My Daily Read: Rachel Shteir

“Not only do business, the professions, and government need college grads, but young Americans increasingly need a college degree to get a job at a middle-class level of income and benefits like health insurance and pensions.”

Your first mistake is to assume that the large transnational corporations that drive public policy debates and trade policy and legislation at the national level are at all interested in hiring Americans “at a middle-class level of income and benefits like health insurance and pensions.” Who says they want to do that?

People like Vedder, who have become the spokespersons of the national policy agenda driven by transnational corporations, are operating from the assumption that the US is going to continue to undergo a structural economic adjustment due to globalization that started with deindustrialization 30 years ago.

Educators largely ignored deindustrialization because it was precisely deindustrialization that was fueling the education sector. Indeed, fixing the “white working class” as the primary demographic site of racism and sexism (not coincidentally, we find Vedder griping about the University’s social agendas) has been a serious vocational interest for no few academics and (I emphasize) *well heeled* ivy league educated political commentators in the popular press during the entire course of deindustrialization, which just lends the working class to a too-easy scapegoating. Why would the educated be concerned with the lives of such obnoxious people? And, their kids need re-educating anyway.

But now the shoe has moved on to the other foot. Since there will be little corporate employment, neither the former white collar office workers who made the education sector positively BOOM over the 30 year course of deindustrialization nor local governments with declining tax receipts due to declining incomes and vacating corporations, will be well served by assuming education debt.

These are the key points underlying this entire drive to dismantle the perceived higher education bloat. If you can’t take account of these points, then you can’t respond to people like Vedder because you’re not addressing their fundamental macro-economic assumptions.

This is the elephant in the room. Everyone knows it’s in the room. Ignoring it and talking about everything else under the sun, even to the point of invoking that old hoary chestnut about “educating a critical citizenry” in the age of the death of civics–can you even remember civics?–is not going to move this debate forward.

Start addressing the real bone of contention, based upon how political power is actually operating in the US at the present time, or resign yourself to your fate–which at least some part of the US domestic population will no doubt think is well deserved as you join their swelling ranks.

I have decided to spend some time addressing this article. If you don’t want to waste your time reviewing my critique, just know that I find this article underwhelming and a rehash of tired arguments that completely miss the nuance of the current debate.

Has the cost of higher education come to outweigh the financial rewards for college over high school graduates? Do too many Americans go to college who are unqualified, unmotivated, and thus likely to drop out before graduation, and should more settle for vocational education?

*These are actually the relevant economic questions given the level of individual and federal investment, and a proper formulation of the issues.

“Such questions show a typical American tendency to restrict discussion of large social issues to the level of personal attitudes and options within the social status quo, rather than directing attention to the needs of society at large and what changes in its status quo may be necessary to meet those needs.”

*What you wrote above has no inherent meaning. Large social issues are a function of the individuals they impact. Also, enough with your fashionable reference to “typical American tendency.”

*Please do not cite political preferences as a means to curry favor with more Chronicle readers. Let your tired suggestion that “America needs more college graduates and so needs to enact policies to improve academic preparation in K-12 education and make college affordable…” stand or fall on its own merits.

*We do need more scientists and engineers. That does not justify enhanced federal investment to increase the number of college graduates or make college more affordable. If you think it does, talk to the vast numbers of employed/underemployed college graduates who pursued studies in fields where low/no need exists.

“Moreover, overwhelming evidence shows that taxes spent in support of public higher education are one of the most profitable investments a society can make. This was recognized in America for a century before the 1970s…”

*True, to an extent. It’s not as if we live in a world anymore where all college graduates are destined to be value-added members of society.

“Tax-funded universities provide further profits to the private sector…”

*Dollars could be invested in many entities which could provide further profits to the private sector. It is not as if universities are the only entities capable of buying things from the private sector.

“As individuals, most college graduates earn more, pay more taxes, and are healthier, better-informed citizens.”

*Fair point but your foundation for it is diminishing. The “earnings gap” between college and non-college grads is rising, plumbers earn more than many lib arts and other graduates, and much of the country is obese.

“Skyrocketing tuition”

*Sure, you can suggest that taxpayers commit even more resources in order to sustain current university infrastructure. That would reduce the crushing increases confronting students. You might also, just for a moment, consider the expense side..

“Higher costs and more exclusive admission standards amount to exclusion of those of lower financial and social status, including the poor, minorities, and working women with children.”

