Duke = Big Spenders

[CameronBornAndBred]

According to this article, Duke has the highest basketball budget in the nation...and almost twice that of the heels. The next closest program is 3 million behind us. Is it money well spent when programs with half the budget have similar positive records?

http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2010/07/01/duke-basketball-makes-good-use-of-a-budget-suitable-for-football/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002

[Kedsy]

Is it money well spent when programs with half the budget have similar positive records?

Uh, yeah.

[4decadedukie]

Let's please remember one pertinent expense element: scholarship costs. Duke's full undergraduate tuition, fees, room, board and books are appreciably greater than they would be at a publicly support university. Obviously, that element annually represents less than half of the $3M; however, thirteen scholarships at $50K each is still $650K each year.

The Iron Duke's FY-11 contribution/solicitation letter should reach all us in early-July; here's a good reason to donate generously.

[CPDUKEGUY24]

I recall a post a couple months ago regarding our increased expenditures this year. The explanation offered was that the first installment of payments for the new Training Center started this year. This could be another reason why we have a considerably higher budget than other teams, for this year as well as the next few years. I'll try to dig it up from the forums.

Someone with more knowledge on this could probably substantiate this as well.

LETS GO DUKE

[Richard Berg]

As I recall, 2009 also represented the first year after Duke switched to a new accounting system -- specifically, the way they divided "mens' bball" expenses from "general AD" expenses had some major changes.

[DevilHorns]

As I recall, 2009 also represented the first year after Duke switched to a new accounting system -- specifically, the way they divided "mens' bball" expenses from "general AD" expenses had some major changes.

If that's the case, then the comparison measure is faulty. I wonder if the public has access to the numbers (perhaps in a Chronicle article?)?

I'm guessing if the accounting was done correctly, we would be top 5 with a marginal expense lead at best.

[Bluedevil114]

That is only because they do not count how much money is paid to the players at Kentucky and UConn. If you factor those expenses then we would not be so high.

[JimBD]

Yes, it's worth it when you consider that Duke brings in hundreds of millions in donations. The basketball program (and in particular Coach K) generates a hugh amount of positive publicity and goodwill which in my opinion has a significant impact on the total donations received by Duke.

[4decadedukie]

I recall a post a couple months ago regarding our increased expenditures this year. The explanation offered was that the first installment of payments for the new Training Center started this year. This could be another reason why we have a considerably higher budget than other teams, for this year as well as the next few years. I'll try to dig it up from the forums.

Someone with more knowledge on this could probably substantiate this as well.

LETS GO DUKE

You may well be correct (and I would certainly appreciate any further information); however, at the formal dedication and opening of the K Center in February, 2008, I believe the major donors present were told that the costs of construction, equipment, and so forth had already been fully funded through charitable contributions.

[4decadedukie]

That is only because they do not count how much money is paid to the players at Kentucky and UConn. If you factor those expenses then we would not be so high.

GREAT POST - LOL - Thank you.
:D

[4decadedukie]

Yes, it's worth it when you consider that Duke brings in hundreds of millions in donations. The basketball program (and in particular Coach K) generates a hugh amount of positive publicity and goodwill which in my opinion has a significant impact on the total donations received by Duke.

Absolutely correct!

Further, please realize that Duke's overall varsity athletic program operates at a loss, annually requiring augmentation from general University funds. The expenses associated with the many "non-revenue" sports, in aggregate, are large. Obviously, they, too, are worth it, since the character development, leadership skills, and lessons learned by the many undergraduate student-athletes who participate in intercollegiate sports (other than football and basketball) are fundamental to Duke's broad educational mission.

[77devil]

You may well be correct (and I would certainly appreciate any further information); however, at the formal dedication and opening of the K Center in February, 2008, I believe the major donors present were told that the costs of construction, equipment, and so forth had already been fully funded through charitable contributions.

Not to get too much into the weeds, but the facility should be depreciated for accounting purposes regardless of the sources of cash to build it and the expense would be considerable. I suspect there is a great deal of variation between schools in how expenses are allocated between team budgets and the general athletic budget making any comparison suspect at best.

As others have written, the basketball program and Coach K are tremendous ambassadors for the university. The direct and indirect revenue they generate is many times more than the cost. The original posters question should have been stated rhetorically, or not at all, for that matter.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The original posters question should have been stated rhetorically, or not at all, for that matter.
It is a valid question to ask. I didn't give an opinion one way or the other. Everyone so far has given valid arguments for the high budget. This year it's easy to state the worth of the budget, we won the championship, but would you have given the same "Uh, yeah" response the years that we got booted out in the sweet sixteen or earlier? (Maybe our budget was 5 or 6 million less then, I don't know.)
Anyways, to say the question shouldn't be asked is irresponsible, and it's one I'm sure the university has asked itself, and obviously found the justifcation for.

[sagegrouse]

College basketball is a billion-dollar business, counting gate receipts (several million a year each for the top 100 programs), regular season TV and radio fees, and the NCAA tournament payments. The top programs also get revenues from the major equipment companies. I couldn't find a total in a few minutes of web searching, but it has to be well over $1 billion

This is the demand for college basketball.

What about supply? Putting a billion-dollar product on the hoops courts of America costs money. What is wrong with the top college basketball producer spending about 1 percent of total industry revenue on putting a product on the floor?

Seems fine to me.

sagegrouse

[uh_no]

why basketball is good for schools:

davidsons applications for undergraduate admission have skyrocketed since curry was there

does anyone have any doubt more people know who and where butler is than ever before?

