Faculty Feedback
For, a concern over the realistic expectations remained a concern. According to some of the faculty answers, the sustainability of locating funds for the 5% is not realistic long-term. For other faculty, while their departments currently provide the 5%, this isn’t sustainable in the current scientific funding climate. This presents a retention issue for UCSF, if such faculty opt to depart for other institutions who provide a higher research salary support.
Another concern voiced by faculty is the ethical implications that eliminating the 5% could enforce. For example, one faculty member advocated for keeping the 5% effort intact, because they attend faculty meetings that are unrelated to their research projects. While research
…show more content…
Faculty that currently raise 95% of their funds feel not only pressure to raise adequate funds, but the relationship between administration and faculty also suffers as a result. If research faculty lost the 5% mandate and relied solely on grants they would no longer receive any funding from the university itself. As some noted, the current 5% is low as is, and a further decrease to 0% would prove disrespectful, and that rather the 5% should be raised to 10-15%. Out of common courtesy, certain faculty believe the 5% should not be …show more content…
Neither satisfies every faculty member. While a faculty member fully supported by federally-funded grants may feel the freedom to research subjects that genuinely interest them, they may hit a roadblock when submitting a new grant that is not geared toward their specific research or when approaching advancement or promotion review. It also presents an additional barrier for recruitment of new faculty to an already limited professional environment.
Overall, if UCSF moves to support allowing faculty to be 100% sponsor-funded for research, it should be on an individual choice and not a campus wide mandate. A decision to eliminate or maintain the 5% could either weaken or strengthen the relationship between research faculty and their department heads. The loss of the 5% may not appear truthful when a research faculty audits time that is spent researching as research, and yet preserving the 5% could free up tight expenses that administration is already undergoing. Finally, while certain research faculty may be able to succeed on the loss of the 5%, others feel the current 5% is already too low and a further decrease would be rather insulting. The answers released by faculty were a clear indication that the relationship between research faculty and the university is already
That a full paid scholarship is plenty enough (McCauley). The ones who introduce this opinion into the conversation fail to understand the daily struggles a college athlete suffers. Without any outcome, college football players are putting forth their utmost effort for no cause. The twenty to twenty five thousand dollar scholarships do not even put a dent in the billions brought in by the NCAA. This is why this situation is so commonly debated as people believe it is highly unfair to the student athletes.
Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus writes Are College Worth the Price of Admission? on how some universities should improve their approach to their students, faculty, and the school’s structure. They discussed how schools should be engaging their students. They mention several things that affects the faculty like sabbaticals, tenure, and adjuncts. They also made some statements regarding the school’s view on education.
So if you do the simple math 40 plus 50 is 90, 90 hours a week in order to keep that scholarship. This is the equivalent to working two full-time jobs with a side job on the weekends just to pay their bills. So when NCAA executives, administrators, university presidents, and coaches who start feeling the burn around the middle of the week, they should remember that their student athletes’ “unpaid jobs” are not only mentally demanding but their 90 hour weeks brings them to
There is currently nothing systematically in place to provide funds to the sports athletes who generate so much for the universities, and the revenue continues to climb for the NCAA, as they claim a scholarship is sufficient enough even the playing field amongst universities and their athletes and stress that the uproar will change college sports forever. The public has seen the exploitation of these athletes and are asking questions regarding the legitimacy of the structure and are now demanding these athletes be compensated for there hard work. So as the money skyrockets for the NCAA, the athletes are left needing amendments to the power structure that has held them down for so long; in order to change this Congress must step in make sure
The goal of the tuition cap is to streamline the education financial process, rather than taking it away. Tuition caps should not create artificially low prices in the education market, but there needs to be extra pressure on colleges to contain costs; which there’s not right now. Requiring colleges to stay under the cap can help control the increasing prices of education, as the continual receival of federal funding and tax exemptions can be used as an incentive for those colleges who comply. Furthermore, tuition and fees have grown more than twice the rate of inflation each year (Wolfram, 2005). If colleges and universities choose to increase tuition cost more than the CPI, not only should they lose federal funding and tax exemptions, but also it should be mandatory for them to use money from their endowments to fully fund grants for students on financial aid; instead of the federal government increasing the Pell grant each award year to make up that extra
This creates a life of poverty for these student-athletes and is incredibly unfair when observing the high salaries of other faculty members such as coaches. In order to solve this problem, the NCAA must logically distribute its wealth by offering a stipend to
They say that college athletes should not get paid because of the fact that scholarships. Only about 2% of athletes get scholarships a year. The opposition would also say that being paid incentivises the students to go to a college. Also because of the unfair compensation. But the thing is life is not fair, you have to work for things.
