Should Colleges Pay Players?

[23Skidoo]

Maybe I just got lucky and picked the right school, or maybe you've just had a bad experience, but my experience is that in four years, I can only think of three classes total that were not taught by the actual professor. Two calculus classes and a physics class. That's it. I had classes in history, political science, computer science, economics, Japanese, astronomy, architecture, urban planning, statistics, even other physics classes, and all were professor-taught. One physics class was a really low-level rudimentary physics-for-architects class for those of us dummies that don't actually get physics. The professor teaching that class taught one other class as well: 700-level physics - stuff so advanced that they were researching the curriculum as they went along. UVA has three professors that are considered "famous" - Ken Elzinga, Larry Sabato, and Julian Bond - and all three of them actually teach. I was lucky enough to have Elzinga, and I promise that he is a terrific teacher and lecturer as well as a well-published economist.

I know I might sound like the most holier-than-thou academic elitist here, but I'm only trying to make the point about professors. I don't know how it is at other schools, but I can't imagine that UVA is the only school in the country where professors get themselves into the lecture hall and visit the discussion sections and hold office hours and such.

You may have a point there. That is definitely not the case where I am, but I could have easily made the mistake of generalizing my situation. Just for the record, I've only taken 3 courses taught by a Professor: Chem I, Physics I, and Physics II. All 3 of those were taught via powerpoint (it's the same powerpoint for every class every year, so I'm not sure who wrote it) and had 300 students in each. My entire Calc series and ODEs were taught by grad students, along with Physical Electronics and the beginning EE series I may or may not be taking this semester (trying to test out tomorrow.) Philosophy, Nihongo, Economics, PE and others were by "lecturers" (BA or MA).
But perhaps my school is the exception. If others could chime in, that would help.

 

[VprHis]

The only classes I've ever had (at either Ohio State or Michigan State) not taught by someone with a PhD were German 103 and 104. That's it.

 

[23Skidoo]

Wow. Where to start. If you want to be taught by someone who has nothing else occupying his/her time, go to a small college. If you're offended by high tuition and feel that your money is being wasted, I suggest you stop paying.

The strawman arguments never get old, do they?
I am where I am for reasons of my own choice. I could've gone to Mines or more respected Universities in the state for the same price, but I didn't feel like starting from scratch out of the Military.
My evaluation of my current institution was never the topic. The topic is whether there is a profit made from the school side or not. I say there is. All these old-timers :tongue2: say there isn't.

The fact remains that in most fields, the value of a faculty member is measured by their research--and that is exactly as it should be. Someone who cannot demonstrate command of the material through application has no business teaching it to others. That and the fact that the indirect fees the university extracts from research grants is only a small part of the money being brought in. That research is the ONLY way students learn how to function in their field. You'd be amazed at how much slave labor is going on in the average university. If the school actually paid everyone for their work, that research expenditures number would increase about 8-fold (based on the situation where I am, anyway). We can't all major in things that can be learned in the classroom--and even in those majors anyone with a grain of honesty will tell you that your education is only beginning once you reach the real world and have to apply the information you hopefully gained in college.

The bottom line, I guess, is that those 'superfluous' researchers earn perhaps $100,000/year (much of which likely is skimmed off the top of their research funding). Their research, on the other hand, is quite likely bringing in 3 or 4 times their salary--and that money does not become profit for the university--it goes directly into the education of their students. In case you were unaware of it, graduate education is extremely expensive, and largely self-funded. It costs about $300,000 to $400,000 to educate a PhD student in my field--and it's all funded by those research grants.

If you're saying that grad students get a sweet deal in terms of education, experience, and benefits compared to what it would cost to just "pay" for the classes to get a Masters, Doctor, or do post-Doc, I agree completely.
Perhaps I should have stated that I think the University makes money off the tuition of undergrads.

...Oh, and in case you think I'm ignoring the BS/MS person actually teaching the class? Open the book and learn some self-sufficiency.

 

[VprHis]

Actually, what I'm pointing out is that if you take away the research side of things, the entire system collapses. But, uh, if you want to argue the profit on undergrad tuition, go ahead. But just using OSU as an example (which I think has already been mentioned), tuition only pays about half the education-related expenses.

Link
Income
Student fees $671 million

Expenditures
Instructional & General $1.21 billion

 

[23Skidoo]

Actually, what I'm pointing out is that if you take away the research side of things, the entire system collapses. But, uh, if you want to argue the profit on undergrad tuition, go ahead. But just using OSU as an example (which I think has already been mentioned), tuition only pays about half the education-related expenses.