I wouldn't have gone to duke if it weren't for basketball......the fact that they had such a program is one of the main reasons i chose duke over schools like penn

when schools put money into basketball, they can draw better recruits, and make the tournament and perhaps win a few games....once your name is on the bracket, millions of people see it, millions of people watch your team play....if you win? you get soooo much free air time....as i pointed out, davidsons apps increased some huge amount.....i didn't know about davidson college before stephen curry....i do now....and maybe if i were in high school still i'd consider applying to it.....people probably are more aware to of butler now, adnd i would bet that their # of apps go up next year...

bottom line is more apps = you can accept a more competitive pool = better education overall....from something as cheap to the school as sports.....I have NO doubt in my mind that duke is able to draw a more competitive applicant pool due to its such high publicity position in the sports world

[4decadedukie]

Perhaps this comment goes somewhat beyond the original intent of this thread. However, if one adopts a longer-term perspective and analyzes the University in some depth, it is clear that Duke has enjoyed truly unprecedented progress since the late-70’s/early-80’s. What has caused this exceptional higher education and research success story – from an outstanding regional university to a top-ten, multifaceted, national research university on only three decades – one that probably is unequalled in the history of American higher education?

I respectfully suggest it is the SYNERGY of these (and, perhaps, some additional) highly significant element:
- Great leadership at the senior executive and trustee level (Keohane, Sanford, McMahon and others come to mind)
- The affluence and generosity alumni and supporters (The $2.36B Campaign for Duke is a splendid example)
- Ever-increasing superiority in facilities, in student selectivity, in professional school breadth and stature, in faculty, in research, and so forth (compare West Campus today with the late-1970s, evaluate current admissions metrics to those of thirty years ago, and/or consider the interdisciplinary excellence of the aggregate University now as opposed to in 1980).
- Highly positive national and international visibility (Basketball and Coach K are a tremendous component of this major element).

[mgtr]

Regarding the subject of increasing costs, I started in 1958 at a school similar to Duke on the west coast (tough to guess, huh?). At that time (and now) it was considered extremely competitive, and I was delighted to get in. Tuition - a total of $1,005 per year. Adjusting for general inflation, that might be about $6,000 in today's dollars. I don't know what the tuition is at "this school" or at Duke, but I am sure it is many times $6,000. And the students they admit? Lets just say I am happy that I got in and got out when I did -- I wouldn't care to compete with today's admits.
However, the cost of providing that kind of education has increased much faster than general inflation. A former president of "this school" estimated that costs there had increased at inflation plus 2%. Doesn't sound like a lot, but the power of compounding explains a lot.
So, university administrators are always anxious to cut costs when possible. Thus, if they choose to spend dollars on a basketball program, it has to be for a good reason. Many have pointed out the reasons that Duke follows that path, and I cannot add to them.

[duke79]

Nice analysis, 4decade, of Duke's rise as a national institution of higher learning over the last 3 decades. I think you are "spot on" with the reasons for Duke's rise in the world of higher education. I think the prominence of the Duke basketball program over that period cannot be overestimated in the school's rise in national awareness. My only complaint is that when I tell people that I went to Duke, almost always the first thing out of their mouth is "Great basketball teams there" and usually NOT "oh yea, that's a great school academically". I think, in some ways, the school's success in b-ball has overshadowed its success in other fields. Off topic slightly, I've often wondered, too, if Coach K would have had the level of success that he has had at Duke, if he had gone to another school to coach in 1982; for example, a DePaul or a Seton Hall or a Butler. As great as coach as I think he is, I still believe part of his success is because of his being at Duke - great academics, beautiful campus, great basketball conference, tremendous financial resources, etc. All of these are attributes that could be duplicated at only a few other colleges in the country.

[Wander]

I believe every single reply has completely missed the point - I'm pretty sure everyone on DBR including the original poster agrees the basketball team does a ton of good for Duke. The question is whether its possible to get the same positive benefits for a lesser cost, given that other schools are nearly as successful at basketball as we are without spending as much (personally, I have no idea).

[CameronBornAndBred]

I believe every single reply has completely missed the point - I'm pretty sure everyone on DBR including the original poster agrees the basketball team does a ton of good for Duke. The question is whether its possible to get the same positive benefits for a lesser cost, given that other schools are nearly as successful at basketball as we are without spending as much (personally, I have no idea).
Clap-clap-clap. That is precisely my question. Like you, I have no idea. But obviously others are doing equally well (or slightly less than equally well) on the court and spending much less. I would love to see Duke take that 3 million that we are spending more than the others on basketball and see it go to the football program. If all of the money spent on basketball has reaped all of the benefits that everyone has so well pointed out, imagine if we had large budgets for BOTH sports. It all boils down to if other elite programs are only spending 10 million on bball and are still that successful, then can't Duke do the same?

[sagegrouse]

I believe every single reply has completely missed the point - I'm pretty sure everyone on DBR including the original poster agrees the basketball team does a ton of good for Duke. The question is whether its possible to get the same positive benefits for a lesser cost, given that other schools are nearly as successful at basketball as we are without spending as much (personally, I have no idea).

OK. I see your drift and disagree with the direction the tide is taking you.

Suppose you are the CEO of large diversified corporation. One division has posted record profits, even though it has the highest cost structure in the industry. Do you, the CEO, cut its budget, recognizing that the largest expense is salaries? Never in a m-i-l-l-i-o-n years!

