If that is approved watch us drop football.

I believe we'd lose all athletics.

Mr. Wong wrote an Op Ed recently.

Sheep with cash fleece: We are paying more than $550 a year to fund a program many of us do not benefit from

"UC Davis charges the student body $19 million annually to fund the athletics program that only benefits 700 students"

"...Each year, the UC system and UC Davis administration take more and more from us through tuition and student fee increases while offering less and less. UC tuition is going up, and student fees at UC Davis have consistently increased each year. This places an even bigger burden on more than 9,200 [sic] UC Davis undergraduates who average $5,145 in federal student loans per year. Meanwhile, the UC Davis administration unilaterally and abruptly cut the physical education program effective winter quarter 2021, which has led to “loss of low-unit courses that help students meet financial aid requirements....” [my emphasis]

https://theaggie.org/2021/10/29/sheep-with-cash-fleece-we-are-paying-more-than-550-a-year-to-fund-program-not-all-of-us-benefit-from/

The Aggie is also funded by a referendum approved fee. Maybe it should be voted out too due to the narrow viewpoints it tends to publish. Earmarked fees also fund the Women’s Center and Cross Cultural Center, which have very narrow user bases. Dare someone to call for defunding those. Don’t get me wrong, I think student fees are too high and I don’t think student fees should be used to fund fire alarm upgrades or the financial aid office. But cherry picking the athletics fees without questioning why student housing, the bookstore, and parking all turn profits without clarity on where the profits are going seems like a little bit of a manipulated narrative. I wonder what chapped this guy’s hide? Seats too hard in the library main reading room?

Maybe Calvin is grumpy because his stuffed tiger beat him up again.

The huge increases are housing and student fees. Shocking the numbers I've heard thrown around for the dorms, $1200 a month, $1400 a month (bed and meal plan).

A friend on campus thinks Mrak Hall (Chancellor May) cutting Physical Education was a big strategic mistake. Classes and coaches highly popular. Especially since it was part of the Referendum (contract) with students. Which is now a lawsuit.

Mayve he's ust mad because the baseball players wouldn't give him lap dances in January. Gotta jpin the team first, dude !

I mean, I believe UCD has some of the highest campus based fees in UC at around $3k per year, of which athletics gets about $650. Proposed increase of $69.30 total on the year, $50 of which is for ASUCD and Unitrans. I don’t know that I’d characterize it as a huge fee increase and doesn’t appear was driven by athletics. The dorms are insanely expensive and have been for years. Not sure why other than they can, but I think housing costs are a bigger obstacle than tuition for many because financial aid is much less available to help with housing. I agree the PE thing was a misstep because it didn’t seem like a very expensive program. My hypothesis remains that Campus Rec wanted to drive PE participants to paid activities at the ARC.

Too soon ? Well, I thought it was good. Fine I'll go back to my corner now.

no, it was funny. Probably offensive, but funny.

The Enterprise has published a lengthy and thorough article about the a possible student referendum to eliminate student fees that help fund Aggie Athletics.

If the referendum were to pass, UC Davis would lose about half of its $40 million per year athletics budget, with only a year or so notice before the funding is gone. “The campus would need to replace funds on an ongoing basis,” Topousis said. “An endowment would need to be established.” Because of University of California policies requiring that far more money be invested in an endowment than the amount withdrawn per year, UC Davis would need to raise more than $400 million to replace the funds generated by student fees. “The campus would not be able to raise those funds,” Topousis said.

As a result, UC Davis would either need to eliminate sports teams or dismantle other campus programs to replenish the athletics budget. Both options would involve laying off significant numbers of staff and student employees.

https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/local/showdown-looms-on-use-of-student-fees-to-fund-uc-davis-athletics/?utm_source=DE&utm_campaign=b1f9aa0047-Daily_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_be64fee185-b1f9aa0047-171004309

Intercollegiate athletics and the Greeks may rally.

It looks like the elimination of the wildly popular physical education program by Chancellor May's administration set this in motion. This article claims not much money was saved, and now we also have two lawsuits. (My friends guessed Mrak Hall was shuffling funds to pet projects.)

Would the Referedum and lawsuits be tabled if Physical Education was re-established, classes expanded and lecturers added?

My general feeling is that everything else being equal students would vote to reduce their fees. But everything else is not equal here. Students value their degree and know the prestige of the institution from which they hope to get their degree is very important to their future success and self image. They will eventually realize that a vote to virtually eliminate ICA sports will be a permanent black mark on the reputation of the university which they hope to graduate from. I realize the ICA fee is kind of high, but, really, against the very high tuition they now pay, not really that bad. “Oh, we’re you in the class that eliminated ICA sports at UC Davis?” I wouldn’t like to take that question at my intake interview. But who the hell knows what they will do. “This a case that should be settled!” An old and very wise judge once told me. Put PE back. Move on.

My recollection is that elections always had a very small turnout driven by the Greeks and some single-issue activists (ie groups with strong opinions on Israel and Palestine always tried to pack ASUCD). Are there enough single issue activists who care one way or the other on ICA? I don’t know. The referendums to initiate these fees had future start dates, so the students voting were doing so on behalf of future students and never paid them themselves. Who doesn’t like raising taxes on someone else? The math could be different here if the tax cut would be immediate and personally beneficial. If the PE thing was what set this unrest in motion, then it was indeed a misstep, although I think in the fine print these referendums are technically advisory and the chancellor isn’t bound to them. On one hand I agree that fees are too high, probably, in my opinion, because too much general fund money gets blown on pet projects leaving basic services in need of special fundraising. But on the other hand, it is important for Gen Z to understand that part of life is paying taxes that may benefit others or the community at large without huge personal benefit.

