fees, tuition, etc = giant shell game
From the report, and before adding $300 for football: ......................................UNCC..............System High...............System low Tuition and fees .................Resident...... $4091...............$5176..........................$2896 ............Non-resident.....$14503............$20,842......................$11777 Total Fees.....................$1630..............$1963...........................$1194 Athletic Fees..................$445...................$572.......................$126.50 Debt service fees...........$406...................$452.........................$81Adding football would take you to $1930 in total fees, nearly the system high, and $745 for athletics, easily the system high.
Weād still be under both Chapel Hole and UNC-R in total cost per year. Why no articles about the outrageous amount they charge their students for tuition since itās over $600 more per semester to attend those schools instead of Charlotte.
The total out of pocket expense for a student at Charlotte would still be less than either of those schools. And as student enrollment increases as itās projected, those fees can come down.
Or the state could actually start funding us in an equitable manner and we could decrease our overall fees.
Focusing in on the effect football would have on fees is fine, but when you take it in view of the whole out of pocket cost itās put into proper perspective.
[QUOTE=Mike_Persinger;301485]From the report, and before adding $300 for football:
ā¦UNCCā¦System Highā¦System low
Tuition and fees
ā¦Residentā¦ $4091ā¦$5176ā¦$2896
ā¦Non-residentā¦$14503ā¦$20,842ā¦$11777
Total Feesā¦$1630ā¦$1963ā¦$1194
Athletic Feesā¦$445ā¦$572ā¦$126.50
Debt service feesā¦$406ā¦$452ā¦$81
Adding football would take you to $1930 in total fees, nearly the system high, and $745 for athletics, easily the system high.[/QUOTE]
Now, add in how much the state gives UNC-R and UNC-CH for their stadium(s) and practice facilities, etc.
All that stat does is illustrate the funding inequities in the UNC system. Weāre still cheaper overall.
[QUOTE=metro;301496]fees, tuition, etc = giant shell game[/QUOTE]
TRUTH.
Reading between the lines; Weāre supposed to be the cheap, vanilla alternative compared to the almighty tandem. How dare continue to agitateā¦
[QUOTE=Mike_Persinger;301489]Hiding behind anonymity. Nowhere else does that happen ā¦[/QUOTE]
Everytime Iāve been published in your paper, my name has appeared. (thanks BTW) 
I think the point is, newspaper editorial /= to a message board.
/=
~=
Has anyone done the math on what our fees would be by adding the $300 and then comparing them to the total student fees paid in the system?If so can you post it?
I thought this article originally had a break out of all schools in the UNC system. I remember seeing it recently.
Now, add in how much the state gives UNC-R and UNC-CH for their stadium(s) and practice facilities, etc.All that stat does is illustrate the funding inequities in the UNC system. Weāre still cheaper overall.
its highway robbery NA
how dare us want to climb the NCAA ranks
Wouldnāt it be great if we were allowed to have a med school or a law school so that we could have wealthier alumni to offset some of these costs?
[QUOTE=NinerNation Inc.;301507]Wouldnāt it be great if we were allowed to have a med school or a law school so that we could have wealthier alumni to offset some of these costs?[/QUOTE]
Every argument made in the Observer rings hollow when you donāt address the total costs at each school and state funding disparity. Itās no more than spin.
Since Spangler lives in Charlotte, he really didn't have to come very far.
duhā¦hence my āwink, winkā comment (ie; Spangler is a ācharlotte guyāā¦right, right)
Every argument made in the Observer rings hollow when you don't address the total costs at each school and state funding disparity. It's no more than spin.great quote
From the report, and before adding $300 for football: ......................................UNCC..............System High...............System low Tuition and fees .................Resident...... $4091...............$5176..........................$2896 ............Non-resident.....$14503............$20,842......................$11777 Total Fees.....................$1630..............$1963...........................$1194 Athletic Fees..................$445...................$572.......................$126.50 Debt service fees...........$406...................$452.........................$81Adding football would take you to $1930 in total fees, nearly the system high, and $745 for athletics, easily the system high.
Uhhuh, whatās wrong you couldnāt do the math on overall costs (āTuition and feesā)ā¦How does that come out, Mike?
Possibly. But if you knock the pegs out from under their best argument (too much reliance on student fees, which is true in my opinion) it's a big step.
So which came first the chicken or the egg? We canāt get enough alumni support because we donāt have football.
Yet we canāt get football because we canāt increase student fees.
We'd still be under both Chapel Hole and UNC-R in total cost per year. Why no articles about the outrageous amount they charge their students for tuition since it's over $600 more per semester to attend those schools instead of Charlotte.The total out of pocket expense for a student at Charlotte would still be less than either of those schools. And as student enrollment increases as itās projected, those fees can come down.
Or the state could actually start funding us in an equitable manner and we could decrease our overall fees.
Focusing in on the effect football would have on fees is fine, but when you take it in view of the whole out of pocket cost itās put into proper perspective.
Isnāt this exactly what I posted on here like 4 hours ago? Not sure why Mike P. didnāt respond to thatā¦
[QUOTE=919R;301524]Uhhuh, whatās wrong you couldnāt do the math on overall costs (āTuition and feesā)ā¦How does that come out, Mike?[/QUOTE]
Tuition/fees = shell game.
http://www.administration.uncc.edu/chancellor/outbox.html
Appendix 7, Slide 16
āBased on research from the 2005 NCAA Budget Report, schools that are in similar positions to
Charlotte in terms of location, conference and those that have recently started football
[B]generate between 2%-5% of their overall budget from sponsorships[/B]ā
[QUOTE=919R;301526]Isnāt this exactly what I posted on here like 4 hours ago? Not sure why Mike P. didnāt respond to thatā¦[/QUOTE]
Apples and oranges. The athletics fees at those two schools are lower because their athletic booster organizations are much, much stronger, and pay for a much higher portion of the costs of running those programs.
Itās also supply and demand. Those schools have higher demand for student seats, and thus can charge more in tuition.
Truth is, the entire UNC system is a bargain for in-state students compared to other statesā systems.
Hereās one more for you from the report:
If you add the fee increase from football to the fees before, students would be contributing the $6.8 million they contribute now plus another almost $9 million, or $15.8 million PER YEAR to have athletics programs.
Edit: I think thereās something wrong with the report numbers here, because at current fee of $445 times 21,519 students, thatās $9,575, 955. Thereās a number wrong in the report somewhere, not sure which one.
I missed the part where one single parent has written a letter or expressed a viewpoint on this subject since it started. In addition, the entire editorial does NOT take into any account that the people who initiated the drive for football are the same who would have to pay for it. It sounds like they are saying students are too ignorant of the facts to understand them.
The chancellor got dragged in by BOT and student/alumni, this was not a school administration-initiated event. Itās nice of the editorial board to worry about studentsā fees; unfortunately the very people they worry about have not expressed outrage over the proposal, which makes their editorial sound condescending.
My two cents. Jim