Duke is getting a huge return on its expenditures on basketball, in terms of results on the field; the way the team, players and coaches represent the U.; and the high level of favorable publicity. This is not the time to cut back.

And I don't care that others are spending less -- Duke has won more games than anyone in the past 12 years, as many championships as any other team, and nine ACC championships.

I would also point out that in the same article linked by the OP, Duke was second in athletics revenue for the ACC, trailing FSU by about 5%. And I don't think this was due to football.

sagegrouse

[Duvall]

Clap-clap-clap. That is precisely my question. Like you, I have no idea. But obviously others are doing equally well (or slightly less than equally well) on the court and spending much less. I would love to see Duke take that 3 million that we are spending more than the others on basketball and see it go to the football program. If all of the money spent on basketball has reaped all of the benefits that everyone has so well pointed out, imagine if we had large budgets for BOTH sports.

What do you mean, if? (http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/29/big-spending-ohio-state-could-change-nickname-to-bucks-eyes/) Duke's football budget is pretty typical for ACC programs, and unlike the hoops program, doesn't have to pay the salary of a Hall of Fame coach.


It all boils down to if other elite programs are only spending 10 million on bball and are still that successful, then can't Duke do the same?

We don't have anything near enough information to say this. We don't know if these numbers include the cost of the new practice facility, or whether Duke's accounting system can be compared to those used by other schools. Making sweeping declarations about the best allocation of resources based on such limited information strikes me as remarkably ill-advised.

[Brian913]

The figures do not include debt expenditures or capital costs.

Some of the major cost areas include the cost of guarantee games (10) probably costing about $60K each, with more cost for bigger name opponents like Tulsa.

The cost of the Chicago and NYC trips last year. I have to believe that the money paid to Iowa State was in the range of $250K and more money to Gonzaga. Plus the cost of putting on the events. Even if these were profit making, the expenditure for each must be very high-in the range of $500K-$1MM.

The revenue side isn't considered. Just one example is that the cost to qualify for high level Iron Duke memberships would drop like a stone if the basketball team wasn't elite.

[4decadedukie]

Regarding the subject of increasing costs, I started in 1958 at a school similar to Duke on the west coast (tough to guess, huh?). At that time (and now) it was considered extremely competitive, and I was delighted to get in. Tuition - a total of $1,005 per year. Adjusting for general inflation, that might be about $6,000 in today's dollars. I don't know what the tuition is at "this school" or at Duke, but I am sure it is many times $6,000. And the students they admit? Lets just say I am happy that I got in and got out when I did -- I wouldn't care to compete with today's admits.
However, the cost of providing that kind of education has increased much faster than general inflation. A former president of "this school" estimated that costs there had increased at inflation plus 2%. Doesn't sound like a lot, but the power of compounding explains a lot.
So, university administrators are always anxious to cut costs when possible. Thus, if they choose to spend dollars on a basketball program, it has to be for a good reason. Many have pointed out the reasons that Duke follows that path, and I cannot add to them.

Mgtr,

Another excellent contribution; thank you.

In the interest of accuracy, that 1958 $1005 is now worth almost $7600, pursuant to the BLS's CPI index (which does not detract from your point in any way).

The overriding issue, it seems to me, is that the so-called elite universities have not really been compelled to economize or to proactively address cost issues, due to the willingness and the ability of donors, foundations, research agencies, and those who pay tuition/fees/room and board to provide ever-larger cash flows. In essence, why would an Ivy League university (or Standford, Duke, Northwestern, and so forth) even evaluate aggressively cutting costs when their ever-increasing requirements are funded despite hyper-educational-inflation? In fact, most of these universities have flourished -- better and larger faculties, enhanced research, far more selective admissions, massively improved facilities, significantly increased scholarship, etc. -- despite substantial higher education inflation AND great cost growth, due to the seemingly limitless willingness of the aforementioned entities to pay whatever is required.

If America's economy faces seminal change, due to declining global sales combined with unprecedented debt service costs, we shall see how long this phenomenon lasts.

[77devil]

I believe every single reply has completely missed the point - I'm pretty sure everyone on DBR including the original poster agrees the basketball team does a ton of good for Duke. The question is whether its possible to get the same positive benefits for a lesser cost, given that other schools are nearly as successful at basketball as we are without spending as much (personally, I have no idea).


Clap-clap-clap. That is precisely my question. Like you, I have no idea. But obviously others are doing equally well (or slightly less than equally well) on the court and spending much less. I would love to see Duke take that 3 million that we are spending more than the others on basketball and see it go to the football program. If all of the money spent on basketball has reaped all of the benefits that everyone has so well pointed out, imagine if we had large budgets for BOTH sports. It all boils down to if other elite programs are only spending 10 million on bball and are still that successful, then can't Duke do the same?

The presumption that the numbers are comparable, and that Duke even has the highest cost, is questionable for reasons I mentioned above.

[77devil]

Mgtr,

Another excellent contribution; thank you.

In the interest of accuracy, that 1958 $1005 is now worth almost $7600, pursuant to the BLS's CPI index (which does not detract from your point in any way).