*Please study the success rate of less affluent students in a university setting.

“Finally, it would be most interesting to see Vedder’s “econometric estimation” of the national growth induced in the past decade by President Bush’s tax reductions and their consequences for the quality of American education, or of the cost effectiveness of public universities in that decade compared to corporate beneficiaries of tax cuts and deregulation, from Enron and Tyco to Goldman Sachs, AIG, General Motors, British Petroleum, and Bernard Madoff.”

*A final, sad red-herring to gain the support of the emotional readers instead of summarizing the key tenets of your argument.

The economic value of the G.I. Bill following World War II is either the most egregious example of “post hoc ergo propter hoc,” or evidence that such “government intervention” facilitates the economic value of education to our society. Same for programs such as FHA.

Speaking of “post hoc ergo propter hoc,” G.W. Bush lowered taxes, particularly for the wealthy. Let’s see, where did that lead? There is presently a group of millionaires who explicitly state that the wealthy should pay more taxes, and that decreasing taxes for the wealthy only makes them more wealthy-not more “productive.” That humility and honesty counters only part of the elaborate lullaby being sung nowadays, and many people are falling asleep. The “lack of funds” for education is totally contrived-raise taxes, stupid! When even Ben Stein is saying this on TV, we know we’re at the end of the bankrupt conservative mantra that fearfully warns us we should allow ourselves to continue to be “trickled” on. How has what G.H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics” worked out so far?

Parenthetically, I object to the notion of saying that someone should “settle” for vocational education. Plumbers make more money than some others because it’s a tough job, and its hard to find replacements for those who do it. Moreover, plumbing requires training and skill. The “Intellectual Life” is not the only life that has value-to the individual, or to our society.

A better-educated citizenry is obviously beneficial to the common weal, if not to the “next quarter” interests of Corporate America. This should necessitate government support for education of all stripes.

“So it makes no economic or moral sense at all that the financial burden of university education (and, indirectly, faculty research) has steadily shifted since the 1960s from tax revenue to individual students faced with skyrocketing tuition and the replacement of financial aid like scholarships with high-interest loans that can take a lifetime to repay”

It seems that M. Lazere has located the elephant in the room, along with its entourage of hobgoblins who are maniacally waving the student loan promissary notes. The blood signed onto these may not require the student to sell their souls but does come so close as to be indistinguishable. That condition alone is more than enough to undermine the idealism which is the foundation of much of Lazere’s own concepts about academe’s place in society.
Students may need a college degree to obtain the work, but at all levels these no longer can be belanced out insofar as the cost and tolls to get that job. In vo-tech this is also an issue because the debts outweigh potential income by a considerable margin and have done so even longer than for the professional class. And that’s compounded by the growth of expensive and often questionable for profit vo-techs.
The problem is that, should further government cutbacks slash into academe or the reliance on debt for education is allowed to further propagate-the essential idealism in academe which Lazere expounds will be eventually percieved as another social manipulation. For example locate a recently graduated MFA/PhD in humanities (they can often be located near the coffee machine or at the frying station)…and ask them what they genuinely feel about education. What you will often hear is avoidance of an answer or incredible resentment. That crises of belief is one of the most damaging aspects of the compromising of academe and the massive generational redirection of public support for its efforts. And it is quite dangerous socially because when even the stargazers lose faith it does not bode well for belief in our overall body politic.
That alone should be enough reason to restore some of the economic and social support for academe. Systemically if we allow academe to decay into yet another social ‘rent to own’ it is virtually insured that our next generation is going to opt out, and that could be destructive in a plethora of forms.

Well put. Also,

““soon face an acute shortage of scientists and engineers, which could undermine the country’s global lead in trade and jeopardize its ability to compete.”

I remember hearing this 15 years ago. It was a false warning then, and a false warning now. The job market for physical scientists is tight, and wages are not particularly high, especially compared to medicine and law. Also, getting marginal students to go to college is not going to produce more scientists and engineers. Almost everyone with IQs in the scientists/engineer range are already going to college.

“‘Innate’ means genetic, but nowhere does Vedder seriously consider the socioeconomic factors that discriminate in college preparation against poor students whose innate intelligence might equal that of wealthier ones.”

