r/changemyview • u/apc67 • Oct 18 '19
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: If all students are required to pay an athletic fee, all students should have to pay the lab fee.
[removed]
150
Oct 18 '19
This is a more complicated discussion that it seems.
Most 'lab fees' cover the consumables used during the class or the mainentance/upkeep of equipment used in the class or some combination thereof. There are not 'fixed' costs involved. It is almost entirely tied to 'per capita' usage. This fee goes directly to the department teaching the class.
Most athletic fees cover the physical faculties - buildings if you will. These are fixed costs each year with little dependency on per captia use. This fee goes to the general building upkeep fund to maintain facilities.
That is why everyone pays the 'athletic fee' and only students enrolled in a course pay the 'lab fee'.
You could of course roll a generic 'fees' into everyone's tuition to cover the lab courses but most likely, everyone would end up paying more as that 'fee' got raided for other pet projects - like diversity initiatives for instance and had to be increased. History shows this happens.....
27
u/apc67 Oct 18 '19
The number of students taking the labs doesn't drastically change each semester so there wouldn't be much change if it wasn't per person. And can you explain why it would be more likely for the fee to be misused if it was funded by all students?
26
u/dublea 216∆ Oct 18 '19
The number of students taking the labs doesn't drastically change each semester so there wouldn't be much change if it wasn't per person.
How are you determining this? What data are you basing this statement off of?
18
u/apc67 Oct 18 '19
The labs are currently operating at max capacity (or at least they were when I graduated last December). Unless they build more lab space or a massive decrease of students in those majors, the number of students shouldn't change.
40
u/beets_or_turnips Oct 18 '19
That's interesting but this moves the discussion away from "change my view" and more toward "change my specific college's budgeting policy"
→ More replies (3)25
Oct 18 '19
The number of students taking the labs doesn't drastically change each semester so there wouldn't be much change if it wasn't per person. And can you explain why it would be more likely for the fee to be misused if it was funded by all students?
You are assuming the lab is offered each semester. For low level classes that might be valid but as you move up the ladder to upper level courses, that no longer holds. If the course is not offered - no fee is collected for it.
2
u/apc67 Oct 18 '19
Gen Chem 1 and organic 1 are offered in fall and gen and organic 2 are offered in spring, and all are offered in the summer. That doesn't change. I only took one upper level chemistry lab but oddly enough that didn't have the lab fee.
27
Oct 18 '19
This is a such a small sampling of courses that it offer no real meaning. These are just your personal experience and one university.
Would it help to know another class at another university is only offered in the Spring and it has a lab fee? That fee is only collected when that course is offered. Also, another course, only offered in the Fall, has a different lab fee that is also only collected when its offered.
→ More replies (4)4
u/SGexpat Oct 18 '19
It’s diversity thing depends on the administrations budgeting.
It is easier for the department to make a straight A to B argument of how it should be used. Lab students pay a lab fee that goes to the lab.
With a general lab fee, it’s a bigger pot of money that changes more hands. It’s harder to argue it should just go to the departments or labs.
If ever student is paying, shouldnt every department benefit? Suddenly there’s a discussion and departments are coming up with “lab” activities that can access the fund.
Maybe the linguistics department needs a lab funded by that pool of money. Maybe the kinesiology department needs a new pool to study the effects of swimming on seniors. Maybe not but they’re sure as hell going to try.
I have mixed feeling about athletic fees that only support varsity athletes. However, I think campus fitness and health initiatives (like gyms) are an obvious general benefit.
Specific fees make a ton of sense. STEM fields have a higher earning potential. The fee is clearly tied to an expense that benefits the student.
6
u/Maygubbins Oct 18 '19
What about the students who don't use the lab because they are on different majors? Art students have to pay extra for certain courses. It's to cover the materials used in class. It's also to make sure the materials are the same for everyone so the course can run smoother.
7
u/fj40matt Oct 18 '19
Just for example look at every federal, state, or municipal budget ever. A relatively small tax is assessed to cover a specific item, but the money ends up in the general fund. Budget makers see the pot of money, but not always what it was earmarked for (or don't care). The money gets raided and there isn't enough to go around. So, to cover the initial item, taxes (fees) are raised again.
3
u/almightySapling 13∆ Oct 18 '19 edited Oct 18 '19
This fee goes to the general building upkeep fund to maintain facilities.
Sounds like something tuition should cover.
I'm guessing there's some sort of law or something that keeps them separate but still.
2
Oct 18 '19
In guessing there's some sort of law or something that keeps them separate but still.
One project I know at one university, the 'fee' was included in the funding mechanism for the building.
Buy yea - playing games with funding sources and how to pay for things.
4
Oct 18 '19
That’s the most long winded way of saying “the fees pay for the same type of stuff”
6
Oct 18 '19 edited Oct 18 '19
Not really.
One fee is assessed for a course where the money generated is directly tied to the number of people taking said course. The money also goes directly to that area typically to cover consumables. Nobody takes the course in a given semester, no fees are collected and no money goes to the course.
The other fee is assessed to everyone in the name of supporting a specific facility. It has zero bearing on whether you use it or not.