The overriding issue, it seems to me, is that the so-called elite universities have not really been compelled to economize or to proactively address cost issues, due to the willingness and the ability of donors, foundations, research agencies, and those who pay tuition/fees/room and board to provide ever-larger cash flows. In essence, why would an Ivy League university (or Standford, Duke, Northwestern, and so forth) even evaluate aggressively cutting costs when their ever-increasing requirements are funded despite hyper-educational-inflation? In fact, most of these universities have flourished -- better and larger faculties, enhanced research, far more selective admissions, massively improved facilities, significantly increased scholarship, etc. -- despite substantial higher education inflation AND great cost growth, due to the seemingly limitless willingness of the aforementioned entities to pay whatever is required.

If America's economy faces seminal change, due to declining global sales combined with unprecedented debt service costs, we shall see how long this phenomenon lasts.

I have found the unimpeded price inflation in elite private education over the last 35+ years to be a fascinating, if not a depressing phenomenon. My tuition at Duke doubled over 4 years and has continued upward at more or less twice the rate of inflation ever since. Would Duke have had the demand sufficient to sustain the trend without the basketball program? It's an interesting question.

I'm convinced, however, that despite the substantial increase in resources, that my son's Duke education was not 3X(the increase in real terms) better than mine. I'm not convinced, in fact, that it was as good, but the basketball team is much improved.;)

[4decadedukie]

I have found the unimpeded price inflation in elite private education over the last 35+ years to be a fascinating, if not a depressing phenomenon. My tuition at Duke doubled over 4 years and has continued upward at more or less twice the rate of inflation ever since. Would Duke have had the demand sufficient to sustain the trend without the basketball program? It's an interesting question.

I'm convinced, however, that despite the substantial increase in resources, that my son's Duke education was not 3X(the increase in real terms) better than mine. I'm not convinced, in fact, that it was as good, but the basketball team is much improved.;)

You raise several excellent points:

a) With regard to Duke having sufficient (admissions) demand without basketball, it is my belief that adequate candidate numbers would likely have existed without hoops, but probably not with the GREATLY enhanced applicant quality and quantity we have enjoyed, especially during the last few decades.

b) With regard to Duke’s current education being ~300 percent better, due to an approximate three-fold increase in tuition cost, I suspect we both recognize that MANY credible universities -- ranked well below the “elite” institutions -- can (and do) provide equally outstanding instruction for the overwhelming majority of undergraduates. In fact, I rather doubt if perhaps ninety percent of our Trinity students -- despite their obviously superior qualifications and intellect -- would actually attain reduced academic preparation at universities such as Penn State, Syracuse, Wesleyan, Georgia Tech, or Kenyon (just to name a few fine colleges, to illustrate this line of reasoning). This is because the undergraduates’ level of effort and intelligence simply will not exceed the capabilities of many reputable undergraduate programs. Obviously, this causes us to question why individuals/families are will to pay so much for a Duke (or a similar top-tier institution’s) degree. I respectfully suggest one germane reason is lifelong stature, while another is enduing, superior network potential. I find it interesting that many counselors at Virginia's -- and possibly the nation’s -- top-rated secondary school (Thomas Jefferson) now recommend (for the many who aspire to obtain professional degrees), an excellent -- but not necessarily prestigious -- public undergraduate degree followed by professional school (law, business, medicine, etc.) at a renowned, “elite” university. Their thesis is the extra costs are better allocated for a top-tier professional education, since that is almost certainly the arena in which the individual will work throughout his life.

[sagegrouse]

I find it interesting that many counselors at Virginia's -- and possibly the nation’s -- top-rated secondary school (Thomas Jefferson) now recommend (for the many who aspire to obtain professional degrees), an excellent -- but not necessarily prestigious -- public undergraduate degree followed by professional school (law, business, medicine, etc.) at a renowned, “elite” university. Their thesis is the extra costs are better allocated for a top-tier professional education, since that is almost certainly the arena in which the individual will work throughout his life.

In other words, the Thomas Jefferson counselors are "in the tank for UVa."

Of course, generous scholarship and financial aid programs may narrow the gap. Also, I am surprised that the TJ counselors expect their graduates to be "pre-professionals" to such an extreme degree.

sagegrouse
'I knew the person who, since retired, was principal there for many years. She and her husband graduated from Rice, and their children went to Yale.'

[tecumseh]

Absolutely correct!

Further, please realize that Duke's overall varsity athletic program operates at a loss, annually requiring augmentation from general University funds. The expenses associated with the many "non-revenue" sports, in aggregate, are large. Obviously, they, too, are worth it, since the character development, leadership skills, and lessons learned by the many undergraduate student-athletes who participate in intercollegiate sports (other than football and basketball) are fundamental to Duke's broad educational mission.

Let's be honest a lot of the costs of the non revenue sports has been tacked on because of title IX. As far as "obviously they are worth it" not so sure about that. As a physician I would much rather our schools, universities and society emphasize participation in lifetime sports. In other words I would much rather see money go to great jogging trails than say the womens lacrosse team...but that is me.

[4decadedukie]

In other words, the Thomas Jefferson counselors are "in the tank for UVa."'

Sage,

For what ever it is worth, they are "in the tank" at least as much for Virginia Tech (math, the sciences, engineering, computer technology, and so forth) as they are for UVa (arts and letters). Regards.

[4decadedukie]

Let's be honest a lot of the costs of the non revenue sports has been tacked on because of title IX. As far as "obviously they are worth it" not so sure about that. As a physician I would much rather our schools, universities and society emphasize participation in lifetime sports. In other words I would much rather see money go to great jogging trails than say the womens lacrosse team...but that is me.

