>

mate, are you kidding me right now.
9.2 billion translates to 200k spent on each student per year. are you actually trying to make a case that UCLA is spending 200k, directly or indirectly on each student?
if not, then my post is hardly a projection and if yes, then they're producing absolute dogshit results for 200k spent per student.
/u/poolofshark (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

You are dancing around one key question.
In Europe, tax dollars pay for school. In the US, the citizens have not agreed to have tax dollars fully pay for colleges.
This is the fundamental issue. 
Until people in the US want to fund colleges with tax dollars, you will see this. Given the tax rates are lower in the US, it explains why colleges charge.
What is more, the data in the US shows it does pay to invest in a college degree with typically about a million dollars more earned in the working career for having a degree. 
If you want to talk college affordability or budgets, you really have to look apples to apples.
It is just not possible to compare UCLA's budget to a European university. Simply put, UCLA is likely paying for things that the European university does not. Healthcare, public transit, and public safety all come to mind. Then you have the Athletics program which distorts this. It is a net positive for UCLA but appears as massive spending. You have the different costs for staff. What does a Professor cost in Germany vs the USA.  
Unless you begin controlling these variables, you aren't making a fair or even useful comparison. >

i would be dancing around that question if there was any evidence to suggest that universities actually needs that extra monies. UCLA clearly doesn't if it's run properly because it's already getting 3x the money than LMU and somehow it still raises its tuition fee every year. It just seems that the money is going to waste and the university system isn't run efficiently. even if taxpayers agree to more taxes, it won't solve the efficiency issue at UCLA.
colleges are funded with tax dollars. The 3 billion that UCLA gets every year comes from tax dollars through the UC system. tax payers already pay for it and they're forced to pay again if they want to attend the university. 
healthcare is free in Europe, public transit is well developed but that shouldn't be a factor because UCLA provides on campus housing and most students stay on campus. you don't need a commute for that.
what exactly is the net positive in putting everyone else in debt to fund varsity sports?
i already took those variables into account before making my post. >


i would be dancing around that question if there was any evidence to suggest that universities actually needs that extra monies. UCLA clearly doesn't if it's run properly because it's already getting 3x the money than LMU and somehow it still raises its tuition fee every year.

To be blunt, you don't have any clue what the costs really are. You are projecting your ideas into areas I seriously doubt you have any real data for.
Care to tell me exactly which line items in the UCLA budget should be reduced and by how much? If not, then how in the hell do you know what it takes to operate? >

You stated they did not need this money. The only way that is legitimate is if you have actual knowledge of thier budgets and can speak to exactly what should be cut.
It appears you don't have this knowledge and instead 'just know' they don't need this money. 
Frankly speaking, if you cannot speak to explicit details, you have ZERO basis to claim the budget is too big or not. You are speaking toward *your belief' of what things are rather than actual facts. 
It's amazing what happens when you realize your assumptions/beliefs are wrong.