And nowhere does the author seriously consider the imact of genetics on intellectual ability. The facts are in, and genes do have a very substantial impact in intellegence, and that has real impact on academic performance. We are not blank slates.

The author assumes that because college graduates make nore money than non-college graduates, if we just make more graduates, we would all be better off. This ignores the obvious third factor that he is ignoring. Smart people make more money and are more likely to graduate. Creating more graduates will not create more smart people.

Mr. Lazere,

You tell us you will argue:

“. . . that America needs more college graduates and so needs to enact policies to improve academic preparation in K-12 education and make college affordable for large numbers of students who are now denied both adequate preparation and financial access”

then treat us to several hundred words peppered with platitudes and absent argument. In addition to failing to make your case — even to someone favorably inclined to it, as I am — you give the impression that you don’t have the first idea about how to bring these changes about. Change requires vision, concrete strategy, mastery of facts, and an understanding of available resources. Was it your intention to leave that work to someone else?

I agree that much of the disagreement and emotion is predicated on a tacit assumption of what there was to mean by “higher education” through 1950′s and does not apply to 2011. What does it say for our powers of observation that the construct could have evolved so far and wide without apparent notice?

Whatever we may think about the fact, higher education is now a mass market, consisting of countless sub-markets, and participated in by almost anyone who wishes to do so. Yes, different intellectual and affective dispositions, skills, and knowledge are required to be a chemist versus a respiratory therapist. So what? Both are important. Both represent “higher education.” Calling one “training” and the other “education” is scientifically unjustified, unhelpful arrogance. I have no doubt that the mean IQ of the former is 1 SD higher than the latter. So what again? How does making this distinction advance society, the economy, or the access and affordability crisis? An interesting aside: the 10-year ROI on respiratory therapy is higher than chemistry and the opportunity cost of the time-to-degree differential (a metric too important for anyone to measure and report) is such that the chemist may never catch up.

RWT says, “Change requires vision, concrete strategy, mastery of facts, and an understanding of available resources. Was it your intention to leave that work to someone else?”

I was answering Vedder’s claim, “I think many of the kinds going to college are innately superior to begin with.” I said, “‘Innate’ means genetic, but nowhere does Vedder seriously consider the socioeconomic facts that discriminate in college preparation against poor students whose innate intelligence might equal that of wealthier ones.” So the immediate burden of proof here should no be on me but on Vedder and other commentators here who do fact face up to these factors. Our entire society has long been in denial about the gross injustice against the poor in education, mainly due to inequities in school-district incomes and tax bases. I do not have a program for addressing this dire problem, I am just criticizing Vedder and all the politicians, corporations, and media pundits whose social and education program for America evades this national disgrace. How about holding THEM accountable, RWT?

Donald Lazere

“a better growth strategy would be to put the entire Michigan state government on a starvation diet in order to finance a reduction in the overall tax burden.” They come right out and say it.

Raised in Escanaba, MI, I know intimately the machinations of the Mackinac institute. The very thing was founded by a far right wing newspaper publisher in order to produce and disseminate very hostile very far right wing propaganda to small town newspapers in the midwest. I can spot their crap from a thousand miles away.

But the real crap is this quidditas character’s bizarre blathering, claiming that “[E]ducators largely ignored deindustrialization because it was precisely deindustrialization that was fueling the education sector.” I may not be one of his well heeled elect, but how can I possibly have ignored the commanding numbers of students in my classes over the past 25 years, grown increasingly scared, cynical, and utterly exhausted from their part-time jobs doing the scut work out on the “belt highway”?

As his “macroeconomic trends” consign them–and me–to the “swelling ranks” of the wholly disenfranchised that he seems to be, creepily, celebrating….

Oh I dunno. Really. I give up. Maybe if I take a Latin nickname and start harking at the liberals about civic discourse from somewhere far far far away from where we work every day…..

There can be little doubt that opportunity, in higher education and elsewhere, favors the rich and the smart. At one time, higher education existed to serve these two groups exclusively. Neither is there any doubt that a middle-class student possessing an IQ 0f 115 (+1SD) will find more opportunities in higher education and will find himself better prepared for them than will an underclass student possessing the same IQ. (Interestingly, I think the disadvantage will not be so great or will not exist at all for the underclass student with a 145 IQ.) It does not follow from these facts that you have established or even produced reasonably compelling evidence for your case. That was my point.