Link
Income
Student fees $671 million

Expenditures
Instructional & General $1.21 billion

I'd agree the grad system depends on research. I think undergrad pays for itself.
Some points:
Instruction and General expenses include 1.21 billion, but how much of that includes grad courses (pretty much have to be taught by professors) and facilities (somehow I imagine that the labs no longer revolve around launching a bouncy ball and predicting where it will land).
I also find it hard to believe that "Separately budgeted research $386 million" accurately reflects the amount of money and resources dedicated to research, for the same reasons I've been repeating ad nauseum. (ie: In my experience, Professors dedicate most of their time to research)
By contrast, very few grad students pay tuition and fees. The large majority work their way through school as a TAs or research assistants. There are also far more undergrad than grad students. So "Student fees $671 million" is mostly from undergrads.

 

[VprHis]

I know of very few Master's programs that are paid for by the university.

PhD Programs are free in a lot of the sciences (and engineering?), but most humianities/social sciences, etc. have to either pay their own way or teach constantly to earn their keep. Most faculty that I know well (and that's about 15 on a consistent, conversational basis) wish they could spend most of their time on their research, but actually spend 25% or less on it.


...Although I'll admit that Notre Dame seems to do pretty well based primarily on undergrad funding.... Nobody really respects degrees from there in any of the sciences/engineering (at least nobody I know...)

I'd say that a good bit of that money pays for facilities--but remember that the equipment used for research is paid for by the researchers. I am painfully aware of that fact as I'd dearly love to have $100,000 for a 5-micron array scanner... but the ol' moneybags nothing-but-research school just won't shell out--not even for 1 scanner for the entire university. Shucks.

Edit: Look, you caught me at a time when I'm in a pretty foul mood. I've been in college of one form or another for the past nine years, and I know how you feel. I could launch into a diatribe of how much I've been screwed by the system. I'm not kidding about the slave labor. Nobody I know got through the system without multiple years of 20-40 unpaid hours' work each week. I've worked for years at a time for less than minimum wage for a department that forbids you to have a second job. So pardon me if I don't really feel you're entitled to the complete, undivided attention of your faculty--their job is more complex than merely babysitting undergrads. I know it sounds harsh, but the past few years have given me a much better understanding of the scope of duties for your typical faculty member.

 

[methomps]

You may have a point there. That is definitely not the case where I am, but I could have easily made the mistake of generalizing my situation. Just for the record, I've only taken 3 courses taught by a Professor: Chem I, Physics I, and Physics II. All 3 of those were taught via powerpoint (it's the same powerpoint for every class every year, so I'm not sure who wrote it) and had 300 students in each. My entire Calc series and ODEs were taught by grad students, along with Physical Electronics and the beginning EE series I may or may not be taking this semester (trying to test out tomorrow.) Philosophy, Nihongo, Economics, PE and others were by "lecturers" (BA or MA).
But perhaps my school is the exception. If others could chime in, that would help.

The large majority of my classes in undergrad were taught by professors. It was either in the form of the professor teaching the entire class, or the professor teaching the lecture portion (70%) and the TAs running the discussion sections (30% at most).

 

[23Skidoo]

I know of very few Master's programs that are paid for by the university.

PhD Programs are free in a lot of the sciences (and engineering?), but most humianities/social sciences, etc. have to either pay their own way or teach constantly to earn their keep. Most faculty that I know well (and that's about 15 on a consistent, conversational basis) wish they could spend most of their time on their research, but actually spend 25% or less on it.

Things might be changing is all I can think, then. Everyone I know whose done grad work has paid for it through work.
My sister did her Masters in History while working in the archives of the Library. She got a little money on the side, but not much and relied on student loans for basic needs. Her best friend did her Masters in English at Ohio State and did so as a TA. I don't know if she got any stipend, but I know she didn't pay a cent for tuition. I have a friend who is currently working on a Doctorate in Chem at Syracuse -- but he was originally accepted to do a Masters and work as a research assistant with a stipend over $1000/mo. When he decided to do his Doctorate there, they increased the stipend. I know another friend of the family who got his BS in Mechanical (might have been Civil though? I always confuse them) Engineering at Ohio State, worked as a grad assistant (with a monthly stipend) at Colorado School of Mines to get his Masters, and then did his Doctorate at Stanford (no clue if he worked as an assistant or TA or anything).
In the case of my sister and her best friend -- I think they were probably the exception to the case. Like you were saying, liberal arts graduate students definitely don't have as many opportunities to work for tuition as science/engineering. But where I am, I don't know a single grad student who isn't supported.
At my University, I would say 25% is being generous for the number of hours they spend on classes. But, then, it seems like my school may also be the exception to the rule.

