That tuition is the sticker cost, not ND's marginal cost.
by tdiddy07 (2019-01-10 11:28:44)

In reply to: It's certainly relevant  posted by jt


How does that make ND's marginal cost relevant?




The sticker cost of tuition is about as relevant
by KeoughCharles05  (2019-01-10 12:54:03)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

as the chargemaster cost of health care.


To an 18 year old making $200k in endorsement deals
by tdiddy07  (2019-01-10 13:58:00)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

it is the true cost of the product. That seemed to be the idea I was responding to.


it's actually not
by jt  (2019-01-10 14:08:05)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

you would have to be making even more than that to pay full freight.

And I assume that the 200k would go on a schedule C and there would be related deductions for that income that would actually bring it down substantially.

And most importantly, I would imagine that the VAST majority of kids would fall well below that 200k of income.


the tuition presumes that is what it would cost the player
by jt  (2019-01-10 11:32:28)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

which is misleading in a variety of ways, as really only the wealthiest pay full sticker cost.

The argument was made that these kids should basically just shut up and appreciate the value of what they're getting, and the 350k number is often thrown about as the "value" of what they're getting. I'm saying that the schools benefit an awful lot more than the players in these scenarios and that the cost isn't really 350k to ND nor would it be 350k to the player, though I agree that many/most of these players wouldn't gain acceptance to ND based on their high school transcripts/test scores/etc. (though would also argue that ND's demand would be lower without it's historical draw in football).


In your example, the player got an NFL paycheck
by tdiddy07  (2019-01-10 12:32:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

and then went back to get a degree--unless I'm misreading your statement about first going on the open market and then turning around and paying his tuition (Maybe it just means getting some likeness licensing money). In that example, unless he is financially irresponsible, he is likely to pay full freight. I wasn't following what you were getting at.

If you would rather cite figures of average real costs to the average student in the high school applicant's shoes, there is some merit to that. Of course, those that are below a certain threshold will have virtually identical costs to any school meeting 100 percent of need. Maybe the market cost is actually nothing or is like $15-20k a year, which it was for me. But in that example, the value of the ND degree in particular will certainly be more valuable than that of many other schools recruiting him. Thus, the sticker cost is likely a better capture of ability to gain return on investment from ND (the broader value that is being gained for future earning purposes).

But in any situation, the marginal cost to ND is of absolutely no value whatsoever in assessing the value to the player.


The value of an ND degree is in the millions over
by 84david  (2019-01-10 11:48:54)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

a working lifetime.


maybe, maybe not
by jt  (2019-01-10 12:27:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

depends on how you determine the "worth."

To a football player, perhaps not. To a future attorney, perhaps it is.