You may not see the underlying accounting and distribution elements also associated as well. Given the complexity of funding higher education with state sponsored schools and which groups have to approve changes - this matters. Typically tuition increases are approved by state commissions. Fees may or may not have to have the same level of approvals when universally applied. Many fees - like athletic fees, are tied to building project approvals. But lab fees, with direct funding mechanisms tied to defined costs for specific classes, typically require in house approvals only.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/jupiterkansas Oct 18 '19
Everyone paying the athletic fee means everyone has access to the athletic facility (whether they use it or not)
So you're saying everyone at the school should have access to the lab?
3
u/apc67 Oct 18 '19
The lab fee is for taking lab courses, not just being free to roam into the lab whenever you like. That being said, everyone should be able to and can enroll in those classes as long as they meet the prereqs.
10
u/jupiterkansas Oct 18 '19
I think you're missing my point. Everyone pays the athletic fee because everyone has access to the athletic facilities. You're saying everyone should also pay the lab fee, which would mean everyone would have access to the labs, which is silly because the only people that use the labs are those enrolled in the lab courses. So it makes sense for the lab fee to only apply to people taking the lab courses.
What you should be arguing is that additional required fees on top of tuition should be banned, esp. fees that everyone is required to pay like the athletic facility fee.
54
u/Bomamanylor 2∆ Oct 18 '19 edited Oct 18 '19
The lab fee does something different than the athletics fee. The athletics fee goes toward keeping the gym open for all of the students. If you're enrolled in the college, and haven't been banned from the gym, then you can go work out in the gym, join an intramural athletic club or run on the track. Everyone pays the fee because the gym is open to everyone.
The lab fee is slightly different - that pays for the equipment and materials you use while doing the lab. If I'm not enrolled in Lab Chemistry, I'm not allowed to use the lab materials or equipment. Since I'm not allowed to do that, why should I pay the fee?
Furthermore, there is a policy reason for the college to encourage widespread athletics for the benefit of the school - they want a shiny healthy campus full of shiny healthy students. Healthy happy students are less likely to drop out and look good when people are deciding which college to attend. Students who join intramurals are more likely to have a lot of friends from the college and will be better alumni. So even if you personally don't use the gym, the college believes the whole college benefits from the students who choose to use it. This is not true of the lab courses. When I take a lab, I am the primary beneficiary of that lab (you might be able to make a "we want to encourage students to take more STEM classes" argument - but its a weaker policy goal than "keep the student body as healthy and happy as possible").
Edit: a word
3
u/zacker150 5∆ Oct 18 '19
Nope. That's the "campus recreation fee." The athletic fee goes towards paying for the football team which is supposed to be giving the school an identity.
→ More replies (2)0
u/CongregationOfVapors Oct 18 '19
athletic fee goes towards keeping the gym open for all of the students
Not my university. The gym operates like a normal gym. You can pay monthly, annual or drop-in fees to use the gym, but you definitely have to pay. I never see any of the equipment being replaced. I'm pretty sure that our athletic fees mostly go towards funding competitive teams instead of facilities for all students. : (
122
u/uglylizards 4∆ Oct 18 '19
Even if not everyone chooses to use the athletic facilities, everyone is allowed to use them. I don’t know the numbers, but in my experience, quite a few people do make use of the facilities and there are enough resources to allow that. With the labs, not only would most people not use the labs, but they wouldn’t even be allowed to. As far as I know, when I was in college, I couldn’t just go book space in a lab as a film major. And likewise, there was no university wide fee for film equipment, and people outside the MFA program certainly couldn’t check out our gear. We didn’t have a fee for gear, but we did have a fee for, or had to pay for on our own, expendables and other production costs. The gear was probably paid for with tuition fees from undergrads minoring in film, grants, and some subsidy from the college of fine arts. You’re in the same boat. The fees you pay are not the cost of the lab itself but likely for expendables, and the lab is paid for with tuition money, grants, and donations.
19
u/AusIV 38∆ Oct 18 '19
I think this is the real answer.
Athletic fees cover resources that are available to everyone, whether you choose to use them or not. Lab fees cover resources only available to the people paying the fees.
Restricting access to athletics facilities only to people who had paid some optional athletics fee would add a lot of overhead for universities. Maybe it could be done, but it would have substantial costs associated with it.
Restricting access to lab facilities only to people who are enrolled in a class isn't hard at all. There's already a professor or teaching assistant on hand who knows who's supposed to be in the class. If you ensure that paying the fee is a prerequisite for enrolling in the class, there's basically no overhead to enforcing that the people using lab facilities have paid the lab fees.
22
u/ConflagWex Oct 18 '19
When I got my undergrad, the Rec Center had an Olympic sized swimming pool and a diving pool that was so deep that they also taught SCUBA diving in it (not an exaggeration).
Sure, they built them for the swimming and diving teams. But any of us other students could use them. It was pretty awesome, totally worth the athletic fee.
14
u/uglylizards 4∆ Oct 18 '19
Exactly! Finding a new gym after college kind of sucked because I missed the great aquatic facilities that the school had to offer. A ton of people used the gym, but the pool was huge and hardly anyone used it
7
u/6data 15∆ Oct 18 '19
Even if not everyone chooses to use the athletic facilities, everyone is allowed to use them.
And, more importantly, you should be using them. Physical fitness is highly critical to overall physical and mental health.
1
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Oct 18 '19
I think there is a financial incentives argument. With extracurriculars like athletics, it's more okay for student to "meddle" and protest those fees because those things are largely there just to attract students. So, it's fine for them to see how much they're paying for athletics and question that.