I would respectfully offer two points:
a) Re Title IX, I believe the leadership and character development emanating from sports are every bit as applicable and enduring for female student-athletes as to their male counterparts.
b) Re lifetime sport participation, I understand your perspective as health-care provider. However, I really have never seen or experienced the education -- teamwork, selflessness, sacrifice, leadership, ethics, fortitude, moral fiber -- frequently received through intercollegiate athletics even remotely achieved in individual jogging, golfing, tennis, weight training, racquetball, and so forth. Unquestionable, there are physiological benefits, but what about the "character education" that is so essential for our undergraduate-age population?

[JBDuke]

In other words, the Thomas Jefferson counselors are "in the tank for UVa."

Of course, generous scholarship and financial aid programs may narrow the gap. Also, I am surprised that the TJ counselors expect their graduates to be "pre-professionals" to such an extreme degree.

sagegrouse
'I knew the person who, since retired, was principal there for many years. She and her husband graduated from Rice, and their children went to Yale.'

Actually, TJ students and students from all other NOVA high schools are NOT directed at UVA so much, because UVA limits the number of students they take from NOVA high schools. Standards for NOVA students applying to UVA are substantially inflated, despite the generally higher quality of the high schools from that part of Virginia.

If the counselors are "in the tank" for anyone, it would be Virginia's other state schools, like William & Mary, James Madison, George Mason, Virginia Tech, etc.

[Stray Gator]

...With regard to Duke’s current education being ~300 percent better, due to an approximate three-fold increase in tuition cost, I suspect we both recognize that MANY credible universities -- ranked well below the “elite” institutions -- can (and do) provide equally outstanding instruction for the overwhelming majority of undergraduates. In fact, I rather doubt if perhaps ninety percent of our Trinity students -- despite their obviously superior qualifications and intellect -- would actually attain reduced academic preparation at universities such as Penn State, Syracuse, Wesleyan, Georgia Tech, or Kenyon (just to name a few fine colleges, to illustrate this line of reasoning). This is because the undergraduates’ level of effort and intelligence simply will not exceed the capabilities of many reputable undergraduate programs. Obviously, this causes us to question why individuals/families are will to pay so much for a Duke (or a similar top-tier institution’s) degree. I respectfully suggest one germane reason is lifelong stature, while another is enduing, superior network potential. ...

Astute observations, with which I fully agree. I would, however, add a couple of additional justifications that I customarily offer when asked why I encouraged both of my children to attend Duke and was happy to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for their college education rather than let them attend for free a public school (the University of Florida) that, in relative terms, enjoys a high academic ranking, offers great cultural diversity. and provides a wonderful college experience. In addition to the reasons you've mentioned--that a degree from Duke is like a badge of honor that provides instant credibility and opens doors throughout one's lifetime, and that the opportunities for networking with other Duke grads is a valuable enduring benefit--I believe that the size and composition of the student body gives Duke, and for that matter gives any of the selective admission private colleges, a significant advantage over public schools for at least two major reasons.

First, I agree that it's possible to obtain the same quality of undergraduate education at a large state school as it is at Duke. At the state school, however, the student must actively seek it out, and getting the best courses and best professors often depends on timing and the luck of the draw. At Duke, by contrast, the small classes and rigorous curriculum requirements and consistently outstanding faculty virtually ensure that each student gets a great education, as if by osmosis.

Second, at a large state school, the vast majority of students come from the same geographic area--which is, after all, consistent with the mission of a state school--so they generally have similar cultural backgrounds and life experiences. Consequently, for many students at state schools who do not actively pursue a different circle of friends, the college experience is only a modestly advanced version of high school in terms of "expanding horizons." At Duke, the geographic and cultural diversity of the small undergraduate population means that each student will inevitably interact with peers from different backgrounds, and will thereby be exposed to unfamiliar influences that create the opportunity to enlarge their perspectives about a whole range of things--from foods, to music and literature and art, to politics and religion, and so on. As one who believes that the most valuable part of a college education comes outside of the classroom, I consider this "acquiring of more expansive tastes that creates a curiosity about, and diminishes the fear of, different cultures" to be a priceless life-enriching facet of the learning experience.

[mgtr]

Having attended and taught at both elite private colleges and large public universities, plus having worked a spell as a strategic higher ed planner, I have a few thoughts on the differences. Much to the chagrin of my boss at the public university, I stated many times that the difference was that, at the private school, each student was treated like a little gold bar. At the public institution, however, each student was treated like something the dog left on the front yard. Proof? At that school, as a result of a study I did there, people were shocked to learn that we lost more than 50% of our freshman after three semesters.
And the education? At the undergrad level, for maybe 90% of students, they can get more or less as good an education at a decent public university. And, which has been posted, save their money for a really good grad or professional school. An additional point is that they can almost certainly get a better GPA at the public institution. Of course, GPA is often the coin of the realm in higher ed, which may make entrance into a good post college program easier, and maybe even cheaper.
However, I am happy I went to a college similar to Duke for my undergrad career. I made some lifelong friends, and they worked with me when I seemed to be doing everything possible to be tossed out. And my entrance to grad school was much, much easier with my "elite" credentials. Hard to put a value on those things.

[sagegrouse]

Having attended and taught at both elite private colleges and large public universities, plus having worked a spell as a strategic higher ed planner, I have a few thoughts on the differences. Much to the chagrin of my boss at the public university, I stated many times that the difference was that, at the private school, each student was treated like a little gold bar. At the public institution, however, each student was treated like something the dog left on the front yard. Proof? At that school, as a result of a study I did there, people were shocked to learn that we lost more than 50% of our freshman after three semesters.


