educating a student.  Now they cover about 15-20% of the cost of educating a student.  That is why so many students and their families have to take out loans to cover the actual cost.  

The State of Texas used to value using tax payer money to pay for higher education, but they no longer do.  

And my kid is still pushing wanting to go be a longhorn for however many tens of thousands of dollars of debt instead of staying at UNT full ride.  Their marketing is THAT strong, and it's gonna be an epic battle on my part to fight it. 

[meangreanmick]

17 hours ago, meangreenthirteen said:

If only "education" wasn't a nebulous and uncertain object and was a tangible asset. This comparison makes absolutely no sense and I have two degrees. The value of my education isn't a dollar amount. The value of profit that student athletes brought to the NCAA is.

There are plenty of reliable studies that establish the long term monetary value of a higher education degree vs high school diploma.  Obviously it is a wide range, but you can choose to be as  conservative or liberal as you want to be with estimates, but they all end up in the same spot.  Your ceiling for earnings on average is much higher with a college degree than with a high school degree.

[meangreenthirteen]

41 minutes ago, meangreanmick said:

There are plenty of reliable studies that establish the long term monetary value of a higher education degree vs high school diploma.  Obviously it is a wide range, but you can choose to be as  conservative or liberal as you want to be with estimates, but they all end up in the same spot.  Your ceiling for earnings on average is much higher with a college degree than with a high school degree.

I'm not arguing the value of a degree, but that it's not nearly as tangible as the money made from licensing, advertisement, big events etc. and that's really the crux of the whole thing. If we would like to make the conversation about the relative worth of a degree today versus however many years ago, that's a different conversation. I'm certainly not suggesting that an education has little or no value, just that its value versus the money making machine that is collegiate sports is kind of tricky to estimate. 

 

edit for a more coherent point: A degree gets you an opportunity. That is its worth. My degrees gave me the opportunity to get jobs doing things I enjoy. It's certainly not the same thing as somebody just handing me a ton of money, and that's where this whole thing gets sticky in my opinion.

Edited August 8, 2018 by meangreenthirteen

[Harry]

16 hours ago, Cerebus said:

In the late 90s the State of Texas covered 75% of the cost of educating a student.  Now they cover about 15-20% of the cost of educating a student.  That is why so many students and their families have to take out loans to cover the actual cost.  

The State of Texas used to value using tax payer money to pay for higher education, but they no longer do.  

I would like to know where that money is going now.  I suspect it has a lot more to do with the cost of education than it does the actual percentage of budget allocated, but that is speculation on my part.

 

[oldguystudent]

8 minutes ago, Harry said:

I would like to know where that money is going now.  I suspect it has a lot more to do with the cost of education than it does the actual percentage of budget allocated, but that is speculation on my part.

 

In a very simplified painting with enormously wide strokes world view:

1)  The national sport of Texas residents in annual property tax protests keeps increases in revenues limited. 

2)  The easy credit rip-offs of student loans for anybody and everybody incentivizes universities to raise expenses and costs exponentially (in Texas, this is probably the greater influence.  In other states, I'd argue for #1) 

[untjim1995]

If the NCAA had any guts at all, it would make the COA methodology be known and based upon the revenues generated from said athletics program. In other words, if your school wants to cook the books and show no revenue from the program, then there is no COA to be paid, while if you are a semi-pro team like most of these P5 giants, then you have to share the revenue generated with the athletes at an NCAA mandated percentage.

IOW, it'll never happen. But this is why the P5s are always ahead. They have all the network money, all the big bowl money, all the free media, and all the t-shirt fandom. I will be a very happy guy when those guys finally pull away. I don't care if its from the NCAA or just a new created level--just go ahead and get it over with. The rest of us would finally be able to give our kids a chance to earn a national championship ring for football and actually keep real amateurism in the sport.

[Aldo]

20 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

And taxpayers and donors gave student athletes probably $1 Billion in education,.....something that used to be deemed of value in this country at one time.

Exactly. Why isn't the NCAA giving back to the student athletes that (in places like North Texas) donors, students are picking up a big chunk of their tab. 

[Aldo]

The NCAA is a non-profit, right? Tax free? (honest questions).

And the president makes $1 million?