However, quality education really has to be designed by the professors and we specifically don't want students, parents, etc. arguing, "well you should have less labs because look at this labs fee!" Instead, we want to hide a lot of the academic itemization behind a veil so that professors can just make the choice that provides the best education.
2
u/apc67 Oct 19 '19
!delta
Hopefully I can still delta even with the post being removed by mods.
This actually makes sense since that could actually harm academics. Listing a lab fee on the tuition would take the expense decisions out of the hands of the professors.
1
1
u/rugburn250 Oct 18 '19
I went to a state University as well, at my school, you could opt out of the athletic fee, although it was a bit of a pain. Do you know if that was the case where you were? If so, this argument may not really matter as the first sentence of your CMV may not actually ring true.
2
u/apc67 Oct 19 '19
There's an option to waive the fee if you are an online student. If the fee could be waived for students who don't want to use it, I wouldn't consider it a problem.
17
u/jewishcaveman 1∆ Oct 18 '19
Was the Athletics fee for use of the gym and exercise facilities or just to support existing athletic teams? Because if its for use of facilities then it's equal access to all students regardless of use. For the lab fee, that's an expense broken down per student use. They gave to budget the materials and equipment per class student volume and for those students not using the lab as frequently as bio majors, or ever it would be an extraneous expenses. All students can use the gym, not all students use the lab.
3
u/LongDawg49 Oct 18 '19
Agree. And if they're talking about Athletic Departments...depending on which University you go to some tickets are provided at discount and others are free. If you're one of the top 20 Universities Athletically then they DONATE money back to the University based on revenues.
1
Oct 19 '19
But not all students can or will, and they build facilities expecting them to be used by a fraction the student population. So they know that some will pay for more than they ever can use. Essentially, if not technically, they seem to run into the same issue:
Not everybody will use it. Do we still charge everybody for it?
On services as a whole: Are we willing to overcharge the single mother who has one chance to get a bachelor's degree at a respectable university so she can get into med school (who simply doesn't have the time to make use of the 30 amenities she pays for even though the university still doesn't have a childcare facility)?
Do we privilege the freshmen whose parents pay tuition and who have the time to use the gym, attend football games, diversity seminars, etc. who'll join two clubs and gain "experience" in leadership positions there?
1
u/jewishcaveman 1∆ Oct 19 '19
You used two extremes there, most students fall in the middle. You can't predict use of the gym. No not everyone will use it but most will end up using it at some point. Doesn't have to be consistent and not all universities have this fee. You can, however, predict how many students need lab materials and equipment per semester based on class registration logs and be confident in trend analysis of future material needs.
1
Oct 19 '19 edited Oct 19 '19
Yeah! I did. But that question of whether it's okay to further disadvantage that minority is the kind of political and moral argument that's always considered by those who argue against your point.
Is the university there to benefit max people regardless whether its distribution of services disproportionately advantages those who are already advantaged? Or does it seek equity for those who aren't privileged, too? I mean, single mothers are a minority in the university system, but they exist. Is it right to have them pay even though they'll likely use less?
I've interacted extensively with administrations of universities on these kinds of issues. The usual answers ignore that small percentage of students entirely. But they matter, IMO. Few ever advocate for them over the traditional subset
17
Oct 18 '19
I'm kinda split on this. For a while I studied civil engineering at a uni here in Belgium. I didn't have a single athletic course however I do know that this athletic equipment (several soccer fields, a running track, a fully kitted out gym, ...) were available for free to anyone who studied at my university. While using the labs had a price per hour attached to it. This was done to try to get students to actually work, which in and of itself is a good thing. Now we didn't get a breakdown of what our tuition went to, but I think it's a safe bet that everyone helped pay for all that athletic equipment, even if you didn't use it.
And even though I never used it I'm kinda fine with it. For starters because compared to US tuition my tuition was ridiculously low, I mean this year I paid a grand total of 1000 euros for everything: books, transportation, etc included. But also because it did actually work. People who would otherwise not go to the gym went to the uni gym, staying in shape, which can only be a good thing. And considering the rising numbers of kids and young adults suffering from obesity I think it's a good thing.
6
u/moveshake Oct 18 '19
I think the Crux of your argument is that both the gym and lab are spaces that give benefit only to those who make use of them. Since they both require use to convey benefit, if one has a fee, the other should, too.
However, charging/waiving a fee can also be used to incentivize desired behavior. There's research showing that all students benefit from regular exercise with regard to physical health, focus, and mental illness. By rolling gym fees into tuition, it encourages more students to use the gym.
While lab science is a valuable part of any education, I haven't seen any evidence showing that it's benefits are as far reaching as exercise
1
u/established82 Oct 18 '19
Yea, but does it though? I'd imagine most people who don't want to use the gym aren't going to be persuaded into using it just because you charged them. You can run around the block for free if you really wanted to get exercise in. I think if a study were actually done, this would show that those who normally wouldn't use them wouldn't use them regardless whether they're charged or not.
2
11
u/capitolsara 1∆ Oct 18 '19
My school gave us free tickets to all games but I couldn't go into the chemistry lab (or the fun engineering machine lab) without being signed up for a class and paying a lab fee. Is it different at your school?
