How colleges flush money down the athletic toilet!

Not a topic new to this blog. 

This time, let me quote from this LA Times piece by the hottest contemporary critics of higher education (and apparently not my university's favorites!) Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus:

If you look at how that added revenue is being spent, it's hard to argue that students are getting a lot of extra value for all that extra money. Why? Colleges aren't spending their extra revenues, which we calculate to be about $40 billion a year nationally over 1980 revenues, in ways that most benefit students.

One thing colleges are spending more on is athletic teams, which have become a more pronounced — and costly — presence on campuses everywhere. Even volleyball teams travel extensively these days, with paid coaches and customized uniforms. Currently, 629 schools have football teams — 132 more than in 1980. And all but 14 of them lose money, including some with national names. It's true that alumni donations sometimes increase during winning seasons, but most of those gifts go specifically to athletics or other designated uses, not toward general educational programs.

On a percentage basis, I suspect that athletics at smaller schools require a larger percentage of subsidy from general funds than larger schools do; yes, I am basing this on our own experience.

The average football squad has gone from 82 to 102 players, due to sub-specialties required by esoteric coaching strategies. The number of women's sports teams has also risen sharply. Since 1980, for example, the number of women's soccer programs has soared from 80 to 956. And teams cost money — often lots of it. Varsity golf at Duke, open to both genders, costs an estimated $20,405 per player per year. Because there are no revenues for most sports, the deficits often have to be covered by tuition bills.

When higher education is no longer about the education part, and is so focused on entertainment, is it any wonder then that America seems to be falling behind?  These costly investments are only as good as ... well, like that old Iceland adage of peeing on yourself when out in the cold: feels nice and warm for a second, but in the end you are worse off than before!

So, what is the bottom line according to Hacker and Dreifus?

A whole generation of young Americans is being shortchanged, largely by adults who have carved out good careers in places we call colleges.

Or, as I tell my students sometimes: "you are screwed"