Edited August 8, 2018 by Aldo

[letsgiveacheer]

16 minutes ago, Aldo said:

The NCAA is a non-profit, right? Tax free? (honest questions).

And the president makes $1 million?

Yes,  just as the University of North Texas is a NFP with the football coach also making about 1M.

[Cerebus]

48 minutes ago, oldguystudent said:

2)  The easy credit rip-offs of student loans for anybody and everybody incentivizes universities to raise expenses and costs exponentially (in Texas, this is probably the greater influence.  In other states, I'd argue for #1) 

Universities are MORE efficient now than they were in the 90s, it's just that state input has collapsed.

Here is a though experiment:

• Lets say in the 90s it cost $100 to educate a student.  You need to pay for professors of course, but that also includes lab space, advisers, parking lots, heating/cooling buildings, pay for employee insurance, information systems to keep track of it all, etc. 
• Of that $100, the state paid for $75 of it.  The feds step in and pay about $10 of it.  That leaves about $15 for tuition and fees to cover. 
• The state and federal government over time greatly increase costs like course requirements and administration overhead load.  Both are constantly churning out not only laws, but administrative code and and guidance.   This requires all sorts of people to be hired to cross all those T's and dot all those i's.  
• The state also decided to strength core course, which is a good thing, but now more people have to take lab sciences, which are incredibly expensive.
• Society changes in a such a way computers and computer knowledge become ubiquitous.  That means much more IT needs for universities. IT is expensive.  
• Despite all that, universities manage to reduce the per student cost to $95.
• At the same time, state politicians keep getting elected by promising to lower taxes or at least not raise them.
• At one time, education funding was sacrosanct.  No politician, liberal or conservative, would ever work against education funding.  That time passed.
• Now the state pays for about $15 of the per student cost.  Feds still pay for $10 of it.  That leaves $75 for tuition and fees.

 

The one place where universities have increased costs in what could be considered wasteful is in amenities.  However study after study has shown that not having these amenities (think rock climbing walls, nice gyms, bigger dorm rooms, etc) hurts you in attracting top achieving students.  No matter what students and families say about the cost, not having them means you lose out on the top students.

The state also incentives getting those top students because low graduation rates hurts your funding.  So in order to keep getting that $15, the university needs to keep graduating a high rate of students.  That means high performing, that means you better have some swag to get them to come here.  

[oldguystudent]

8 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

 

The one place where universities have increased costs in what could be considered wasteful is in amenities.  However study after study has shown that not having these amenities (think rock climbing walls, nice gyms, bigger dorm rooms, etc) hurts you in attracting top achieving students.  No matter what students and families say about the cost, not having them means you lose out on the top students.

I don't know how or where that all started, but I have absolutely seen both of my alma maters go from cozily spartan living conditions to everything at or above Hilton hotel levels.  I still don't think that is what college should be nor do I think that is what parents or students should demand -- it is against their own best interest, and it sets up students for false expectations on standard of living when they get out and find themselves forced into renting a crappy 2-bedroom apartment with cockroaches and three roommates for the first couple years as they enter their chosen field.  

But it's there.  And I'll circle back to my original theories -- how would any of that have even begun without a massive influx of student debt funding?  Is this a financial chicken and egg? 

[letsgiveacheer]

1 hour ago, untjim1995 said:

If the NCAA had any guts at all, it would make the COA methodology be known and based upon the revenues generated from said athletics program. In other words, if your school wants to cook the books and show no revenue from the program, then there is no COA to be paid, while if you are a semi-pro team like most of these P5 giants, then you have to share the revenue generated with the athletes at an NCAA mandated percentage.

IOW, it'll never happen. But this is why the P5s are always ahead. They have all the network money, all the big bowl money, all the free media, and all the t-shirt fandom. I will be a very happy guy when those guys finally pull away. I don't care if its from the NCAA or just a new created level--just go ahead and get it over with. The rest of us would finally be able to give our kids a chance to earn a national championship ring for football and actually keep real amateurism in the sport.

As I understand, the NCAA has nothing to do with establishing the COA. That is done by financial aid officers at each institution and is applicable to athletes and non-athletes alike.  I would imagine you could obtain the methodology for UNT's COA through a FOIA request.  Kindly excuse the acronyms.