I have no insight on what’s going on at the campus on this issue. With the Covid thing and remote classes, who knows what the kids will do, especially when they can’t even go to a game!
What I do know is that an overwhelming number of the kids that will be effective are minorities. So, take away the athlete grants to many minority kids and that should not set well with the student electorate. Yes, the white kids from wealthy families will not be effectively denied much with this as they can pay whatever. I do not sense the guy who promoted this idea has really thought the whole thing though. But, What he hell do I know?

When is the vote?

Taking away PE classes was apparently either big, or huge. Really rubbed students the wrong way. Given our nation's notable obesity problems, I really don't get the need of Mrak Hall to eliminate a special campus program. Campus Rec power play? Money shuffled elsewhere? With PE instructors not being replaced, it seems a vacuum was purposefully created.

Some retired faculty are also suing? Discovery could be enlightening. Who proposed this to Chancellor May?

Movie I seldom if ever agree with you, but on this one I do! PE decision was stupid. Cancel and move on. Whatever you think about may, he should be able to figure this one out.

Front page story from this morning's Sacramento Bee:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article257204677.html

[Sorry, subscription required. Somewhere between the Bee and my computer "skills" cutting and pasting Bee articles has become labor intensive. I'll work on it, but it will take some time.]

After that article is a commentary by a former student whose argument against the fee is “that she never went to games so why should she pay?” I could list a ton of items i don’t use but still have to pay for. But in defense of the students pushing this, education costs are ridiculously high. That really is the bigger issue. When i was in school, you could wait tables and make enough money to pay your tuition. Reform overall education costs and this issue goes away.

The following is from the Bee article Click on the image to enlarge it:



https://www.sacbee.com/article257204677.html

Excerpt from the Bee article:



https://www.sacbee.com/article257204677.html

Note: The following image of a football and headline is the cover story for the Bee for Wednesday, January 18th, and it takes up the entire, full page of the print copy! So, as far as the Bee is concerned, this is the most important news locally or in the world today for that matter. It appears obvious to me, given that the image and title take up and entire page, that the Bee is showing their bias. Extremely important world events don't even get a whole page like this! Click on the image to enlarge it.



https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article257204677.html

Politicos are beating the war drums w Russia, and this is the front page of the Bee?

Mangled, negative, wrong title.

"UC Davis students are against fees that fund sports programs"

Yes, I think the front page thing is a bit ridiculous, but what the hell to do about it. Sac Bee has only to cover crimes and mansion sites to cover it’s bottom line. I subscribe to the online only, but it is a very boring newspaper in my view. Don’t know why I even do that. But this story is actually an interesting one because uc davis is the only really interesting thing going on in sac. And it is actually about a real issue: the outsized cost of higher education in CA caused by administration s of both parties negligence and stupidity. Bee ignores this issue and puts a deflated football on the front page? Who runs this f***king newspaper?

Higher education is run almost exclusively by Progressives. In California, we've been led largely by Democrats, save for a few GOP Governors. I haven't read the official reports, but have heard we have layers of bureaucracy.

I know Student Affairs has numerous officials and managers that never existed before. The dining commons are now almost gourmet. On campus housing is outrageous, increases in costs far outstripping inflation. For what, square boxes that reach platinum energy consumption? Was it really cost effective to build a new Castillion complex instead of retrofit it?

Movie not true. Reagan started this back in the day. I Recall him standing up and saying California universities were the hotbeds of socialism and w ere the scum of the earth. I know. I was there when Reagan came to Chico where I was a student for a short time. He was on a trip for Goldwater. He stood up and said that Roosevelt was a closet communist and that social security was the bane of the country. Then Totally eviscerating higher education when. We elected him governor and the gutting of California higher education was started. Don’t even try and blame this mess on the dems. Although i readily admit they never really fought back well. And do not now to this day. Why?

In the early 80s on campus dorms were $200 a month, and fees ranged between $100 - 200 per quarter? Fees only started to spike after Carter, went up to maybe $600, then back down. That's all after RR left Sacramento.

There are lots of articles on the topic - here are snippets from one.

Education Week: Why Has the Cost of College Outpaced Inflation?

April 18, 2019
Guest post by Dr. Douglas Green

"While summarizing Guy Kawasaki’s latest book, Wise Guy, I read that his Stanford tuition in 1972 was $2,850 and that today it’s $62,000.

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator, if Stanford tuition increased at the pace of overall inflation, it would be $17,007 today. That means that Stanford tuition has increased 3.64 times faster than general inflation. Other colleges are in the same boat more or less.

"Let me know if I missed any.

"Less Money From the States...

"Construction and Amenities...

"Administrative Bloat: Administrative staff including fundraisers, financial aid advisers, global recruitment staff, and many others grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009. This is 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions....

"Student Loans: Yearly student-loan originations grew from $53 billion to $120 billion between 2001 and 2012....

"College Sports...

"Textbooks... [oligopoly]...The average cost has risen four times faster than inflation over the past 10 years....

"Compensation...

"Soak the Rich...

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-why-has-the-cost-of-college-outpaced-inflation/2019/04

Administrative cost at UCD for ICA. Using the 19 data with Blue at the Helm the ICA program budget was around 32,700,00 with non-sports cost being 10,970,00 or 33% of the budget being administrative cost. For the UCD students paying a majority of ICA budget, is that too high?

In comparison SLO’s budget numbers are as follows, Total budget 25,500,000 with non sports cost at 6,610,00 for a 26% of the budget going to administrative cost.

UCSB in comparison Total budget 21,800,000 with non sports cost at 5,858,000 for a 27% of budget going to administrative cost.

The vote is happening now or soon?