(01-23-2018 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 09:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 09:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 09:29 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 09:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's not the same, because a science lab is clearly a component of the academic mission, whereas the football team isn't. It's therefore reasonable to expect all students, even those whose major will never bring them to the Science building, to kick in for the former. But not the latter.

Football or any other intercollegiate sport is precisely the kind of peripheral/tangential activity that should be paid for with user fees.

But it's something that brings people to colleges and amenities they enjoy. It's no different than a publicly financed sports stadium or even just a public park or pool.

If the students who show up at a football or hoops game enjoy it, then they should be the ones who pay for it, not the ones who don't.

When I was at USF, we didn't have football, but we had basketball and I loved watching our hoops team, even though we often weren't very good. I was more than happy to pay for tickets and a fee to support it, but disagreed that those students with no interest in hoops should have to as well.

And IMO, publicly financed sports stadiums for privately owned teams are dead wrong too.

You can say that about a lot of things. I don't go to the park all that often but it is a cool amenity to have if I ever want to have a barbecue with family and friends or play basketball.

You say stuff like that but suddenly when it becomes more fashionable or you garner an interest, things change.

And don't get me wrong, this arms race for the best sports facilities is absurd. That said, if it is voted on and agreed upon, then all need to pay for it.

I explained how voting on something like this is wrong to begin with (I guess if my neighbor wanted to buy a new car, but thought the rest of us should chip in, he should be able to call a neighborhood vote, and if the vote passes, i should be compelled to chip in for his car even if i voted against), and how voting is often biased by administrative action, and by the structure of universities, such that you often have juniors and seniors who won't be around to pay a fee voting in favor of it, and then the vote occurs one time and future students have to pay without having had a chance to vote for it.

Bottom line is that to me, athletics is extraneous to the mission, so it should be paid by user fees, not the general student population. I love football, but it's wrong for an Art major with zero interest in it to have to kick in too.

That's a terrible analogy. A better one is whether or not your job and people at the office should chip in to buy a TV and vending machine for the break room. You may not think you will use it but you may at some point. It may well be something you have to agree to let come out of your paycheck before getting the job.

Yes, athletics can go overboard sometimes but these things are still voted upon. Life isn't always fair, which is why prospective students should know what the deal is before going to certain schools.

By the way, as I recall, back in college I had the right to waive my athletic fee and did numerous semesters, so this sort of choice actually does exist.