Originally posted by sasquatch672You have a rather strange idea on how men settle issues. Is that a "City of Brotherly Love" thing?
I think you two need to stop talking about sissy concepts like Pareto Efficiencies and settle this like men. Report to the ring immediately, in a thong bikini and oiled up.
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst of all, sports programs are a major source of *donor* revenue.
If universities want to exist primarily to make money from sports teams, they should tear down all those libraries and classrooms. Sports programs are supposed to be part of the educational process and females pay just as much money in as men do. Therefore, their sports programs should be equally (or near equally) supported by the money that the universi ...[text shortened]... virtually all sports programs at large universities are a financial drain, not a profit maker).
Colleges make no secret of this. Men's sports are bigger sources of
revenue than women's sports, both in terms of donors and in terms of
gate receipts.
Second of all, sports programs are not part of the educational process
in the same way as, say, math classes. Almost all sports programs
are ungraded (pass/fail), and the overwhelming majority of students
don't get involved with anything but club sports which are generally
adequately funded. A miniscule percentage of individuals -- male or
female -- use these sports programs as a means to further their
professional careers. Just as I wouldn't expect a music program to
be funded equally with a biology program -- the financial needs are
both smaller and the number of students going through them fewer --
it is not reasonable to ask a university to disproportionately fund a
smaller/weaker program when compared to a larger/stronger one.
Lastly, we must consider that colleges are businesses, and we should
expect them to adhere to sound business principles. A program
should only receive more money if it will yield more money yet; this
goes for academic programs as well: a music program gets money so
it can produce perfomers/academes of note in an effort to attract a
better crop of students (who, in turn, pay tuition). If women's sports
programs don't attract people to a school -- either in the form of
atheletes or, more importantly, audience -- then it is perfectly
reasonable to expect that a school will pump less money into them
than men's sports programs. Given that the audiences have voted
rather convincingly that women's sports are simply less interesting
than men's sports, why would it make any sense to give them identical
amounts of money?
Nemesio
P.S., I am not saying that men's sports are intrinsically more interesting
here; I find most sports equally uninteresting to watch. I am simply
observing that an overwhelming number of people watch men's sports
(college and professional) than women's. I do not know what the
sociological reason is for this, but it is not material (I think) to this
discussion.
Originally posted by Nemesio1) Is simply wrong for the vast majority of universities. You are repeating myths;
First of all, sports programs are a major source of *donor* revenue.
Colleges make no secret of this. Men's sports are bigger sources of
revenue than women's sports, both in terms of donors and in terms of
gate receipts.
Second of all, sports programs are not part of the educational process
in the same way as, say, math classes. Almost all sports ...[text shortened]... iological reason is for this, but it is not material (I think) to this
discussion.
2) You ignored my criteria expressed on page one. I suggest you review them before going after "strawman";
3) I don't agree with practically any of this. Since when did a university's primary goal become to make money? So far as I know, most are non-profit institutions. Why should a non-profit institution created for the purpose of providing education operate in the same manner as GM?
Originally posted by no1marauder
1) Is simply wrong for the vast majority of universities. You are repeating myths;
The universities with the objectors in question are the ones in which men's programs are
the money makers. Obviously, a nerdy college like the one I went to (Haverford College)
doesn't have big donors for their...er, cricket team...but, Notre Dame *does* have donors
for their football team. I'm proud to say that the women's track and men's track teams at
Haverford have equal funding (but, then again, they have equally prestigious reputations).
2) You ignored my criteria expressed on page one. I suggest you review them before going after "strawman";
I don't see criteria that I didn't address. Sports programs are not part of the educational process
like math programs. Sports programs aren't graded, the requirements are absurdly minimal, and
a very small percentage of people -- smaller than even music, say -- make sports their profession.
As I said above, smaller/weaker programs get lesser funding while larger/stronger programs get
greater funding.
3) I don't agree with practically any of this. Since when did a university's primary goal become to make money? So far as I know, most are non-profit institutions. Why should a non-profit institution created for the purpose of providing education operate in the same manner as GM?
Talk about a strawman! I never said that colleges were for profit. In fact, the word 'profit'
doesn't even appear in my post. I said that colleges are businesses. So is a church. So is
any nonprofit. People will support or utilize those programs which reflect their needs. The people
who support colleges are the students and the alumni. If a majority of that support base doesn't
care about women's sports, then who are you to say that they should? If a majority of them do
care about it, then the bottom line of the college will drop and, like a smart business, it will adapt
its expenditures to reflect the desires of its constituency.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou didn't bother to provide a link and then made universal statements about "sports programs". My mind reading skills just aren't up to deciphering that you meant "at only the very small number of schools where certain big ticket sports programs take in more revenue than they pay out in operating costs". If that's what you meant, say so.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]1) Is simply wrong for the vast majority of universities. You are repeating myths;
The universities with the objectors in question are the ones in which men's programs are
the money makers. Obviously, a nerdy college like the one I went to (Haverford College)
doesn't have big donors for their...er, cricke adapt
its expenditures to reflect the desires of its constituency.
Nemesio[/b]
Here's the criteria I gave on page 1 in response to Dr. Scribbles:
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Should the curling team receive just as much money as the football team, since curlers and football players pay equal tuition?
ME: If there were a equal number of players wanting to play curling as do football and if the costs for maintaining the sports teams were approximately equal, yes. Why not?
Sports programs ARE supposed to be part of the educational process. If they are not, then universities shouldn't have them at all. Or universities might as well open up all sorts of business unrelated to the educational mission i.e. flower shops or video rental stores and if those are more profitable than the History Department, oh well, I guess no one studies the American Civil War anymore. This is the logical result of your absurd position.
You're using the term "business" in a non-standard way; it is generally reserved for commercial, profit making ventures. Your argument is silly, BTW; the wishes of the students and alumni isn't merely expressed by how many tickets they buy to particular sporting events. Obviously a certain number of students and alumni are expressing their preference that women's sporting programs be funded on reasonably equal footing as the men's programs. To turn your question around, who are YOU to say that they are wrong?
EDIT: Your statement was: In most schools, sports programs are part
of their profit structure -- that is, while they invest millions in their programs, the sports
return with big dollars.
This is incorrect; such a situation exists at a tiny fraction of universities (less than 100) and ONLY in certain sports (notably football) in even those. Not "most schools" and not "sports programs".