Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct:
Feedback:
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: That contentious open faculty letter of 3 years ago -- Steve, 09/11/15 12:42:10pm Fri
Well, it seems as if it was just as well that I reintroduced that letter from some faculty in the context of Lexi's recent response.
Why? The letter is part of a new Bloomberg video about the Class of 1965 Arena and the direction of spending on athletics at elite colleges.
What the video doesn't say is that Colgate is 52nd on the list of all US 4 year colleges and universities on cost, Colgate invested over $120 million in Ho, Case, Lathrop and the new career center in the past 10 years while the spend on athletics capital projects about $45 million on Trudy and the arena- mainly or entirely donor funded.
Then there are the USN&WR, Princeton Review and Kiplinger's rankings and findings that show Colgate is on a roll. It goes without saying, doesn't it, that alumni, parent and other donors know the importance, impact and value of their donations, including $178 million for financial aid in the last capital campaign.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-09-10/the-athletics-arms-race-at-elite-colleges
I hope you will agree that "no publicity is bad publicity". The video is of high quality and shows off the campus. Both Mike Martin and Murray Decock presented their views well. Not sure about the Smith College sports economist's message, though.
Go 'gate!
Forum timezone: GMT-5 VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |