Who's On-Board With Covering Full Cost of Attendance?

[Dooley]

The MAC and Boise State, that's who. Add them to the AAC on the list of "have nots" on record saying they will cover the full cost of attendance for its athletes.

Still no word on the other stuff proposed - insurance, stipends, post-graduation care, etc.

 

[whaler11]

I read here the MAC schools were dropping football. Inside word.

 

[Dooley]

I read here the MAC schools were dropping football. Inside word.

UCONN's press conference announcing their intention to drop football is scheduled in 20 minutes.

 

[CL82]

I am so long as it actually covers attendance costs like books, fees, travel to school, etc.

 

[upstater]

Neill Ostrout ‏@NeillOstrout 3m3 minutes ago
Cronin pointed out that Pell Grant recipients won't get extra anyway, calls some of talk "propaganda."

Knowing how universities work, I've been saying this for a long time. The full cost of attendance figures are federally regulated and reported. Each school derives those figures for ALL students. if the money is NOT to be treated as income, then the full cost must be reported across the board by each school. The problem of course is that the poor and even some lower middle class students already receive grants to cover the full cost of attendance. Any money above this figure is then considered income and is not regarded as money for the full cost.

What the courts and the NCAA have succeeded in doing is taking money from regular students and giving it to middle class and rich athletes. Well done!

AND, to make matters worse, the conferences are on board with the sham because, as Cronin points out, it gives them a recruiting edge.

 

[whaler11]

Neill Ostrout ‏@NeillOstrout 3m3 minutes ago
Cronin pointed out that Pell Grant recipients won't get extra anyway, calls some of talk "propaganda."

Knowing how universities work, I've been saying this for a long time. The full cost of attendance figures are federally regulated and reported. Each school derives those figures for ALL students. if the money is NOT to be treated as income, then the full cost must be reported across the board by each school. The problem of course is that the poor and even some lower middle class students already receive grants to cover the full cost of attendance. Any money above this figure is then considered income and is not regarded as money for the full cost.

What the courts and the NCAA have succeeded in doing is taking money from regular students and giving it to middle class and rich athletes. Well done!

AND, to make matters worse, the conferences are on board with the sham because, as Cronin points out, it gives them a recruiting edge.

How is that any different from schools leveraging the entire student loan and grant system to increase tuitions to enhance the university to give them a recruiting edge?

A bit hypocritical for academics to call out athletics for doing the exact same thing.

 

[CL82]

Upstater how exactly is money being diverted from regular students to middle class and rich athletes? Are you just saying that the pie is defined and the money has to come from somewhere?

Agree re Pell Grants. Calhoun has made that point over the years. But what's the cut off for Pells like $40K or $50k? For a family making say $60k coming up with an extra $7k - $10k for no covered cost is likely to be a challenge. I don't have an issue with it becoming part of the athletic scholarship package. I do have an issue if there's a move to go beyond these defined costs. I suspect that is where it will eventually go.

 

[upstater]

How is that any different from schools leveraging the entire student loan and grant system to increase tuitions to enhance the university to give them a recruiting edge?

A bit hypocritical for academics to call out athletics for doing the exact same thing.

Point A. Expenditures are not rising above inflation. Only tuition is. There's a reason for that. Less state funding. Which obliterates your first point.
Point B. Universities are primarily academic institutions.

 

[upstater]

Upstater how exactly is money being diverted from regular students to middle class and rich athletes? Are you just saying that the pie is defined and the money has to come from somewhere?

Agree re Pell Grants. Calhoun has made that point over the years. But what's the cut off for Pells like $40K or $50k? For a family making say $60k coming up with an extra $7k - $10k for no covered cost is likely to be a challenge. I don't have an issue with it becoming part of the athletic scholarship package. I do have an issue if there's a move to go beyond these defined costs. I suspect that is where it will eventually go.

Pell Grants are around $30-40k for families.
Extra $7-10k in costs?
We are talking about travel to and from university, phone bill, what else? Books, technology are already included in the athletic package. The extras are incidentals like travel and phone.
As for your first question, all you need to do is divide the student fee subsidy for athletics by number of students to figure out how much each student subsidizes athletics.

 

[upstater]

I am so long as it actually covers attendance costs like books, fees, travel to school, etc.

Books & fees are already covered for athletes.

The stipends are over and above for incidentals.

Look at this: http://financialaid.uconn.edu/cost/

Conveniently, the UConn COA costs are $4,150.

Guess what they were last year?

Half of that. Has the COL nationally risen at 100% in the last year?

This is an odd way to run a university. So because the COA needs to be a federally regulated and reported number that figures into FAFSA determinations, so that any stipend will NOT be considered income, schools are now advertising incidentals at $4k instead of $2k for ALL prospective students.

And for what? Pell Grants were already available to poor and lower middle class athletes.

This is what you call bonkers.

 

[whaler11]

Point A. Expenditures are not rising above inflation. Only tuition is. There's a reason for that. Less state funding. Which obliterates your first point.
Point B. Universities are primarily academic institutions.

LOL. If the government stopped handing out money and loans you'd see tuition stop rising like it has.

As to point B it's still hypocritical.

 

[upstater]

LOL. If the government stopped handing out money and loans you'd see tuition stop rising like it has.

As to point B it's still hypocritical.

Point 1 is irrelevant when government is slashing funding for higher education . They are transferring the costs onto the public as public institutions become privatized. And the fact is that the government caps student loans at $5.6k (gov't student loans) er year. 30 years ago the cap was $3k. We're talking about less than a 100% rise in annual student loan in 30 years.

It's hypocrisy to say academics are the "reason for being" for universities? You talk a lot of total nonsense.

 

[whaler11]

Point 1 is irrelevant when government is slashing funding for higher education . They are transferring the costs onto the public as public institutions become privatized. And the fact is that the government caps student loans at $5.6k (gov't student loans) er year. 30 years ago the cap was $3k. We're talking about less than a 100% rise in annual student loan in 30 years.

It's hypocrisy to say academics are the "reason for being" for universities? You talk a lot of total nonsense.

Yes, I talk nonsense... from a Joe Paterno truther.

It's hypocrisy to criticize athletics for doing the exact same thing that academics are doing. Leveraging a system that allows for huge tuition increases that fund development for the exact same outcome - to recruit students.

That it's the shining beacon on higher ed only makes the hypocrisy more entertaining.

I thought the MAC schools were all hot and bothered to drop football anyway?