Giving part of the money for the merchandise sold off the college athletes would be giving credit to their hard work and showing everyone 's appreciation towards them. “The NCAA, as a whole, makes 6 billion annually”(Should NCAA Athletes). Out of the 6 billion dollars they make, none of the hard working athletes get any of that money. You
The NCAA Shouldn’t Compensate College Athletes Ever since the creation of collegiate sports, the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) has been under discussion weather to pay college athletes in addition to their scholarships. The topic heated up in 1973 when the NCAA came out with a rule that set a limit to the amount of scholarships an athletic program can offer to students. This started speculations that the NCAA was being unfair to students deserving of the scholarships. With college sports growing to colossal levels since then and generating billions of dollars along the way, many are arguing that it is time for the NCAA to share their revenue with the athletes who help get them that money. Paying collegiate athletes
At an NCAA convention in January, a panel of 15 student-athletes and 65 schools in football-driven leagues passed a resolution adding stipends to athlete scholarships to cover all other expenses a full scholarship doesn’t cover (Sherman). Many disagree with this, while others believe we are taking a step in the right direction. The debate on paying college athletes has been ongoing since the early 1900’s (“Point/Counterpoint”). There are many people who say we shouldn’t give student-athletes extra money because a free ride to college is more than enough payment. They say that the universities offer more than an educations: concerts, lecture series by prominent people, on-stage productions, movies, intramural sports, and fitness facilities
Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus explain that the well known colleges are getting all the money. That just doesn 't seem fair to me that certain colleges are getting more money than other colleges. I understand that some colleges are big and might need it to pay the teacher and other resources , but the extra money for big
When would the NCAA say enough is enough? Athletes would be asking for hand- outs regularly. How would the NCAA even pay the players? Who would get more, the senior RB or the talented new 5-star freshman?
The author centers around the system of how wages would actually be worth less than that of scholarship benefits and that the increase in wage demand for athletes would put universities under financial pressure. He mentions those who support paying college athletes for their hard-earned work and those who do not when he states that “On the surface it seems ideal and fair to pay college athletes for the hours of labor they put in each week; however, it’s important to analyze the trickle down of effects such a drastic change would cause.” (Marcus) By addressing both sides of the argument, Marcus lets his readers know that he is aware of athletes deserving a salary, but remains in his stance against the topic. He refers to sports fans in particular who disregard and ignore the actual complications that would be caused if the NCAA were to pay college athletes.
It is believed that in order to have equal wages there will have to be a raise in financial support. Some Universities believe that they will have to increase budgets for
A growing debate in the National Collegiate Athletic Association is whether or not student athletes should be paid. The controversy began in 2011 after three hundred coaches and athletes signed a petition to pay college-level athletes, and since then other athletes have made several more arguments. The NCAA has rightfully denied all of the requests, saying they include too much. To pay student athletes could be hugely expensive for colleges, especially because they would not only pay for each athlete’s degree and equipment, but also provide a salary and give bonuses revenue for tournaments. Moreover, college athletes should not be paid because there is not enough money, it takes away a student’s focus from schoolwork, and not every athlete is guaranteed a professional career after graduating; however it is argued that it they are already paid in a way.