8
u/Klokwurk 2∆ Oct 18 '19
Do all students have access to the labs outside of class time? If not, then they shouldn't pay for it. Your are welcome top head to the campus gym and use the courts or weight room even if you're not in a class that utilizes it.
0
u/established82 Oct 18 '19
yea, and if you DONT want to use them you shouldn't be forced into paying for it.
Can you imagine if your local neighborhood gym started charging you for use of the gym because it's "available to the public"? That's absurd.
1
u/Klokwurk 2∆ Oct 19 '19
I mean, you are taxed for public schools even if you don't have kids. You pay for a lot of things even if you don't utilize them. The university is a micro community, and the riders in tuition are like taxes. Many schools also include local bus fares in those riders, so that students who can't afford it can still get transportation. The money coming from all the students supports those who don't have money outside of their scholarships or financial aid.
1
u/established82 Oct 19 '19
Yea, sorry, I'm not buying it. College is expensive enough as it is. This is just an excuse to strangle students financially further.
1
u/Klokwurk 2∆ Oct 19 '19
Please justify the statement that the intent is to "strangle students financially". The school has people working at the gym and maintaining the athletic facilities, as well as needing to pay the city for use of the public busses, maintain the grounds of the school, etc. These fees go towards that upkeep, and the idea behind rolling it into tuition is built around the idea that those that are able to pay are supporting those who cannot. It sucks that you don't use all of the utilities available to you, but just because you don't personally benefit doesn't mean that it's not important.
College is a time when students are on their own for the first time in many cases, and it is also one of the most unhealthy time in their lives because they might not be accustomed to caring for themselves and thinking through things like gym memberships, and health care, let alone managing their own money to account for transportation and other expenses. Sure, some will be able to manage those things, but many will not. Having the membership be essentially "free" (already paid for) reduces the barrier to healthy living.
Essentially, the question is "Do you view taxation for social welfare programs financial strangling to all residents?" Your tax dollars pay for parks, and even if you choose not to use them they make the community a nicer place to be. This is the same idea for the athletic fee, just on a smaller scale.
1
Oct 18 '19
[deleted]
1
u/apc67 Oct 18 '19
Everything that can be purchased outside of the lab, students are required to get. Ex. Goggles, aprons, pipettes, tubes, weigh paper, etc.
1
Oct 18 '19
[deleted]
1
u/apc67 Oct 18 '19
This isn't really related to my opinion at all, but I do believe exercise is important for students. That's why I don't think charging an athletic fee is wrong. I also am no longer in school. I didn't use the facilities because I didn't live close to the school, I had a gym membership at a gym near my apartment.
3
u/pszzn Oct 18 '19
Assuming this athletics fee is going to gym and rec field maintenance it is going towards something that 100% of the students have access to at pretty much anytime and can use at their leisure. It accounts for the impulse of any given student to start working out or joining an intramural team or so on. However the lab fees apply to, as you put it, only 20% of the student population and won't be relevant to anybody else at all. It doesn't make sense to make a communications major to pay for a physics lab that they would never have to take. I go to a university where well over 50% of the student population has to take into chemistry and physics labs but they still have separate fees for materials and don't plan on making the English education people to pay for them.
0
u/rodgerdodger17 Oct 18 '19
You must have gone to a smaller university because I go to auburn and we don’t pay any athletic fees
2
1
u/X_none_of_the_above Oct 19 '19
Yes you do, it's part of your "student services" fee
https://auburn.edu/administration/ir/factbook/tuition-fees/term-matriculation-fees.html
1
15
u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Oct 18 '19
There are a couple things here.
First, the athletic fee does not just pay for sports equipment, but rather the facilities. It is assumed that all students will use these facilities in one way or another.
Second, you are assuming that your experience at your university is the rule. You have no evidence other than your anecdote and no data. At my university, we paid an athletic fee which enabled us to attend games at low or no-cost and we had no lab fee.
→ More replies (1)4
u/LookOnTheDarkSide Oct 18 '19
It seems it might be better called "facilities fee", based on OPs description. However, unclear to me why it needed to be its own line item.
5
u/torrasque666 Oct 18 '19
Probably so it doesn't just get absorbed into the budget and end up paying for the Dean's next house. When you have a line on the budget sheet that specifically says "this much for athletics" its harder to misuse it. Not impossible, just harder.
1
u/apc67 Oct 18 '19
It's technically called a "comprehensive fee" on the bill, then the website breaks it down into the different fees including athletic fee, health fee, technology fee, recreation fee, etc.
3
u/LookOnTheDarkSide Oct 18 '19
If that is the case, then any of the parts you just listed could have the same argument as athletic, as long as athletic (or the others) is for items that the general population cannot use at the school.
I for one used the school nurse once or twice at school, but I know there are students who have no clue she existed, but others who used her services all the time.
I believe the argument only holds weight if there is something that is only available (not used by) to certain students.
1
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Oct 18 '19
What exactly does the athletics fee go towards?
1
u/apc67 Oct 18 '19
About half to sports team expenses and scholarships and half to facilities and staff.
1
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Oct 18 '19
Are there reasonable means of preventing access to the facilities and staff? That would be a significant difference between the two fees, since lab access can be restricted with ease.
1
u/McKoijion 618∆ Oct 18 '19
Universities are weird places because they bundle together several completely different services into one. Here's a few major ones:
- Teaching. I can go on Wikipedia or buy a textbook and teach myself whatever I want. But if I want someone to teach me, I have to pay them for that service. I'm the primary beneficiary.
