Who is refusing Common Core tests for 3rd-8th graders?

[AnAmericanInDisney]

You must have misunderstood my post. I was inferring that kids could only afford to go to school with the help of athletic scholarships. If not for those then they wouldn't be able to afford to go.

Lots of kids can't afford to go to college. Why should marginal athleticism be the deciding factor in who gets money for college? And for that matter, why should marginal athleticism decide who universities spend more money on- colleges at all levels spend a lot more on student athletes than non-athletes (I could whip up a chart for you, but I'm guessing you can google)? If you aren't going to be making a future in running, throwing, and jumping, why should taxpayers pay for your field trips to compete with other schools? Let's put that money toward the best professors, the best labs, the best technological equipment.

If sports at the college level take so much time away from the classroom, maybe that shouldn't be a priority anymore?

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

I bet her parents are happy they don't have to pay for tuition. My son is the same but at a smaller IU campus. His tuition is paid for but there is still books, room and board(our house thank goodness), computer service fees, parking, etc...Every little bit helps.

According some on here, you are right, if you can't play D1, why play.

Play, but play for fun or play at a private school. Don't make taxpayers pay for you to enjoy your sport. That's my opinion. It's not what takes place in reality- not yet, anyway.

Two of my sisters went to IU East, then IU. They had loans. Indiana is pretty cheap for college. You all are fortunate.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Lots of kids can't afford to go to college. Why should marginal athleticism be the deciding factor in who gets money for college? And for that matter, why should marginal athleticism decide who universities spend more money on- colleges at all levels spend a lot more on student athletes than non-athletes (I could whip up a chart for you, but I'm guessing you can google)? If you aren't going to be making a future in running, throwing, and jumping, why should taxpayers pay for your field trips to compete with other schools? Let's put that money toward the best professors, the best labs, the best technological equipment.

If sports at the college level take so much time away from the classroom, maybe that shouldn't be a priority anymore?

Because the athletic program raised that money for those kids and they see it as beneficial to keep that program running. What do you consider marginal athleticism? Most college programs from D1-Juco have pretty good athletes, not marginal. And the money that the school uses to transport kids is a combination of tax dollars and money raised from the athletic departments.

I could also ask why does my money go for some kid getting money to play an instrument? I don't care for music and don't feel my tax dollars should go for college band kids traveling.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Play, but play for fun or play at a private school. Don't make taxpayers pay for you to enjoy your sport. That's my opinion. It's not what takes place in reality- not yet, anyway.

Two of my sisters went to IU East, then IU. They had loans. Indiana is pretty cheap for college. You all are fortunate.

Most kids do play for fun. Not even half of kids on any college team get any scholarships. And just think of all the money those kids are making for those universities and not getting anything in return, except for an education which is important but that is for another thread.

 

[Colleen27]

Your theory falls apart at the bolded however. As MANY of us have indicated, standardized testing is NOT new. Testing has been around at least the last 30 years. How long have the standards been around?

Sure, testing has been around. Weeks of testing every year, though? That's a direct outgrowth of this standards-based college-ready mindset. I'm in my mid-30s. When I was in school we had a few half-days of testing in a couple of select grades. Now there's three weeks of testing on the school calendar and the district uses robo-calls to remind parents that absences during this time are unacceptable.

You must have misunderstood my post. I was inferring that kids could only afford to go to school with the help of athletic scholarships. If not for those then they wouldn't be able to afford to go.

I guess I just don't get why that is a good thing, that the difference between being able to afford college or having to find another path should hinge on one's athletic ability, rather than any academic gift or ambition.

The school I attend is division I-AAA. If you aren't from southeastern Michigan you have never heard of it. A whopping 3% of the student body participates in varsity athletics. Interestingly, transparency reporting requirements don't require disclosure of how much is spent on athletics - those expenses are broken up and "hidden", for lack of a better word, in vague categories like "support staff" and "facilities". But for division I-AAA schools, average per-athlete institutional spending is more than $30K per year. A little rough math and that adds up to about $22 million dollars spent on athletics each and every year... That's enough to reduce every student's tuition by nearly 10%, or to offer more than 2000 full tuition scholarships. I just don't see how that is the best way to use those resources, especially not at a time when average student loan debt is approaching 30K and there are many students who can't even borrow enough money to finish a degree because federal loans max out at less than four years of public tuition costs.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

I guess I just don't get why that is a good thing, that the difference between being able to afford college or having to find another path should hinge on one's athletic ability, rather than any academic gift or ambition.

