Juco looking at increasing the athletic fees for students
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/2...s-activity-fee
|
|
|
|
|
Juco looking at increasing the athletic fees for students
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/2...s-activity-fee
"Louisiana Tech reported 6,326 students enrolled in its undergraduate program this past fiscal year with its student aid topping out at a little more than $3 million in athletic fees." -Tabby Soignier
This article is terribly confusing and misleading. What the heck does her "table" on the left even mean?
I think she's confusing athletic student aid expenses (tuition, room and board, etc for athletes) with student fee revenues.
Tech received $0 in student fee revenues in FY09-10 according the the Louisiana Legislative Auditor.
Tech's athletic student aid expenses were $3,300,844 in FY09-10 according to the Louisiana Legislative Auditor.
State law prohibits Louisiana schools from using student athletic fees to supplement their athletic budgets once the university has already maxed out with a transfer of 3% of their general fund to athletics.
Tech reported 8,748 undergraduate students in Fall 2009 according to Tech's Common Data Set filed by Tech's Director of Institutional Research.
Am I missing something here?
Last edited by Dawg06; 04-07-2011 at 08:13 AM.
Comments... This should get interesting...
STEW83
2:34 AM on April 7, 2011
It's funny how they never announce anything to the people they target. I'm a student at ULM and this is the first I've heard about a fee increase. Now, if you want a student to show up and support a team, don't you think you should win a little bit more, especially those games that they can't hold onto the lead in. Football games draw just enough students to see the team get beat up, and after halftime those students leave to get drunk, or do something more entertaining. Don't get me wrong I love football, but there is a point where winning is everything. The basketball team is a farce. They should be downgraded from an actual campus supported sport to a sports club. They have yet to prove over the last ten years why anyone should support them.
My money is could be used for better things than to pay for sports that don't do anything for the school. It's funny how he says sports are the face of the school, when it's supposed to be what programs the university offers students. STUDENT is the first word in student athlete, it's not athlete-student. Why not make the players pay for their gear as well. It would save the University money. My point is don't ask for something, unless you have something to give in return, like a trophy.
blakely
6:20 AM on April 7, 2011
Sorry , Mr Sebren, the face of any University should be EDUCATION, NOT ATHLETICS.
I have never heard of a resume that was enhanced because the person's college won a trophy.
At my University, if there is a money problem, money is TAKEN FROM ATHLETICS.
Athletics are considered extracurricular activities.
It also occurs to me that the more serious students will be paying the most. This hardly seems fair.
Someone working a full time job & taking as many courses as he can should not be penalized because some have visions of NLM being another LSU.
vnillangel
6:59 AM on April 7, 2011
I am a student at ULM at besides a vague reference from a Facebook friends status this is the first I've heard of this. I think our fees are high enough without them adding extra for the athletics department. If it was something to support my education it would be one thing but paying an extra $100 every semester for athletics is ridiculous!!!
hahaha.
ULM Students are funny. Do they really want the world looking at their university through the lense of Academics? I think they're better off with Athletics!
Ok Tabby, let's do some math.
You said ULM students pay $22 per semester to athletics.
You said ULM has 6,007 undergraduate students.
You said student fees contributed $2.3 million to ULM's athletic budget.
$22 x 2 semesters x 6,007 students = $264,308
Your numbers don't add up, Tabby.
You wanna guess ULM's athletic student aid EXPENSES in FY09-10? $2,343,976
Yeah, when I read the article this morning I thought, about you and R.C. picking it apart.
We are supposed to take journalists seriously, but they never do their own research. They just believe what the Presidents, ADs, and SIDs tell them then go write it.
It's called the University of Lesser Minds for a reason...
Whether somebody gave her those figures or she looked them up herself, she totally misinterpreted them. Tabby apparently doesn't know the difference between expenses and revenues. That article should be rescinded.Originally Posted by maddawg
That would be a first for TNS. They've often printed mis-information, but they very rarely issue a correction. They NEVER correct entire articles.
jknight291
8:30 AM on April 7, 2011
No. Students already have to pay a ridiculous amount of fees on top of tuition. It should not be the students' responsibility to fund a failing athletic program. How about charging students $150 per semester to hire some worthwhile faculty or to help fund some of the failing ACADEMIC programs on campus? Why is ULM so concerned about their athletics when their enrollment rate is stagnate and their graduation rate is dismal?
1.
According to the 2011 Audit of the ULM Athletic Department, the department received $362,045 in student fees during the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Assuming the student fee increase passes as is and each student pays the maximum fee of $120 per semester, the total projected athletic fees from the student body would be $1,974,791. This amounts to an increase of $1.61 million, not the $1.8 million that ULM projects.Students currently pay $22 a semester toward athletics, but the impending vote could increase the fee to $10 per credit hour up to 12 credit hours. In other words, the maximum a student will pay for the athletic fee is $120.
If the implemented fee does pass, the athletic department can draw an addition $1.8 million annually, which would increase its current budget by 25 percent.
Also, the ULM AD budget for the 2009-2010 fiscal year was $10.7 million according to the same audit. The $1.8 million increase ULM projects would equal a 16.8% increase in the budget, not the 25% increase cited by the article.
2. The table on the left hand side of the article cites the number of undergraduate student at ULM. Yet, the referendum does not indicate that the proposed student fee increase for athletics is limited to the undergrad student body. This gives a false impression that graduate students will not have to worry about the fee increase when they in fact will.
3. I'm not sure where the reporter who wrote the article found the figure for operating expenses as shown in the table. According to the table, ULM's AD had operating expenses of $1.4 million. The 2011 Audit indicates that operating expenses were $10.7 million, not the $1.4 million cited in the article.
4.I think Dawg06 already mentioned this, but the $2.3 million cited by the author is the amount the athletic department pays in athletic student aid ($2,343,976 per the 2011 Audit), not the amount of money the students pay in athletic support fees ($362,045 per Audit).ULM's student body is made up of 6,007 undergraduate students, whose athletic fees contributed about $2.3 million in the past fiscal year (July 2009-June 2010).
5. The table cites The Office of Postsecondary Education of the U.S. Department of Education. It would have been much more relevant to based the research of the ULM Athletic Department budget, revenues, and expenses off the Louisiana Legislative Auditor's audit report of the ULM Athletic Department.
http://app1.lla.state.la.us/PublicReports.nsf/2108373AEC90C6EA86257840005875CE/$FILE/0001CC67.pdf
Where is this? I've tried to look it up in the past but can't find it under LAC.
Whoever wrote that article is a moron.
I don't know. RC can probably answer that question.
miksblog61
9:09 AM on April 7, 2011
If they want to fill the stadium, let's see them schedule games between West Monroe High School and ULM, just prepare for ULM to lose.
Dawg0903
9:09 AM on April 7, 2011
I think Tabby should get her facts straight. Louisiana Tech students pay $0.00 towards athletics in student fees. ZERO. That information comes straight from the Louisiana Legislative Auditor. And can someone check my math? The article states that ulm students currently contribute $22/semester towards athletics. At an undergraduate enrolment of 6,007 students, $22 x 6,007 students x 2 semesters = $264,308, NOT the $2.3M Tabby stated in the article. Please explain.
Last edited by Dawg06; 04-07-2011 at 10:02 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
