Opinion
$50 for your college’s reputation
By Nick Ruland April 27, 2011 at 7:51 pm 
Print This Post
What’s $50 to an ASU student?
According to a 2009 study conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute, 40 percent of a student’s budget is spent on discretionary items such as “entertainment, apparel, services, travel, vacation and other.”
So, a leather jacket for your iPad?
A subscription to Sky Mall Magazine?
Tuesday night the Tempe Undergraduate Student Government senate joined the downtown Phoenix campus by voting against a $50 student fee increase. Their votes were intended to represent the “will” of their “constituents.”
Unscientific surveys by senators found that the majority of a few hundred students (by a few percentage points) disapproved of the increase. Though one can assume based on the student body’s general apathy in regard to campus issues, most were probably unaware of how the fee increase could help them. The senate votes don’t actually count for anything, anyway, as it’s up to the President’s Council to approve the fee.
The fee is projected to raise $6 million in revenue, $3 million of which would go to the intercollegiate athletics program (ICA).
That $3 million dollars could go a long way in helping a cash-strapped athletic department.
To be fair, we don’t really know where that $3 million will go. Perhaps some of it will help expand the student section, or move the band into the student section — both of which would create a better game day experience and thus greater outside demand for Saturdays at Sun Devil Stadium. Though I’m with the majority of those who follow ASU — there will be a lot of success in 2011 and a natural surge in ticket sales.
But how about a little blind loyalty for once?
This is really about how ASU students identify themselves.
Let’s be honest, a $50 increase at most any school with a proud tradition of student support for athletics is a no-brainer.
Say it passes (let’s all hope it does). Will alumni formerly opposed to it be counting their quarters, demanding a refund years from now when ASU’s athletic program and facilities are some of the best in the country?
It seems to be a pretty sane proposition to me that an elite athletics program leads to elite facilities, both of which lead to a greater demand to attend the school. That demand leads to a lot of good things, like improved academic standards, educational experience and reputation. Yes, that would improve the value of your degree.
Maybe it’s cheap to make an “opportunity cost” argument in light of tuition increases and budget cuts, etc.
Do you have any pride in your school?
But maybe it’s time for ASU students to realize that a week’s worth of vanilla lattes really isn’t as valuable as supporting the institution that will be attached to your name for the rest of your life.
Maybe you need to take a couple nights off from Mill anyway.
This has a chance to be a very special year for ASU, what with a possibly great college football team and a brand change. It could be a historical turning point. Don’t you want to say you did your part?
Tell the Presidents Council to approve the fee.
Reach the columnist at nick.ruland@asu.edu
More from The State Press:
Categories: Newsletter Sports
Tags: ASU football Opinion student fee Tempe Undergraduate Student Government
Listen, Nick. While you may have the luxury cash to spend on $50 worth of vanilla lattes or a few extra nights on mill, many of us do not; myself included. Personally, I can’t afford school. I can’t afford my living costs and my tuition alone, and thus I am living on debt. And while I understand and appreciate that the costs and the debt I incur as a student are a worthy investment in my future, I simply cannot justify spending any extra on frivolous expenses, such as this fee increase which does not provide any benefit to me.
Tuition and fees are already high, and with the rate they keep climbing at, we are systematically removing students from our school. I am fortunate to be graduating in December, because I’ve already calculated it out, and I don’t know how I could do it if I had to stay any longer. With the state cutting our funding left and right, it is elitist and irresponsible for student to initiate and support a fee increase.
You see, Nick, I don’t spend $50 on vanilla lattes for the week. I am a student living on loans, and I oppose any increase in the cost of my investment. Especially, when the increase in the fee is dedicated to our already bloated athletic programs, which I, personally, have never found an interest in.
While many students may like the idea of more funding specifically for the students in athletics, we have to understand that that extra funding is coming at the cost of young people like myself, who are being responsible, good, independent students; who are budgeting their years out of a pocketbook lined with student loans. I have no wiggle room and that $50 increase in my fees will be coming out of my debt, and it is a charge that I will have to make room for by deducting from my budget for important expenses like food, or utilities.
Many students will have no problem paying an extra $50 per semester. But our society is stratified and money is not equally distributed. Even though I have it tough, I am by no means as poorly-off as many of my friends who are already looking at other avenues for pursuing (or even terminating early) their education. It is ignorant and it is an affront to your own fellow students to support a policy like this, without thinking about those who can’t afford it.
Well said. The State Press would do well to check the privilege of its columnists before it publishes more classist crap like this again.
P.S. Maybe if Athletics hadn’t wasted so much money on a frankly irrelevant and underwhelming redesign, they wouldn’t be so “cash-strapped.”
ASU has gotten in the habit of using bundling schemes to distribute costs incurred by a few students across the entire student body, many of whom do not utilize the funded services. The fact that the student government continues to push for these fee hikes shows little understanding of how economically inefficient that process is.
Our sports programs can be broken into 2 categories, revenue generating and non-revenue generating sports. Football and basketball for example generate demand for the sport and are able to fund not only their own teams, but some of the non-revenue generating sports at asu. A $3 million infusion into the athletics system will largely go to sports that are unable to sustain themselves financially. This is essentially all programs other than b-ball, football, and possibly baseball.
The fact that a sport is non-revenue-generating in itself should be an indication of the overall student bodies desire to provide financing to that sport. If women’s water polo is what our students wanted to allocate their private dollars too, they would go buy tickets to the games or make donations to the team, and we would see women’s water polo generating $ for the athletics department. So why, after clear evidence that the student body is un-interested in spending money on certain sports, should we institute the mandatory allocation of personal funds to that sport?
Maybe im missing something, but I see no market failures that would justify the bundling of athletics funding with school tuition. Anyone who has taken an intermediate-level economics class has probably looked at the schools mandatory SRC fee and seen how incredibly inefficient it is. The same principles apply here.
Three years ago ASU privatized 3 of its mens sports teams: Swimming, wrestling, and tennis. Mens swimming and wrestling came back as privately funded teams, showing that there are parties out their who are willing to pay for these programs. The programs are largely funded through donations from alumni, the athletes, and their families. Essentially those who are reaping the benefits of the program as either fans or athletes, are paying the costs of the program, as it should be.
Tennis on the other hand was not able to generate sufficient private donation to continue, and was cut as a sport. This makes it clear that even those reaping the benefits of a tennis program (once again, athletes and fans) don’t find the cost of the program is justified.
Now you have my argument for a 100% privately funded athetics program at ASU. Interested in hearing your opinions/ critique!