Univertisited pay millions to host debates

[cgallery]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081003/...t1c3l40AeyFz4D

"Universities that vied to host the debates had to be willing to pay $1.35 million to cover production expenses, then millions more to erect facilities, spruce up campus grounds and shuffle sports events. Some also canceled or rescheduled classes to enhance security and debate setup."

The payback: instant international attention. The debates also help with a university's mission by offering opportunities for students and the community to learn more about politics and election issues. School leaders say the sacrifices and concessions are worth it.

"It's going to generate huge numbers of conversations among students and faculty," said John Geer, a Vanderbilt University political science professor who's written extensively on presidential elections.

HUGE numbers of conversations? I'll bet other universities have nearly the same HUGE number of conversations at no cost to the university.

So they've got: Two podiums (which they can reuse), and a desk (for the moderator). I assume the auditorium was already there. The cameras (I assume) are provided by the networks (if not, they could be provided by CSPAN).

How do they get to $1.35 million? What an unbelievable waste of taxpayer money.

[JR]

How do they get to $1.35 million? What an unbelievable waste of taxpayer money.

I believe Washington University is a private school.

JR

[cgallery]

I believe Washington University is a private school.

JR

What about OleMiss? They bill themselves as "A Great American Public University."

But you're right, Washington University gets a pass. They can waste their dollars however they see fit.

[mdutch]

So they've got: Two podiums (which they can reuse), and a desk (for the moderator). I assume the auditorium was already there. The cameras (I assume) are provided by the networks (if not, they could be provided by CSPAN).

How do they get to $1.35 million? What an unbelievable waste of taxpayer money.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it looks like the Universities are paying for those improvements with their money, not tax money. The portion of public funding going to the average university is very small compared to tuition revenues paid for by middle-class parents (like me) and students (like my two kids).

[cgallery]

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it looks like the Universities are paying for those improvements with their money, not tax money. The portion of public funding going to the average university is very small compared to tuition revenues paid for by middle-class parents (like me) and students (like my two kids).

Are you sure?

Here is a copy of the funding for the University of Wisconsin (2006-2007). Student tuition is less than the state contribution, but much less than taxpayer contributions when you add "Federal programs and projects."

I think most large public universities are similar.

http://www.wisc.edu/about/facts/budget.php

[Have to click the link, the table doesn't post correctly due to formatting issues.]

[jackellis]

Washington University is private. One of my nieces and her brother both attended. I don't think it's as well know as many other private universities.

There's taxpayer money to support instructional programs directly, and then research money from public and private sources. The public gets a pretty good return on its investment in higher education IMHO.

[Rant on]
I get a lot more steamed over the amounts of alumni money that are spent on intercollegiate sports at public universities. These schools are taxpayer-funded institutions for research and learning. They're not supposed to be farm systems for the NBA and the NFL. In the interest of producing winners, more than one university has had its reputation tarnished by overzealous, irrational, corrupt alumni. That's not the kind of advertising any prestigious institution of higher learning aspires to.
[Rant off]

[Ed62]

$1.35 million? You act like that's a lot of money.

Ed

[leehljp]

What about OleMiss? They bill themselves as "A Great American Public University."

I think the term 'public' in the University of Mississippi is being misread/misunderstood as being a 'state' school which it is/was not. The national guard made sure that it a 'public' school in the early 60's, but not a state school. The term 'public' can be understood better this way - consider a supermarket - it is privately owned but it is also open to the public, therefore not private. But it does not receive state funds for its running.

Back in the mid and late 60's when I considered my educational venues, it was basically 'public' in that it is open to the public, but operated in more of a privately funded method. And it was quite a bit more expensive than the other "state" schools.

'Public' school doesn't mean 'State' school as in being supported by the state. In this case, they too can spend their money in the way that they seem fit, as long as they keep their doors open to the 'public.' The debates are way to re-image and position themselves to the public with their own funds.

As to the UofM, I personally know a few UM grads (my high school class mates) who could and would fund the whole 1.35 million themselves.

[cgallery]

I think the term 'public' in the University of Mississippi is being misread/misunderstood as being a 'state' school which it is/was not.

Are you absolutely sure? Their page says they were chartered by the legislature in 1844. And their tuition schedule (below) has in in-state discount, which is typically a tell-tale sign that they are receiving state funding:

HISTORY
Chartered by the Mississippi Legislature in 1844, The University of Mississippi opened its doors to 80 students in 1848.

EXPENSES
Tuition and Fees (in-state resident) - $4,932 Tuition and Fees (out-of-state) - $11,436
Room and Board - $6,578
Personal - $1,880 (estimated)
Books and Supplies - $1,100 (estimated)
Transportation - $1,994 (estimated)
Total for Mississippi Resident - $16,484

From:
http://www.olemiss.edu/info/stats_facts.html

[leehljp]

You have the facts there, can't argue with that. But does "Chartered by the State" versus being a "State" school mean the same thing?

I wouldn't argue with them but I was always told that it was not as cheap as Mississippi State because MSU was a "State" school, where as Ole Miss was not fully funded by the state and had a more "elite" image.

Shucks, I just looked at that tuition - it wasn't as high I thought.