Cost Allocation in Kingston State University - Case Study Example

Total Direct Cost Men=$ 5, 699, 177, Women=$2, 380, 285.

Less Football Men=3,352, 977.

Total Number of Students, Male=283, Women=191.

Eliminated Men, 95, Women=0.

Total Cost Per Male=12, 479.79.

Total Cost per Female=12, 462.23.

The total cost per male and female student-athlete if football is eliminated will be 29, 101 for males and29084 for women. The total cost per woman did not change because they did not participate in football. However, the total cost per men reduced because the number of footballers was reduced. The current cost per athlete is almost average making it fair in terms of Title IX.

Additional female hockey teams will reduce the cost per female athlete from 29, 084 to 25,689 while the cost per athlete for male athletes will remain unchanged. This will be against Title IX because the difference in cost is higher per athlete thus implying that less cost is allocated per female compared to what is put for male athletes. The additional cost will reduce the direct cost while the indirect cost will remain unchanged through the increase in a lot of female athletes will mean that indirect cost will be reduced. The institution should ensure that the total cost per athlete is equal regardless of gender as stated by Title IX. That is the only sure way they can comply with the act.

When the number of events is used as a basis for calculating indirect cost, the total indirect cost for male athletes will be 3.817,029 while that for female athletes will be 4,061,469. In that regard, the total cost per athlete will be 33, 6262 for males while that of females will be 34, 904.