...Although I'll admit that Notre Dame seems to do pretty well based primarily on undergrad funding.... Nobody really respects degrees from there in any of the sciences/engineering (at least nobody I know...)

I'd say that a good bit of that money pays for facilities--but remember that the equipment used for research is paid for by the researchers. I am painfully aware of that fact as I'd dearly love to have $100,000 for a 5-micron array scanner... but the ol' moneybags nothing-but-research school just won't shell out--not even for 1 scanner for the entire university. Shucks.

Edit: Look, you caught me at a time when I'm in a pretty foul mood. I've been in college of one form or another for the past nine years, and I know how you feel. I could launch into a diatribe of how much I've been screwed by the system. I'm not kidding about the slave labor. Nobody I know got through the system without multiple years of 20-40 unpaid hours' work each week. I've worked for years at a time for less than minimum wage for a department that forbids you to have a second job. So pardon me if I don't really feel you're entitled to the complete, undivided attention of your faculty--their job is more complex than merely babysitting undergrads. I know it sounds harsh, but the past few years have given me a much better understanding of the scope of duties for your typical faculty member.

I was never trying to whine about the lack of attention from professors. In my opinion, there is no reason a full-blown Doctor needs to be teaching me classical physics, the basics of electronics, or calculus. That's likely a waste of his/her time and my money.
I learned Calc and electronics just fine from grad students. ODEs were a little different -- I question if our grad student got better than a C when he took it, or maybe they could get somebody with a Masters to teach the course. But you'll never see me demanding a Doctor teach that course, it really isn't that complicated. I'm also perfectly comfortable taking chump-philosophy/PE courses, Japanese, Economics, etc. from "lecturers" with experience in the field.
My contention isn't that my University, or any other, SHOULD have their Professors devote more time to the classroom. Only that, in these budget reports where they include the entire salary of a Professor who focuses more on research than classes as an "expenditure" for "academics" is not exactly the truth. It also doesn't bother me if they do make a profit -- just that they claim to be in the red, when in reality they are probably a lot closer to the black than they'd like state legislatures to think.
At this point, I'm not sure if other Universities make a profit off of academics -- but knowing how mine works and the de-emphasis of Professors in the classroom, I'm pretty confident they do here.


On the subject of getting the good equipment -- good luck :) . I already got an idea how that goes when I bitched about having to use a pos HP Oscope instead of a Tektronix. I got a very forboding look from both the TA and Professor, as in "don't even bring that up".

 

[OregonBuckeye]

Scout.com: 6/11 Roundtable - Should Players Be Paid?

Pete Fiutak, CFN

Yes, I'm part of the problem. You can check me out at twitter.com/CFN_Fiu and find out future roundtable topics and other random musings.

Q: Should college football players be paid?

A: Do the coaches get paid? How about the announcers? The team doctors? The guy who sells hotdogs? The guy who sells the No. 15 jerseys? And please don't start writing your e-mail with the childish scholarship/stipend argument. The scholarships don't scratch the surface when it comes to what the marquee players are worth or the revenue the players generate for the schools.

There's a certain practical aspect to this question which is that they can't be paid. I'm all for equality, women's rights, blah, blah, blah, but Title IX sort of screws up the economics of college athletics. The reality is that universities don't need a women's golf team or a men's crew team, but if you start paying football players, who do serve a relatively useful function as a public relations arm of a school, you have to pay everyone and there's not enough money to make that happen. Making the situation even tougher to put a practical handle on is how you'd pay the football players.

Should Tebow get paid the same as a backup punter who might get to make one kick on Senior Day? How much would Sam Bradford be worth compared to the starting quarterback at Utah State? Fortunately, there's a very easy way to make it all work out where everyone wins.

As I've written many times before, let the players have agents, be able to do endorsement deals, and be able to get cars, gifts, money, or whatever boosters want to give them. If you think this is wrong in any way, then ask yourself why it's fine for a coach to get all those things and for players not to.

How would this affect the college football world? It would give everyone a reasonable shot to be good, because a school with a rich alumni base could find a way to make their team a power. Imagine what the Oklahoma State Cowboys, presented by T. Boone Pickens, or the Oregon Ducks, presented by Phil Knight, would be able to do if the players were getting dough from some goofy booster. And as I've also written many times before, there's nothing wrong with that other than what the NCAA thinks is right or wrong.