.

Here's an example. College is going to cost Joe $7,000/year. His parents have no money to give him and he will only be able to get financial aid for $5,000. He has no way of coming up with the other $2,000. He doesn't qualify for any academic scholarships because Joe was average or above average academically. Joe did play football in high school and the coach has a partial scholarship worth $1500/year. Now, Joe only has to come up with $500 which is much more doable than $2000. Or, if Joe is lucky, he might get $2000 after his freshman year if he proves he is good enough.

So, from what you are saying, Joe shouldn't be able to go to school because he isn't smart enough and his parent(s) are too poor to pay for it but yet not poor enough to qualify for extra money?

I will use a real life example. Numbers aren't exact but will be close because I heard my mom and aunt talk about this over the phone. My aunt, who is a single parent has a daughter who went to college. This college was going to cost $17,000/year. She has a modest job making around $50,000. Her daughter was only able to take out $7,000 in loans/year and the college expected my aunt to fork over $10,000 every year. I don't know anyone making 50k that has 10k laying around in the bank every year for 4 years. My aunt made too much money, even for a single mom according to the university and the government. Fortunately, she was able to get some academic money and something else. It skips my mind at the moment, and my aunt only had to come up with around $5,000 per year. Had my cousin been good a sports, she could have possibly received athletic money which would have lessened the burden on my aunt and cousin.

I don't see anything wrong with either of those scenarios with athletic money helping people stuck in those situations.

 

[Hrhpd]

Lots of kids can't afford to go to college. Why should marginal athleticism be the deciding factor in who gets money for college? And for that matter, why should marginal athleticism decide who universities spend more money on- colleges at all levels spend a lot more on student athletes than non-athletes (I could whip up a chart for you, but I'm guessing you can google)? If you aren't going to be making a future in running, throwing, and jumping, why should taxpayers pay for your field trips to compete with other schools? Let's put that money toward the best professors, the best labs, the best technological equipment.

If sports at the college level take so much time away from the classroom, maybe that shouldn't be a priority anymore?

Alumni benefactors like sports. Even the alumni at non D1 schools. They like to brag about their alma mater.

Sports on the collegiate level are not just for the athlete. The schools with successful sports programs benefit from increased alumni donations.

Oh, and as for your statement that athletic kids don't go to school for their degrees, in a recent study, NCAA found that 82% of DIV 1 student athletes graduated with a degree, a higher grad rate than college students in general. The same success rate was found at non D1 schools too. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/graduation-success-rate

 

[Colleen27]

Here's an example. College is going to cost Joe $7,000/year. His parents have no money to give him and he will only be able to get financial aid for $5,000. He has no way of coming up with the other $2,000. He doesn't qualify for any academic scholarships because Joe was average or above average academically. Joe did play football in high school and the coach has a partial scholarship worth $1500/year. Now, Joe only has to come up with $500 which is much more doable than $2000. Or, if Joe is lucky, he might get $2000 after his freshman year if he proves he is good enough.

So, from what you are saying, Joe shouldn't be able to go to school because he isn't smart enough and his parent(s) are too poor to pay for it but yet not poor enough to qualify for extra money?

What I'm saying is that for every Joe getting that extra bit of help there's a Jim in the same situation without the athletic scholarship, borrowing to make up the difference, and she shouldn't be forced to subsidize the school's athletics. Remember, for Joe to get his $1500 the university is spending $25-30K (depending on division) on coaches, equipment, travel, sports facilities, etc. and Jim, Jane, Liz, Tom, and hundreds others are paying for that using their student loan dollars. Wouldn't it make more sense to apply the millions spent on sports to bringing tuition down across the board, so that both Joe AND Jim and all those other students benefit?

 

[Happy Snowman]

What I'm saying is that for every Joe getting that extra bit of help there's a Jim in the same situation without the athletic scholarship, borrowing to make up the difference, and she shouldn't be forced to subsidize the school's athletics. Remember, for Joe to get his $1500 the university is spending $25-30K (depending on division) on coaches, equipment, travel, sports facilities, etc. and Jim, Jane, Liz, Tom, and hundreds others are paying for that using their student loan dollars. Wouldn't it make more sense to apply the millions spent on sports to bringing tuition down across the board, so that both Joe AND Jim and all those other students benefit?