One difference is obvious to me, who had a daughter graduate Duke, one at one of the Ivies and a third at a very good state university, as a non-resident student. State universities seem to want you to stay five years before you get a degree. My daughter at the public university finished in four years, but only through summer sessions and a special winter session. As a result, althgouh tuition was almost twice as much, when you add in the extra scool costs for the additional time, the gap in total costs of college narrow significantly.

And with respect to offering the courses needed for graduation: A fourth daughter, who also went to a public university, was a business major, but was unable to get into the marketing course that was required for the degree and was a major interest. As a result, she took a correspondence course for the credit, which enabled her to graduate on time. This is a prime example of treating your students like dirt.

sagegrouse

[tecumseh]

I would respectfully offer two points:
a) Re Title IX, I believe the leadership and character development emanating from sports are every bit as applicable and enduring for female student-athletes as to their male counterparts.
b) Re lifetime sport participation, I understand your perspective as health-care provider. However, I really have never seen or experienced the education -- teamwork, selflessness, sacrifice, leadership, ethics, fortitude, moral fiber -- frequently received through intercollegiate athletics even remotely achieved in individual jogging, golfing, tennis, weight training, racquetball, and so forth. Unquestionable, there are physiological benefits, but what about the "character education" that is so essential for our undergraduate-age population?

I was just bringing up Title IX to say that it led to an increase in spending on athletics not to debate its merits. I am a bit skeptical of the leadership, ethics, moral fiber and all that rot....I mean does that mean that nerds are short on these. I do not see the moral fiber in the Division I football players who are on average much more likely to run afoul of the law than the regular undergraduate. Character education can occur in A LOT of different venues, I have seen it in kids at Duke who acted as a big brother to local kids, I have seen it in kids in academic bowl, I have seen it in kids who are involved in putting on a student musical, I have seen it in kids who volunteer to work at a state mental hospital. There is downside to sports involvement sometimes that came out in the Duke lacrosse case.....whatever you might think of what happened that night their behavior was nothing to be proud of, this was not exercise in moral development or character fiber. I would have taken the nerds hanging out in Perkins that night to be our future leaders or children to be proud of

Not sure why you point out tennis as that is a varsity sport and a good example of something that can be a team sport and a lifetime sport ditto for running.

[4decadedukie]

. . . I am a bit skeptical of the leadership, ethics, moral fiber and all that rot....I mean does that mean that nerds are short on these.



It is hardly "rot." And, yes, I believe LEADERSHIP is frequently in shorter supply among "nerds" than among former student-athletes, principally because nerds often operate solo (or nearly so), with diminished direct interface with other individuals. Whereas athletes are embedded in an environment where teamwork, selflessness, and personal subordination to group objectives are simply essential to success

[tecumseh]

There is more than one way to skin a cat. I was/am a jock and was an athletic admission to Duke. Two of my three kids are nerds/musicians and I have had an opportunity to look on the other side of the fence (have you?) and yes I do think the NCAA service message you give is way overblown and not unique to sports.

Kids when they are growing up need a place to belong and place where they can show talent (and leadership) and it can be a computer club (like for Bill Gates), a student newspaper or even a rock band. In fact parents have squeezed out much of the leadership development in sports with their interference. Coach K used to organize neighborhood games like a lot of kids in a different era that does not happen much. Getting involved in a sport involves getting involved in a certain subculture and that is rarely all positive and varies tremendously from place to place and sport to sport.

[cspan37421]

Astute observations, with which I fully agree. I would, however, add a couple of additional justifications that I customarily offer when asked why I encouraged both of my children to attend Duke and was happy to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for their college education rather than let them attend for free a public school (the University of Florida) that, in relative terms, enjoys a high academic ranking, offers great cultural diversity. and provides a wonderful college experience. In addition to the reasons you've mentioned--that a degree from Duke is like a badge of honor that provides instant credibility and opens doors throughout one's lifetime, and that the opportunities for networking with other Duke grads is a valuable enduring benefit--I believe that the size and composition of the student body gives Duke, and for that matter gives any of the selective admission private colleges, a significant advantage over public schools for at least two major reasons.

First, I agree that it's possible to obtain the same quality of undergraduate education at a large state school as it is at Duke. At the state school, however, the student must actively seek it out, and getting the best courses and best professors often depends on timing and the luck of the draw. At Duke, by contrast, the small classes and rigorous curriculum requirements and consistently outstanding faculty virtually ensure that each student gets a great education, as if by osmosis.

Second, at a large state school, the vast majority of students come from the same geographic area--which is, after all, consistent with the mission of a state school--so they generally have similar cultural backgrounds and life experiences. Consequently, for many students at state schools who do not actively pursue a different circle of friends, the college experience is only a modestly advanced version of high school in terms of "expanding horizons." At Duke, the geographic and cultural diversity of the small undergraduate population means that each student will inevitably interact with peers from different backgrounds, and will thereby be exposed to unfamiliar influences that create the opportunity to enlarge their perspectives about a whole range of things--from foods, to music and literature and art, to politics and religion, and so on. As one who believes that the most valuable part of a college education comes outside of the classroom, I consider this "acquiring of more expansive tastes that creates a curiosity about, and diminishes the fear of, different cultures" to be a priceless life-enriching facet of the learning experience.