If you want college football to be an amateur sport, then let's make it one. Tickets for games are free, the coaches don't get paid, and bake sales are held to afford equipment and bus trips to go on road trips. But, of course, college football is a multi-billion dollar industry that obviously isn't going away any time soon so something has to be done.

No, the schools and universities shouldn't pay players, unless they want to. If some school wants to build up the national profile of the university and designates $1 million to go out and bring in the best players they can afford, then what's wrong with that? If Colt McCoy can do a Gatorade ad, what's wrong with that? If a player wants to get royalties for having his likeness being used to sell video games (which is finally, finally being challenged in court thanks to former Nebraska QB Sam Keller), then what's wrong with that?

For those of you who want to go on thinking the players get properly compensated by getting a full ride scholarship, one, you're wrong, it's not comparable relative to the money they generate, two, you don't know the dollars involved, and three, I'm for getting rid of them. Dump the athletic scholarships for all sports because they're not necessary if the players are able to use the free market system, you know, the American way, to make what they're worth. A player like Tebow would be able to make 20 times what a scholarship would be worth, while the third team offensive guard would be a real, live student-athlete. Of course, that would make too much sense and the NCAA certainly wouldn't want that.

I really can't believe Pete believes this crap. The only valid point he brought up is players being paid for their image being used in commercials.

 

[VprHis]

I'm going to be paying for my Ohio State education for the next 15 years. None of those football players can say that.

Hell no, they don't need to get paid more than they already are. They live pretty well as it is, from what I've seen.

 

[buxfan4life]

Scout.com: 6/11 Roundtable - Should Players Be Paid?

So, Pete, do you think HS athletes should be paid? They generate money for their schools. I had to pay for a ticket for the last HS game to which I went. I believe the coaches get paid at the HS level, also, so nix those salaries, also?

This is the biggest load of short sighted shit I have read from him, ever.

These kids are getting an education and getting living expenses paid for, so they are being "paid". Are they making millions? No, that is what they are striving for by playing their best in college.

They are making quite a good "wage" seeing that the tuition, stipends, clothing, and the room and board are probably on par with an average of $30K+ per year per football player (depending on the institution). Can most HS grads grab a $30K a year job right out of HS that not only could be a spring board for a job that could net you millions, but will also give you the chance to garner knowledge that could help you make a good living if you, God forbid, have a career ending injury? I think not.

Pete, stick to reporting and stay out of the commentary. If you don't like it, then go follow the NFL, NBA, or other PROFESSIONAL sports. This is COLLEGE FOOTBALL.

Honestly, if this ever becomes reality, then I will lose interest in college football as it will become a prima donna fest like the other pro-sports have become after free agency. No thank you.

 

[Best Buckeye]

No pay.

 

[Jake]

So, Pete, do you think HS athletes should be paid? They generate money for their schools. I had to pay for a ticket for the last HS game to which I went. I believe the coaches get paid at the HS level, also, so nix those salaries, also?

This is the biggest load of short sighted shit I have read from him, ever.

These kids are getting an education and getting living expenses paid for, so they are being "paid". Are they making millions? No, that is what they are striving for by playing their best in college.

They are making quite a good "wage" seeing that the tuition, stipends, clothing, and the room and board are probably on par with an average of $30K+ per year per football player (depending on the institution). Can most HS grads grab a $30K a year job right out of HS that not only could be a spring board for a job that could net you millions, but will also give you the chance to garner knowledge that could help you make a good living if you, God forbid, have a career ending industry? I think not.

Pete, stick to reporting and stay out of the commentary. If you don't like it, then go follow the NFL, NBA, or other PROFESSIONAL sports. This is COLLEGE FOOTBALL.

Bingo. :highfive:

 

[Mike80]

Actually I think if the athletes start getting paid that will be the end of college sports, especially in the football arena.

For one, the smaller schools couldn't hope to compete. For another, the athletic budgets of a lot of these schools are under significant strain as it is, paying these kids is going to screw that up even more.

And there's another consideration, I'm sure Title IX has some stipulation requiring the treatment of one sport to be similar in scope across all of the sports. So it won't be just paying football players and the other revenue sports. You'll be paying the Synchronized swimmers and the Gymnastics and the Cross Country players and all the other teams and players as well. And if it isn't, you know some [strike]scumbag[/strike] ENTERPRISING lawyer like Gator will be suing the NCAA's ass off to get the tennis team equal pay.

 

[BUCKYLE]

God forbid, have a career ending industry? I think not.

Um...what the fuck is a "career ending industry"?