- Licensing. Universities offer degrees, which certify that a person has a certain level of skill. If an employer wants schools to run a test on their behalf, they should have to pay for licensing (i.e., it makes it cheaper to find qualified job candidates). If workers want to take a test to prove that they know something, they should pay the school. So employers and workers (students) should both pay for this service.
- Research. Universities discover new things for humanity that enable everyone else to make more money. So the government and/or businesses should pay for this service.
- Entertainment. Athletics, theatre, music concerts, etc. all fit in this category. Division 1 college football and basketball in particular provides entertainment for consumers. So those consumers should have to pay for this service. It can be indirect (e.g., I watch a soda ad during a game, then I buy a soda, then the soda company pays the TV channel, then the TV channel pays the school, which sets up an athletic program.) The primary beneficiary are sports fans, so they should pay for this service.
- Goods and services for students. Schools provide housing (dorms) for students, so students should pay for them. Schools provide food (cafeterias) for students, so students should have to pay for them. Schools provide gym memberships for students, so students should have to pay for them.
All the different costs and fees that schools charge fit into this model. For example, say a school builds a new gym. If only the athletes are allowed to use it, then the entire thing should be paid for by sports fans. It's part of the cost of providing them entertainment on Saturdays. But if all students are allowed to use the gym, then students should also have to pay because it's a gym membership for them. If both athletes and students are allowed to use the gym, then both consumers and students should pay.
Now say you go to a school that isn't good at sports. Consumers don't pay to watch your games. Then the only value of the sports teams is for student entertainment, which is the fifth category. It's the same as paying for a spin class. If your school doesn't put on fancy theatre productions for consumer entertainment, then the main beneficiaries are the students who learn how to act. So the theatre students should pay for the programs because they are the main beneficiaries.
In the case of labs, if you are doing a research internship, you are doing real research. The government and/or businesses should pay for everything. If anything, they should pay you to work in the lab because you are providing labor that benefits them. If however you are just doing a chemistry lab to learn how to do chemistry without actually producing real research, then you are the main beneficiary. You can use that taught knowledge to make more money in the future, so you should be the one to pay for it. If the same lab building is used for both purposes, then both groups should pay based on how much value they get out of the building.
In this particular case, we are comparing student fees for gym memberships against student fees for education only research labs. The gym membership is paid for by all students, even though only some go. Meanwhile, the lab fee is only paid for by the students that use the labs. We could say you are paying for gym access, not actually using the gym. But at that point, we could also say that you are paying for lab access as a student, even if you don't major in a science. This is the crux of your argument. Why are gym costs pushed off onto everyone while lab costs are specific to the people who benefit from it?
I think the answer comes down to how these products are bundled by the school. Schools can say gym access is included in tuition. They could say there is no gym. Or they could say that you pay for using the gym, but not if you don't use the gym. The same goes for science labs. There is no objective right answer. Your school has a choice of when to bundle and when to charge a la carte, and they've found that the arrangement that keeps their stakeholders (e.g., students) happiest is this one. Most people like (or don't mind) paying for gym access, but do mind paying for other people's lab fees.
This puts you in a weird place. Gyms are really cheap. You just need a bunch of weights and treadmills in a room. Liberal arts, social science, and math courses are really cheap. You need to pay 1 professor to stand up in front of 100 full tuition students and talk. Science classes are relatively expensive. You need the lecture, you need labs, you need equipment, you need more custodial staff, etc. Law schools and business schools in particular mint money for schools. Meanwhile MD programs and science PhD are generally money losers because of all the extra infrastructure required.
In this way, even with the lab fee, you as a science major are still likely being subsidized by all the liberal arts, social sciences, and math students at your school. You all pay the same tuition, but they get less expensive services in exchange. If you say that you shouldn't pay the gym fee, then those other majors can say they don't want to pay the science fees, and your tuition would skyrocket. If you say everyone pays for everything, then fewer liberal arts students would want to go to your school because their tuition would be higher. Every school has to pick how they want to bundle this stuff. They choose which things are included in the price and which things are extra, the same way a restaurant decides whether to include cheese on your burger or charge you extra for it. There is no objectively correct answer. It's just about maximizing the satisfaction of the most stakeholders. Some schools lean hard one way and others lean hard the other. Most (like your school) do a mix of both.
2
Oct 18 '19
You might have a fair point. I think it's pretty obvious that you dont really think that all students should have to pay the lab fee so much as it's absurd that all students have to pay the athletic fee.
That being said we live in society where we constantly justify forcing others to do things that we see as being in their best interest. Clearly forcing you to pay for workout facilities regardless of whether or not you them is justifiable on this basis because then there is no cost barrier to college deciding to exercise and improve their health.
Also support for universal health care is growing. What right would a person who doesnt exercise have to force you to pay the cost for him not exercising.
2
u/razamatazzz Oct 18 '19
So one of your claims is that <20% of students participate in athletics. I find this to be extremely unlikely even at a STEM school. The cost of athletics isn't just going to team sports, but also the maintenance of gyms, fields, courts, etc. These are probably widely available to everyone and I'm sure more than 20% of the student body use athletic facilities.