Here we go, to follow up on my point about large transnational corporations:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/04/david-wessel-big-us-firms-shift-hiring-abroad.html
David Wessel, WSJ: “Big U.S. Firms Shift Hiring Abroad”

You are attributing to me my explanation of Vedder’s underlying assumptions. And, yes, liberal academia as a body did largely ignore deindustrialization as a national economic trend of significance, the inarticulate bodies in your local classroom *feeding its bottom line* and *issuing YOUR (not my) paycheck* notwithstanding.

Academia also railroaded labor history off the side of the road with the advent of identity politics as the new leftism in the 1960s. Mackinac harassing the remaining outposts now is just the latest in a long line of outrage.

Yeah, you should give up. That was the point of the whole cross-ideological onslaught in the first place.

Sorry, I wasn’t mainly thinking of you in saying many of these comments are just snide derision with no substantive refutation.

However, how about your producing “reasonably compelling evidence for your case that “the disadvantage will not be so great or will not exist at all for the underclass student with a 145 IQ IQ”? I do not know at what age or under what circumstances IQ is first tested, but isn’t it plausible that many underclass students suffer from such heavy social and economic disadvantages that they never make it to the stage of IQ testing, or are sufficiently damaged not to achieve to their innate level if they do?

Concerning your more recent comment, you evade what IS my main point, that communities like mine in East Tennessee are undeniably dependent on the economic and civic benefits provided by public higher education and other tax-funded services, but people have been duped by conservative Republicans and Democrats alike into believing they don’t need to pay taxes to support them. Whether other sources of funding might conceivably be found seems marginal to the tangible reality that taxes spent on higher education are recouped by communities many times over.

To RWT:

In your last response, you say I claimed “unspecified benefits” of public universities to their communities. However, in my paragraph beginning “Moreover, overwhelming evidence shows that taxes spent in support of public higher education are one of the most profitable investments a society can make” and in following paragraphs, I specified a long (though only partial) list of such benefits, and there have been ample economic studies supporting such claims. If you have contrary evidence to any of these benefits, please specify.

The problem is not that the public disagree about these benefits. In college towns where I have lived, including Knoxville, San Luis Obispo, Iowa City, and Berkeley, the university virtually IS the town, and everyone knows it. The problem is that conservative propagandists have been poisoning the public’s mind against all government (except military and police) and particularly against public K-12 and higher education, going back to when Reagan was elected governor of California running against “the mess at Berkeley.” In times of economic decline, scapegoats are needed, and public education has been an easy target. Republicans pretend to be just “trimming the fat” from education budgets, but as is obvious in Wisconsin, their stealth aim is to destroy all public sectors where liberals and Democrats are prevalent. Their mentor is Grover Norquist, whose mission is to shrink government down to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.

Meanwhile, conservatives are not the least concerned about trimming the fat from the Pentagon or from mega-corporations that are demonstrably far more wasteful and in countless recent cases more corrupt than any public university in the country. Isn’t the bottom line that people feel helpless against corporate power, so they take out their frustration on sectors that they do have some control over, like government and education?

I wrote, “The return on tax-funded investment in public higher education is beyond measure in the undergraduate and graduate education of both employers and employees in virtually every industry and profession.” How would you go about quantifying that? One good test would be to close down public colleges and universities, and to see how much it would cost industry and the professions to do their job training and research, instead of feeding at the public trough.

I gave a detailed list of areas in which universities also create jobs, contribute to corporate profits, pay taxes, and create large investment funds. What do you want, a detailed accounting ledger? Isn’t it up to conservative economists like Vedder, who claim to deny the value of these benefits, to do that accounting? He has failed to do so in his book and articles.

Nugatory – I’ve tried to help here as well because I think good state-level analyses are worthwhile. I wasn’t able to get through. One problem in academia is that too few have any real idea of how publics fit into local, state, and the national economy. Lots of myth and grand sounding ideas and little factual knowledge.

dlazere – You are consistently mistaking critical appraisal of process with rejection of content. I have no disdain for the humanities; certain areas are a lifelong passion for me and I have considerable education in them. Neither have I reached the conclusion you impute to me that public higher education isn’t worth the public expenditure (although it is dangerously close to that in some areas). My personal conclusion runs in the opposite direction but for specific, empirically supported reasons. What I’m saying (I’ve lost track of how many times/ways), is that you haven’t done your homework. You are making claims which are empirical to their core (some facets require operational definitions as well, which you also fail to supply). Then you support these empirical claims with generalizations that are too vague and imprecise to be refuted (in Popper’s sense) and which I believe and in some cases know to subsume both truth and falsehood. Have you never had a student make a grand, ill-defined, and conceptually muddy assertion and found yourself saying, “Well, what you say has merit but you have not expressed it in a way that it is either correct or can be properly assessed?” That is what I am saying to you. I assume that we are both open to being corrected and learning new things. My suggestion is to get with some economics and social policy folks and see what you can come up with based on extant data. That will cost time rather than money and in a few months, you will have a solid case, whatever it turns out to be.

