-- [ From: Kepler * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
 
> Another reason that Woog always states for his recruitment of locals, is
that
> the scholarships don't cost the University as much.  The scholarship is
worth
> the cost of an in-state tuition which is quite cheaper than an out-of-
state
> student would pay.  I'm not sure who pays the difference?  We, the people,
I
> suppose.
 
This sentence doesn't appear to make sense.  Think of it this way: any given
student costs the same amount in overhead for the university (I know,
actually the amounts are different by discipline, but that isn't related to
whether they are an in-state student or not).  The only reason why in-state
tuition is lower is that the school is being paid for from public funds (a
tax liability if you are a MN state resident), and the "payoff" for state
residents is that their kids' tuition is subsidized.
 
But as far as the university balance sheet is concerned, either (1) an
athletic scholarship would wave the full amount of tuition for the student,
in which case there is no difference to the university whether it goes to an
in-state or out-of-state student, or (2) an athletic scholarship would waive
only the amount of in-state tuition, in which case the university would
actually make more cash by taking out-of-state players, since they would
have to make up the difference.
 
I don't come from the land of athletic scholarships so I could be making a
really obvious error, but on the face of it, the all-in-state policy seems
to either have no revenue impact for the school at all, or perhaps a (very
slight) financial disadvantage for the taxpayers of the state.
 
 
 
 
--
 
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
*  Greg Berge
*  Portland, Oregon
*  [log in to unmask]
*  www.spiritone.com/~kepler
*
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.