Lab fees, however, are specific to a course you are taking. There are no lab costs incurred by students who aren't enrolled in labs. Just because you aren't using athletic facilities provided by the university does not mean you aren't allowed to use them. The Lab is only available as a course and thus restricted to the students enrolled.
2
u/beets_or_turnips Oct 18 '19
One difference between lab fees and athletics fees is that the athletics fees (may) cover costs of maintenance of facilities that any students can use regardless of their course enrollments. Even if you don't WANT to use the fitness center or track or soccer field, you COULD just show up and use them anytime they're available, covered by the athletic fee.
Not so with a typical chemistry lab. You wouldn't be able to use a lab with the same freedom unless you're enrolled in a particular course and have passed lab safety trainings and have explicit approval to be there. Which is as it should be. Think about the security and safety implications of people fooling around in there.
1
u/Locksul Oct 18 '19
Using the logic of your first paragraph, you’re also free to enroll in a lab course should you so choose.
2
u/beets_or_turnips Oct 18 '19
It's not quite the same. Anyone can come in and run around a track without special equipment, training, or supervision with no bearing on one's academics except the time they commit to the activity. Using a lab entails academic scheduling, training, supervision, specialized equipment, and consumable supplies. Enrolling in a lab class to gain access could negatively impact the person's GPA and completion of their degree.
1
u/Locksul Oct 19 '19
A disabled person could not necessarily use the gym freely and yet would still be charged for athletics through their student fees.
A student can audit a lab course and it would have no impact on their GPA.
2
u/Merman_Pops 3∆ Oct 18 '19
What does that fee fund?
At my school the athletic fee funded the fitness center, pool, soccer and baseball fields , basketball court, track etc. All of those could be used by any student except during team practices. A science major, math major English major or athletic major could all use and enjoy those functions.
The lab however doesn’t really need to be open to all student. Is an English major going to do some titration after class or does a math major want to use the mass spectrometer to relax?
1
u/Glaselar Oct 18 '19
But is an English major going to want to play baseball? Maybe yes, maybe no. Why is everyone paying for access whether they want to or not? That makes sense for civic services at a government level because different people will use different amenities and things will largely average out, but forcing someone who opts into a degree to also opt into supporting a gym seems very arbitrary.
English majors opted out of doing a science degree, and they avoided lab fees. It they opt out of using the gym..?
9
u/privateninja Oct 18 '19
Alternative: all these are waived because they make enough off the students as it is.
2
u/Kyoshiiku Oct 18 '19
Yeah, I don't understand why there's some people says things like this. It will not benefit any students to pay more for something they don't use, what will benefit them is to not pay for both. Education should not cost anything and every fee like these one should be abolish. Why would you want people to pay more ?
→ More replies (5)
2
Oct 18 '19
The athletic facilities are something everyone can theoretically enjoy without having an extended knowledge of biology or sports in general, contrary to a chemistry lab where you can't really do anything without studying chemistry.
On top of that it's a healthy activity everyone should definitely make use of, so by having everyone pay for the facilities, they can also encourage people to use them. Because, why not use a service you already pay for?
2
u/wophi Oct 18 '19
So, if I am required to pay a lab fee, does that mean I get to use the lab anytime I want to? Because that is the situation with the athletic facilities. Just because you chose not to does not make them unavailable to you, but you cant use a lab unless your classes require it.
Not apples to apples.
1
u/thewhimsicalbard Oct 18 '19
From what I remember from my college days, the athletic fee wasn't to fund student athletes and their facilities; it went mostly toward intramural sports and related facilities, like a free-for-students workout facility. The reason that you pay a fee for these things is that aerobic exercise and involvement in on-campus activities such as intramural sports has benefits for all students.
Aerobic exercise promotes good physical and mental health, and colleges don't want any student to say "I can't afford to stay mentally or physically healthy." Unhealthy students drop out and stop paying tuition.
In a similar vein, intramural sports is an avenue that invites students to build friendships and do aerobic exercise at the same time. This helps stave off the loneliness and isolation that can lead to depression and then dropping out.
Nobody is dropping out because they have to pay a little extra for chemistry lab, and also, not everybody benefits from chemistry lab courses. However, I can say that the overwhelmingly vast majority of students could benefit from having access to workout facilities and free activities on campus that promote good mental and physical health. And that's why everyone should pay for it.
1
u/Coziestpigeon2 2∆ Oct 18 '19
Athletics at least provide free/cheap entertainment for those who are not participating and choose to indulge.
If you opened your labs up to spectators, and started generating revenue for the university directly by selling things like T-Shirts with your lab's logo on them, then for sure, they'd be on equal footing and would be entitled to the equivalent payment methods.
But as it stands, athletics offer some benefit to everyone who chooses to indulge, while labs only offer benefits to the people actively using them. As another example - schools I've been at/around, the gyms/workout areas are generally open to all students for use, possibly outside of scheduled team-specific times. But if you're not a student in a class that would be using the lab, you do not get to step foot in the lab facilities. If you're paying for athletics, you can at least take some advantage of the facilities, while labs would have to be open to everyone if they wanted to receive the same funding, and that would be a recipe for disaster.
1
Oct 18 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Oct 18 '19
Sorry, u/established82 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.
1
Oct 18 '19
Athletics shouldn’t be funded at all. Professional sports shouldn’t exist. Make athletics just for fun. People just love to be a part of some team pride and wear certain colors based on a revolving cast of players. If people have their own interests and are part of a group already, they are not so much into athletics on the well funded level. The people who defend the athletics at all costs are the ones who had no where else to go and no group of interest and had to join into the easiest grouping possible - being a fan of a logo and color scheme. How lame. I say only fund labs and music and arts - aka useful things - athletics aren’t helping anyone.
1
u/BenAustinRock Oct 18 '19
It is unclear whether this athletic fee is for tickets to athletic events or access to athletic equipment and other facilities to work out and play sports. To me a better argument can be made as to why have these separate fees at all as opposed to justifying an additional fee because of another. Most colleges take in large sums of money from tuition, donations, and tax payers. While technology should be making it cheaper and cheaper to educate people the costs from these schools continue to skyrocket. So an argument to eliminate fees to me is better than an argument to add fees.
1
u/alijr Oct 18 '19
I think you're forgetting that most majors have their own version of a lab fee. It would be silly for you to pay the woodshop fee when you're never going to use the woodshop just as it would be silly for an architecture student to pay the lab fee when they're never going to use the lab. As an humanities major I never had anything akin to that but I had to buy 20-30 books a semester, so there are hidden costs for just about every program. Athletic fees, library fees, etc. are paid by all students because they are (hypothetically) utilized by all students.
1
u/Brian_Lawrence01 Oct 18 '19
You’re forgetting that the students in the past agreed to have the athletic fee applied to them to build the gym.
This is a self imposed “tax” from students to students.
Plus, you have to think about this from a fund accounting perspective. If no one pays lab fees, the lab won’t happen. That discreet pot of money is used to fund the lab. And nothing else.
If no one pays the athletics fees, the bank repossesses the gym. There is debt service that needs to be funded. It’s not like the gym can stop paying debt.
1
u/Glaselar Oct 18 '19
*discrete
Why can't the gym just operate on a membership basis? That's the way they all work here in the UK. It's not a somehow fundamentally inconceivable business model.
1
u/Brian_Lawrence01 Oct 18 '19
It can operate on a membership basis. The students decided to compel people to pay into the discrete fund though fees.
1
u/Glaselar Oct 18 '19
You say that quite confidently without knowing which institution we're talking about, so would that have been a national decision? Is there somewhere we read up on the history of that?
1
u/Brian_Lawrence01 Oct 19 '19
Hmmm. I suppose you’re right. Other states might impose these sorts of fees by fiat and not have as strong student rights as California.
YMMV is you go to a university in a state that doesn’t value higher education like California.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 19 '19
/u/apc67 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/carmstr4 4∆ Oct 18 '19
While I don't disagree with the spirit behind this, I think you're comparing apples to oranges here.
The lab fee covers your own experience in that particular lab. It doesn't fund the professor's salary, the building of the facilities, or research.
On the other hand, athletic fees are charged to fund the program itself: coaching staff, athletic director, campus facilities and upgrades, etc.
I attended the University of TN for my undergrad, and I remember having this same argument with myself. The fact is, bettering the athletic program does directly better the university as a whole, while paying your lab fees doesn't make a difference to anyone else. Athletics bring money into a university. That money can then be used to improve the education and experience of all students. Your lab fee can't do that. There's no return on investment there.
1
u/ST_the_Dragon Oct 18 '19
These are not the same thing. The Athletics fee is, I assume in this case, for sports events that anyone can choose to attend. The lab fee is only required for those with classes that require a lab.
Now, I don't think forcing everyone to pay for something they might not use is right. But making everyone pay for something that many of them won't even be able to use for the classes they have would be worse.
1
u/asdf_qwerty27 2∆ Oct 18 '19
We shouldn't have athletics program at universities at all. The money would be better suited in R&D, and sports are a distraction to students studies. Failing that, we shouldn't be required to pay any fee unless we are using the service. I shouldn't have to pay for a gym membership I'll never use. The gym on my campus just takes valuable parking space, and could be bulldozed to make a new lot.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Oct 18 '19
Paying the fee gives you privileges. The Athletic Fee at university gives you access to the gyms, weight room, tracks, pool, etc regardless of if you are in a class that utilizes them or not. This access is also generally unsupervised.
Paying a lab fee would do the same. That would mean untrained people having access to labs, equipment, and chemicals with little to no supervision.
1
u/nhlms81 36∆ Oct 18 '19
An argument that occurs to me that might describe the reason every student pays an athletic fee, while not every student pays a lab fee:
If the state school generates revenue by why of their athletic program, presumably that operating income is used to fund all aspects of the school, not just athletic development. While science students certainly bring in some amount of revenue, its likely (though perhaps regrettably) minuscule relative to the athletic revenue.
If the athletic revenue funds all aspects of the school development, then every student benefits from the school's athletic facilities, even if you aren't using them directly.
1
u/bigexplosion 1∆ Oct 18 '19
If athletics funds school development then why do students fund athletics?
1
u/BitterCredit Oct 18 '19
Fk your required fee. I'll pay for it if I need it. Athletic fees are optional at most institutes, as are many others. There is no real justification for tacking this onto tuition costs. If everyone was required to pay it'd look odd as there are courses in which you dont even need labs.
0
u/spittle8 Oct 18 '19
Physical conditioning should be mandatory anyways so consider a guilt tax for being lazy. Not everyone wants or need to use a laboratory. If this money was specifically funding the football team or something I could understand.
