[This statement was submitted to AS to appear on the ballot for the special election occurring between February 27th and March 9th. Footnotes have been added for the skeptical or curious. The official publication of this statement is available here]
Even if you want and can afford D-I, this WILL price some students out of a UCSD education. This will hurt middle-class students struggling to pay for school and who won’t receive more financial aid to cover a new fee.[1]
AS’s D-I Feasibility Study said football IS NOT feasible at UCSD.[2] This new fee will not fund a football team.
There is no hard evidence that D-I would provide employment advantages for UCSD graduates. UCSD already has an INCREDIBLE reputation. Last year, we had the second highest number of applications in the UC system, higher than Cal.[3]
US News, the most recognized ranking system, does not even consider sports in its rankings,[4] and a 2004 study of nine D-I conferences found that D-I basketball is not correlated with increased alumni giving.[5]
Non-student funding for D-I is possible. Most of UCLA’s athletics funding isn’t from student fees.[6]
The move from D-II to D-I is EXTREMELY RISKY. In a 2007 NCAA study all eight programs that moved from D-II to D-I suffered MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR FINANCIAL LOSSES.[7]
Remember to vote!
Almost all D-I programs run at a deficit. In 2006, only 19 of 119 D-1 programs in the country made money. [8]
All of UCSD has been hurt by budget cuts, not just athletics. From 2010 to 2012, UCSD lost $70.5 million (or 25.8%) of its state funding.[9] Since 2008, library funding has been cut $5.5 million (or 16%).[10] In 2009, over half of new faculty recruitments were postponed.[11] Average debt on graduation at UCSD increased $3,168 (or 20%) from 2000 to 2010, inflation adjusted.[12]
Just this last fall, fees increased by 17.6%.[13] More fee increases are anticipated.[14]
This referendum promises to more than double the athletic fee.
When every department is shrinking and libraries are closing, EXPANDING sports should not be a priority. The move to D1 isn’t a quick fix and does more harm than good.
[1] The UC Accountability report says that the 6 percentage point drop in middle income enrollment since 1999 could be a result of perceived unaffordability, although further study is necessary to be certain.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/accountability/index/3.5.3
[4] The methodology lists unconsidered factors: “location and the feel of campus life; the range of academic offerings, activities, and sports; and cost and the availability of financial aid”
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/09/12/how-us-news-calculates-the-college-rankings-2012
[5] T he conferences analysed were “Atlantic Coast, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Mountain West, Pacific 10, Conference USA, Southeastern, and Notre Dame”
Tucker, Irvin B. “A reexamination of the effect of big-time football and basketball success on graduation rates and alumni giving rates.” Economics of Education Review 23 (2004) 655-661
[6] In their 2009-10 Annual report University support was only $ 2,750,481 out of a total of $60,542,871
[7] http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/athleticstudy/pdf/B%20-%20%20Appendix%201%20reclassification%5B1%5D.pdf
[12] Primary Source: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/accountability/index/3.7
Analysis: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0AqeJDAEDSjt-dGVFOGhRRFcwSkUxRENLZVFmMVhwdUE&output=html
[14] In September 2011 the UCOP told the regents that “Failure of the State to provide any funding increases would cause tuition and fees to rise by 16 percent annually.”
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/sept11/f8.pdf
Reclaim UCSD 