(1) You would have to specify to which of Mr. Vedder’s many assertions you are referring. He has borrowed from my writing in places without attribution and that can be irritating but my larger concern is that we develop an open, transparent, and accountable market in higher education. I think he is generally correct in noting (as I did in the mid-1990′s) the counter-effects of Title IV on access and affordability. I think he is generally correct in noting (as I did in the mid-1990′s) that public higher education, especially, has become grossly inefficient and unaccountable. I think his knowledge of for-profits it too superficial and narrow to justify his views on them, positive and negative. And so on. (2) I don’t waste my time with the Tea Party. Clearly is is a polymorphous term identified with by rational people concerned with what they see as the excessive growth in the size and powers of the federal government and ideologues who use the label to pursue various irrational agendas such as an unregulated capital market. We have always had a lunatic fringe and, now, some of them are seeking shelter under the “Tea Party” umbrella. Who cares!

If you really want to help public higher education, do what you can to help them become more self-sufficient, efficient, transparent, and accountable. Most important, help them lower their per-student budgetary growth to no more than the CPI after, first, lowering it by 5% a year for the next five years. Mr. Vedder is absolutely correct in noting that the publics’ price advantage is disappearing. As that happens, they lose even more market share and the graveyard spiral tightens.

Bedalvi’s parsing of one of Mr. Vedder’s locutions is correct in a small way but not material. I have to say that I don’t see much too much substantive analysis in any of these recent blogs on this topic. None of it appears to understand the actual behavior of students in the market. None of it appreciates the comprehensive judgments of employers. Mr. Vedder’s original blog and his response to you remains at the safely vague level for which I criticized your blog. However, in contrast to Mr. Donoghue’s blog (which is embarrassing uneducated ranting) both of you are serious, concerned, and presumably open to new facts.

I’ll be in touch.

I also am looking for a part-time teaching job, having recently retired with 32 years of middle school classroom experience. One option is a community college and the other is a private college. I have a Masters of Arts in Education, but both colleges want your major to be content specific for that class (although I have “highly qualified” status in both areas.)  I am hoping for an interview, nonetheless. What is the difference between a “part-time” salary and an “adjunct” salary in the middle of Kansas?

Three years ago a community college provost approached us at Temple University,  because she wanted to hire faculty who had some preparation in “how to teach.”  She valued the content expertise her faculty brought to her institution (either through advanced degrees or professional experience) but wanted some pedagogy expertise too.  So, we developed Temple’s 6 credit “Teaching in Higher Education Certificate.” The curriculum addresses how people learn and research-based best practices. It’s a great way to enhance your teaching and your professional credentials. The coursework has been offered at several sites in the Philadelphia region, but no matter where you live, you can join us online as of spring 2012. Click here to learn about requirements, and also to read an Inside Higher Ed article about this unique program:  http://www.temple.edu/tlc/events/thec/non-matriculation_track.htm   
If you’d like to know more, don’t hesitate to contact us at tlc@temple.edu.

They are the same, Crossing Bridges.  I’m in the middle of Kansas here, too.

It’s not just the colleges that want your major to be content-specific; it’s the state.  I don’t know what you want to teach, but you can’t teach math (for example) unless you had 18 grad hours in math.  It doesn’t matter how good you were at what you DID major in.

And you will also run into the problem of prejudice against an MA in Education.  It’s widely viewed as the degree K-12 teachers get in order to earn a pay raise, rather than a subject-matter degree that would allow a person to teach at the college level.

Whether either of these facts are fair is another question, but they are the walls you’ll have to climb.