What if Jim, Jan, Liz and Tom are getting music scholarships, is that ok?

 

[IndyRnRfan]

What I'm saying is that for every Joe getting that extra bit of help there's a Jim in the same situation without the athletic scholarship, borrowing to make up the difference, and she shouldn't be forced to subsidize the school's athletics. Remember, for Joe to get his $1500 the university is spending $25-30K (depending on division) on coaches, equipment, travel, sports facilities, etc. and Jim, Jane, Liz, Tom, and hundreds others are paying for that using their student loan dollars. Wouldn't it make more sense to apply the millions spent on sports to bringing tuition down across the board, so that both Joe AND Jim and all those other students benefit?

I see your point. However, how much drop in tuition is a college going to give students if it doesn't spend 5 or 10 million dollars on sports? At one time Bobby Knight was paid $100,000 to coach at IU. He made another $750,000 from endorsements and sales. Every shirt, jersey, warm up pants etc... Sold, IU made money off of. Not to mention the tens of millions of dollars from alumni. Assembly hall is paid for and then some. Every game is pure profit. I know not all divisions fit this category but if you think getting rid of sports, music, dance, etc... Is going to make college more affordable, it's not happening.

 

[sam_gordon]

I was thinking about this some more last night. In addition to bringing in money from alumni, I'm sure having competitive sports teams also helps attracts students (meaning more money). Sports also brings in money to the surrounding community (food, gas, hotels, etc). I'm guessing that academic scholarship for "Jim" doesn't bring money to the school or the community. So, even if schools lose money on the athletes themselves, it's also part of a marketing plan.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

I was thinking about this some more last night. In addition to bringing in money from alumni, I'm sure having competitive sports teams also helps attracts students (meaning more money). Sports also brings in money to the surrounding community (food, gas, hotels, etc). I'm guessing that academic scholarship for "Jim" doesn't bring money to the school or the community. So, even if schools lose money on the athletes themselves, it's also part of a marketing plan.

If you spend less "money," you need to bring in less "money." If tuition decreases, and the scholarships are spread out, you will attract more students. The only people who go to see D3 and often D2 sports are the parents and a few students. When's the last time you saw a packed track n field or tennis or gymnastics or swimming meet at any of those schools? It doesn't happen. Your "marketing plan" theory doesn't pan out either.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

Because the athletic program raised that money for those kids and they see it as beneficial to keep that program running. What do you consider marginal athleticism? Most college programs from D1-Juco have pretty good athletes, not marginal. And the money that the school uses to transport kids is a combination of tax dollars and money raised from the athletic departments.

I could also ask why does my money go for some kid getting money to play an instrument? I don't care for music and don't feel my tax dollars should go for college band kids traveling.

The athletic program doesn't "raise" money, they "spend" money. All but 23 total in the U.S. run in the red. They are costing taxpayers money that could be spent on better things.

If there were no sports for the band kids to travel to, they would pretty much stay on campus, right? I will say, Ohio State should keep it's band, it's amazing, but that's a D1 school and not part of my discussion.

 

[Happy Snowman]

If you spend less "money," you need to bring in less "money." If tuition decreases, and the scholarships are spread out, you will attract more students. The only people who go to see D3 and often D2 sports are the parents and a few students. When's the last time you saw a packed track n field or tennis or gymnastics or swimming meet at any of those schools? It doesn't happen. Your "marketing plan" theory doesn't pan out either.

You missed the point. Those sports, not only tend to have top students participating, probably getting a few thousand dollars/year at most (or none at all at the DIII level) those students then give back to the schools. Pull up the alumni donation list at most of these schools and you can usually find many of top donors were athletes in college. You also keep missing the point that the facilities to house these sports are paid for through PRIVATE donations, NOT tax dollars. The operations of these sports are also often funded through fundraisers and almuni donations, even at the major DI schools. The trips most of these sports are taking, spring break since many schools are on spring break now or will be soon, are usually paid for either by the athletes themselves OR alumni. Our DD's friends that are on sports related spring break trips paid for their plane tickets and hotels out of fundraising and their own pockets. Their food is paid for by the "college" via the dining program....which really is being paid for out of the student pockets or scholarships. You are just making a lot of false assumptions how the smaller programs work and they are just wrong.

