Privatization certainly pertains to my topic, which is the benefits that college sports programs brings to universities. As privatization forces universities to raise tuition rates, the question is raised as to whether or not it is ethical to use students tuition to fund sports programs, since sports programs are not tied to the academic mission of universities.
Privatization also brings outside interests and corporations to the university. One such example we should all be familiar with is our own football stadium, which is now high-point solutions stadium. The ownership of our stadium by an outside company certainly affects management of the team, and could possibly have a trickle down affect to the players.
Privatization of higher education certainly has a much greater effect on college sports than these two issues raised. College sports can almost be seen as a part of the entertainment business, and therefore can be closely associated with the private world. I am sure as a research I would better understand how privatization is related to college sports
You should consider the fact that the athletics program costs RU $27 M each year. What do we get for that money? Faculty obviously think "not much" -- if anything, a loss of revenue for academics. But are there enough positives from that $27M investment that compensate for it? Has anyone made an argument based on the business model that could justify such a seemingly wasted expense? For instance: has RU gained $27M in advertising from its teams? $27M in alumni support?
ReplyDeleteThe sale of naming rights to the stadium (different from ownership) is interesting, and a clear example of privatization. What has Highpoint gotten in return? And does it give them undue influence? How is Highpoint a symbol of the way that higher education is reimagined under privatization?
This is a rich territory, as I commented recently on the blog:
http://college201.blogspot.com/2012/02/sas-faculty-votes.html