Well, thanks for your input. It really makes sense considering the time I have waited, after sending in everything they required, and making a personal visit to the facility and meeting face to face with the ‘secretary’….still no interview invitation.  It’s too bad, because, as you said, it really doesn’t matter how good I am in that subject area with years of experience. I know I am a dynamic instructor and would make a major impact with students. What website would you suggest I go to to read about state requirements for content-specific college teaching degrees? Aren’t there any exceptions?  My MA in Education was hard work with quality courses, albeit a ‘general’ degree, and although the pay increase for one year was helpful, my true intent was to teach at the college level after retirement from public schools! 

Betsy,

The numbers are disheartening, but I do appreciate the perspective they reveal. While I have had positive discussions with my dean about his belief that I am qualified for a F/T position, that may be more wishful thinking than reality. I have been teaching F/T college or high school since 2003, so I am not as new as I may appear (perhaps is the sense of hope and optimism in my posts that suggest newness). If, after a couple of years, I cannot find a F/T post, I likely will quit teaching adjunct or realign my goals. I refuse to be the metaphorical protagonist waiting for the “true love” of a TT job that will never come. 

I detect in this article an unfortunate perpetuation of the “adjunct as temporary” mindset that diminishes our professional stature in academia. I’m proud of the 3+ years I’ve taught at a community college, of my two masters degrees that have kept me marketable, and of the wonderful teaching experience I’ve gained. But as long as Mr. Sweeney and others continue to refer to the adjunct status as a means to another (more profitable, more appreciated, more professionally acceptable) position Adjuncts everywhere will be thought of as more transient and less effective than we are.

Experience helps, but the system is manipulated by an exploitative culture. Administrators, unions, and tenured faculty have professions. Adjuncts have jobs. The system supplies a continuous flow of new ma/ms/mfa et al. every semester to compete and replace the previous adjuncts who eventually realize they simply cannot sustain a middle class life because of the restricted contracts negotiated by the administrations and unions representing only tenured faculty.

If you find the classroom the most intellectually engaging work environment, if you believe you have a vocation, if you find teaching the most challenging and rewarding experience of your life, it doesn’t matter. Administrators, union leaders, and tenured faculty have professions.

Adjuncts have jobs.

Unfortunately many of us baby boomers had been adjuncts or taking temp jobs for many years, so when we did get a full-time job we were in our 40s or even 50s, so now we are doing catch-up so we can retire, but we often don’t have enough money or time in to do so.

How does one get the experience required, when I can’t obtain employment because I have no experience?

A a public university, the University of Maryland spends an average of $67,389 on each athlete and then wants more state support for programs?  Even worse in Florida at $118,813 per athlete!  This reveals the underlying problems with university sports that led to the disaster at Penn State.

What do they spend on football, men’s and women’s basketball and lacrosse?  Perhaps they should consider reducing expenditures in these over resourced and overstaffed programs, and save some of the other programs that they have on the chopping block. The student athletes in the programs proposed for elimination probably have stronger academic profiles, and a greater appreciation for the academic and athletic opportunities that they have available to them; they are not the student athletes asking to be paid more, and most of them are probably not slated to receive the $2,000 in additional support toward the full cost of attendance.  This is where the NCAA reforms do not go far enough.  If the Presidents are really serious about true reform and concern for rising costs, they will take steps to:  (1) reduce scholarship allocations further in the high profile sports of football (FBS and FCS), and men’s and women’s basketball; (2) reduce the number of coaching positions in all of these sports (do basketball programs really need 5 full time coaches and other support staff to manage 12 kids?); (3) reduce the number of non-coaching staff positions that are permissable; (4) reduce the competition schedules (and missed class time) in certain sports (basketballs, baseball and softball, among others), and (5) consider ways to place reasonable caps on operating and salary expenditures; for the latter, there are of course certain challenges, and an antitrust exemption may have to be sought, but the fact of the matter is that high profile football and basketball coaches are simply paid too much, disproportionate to their true value and contribution to the whole.  The high profile men’s programs (and not women’s sports or gender equity requirements) are largely responsible for the lion’s share of the cost issues, and this has an adverse impact on other programs and student athletes, many of which much more closely resemble the “collegiate” model of intercollegiate play. Until the NCAA and institutions of higher education get their arms wrapped around this and really tackle the core issues, corruption will continue, and the lower profile programs will get squeezed.

I now see that athletics are still for the alumni members since no popular sport is cut, despite the declining revenues from football and basketball.

oh thanks