I've been to plenty of packed track and field events, gymnastics events, etc. at the DII and DIII levels....

And, band programs, not marching band--concert band (choir and orchestra for that matter) take trips all the time. My DD's roommate spent 2 weeks in Europe last year....funded by the college....the athletes don't get that kind of consideration .

 

[IndyRnRfan]

If you spend less "money," you need to bring in less "money." If tuition decreases, and the scholarships are spread out, you will attract more students. The only people who go to see D3 and often D2 sports are the parents and a few students. When's the last time you saw a packed track n field or tennis or gymnastics or swimming meet at any of those schools? It doesn't happen. Your "marketing plan" theory doesn't pan out either.

You don't see packed track n field or tennis or gymnastics at any D1 schools either unlesst they are the top in the country, been to plenty at IU, Kentucky, Ohio State to name a few. Thats why those programs don't run in the surplus. Another aspect that hasn't been brought in is the fact that becaue of title IX for each boys program a girls program must be available as well. Girls programs almost always loose money and that hurts profitability.

I'm not saying all schools are going to make money off of sports, that's not the point of them. They should be close to the break even point. If they do make money that is great, but I don't think they should be sucking tens of millions of dollars either. That is poor planning. I think Rutgers is a good example. There are many factors besides money as to why college sports is around at all levels, money for the local economy, alumni donations, graduation rates, etc...As someone mentioned, athletes have a higher graduation rate than non athletes.

As for decreasing tuition, I don't see universities decreasing tuition by half or even a quarter if they were to get rid of sports. So, the idea that all these scholarships will be available is not going to be realistic. Remember, a lot of money that is donated to universities is due to the athletic programs. Yes, non athletes donate money as well, but many donations come in from non athletes for the athletics programs. Without athletics being in the hole you may say, you don't need as much money, but I bet you will loose a lot more money without those sports. Then, the university will just up the cost of tuition again to compensate for the loss of donations they once had and you will back to the same cost without any sports.

 

[Happy Snowman]

A few years ago, several colleges around the country reduced tuition. It was pretty much a marketing ploy but they got a lot of people to apply there because of that. However, they also reduced the merit aid available so the net price to the families was exactly the same as it would have been at the old tuition rates.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...heir-sticker-price-will-it-drive-down-college

 

[undertheradar]

The athletic program doesn't "raise" money, they "spend" money. All but 23 total in the U.S. run in the red. They are costing taxpayers money that could be spent on better things.

If there were no sports for the band kids to travel to, they would pretty much stay on campus, right? I will say, Ohio State should keep it's band, it's amazing, but that's a D1 school and not part of my discussion.

Why do you continue to believe that athletic programs don't "raise" money? Take a look at D3 California Lutheran University. Not a known athletic powerhouse, yet they have facilities that other schools drool over. How are these facilities possible, you ask? Endowments, naming rights, and sponsorships. Yes, even D3 schools have sponsored facilities. The school I named has a school/community pool facility. Costs split between the school and the City of Thousand Oaks. Happy alumni tend to donate to their alma mater.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

The largest alumni donations to colleges are not for sports. They are primarily for academic programs. Most of the colleges with the largest endowments are not sports powerhouses by any means.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

Why do you continue to believe that athletic programs don't "raise" money? Take a look at D3 California Lutheran University. Not a known athletic powerhouse, yet they have facilities that other schools drool over. How are these facilities possible, you ask? Endowments, naming rights, and sponsorships. Yes, even D3 schools have sponsored facilities. The school I named has a school/community pool facility. Costs split between the school and the City of Thousand Oaks. Happy alumni tend to donate to their alma mater.

Is that a state school, because that is what we are discussing- whether state schools should waste tax money on athletic programs?

 

[undertheradar]

Is that a state school, because that is what we are discussing- whether state schools should waste tax money on athletic programs?

You aren't discussing state schools when D3 schools are involved. Do any of the schools you are choosing to discuss share facilities with surrounding schools and communities? I missed where the thread was now only about D1 athletic programs, missed that memo.