Re: cost vs benefit
Whatever dude.... It does not cost one.single.cent.more to let some random guy sit in a classroom. In general college costs are unjustifiable. To come here and ask "if anyone has undertaken a study" is folly. Makes me wonder if in fact YOU are not some administrative nutcase! You certainly follow the company line.
(Emphasis mine)
I find it ironic that you claim someone else is following some ideological stereotype and use that against them, when by those same criteria you're as blatantly jaded - some might call you a 'pot-smoking smelly hippy whose home is about to be raided by the FBI because you've been attending anti-war protests and may be a terrorist.'
ANYWAY, that nonsense aside: please, for your sake, for the sake of your loved ones, and for the sake of any creditors you will have, never, NEVER open a business. At least, make sure you've closed shop before the end of the Obama administration. You'll find that your philosophy of 'well, the resources are already paid for and in place, it doesn't cost anything to let a few people use them for free because at this point they're free' won't get you far. In other words: yes, letting some random person sit in on classes has a tangible cost. It uses faculty and TA time, affects the class size and grade statistics for the school which can lead to lost prospective students, and many other factors down the line - and that's ignoring the big kahuna, the fact that
they could fill that seat with anyone else and make thousands. That's called 'opportunity cost,' for you liberal arts majors.
Moving on to this group as a whole. Yes, osorojo has a checkered past. But you all are just a bunch of childish *******s. For once he comes up with a valid question, not phrased in an incendiary manner to anyone, and it's a very
pertinent point it today's discussions of the BTHC and how schools will afford to keep teams around. So, what it comes down to, is grow up children, you try to be funny, but don't feel to good about it - that's just narcissism and herd mentality. I only lament you aren't lemmings. Maybe you are, there's just no cliffs nearby.
Finally, to address your question directly, osorojo. I don't know of any study done. But if I can address your reasoning thus far, if I understand correctly:
You claim that a scholarship to a hockey player represents a fixed cost to the university - the value of the scholarship, X. As the player plays, I guess the assumption would go that he is responsible for some portion of the money the school takes in for tickets, concessions, merch, whatever, which I'll call Y. You're wondering whether or not a player who leaves early makes the inequality Y > X true.
The big thing I see there is the assumption that X is indeed a fixed cost. If a player leaves after two years of a four year scholarship, ostensibly he's no longer costing the university his space in the classroom, which then for two years they can sell and make money on. Then the question is if Y > (X/n) is true.
