Today I am really really disappointed in MIT, my alma mater. Yesterday they officially announced that they are cutting eight varsity sports. No longer will we be able to say we offer "the most varsity sports of any university."
The stupidest part about it is the reason: "the severity of the economic downturn." Cutting these sports will apparently save $485,000. Compare that to MIT's endowment of $10B (yes, that is billion). And MIT's endowment actually rose in fiscal year 2008 by 3.2%, or $88M!
So let me get this straight. MIT has $10B and recently made $88M on it, and is cutting something dear to the MIT community that costs a meager $485K. That is pure insanity. What is the endowment for if not to protect things in uncertain times that people care deeply about? Adding insult to injury, it was only a few years ago that MIT spent over $50M on a new athletic center. So you spend all that money and then cut sports at a small fraction of that cost?
Not only that, look at what they are cutting. Among the sports is MIT's pistol team, which has historically been one of the best performing MIT sports. In 2007, they won the national championship, beating out Army and Navy! And that is not the first time. Yes, you read that right--Army and Navy...
To some, perhaps most, this may not seem like a big deal. MIT students don't play sports, right? Wrong! MIT has long prided itself with it's sports offerings and participation. It is also used as a recruiting tool. I've been interviewing students for admission for several years now, and it pretty much comes up in every interview. That stat about our breadth of sports quickly puts to rest any doubts that MIT students do nothing more than academics. Believe it or not, this is paramount on most prospective students' minds.
I guess the bottom line is I just don't get it. It is a trivial amount of money compared to the MIT endowment. I can understand that bureaucracy may have created this problem. That is, the administration asks every department to cut 15%, and this is what the athletic department came up with. But then the administration should step in and revoke this short-sighted idea.
MIT is almost a 150-year-old institution and they are managing it like a public company who are slaves to quarterly earnings. The endowment has been growing steadily for decades. Yes, this might be a bad year. But there will be good ones again soon. Just the same as you shouldn't over-spend in the good years, you shouldn't under-spend in the bad ones. MIT should take a long-term view and consistently maintain the average MIT experience and culture. Why would anyone want to donate to an institution that is managing their endowment so poorly?