I think I usually agree with Stray Gator, but I have to sound a bit of dissent on these points.

1) It's my impression that where you go to school matters a whole lot more when you're young, and then diminishes steadily thereafter. One might get a bit of a pay advantage early on, too, but it is not long at all before that disappears unless you merit more. By your late 30s it's who you are and what you've done, not where you went. Yes, it is instant credibility - perhaps it depends on the career - but it's my impression that what you've done on the job, and the recommendations associated with that, matters a whole lot more, and from a fairly young-in-career age.

2) Perhaps Duke is different now, but this was not at all my experience. I combed the teacher-course evaluation book for teachers that were renowned, that had "fans, not students." When I could find one and a matching course/time that worked, things were truly great. When I could not, they were truly middling at best (on rare occasions, truly bad). In the mid to late 80s, you had to avoid Dr. Staff whenever possible. It was anything but automatic.

3) (S.G.'s 2nd point) - I do agree here. But even at Duke, you can have multiculturalism all around you - if you don't embrace it, you can still find yourself missing it just as if you were in a more homogeneous student pool. But I have heard from MANY people who both went to the big State U, and who turned it down, that there wasn't enough of a social break between HS and college (if you went in-state with a bunch of people you attended HS with). I suppose if you went to an out of state public univ, things might seem a bit different. But I also have to think that you could ditch unneeded old alliances fairly easily and immerse yourself in the many college-level activities, clubs, and organizations available, and not feel that you were still in HS, and maybe even get a flavor for other cultures (big state u's have students from all over the world - and they're so big, they might have MORE from a given country than a mid-size private school). Maybe, I dunno.

I really like what someone said about participatory athletics. The older I get, the more I see that as a greater and nobler ideal than the spectator sports we have become accustomed to and take for granted. Would that all able-bodied students could engage in such activities that would require "teamwork, selflessness, and personal subordination to group objectives [which] are simply essential to success".

[tecumseh]

I do think the "value" of a Duke or HYP education matters a lot of what career you pursue. If for example you are going into medicine I am not sure Duke is worth it. As a physician you are defined first where you do your fellowship or residency secondly where you went to medical school and only very remotely where you did your undergrad. Even for networking purposes medical school will be much more important than undergrad.

OK I can't let dead dogs lie but thinking about leadership etc. The most impressive leadership and teamwork building job I saw at Duke was not an athlete but the guy who organized and put on concerts a truly major job for an undergrad. Also as far as preconceived notions about nerds well Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Robert Noyce, Michael Dell, Larry Paige, etc they did pretty well. Decades 4 Duke I think you have a lot of preconceived notions about nerds but have not spent a lot of time around some modern day nerds.

[sagegrouse]

I do think the "value" of a Duke or HYP education matters a lot of what career you pursue. If for example you are going into medicine I am not sure Duke is worth it. As a physician you are defined first where you do your fellowship or residency secondly where you went to medical school and only very remotely where you did your undergrad. Even for networking purposes medical school will be much more important than undergrad.

.

As a Duke grad and father of a pre-med student there, let me offer the opinion that Duke is the best university in America for pre-med studies. It is in three parts: (a) selectivity -- these kids are really smart; (b) academics -- they are exceptionally well-prepared for medical studies, esp. those majoring in biology or chemistry; (c) the social milieu at Duke is team-oriented, not star-oriented, which produces folks who excell as doctors. I could say something nice about the Greek system here, but I won't because I think it is a more general phenomenom at Duke. In other words, nice people make good doctors.

Not to generalize from a single example but to learn from it: My daughter attended a state university medical school that is highly competitive due to economics and the fact that the state had only a single med school. There were 150 people in her class. Eight were from Duke; 18 were from that state's own university; eight were from all the Ivy League schools combined. Wow, I thought, while reviewing these numbers at commencement. Then it turned out that the 15 graduates who were summa cum laude included four of the eight Duke students. Double wow! and incroyable! I thought.

Then she went to residency in a different state at one of the two best children's hospitals in America (really, the world). Her class included other residents who were Duke undergrad, all attending different med schools. I remember going to a Duke b-ball game in that city and buying ten tickets, most of which were used by Duke grads in the residency program.

So, IMHO (where the H is usually silent) Duke is absolutely tops at preparing students for med school. It shows in the admissions rates for students applying to med school. And it shows in their success while there.

sagegrouse
'I majored in math and became an economist'

[tecumseh]

As a Duke grad and father of a pre-med student there, let me offer the opinion that Duke is the best university in America for pre-med studies. It is in three parts: (a) selectivity -- these kids are really smart; (b) academics -- they are exceptionally well-prepared for medical studies, esp. those majoring in biology or chemistry; (c) the social milieu at Duke is team-oriented, not star-oriented, which produces folks who excell as doctors. I could say something nice about the Greek system here, but I won't because I think it is a more general phenomenom at Duke. In other words, nice people make good doctors.

Not to generalize from a single example but to learn from it: My daughter attended a state university medical school that is highly competitive due to economics and the fact that the state had only a single med school. There were 150 people in her class. Eight were from Duke; 18 were from that state's own university; eight were from all the Ivy League schools combined. Wow, I thought, while reviewing these numbers at commencement. Then it turned out that the 15 graduates who were summa cum laude included four of the eight Duke students. Double wow! and incroyable! I thought.

Then she went to residency in a different state at one of the two best children's hospitals in America (really, the world). Her class included other residents who were Duke undergrad, all attending different med schools. I remember going to a Duke b-ball game in that city and buying ten tickets, most of which were used by Duke grads in the residency program.

