Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="NJCuse97, post: 2087129, member: 5058"] As I mentioned, I see some validity in the arguments, especially those of the mission. That said, if funds are down as is also expressed, putting aside the expense and potential return of an investment into athletics (the Dome), the things that will bring in additional funds are pretty simple. higher enrollment, research grants, and higher tuition. The school has pretty high tuition as is. I don't think a dramatic improvement in the educator's salary will result in a school ranking improvement that would justify a substantial tuition increase. As for increased enrollment, for one Nancy tried this and we watched the academic rankings drop as a result. Two, increased enrollment means increased facilities, like dorms and classrooms. Neither do much to increase value, but of the two, I would put dorms ahead of classrooms. In that is this; quality over quantity. Lastly is where I agree most with potential funnelling of funds to places other than athletics. Research grants. With these come not only better faculty, but also better academic ranking, and potential patent rights. This is where the real money is and this is why the BigTen and many ACC schools strive for AAU membership (this is granted in large part based on research spending), and it is of little consequence that there are a lot of Ivy's in the AAU as well. That said, again the school needs infrastructure investment to do this, more so than faculty pay raises. There are not many research facilities or programs on campus compared to our aspirant peer institutions. With the cost of college falling under tremendous scrutiny these days, prospective students are looking at career choices that will lead to lucrative job prospects upon graduation. That isn't library or religious studies, or history degrees these days; it is engineering and science degrees, and entrepreneur programs. As a means to staving this off (fake it till you make it) until we can get the research programs in place, (which is a major tenet of the new academic plan) we are engaging in campus beautification and improving student life projects that are an effort to justify high tuition and draw a higher caliber applicant. It is also in making sure our image is comparable to our peer institutes (Duke, BC, UNC, and ND among others are some of the most beautiful campuses in the country). $50 million for the Arch is not an athletic investment, it is a student life investment. As everyone else here has said, the investment into athletics is not only a revenue generator, but a major marketing tool. Do you think a school like UNC would risk their academic reputation without there being a justified reward? I think conversations to the economic well being of the CNY region are VERY important, but carry less weight in this discussion. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?