> ...in a universe where superfluous administration is cut first, it is not.

You think you live in that universe?

Yeah, the problem is that they don't cut admin first. They cut newspapers, and sports, and bring in adjuncts who cost a lot less and are desperate for work.

.... sports?

Only if they aren't something that attract a crowd. I see very few colleges cutting basketball or football programs so they don't have to maintain stadiums any more.

Because those two sports are largely profitable and often subsidize other sports.

That seems not to be the case everywhere - they might make money but not profits anyway. It seems uncertain that they actually use the money to fund education. Not to mention the fact that they basically exploit the athletes, who aren't always even given a quality education in return. Some schools make every student help subsidize the sports programs.

[1]http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Ar... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/runnin... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/why-students-foot-the-...

> That seems not to be the case everywhere - they might make money but not profits anyway.

While it's mostly true that athletic programs as a whole are not profitable, it's also true that a majority of football and men's basketball programs are profitable[1]:

> > Between 50 and 60 percent of football and men’s basketball programs have reported net generated revenues (surpluses) for each of the nine years reported, while the dollar amount has increased slightly but steadily each year. (3.6)

> It seems uncertain that they actually use the money to fund education.

They don't. They use the money to fund sports programs that aren't profitable, like women's basketball. Women's basketball, in particular, cost FBS schools (in aggregate) about $1.8 million in FY 2014 (though ice hockey isn't far behind at $1.4 million).

Note that I'm not making a judgement here: I don't think we should eliminate women's basketball. But if we're going to argue about what actually costs the school money, we should at least be honest about it.

> Not to mention the fact that they basically exploit the athletes, who aren't always even given a quality education in return.

No qualms there. The NCAA's treatment of athletes is asinine and I'm quite certain we'll view this as a black mark in the history of sports.

1: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015%20Division%20I%...

> a majority of football and men's basketball programs are profitable

A majority of Division I programs. Only 252 out of 674 football programs and 351 out of 1099 men's basketball programs are Division I.

Division II[1] football and men's basketball programs are universally money losers. Every single one lost money. The Division III report[2] doesn't include as much detail, but I doubt that any of them are profitable either.

[1] http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015%20Division%20II...

[2] http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015%20Division%20II...

Oh sure, fair point. When I think of the college sports monolith I'm typically thinking of D1 exclusively.

I don't think many sports fans would care or even notice if you got rid of D2/3 programs. It's an interesting point when people like Ben Wallace or Chris Ivory come along, but it's mostly a non-factor.

I'm not even sure the NCAA would care, honestly, other than it being a talking point for them to claim athletes are "students first". I'm guessing it's mostly the athletes themselves who would care.

Yeah the entire NCAA system is basically funded by young men playing basketball and football, a few who are objectively being cheated out of millions of dollars (because the ncaa lobbies the nfl and nba to have minimum age requirements).

No arguments there.

>> So besides the loss in basic research

> Yeah, the problem is that they don't cut admin first.

Your basic value proposition is that admin is less important than basic research and that's getting cut.

In the article, it mainly that music, swimming, newspapers, and languages get cut. It says that they had to make cutbacks in CS but don't specify what the college did exactly.

As far as I know, there is no basic research going on in music, swimming, newspapers, and languages. CS definitely basic research, but that was glossed over. Any sort of professor who could be somewhat replaced with an adjunct is not able to perform basic research.

From what I have seen, admin is pretty lean at colleges and universities. Someone has to do all the work of deciding the curriculum, the change in fees, raising funds, awarding scholarships, recruiting and paying staff, coming up with programs and so forth.