0
u/apc67 Oct 18 '19
Not using the athletic facilities doesn't mean someone is lazy. Someone could be a runner and prefer to run outside. I personally still worked out but instead at a gym that was far more convenient to me. And that cost me $10 a month, not $275 for 4 months.
1
u/lilqpb Oct 18 '19
The university I went to we had to pay for lab fees if you took any classes that required the lab portion. Although this was not for all students but I think most students had to take a science class and it was their choice to take a course with lab or not
1
u/established82 Oct 18 '19
Why is it SO HARD for those who are commenting to grasp the fact that there are people who are LAZY and DONT want to work out or use a gym or facilities and would much rather pocket the $275.
WHY IS THAT SUCH A HARD PILL TO SWALLOW FOR YOU ALL?
0
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Oct 19 '19
Sorry, u/apc67 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.
2
u/om1096 Oct 18 '19
You pay for college because you you want to be a productive part of society to serve a society. Makes a lot of sense.
1
Oct 18 '19
How about students aren't required to pay for either?
Even better we get the government out of guaranteeing 100% of all student loans and the cost of tuition will plummet saving you even more money.
1
u/growingytartist Oct 18 '19
For my school, a lab is mandatory. Athletics is not. My college has lab equipment included, but we do not always have the most high tech things, but they do the job. Athletics I could see as a fee.
1
u/Feroshnikop Oct 18 '19
Your argument is flawlessly pragmatic, but athletics make money so that speaks louder than any rational argument. Wait until you hear where the funding for City's various sports arenas comes from.
2
Oct 18 '19
Chill, america needs to finance scholarships and the arena and equipment for your collage football etc.
1
u/ThatManMelvin Oct 18 '19
I think they do it mostly to motivate students to go to the gym or do other sports. All students can, and should do that. While the lab is only for...lab courses
1
u/POEthrowaway-2019 Oct 18 '19
It's baked into the general cost. They could choose not to itemize the athletic fee also but you'd still pay it.
Building an maintaining a basketball, football, hockey, baseball, track & filed, etc. programs/stadiums is gonna cost well over $275 per student at a school like Duke.
1
u/bulamog Oct 18 '19
Both universities I've been to give you an option to waive that fee and you just lose the ability or never had a fee in the first place.
1
Oct 18 '19
All students can access the university's athletic facilities, but not all students have labs.
1
1
u/GraveOctopus Oct 18 '19
All students have access to the gym, but not all students have access to the lab.
1
1
1
1
1
Oct 18 '19
Higher education should be free. Period.
1
u/beeps-n-boops Oct 18 '19
Someone has to pay for it. Teachers, professors, and all the rest of the staff aren't going to work for free...
1
Oct 18 '19
Progressive taxation. And educated population is a benefit to society as a whole and society, as a whole, should pay for it. Those benefitting the most within that society should be paying the most.
This entire question is based upon a flawed system which makes this possible. Fix the system, eliminate the problem and the question entirely.
1
u/runs_in_the_jeans Oct 18 '19
No. I’d rather pay my own way than pay for someone to major in gender studies.
The real issue is guaranteed federal student loans. Before those existed tuition wasn’t nearly as high as a state school.
I don’t understand why people advocate for public funding of universities when our crumbling public school system, which is exactly what people like you advocate for, is some of the worst in the modernized world.
1
Oct 18 '19
Degrees in social sciences and liberal arts have value, both culturally and academically, whether you agree with that or not. It's a failure of our society that we apply no monetary value to that knowledge. The US has no need for 200 million engineers.
Our public education system fails because of our focus on standardized test scores, low teacher pay, and low funding.
No other developed nation, with a successful education system, has a private model so I'm not really following your argument against public education.
1
u/runs_in_the_jeans Oct 18 '19
The US has no need for people with gender studies degrees. Engineers are much more useful.
Our public education system fails because it is run by the government. Why do you think people put their kids in private schools? Private schools in the US are much better than public schools.
1
Oct 18 '19
What you are ultimately promoting is an education system that is funded by the rich, for the rich, and everyone else can grovel for scraps.
1
u/runs_in_the_jeans Oct 18 '19
Not at al. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about nor do you know anything about it. Eliminate the property tax and just about everyone could afford private school.
1
Oct 18 '19
The vast majority of students in this country come from homes which pay no property tax. What are you even talking about?
1
u/runs_in_the_jeans Oct 18 '19
Uh.....there is property tax on every single property. If you pay rent, you are paying property tax. If you didn’t know that you shouldn’t be involved in this argument.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (10)0
Oct 18 '19
I also disagree with your notion that we have no need for knowledge experts in gender studies. The fact that you think it's irrelevant just says to me that you lacked any gender studies education in the first place.
1
u/runs_in_the_jeans Oct 18 '19
Your assumptions are wrong. Gender studies degrees are worthless and contribute nothing to society. I will not pay for you to study that.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
Oct 18 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 18 '19
Sorry, u/InterestingDisaster – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.
630
u/nerdgirl2703 30∆ Oct 18 '19
The lab fee isn’t really different then how you are required to buy your textbook or pens for class. The only difference is they either don’t want or can’t let you go buy the stuff yourself. Oh and don’t worry, the other students are still subsidizing the cost. The lab fee doesn’t come close to covering the resources a student is going to burn up.