So, IMHO (where the H is usually silent) Duke is absolutely tops at preparing students for med school. It shows in the admissions rates for students applying to med school. And it shows in their success while there.

sagegrouse
'I majored in math and became an economist'

I should have added the obvious caveat "it depends upon your financial situation" I was a Duke premed way back when and felt it prepared me excellently. However a friend of mine was accepted to Stanford undergrad and his father told him he should live at home and attend the local state school and that money could be put towards his med school thus he graduated from med school with no debt.

So IF going to Duke entails piling on some significant debt before you even start medical school I would advise against it. Sure a lot of good doctors come out of Duke but it is the student not the university that ultimately makes the difference, I have met great doctors who went to small schools you never heard of and lousy doctors who went to Duke.

You I guess are very wealthy SageGrouse and your daughter did not accrue much if any debt but as you well know pediatricians do not make a ton of money and you can easily be in debt hundreds of thousands of dollars if you are not careful. So someone who always wanted to be a pediatrician might feel compelled to go into anesthesiology for example.

[sagegrouse]

[1] You I guess are very wealthy SageGrouse and your daughter did not accrue much if any debt but as you well know [2] pediatricians do not make a ton of money and you can easily be in debt hundreds of thousands of dollars if you are not careful. So someone who always wanted to be a pediatrician might feel compelled [3] to go into anesthesiology for example.

(1) Will the insults ever end? :o I got pretty much a full ride on academic scholarships when I went to Duke, but I got to write some checks when my kids went to college.

(2) She wanted to be a pediatrician from age ten. I didn't learn what an economist was until I was 20.

(3) Uh, or radiology.

sagegrouse

[mgtr]

(1) Will the insults ever end? :o I got pretty much a full ride on academic scholarships when I went to Duke, but I got to write some checks when my kids went to college.

(2) She wanted to be a pediatrician from age ten. I didn't learn what an economist was until I was 20.

(3) Uh, or radiology.

sagegrouse

I have a very good friend who is a radiologist. I never understood why he would stay with old technology such as radio when TV is now so commonplace!:D

[cspan37421]

speaking of big spenders, that SI article on how athletes and their money are soon parted is very sobering and saddening. It's too bad the players' associations haven't made mandatory financial education part of their respective CBAs, or insisted on some other preventative measure.

It really takes a special type of horrible person to knowingly cheat another. That story about all the people that showed up for the funeral of the athlete's reclusive grandmother, just to pitch him ideas ... disgusting.

[tecumseh]

Duke was a well known top ten school with tons of applicants before Coach K got there. There is no doubt Coach K helps the school in many ways but if you want to see the real impact basketball can have look at Gonzaga where the hoops program put them on the map and their applications have soared since their basketball program became a national program

It will be interesting to see the impact on Butler from a Final Four appearance.

[DevilHorns]

ESPN's Outside the Lines has a cool resource to check revenue and expenses for all the NCAA programs (2008 data).

Top 5 for recruiting expenses:
1. Notre Dame - 2.2 million
2. Tennessee - 1.8 million
3. OK - 1.6 million
4. WVU - 1.6 million
5. Duke - 1.6 million

http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue/_/type/expenses/sort/recruiting

Total Revenue:
25. Duke - 68 million
29. UNC - 66 million

http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue

Some info on the endowment process at Duke:

"For example, a $1 million gift to the Duke Basketball Legacy Fund comes with an invitation to an annual dinner at head coach Mike Krzyzewski's home; tickets and seat location opportunities for all home, ACC tourney and NCAA tournament games; and use of the private Legacy Room in Cameron Indoor Stadium."

"In general, schools are reluctant to divulge the value of their own athletic endowment funds, but as a comparison, a college administrator told ESPN.com that the three largest such portfolios in the Atlantic Coast Conference, based on 2008 figures, are thought to be North Carolina ($180 million), Duke ($150 million) and Boston College ($100 million)."

"In the case of Duke basketball, supporters are hopeful a new endowment push will help sustain the program's successful legacy. Former Duke hoops great Grant Hill and his wife, the R&B singer Tamia, are among those who have contributed $1 million to endow one of 13 basketball-related scholarships. Former Blue Devils teammates Christian Laettner and Brian Davis fund another. And Krzyzewski, the longtime coach, also wrote a $1 million check to endow a scholarship in the name of his brother, Bill, a Chicago fire department captain, which is awarded annually to the Blue Devils' team captain.

Over this decade, aside from the athletic endowment currently valued at $110 million, the Legacy Fund at Duke has generated more than $50 million from 33 partners, each contributing a minimum of $1 million. That's resulted in renovations to Cameron Indoor Stadium and upgrades to other basketball facilities, as well endowment of the 11 basketball scholarships, an assistant coaching position and another for a team manager."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?page=fish/091223

Endowed scholarship recipients:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=4765577

Interesting to see many manager names there.

[Gthoma2a]

If the question is "could we do the same with less funds", why would we want to find out if the answer is no? It isn't something that can be said with certainty unless we keep lowering it incrementally until failure. I would rather spend whatever it takes, let the haters hate and win. I have the same mentality with the Yankees. I love them because they are passionate enough to do anything to give their athletes and fans the best shot to do something amazing. I think that is a great thing, not to be tampered with. Spending this much helps recruiting. We make the rest look busch league.