New Book Examines Differences Between Universities With and Without Big-Time Sports

March 24, 2011, 1:12 pm

In Big-Time Sports in American Universities, a new book out from Cambridge University Press, Charles T. Clotfelter examines what some describe as the outsize role athletics plays on many American campuses. Below, the Duke University professor of public policy, economics, and law answers a few of our questions about his work.

You’ve written about school desegregation, the growth of state lotteries, and the rising price of college. What about college sports attracted your attention?

Like a lot of Americans, I have been a fan of college sports from early on, so it was second-nature to me that people might get very invested in the fortunes of college teams. What I did not expect, before I took my first faculty position, was that college sports would be a subject of such intense interest among otherwise serious and studious professors. I began to realize the powerful hold that big-time college sports has on people, and universities, is one of those “ever-present but overlooked” aspects of life that social scientists are taught to look out for.

What were the main questions your book attempted to answer?

I address two questions. The first is the naïve question you might imagine being asked by an educated visitor from abroad, whose experience with universities did not include a commercial sports enterprise: “What is this stadium doing here?” That is, what role does commercial sports play in American universities? The second question is a natural one for economists: What are the costs and benefits? Although it’s not feasible to answer this second question in quantitative terms, I believe it’s useful to think in these terms, and to answer the question not only at the level of the university but also for society at large.

What surprised you the most?

First, how fundamental the commercial sports enterprise is to the universities that do this. Many American universities, among them some of our most famous, get along very nicely without big-time sports. But for those that have it, big-time sports is not some optional add-on that could be easily jettisoned or down-graded. Although these universities seldom mention sports in their published mission statements, this enterprise takes on the look and feel of a core mission.

The second surprise was that big-time sports is not the unmitigated evil I perhaps expected it would turn out to be when I started my research. There are costs, to be sure–measured in terms of dollars and compromised values. But there are benefits as well, some of the most important of which spill over beyond the campus walls. Not only does big-time college sports produce happiness, it also acts as a virtuous example of interracial tolerance and cooperation.

You examined students at universities with and without big-time sports. What were your main findings?

One of the most interesting comparisons used a survey of students at eight highly selective, private research universities, half of which have big-time football and basketball and half of which have neither. Compared to the students at the universities with neither, those at big-time sports universities spent less time, on average, in class and less time studying outside of class, but more time in organized extra-curricular activities. They were also more likely to engage in binge drinking. (These differences were not caused by, but certainly were associated with, having a university with big-time sports.)

Looking at students at public and private universities, I found that those attending big-time sports universities were more likely to say they would attend their university again if they had it to do over again, but they were not, on the whole, more consistently satisfied with the quality of their collegiate experience.

On the whole, did you walk away feeling like colleges are better or worse for their infatuation with big-time sports?

I did a comparison of the change in rankings over 15 years of measures used by U.S. News for three groups of universities: those with big-time football and basketball, those with Division I basketball only, and those with neither. There was no perceptible trend. Among private universities only, those with the greatest commitment to sports actually did a little better than those in the other two groups, based on changes in objective measures used by U.S. News over the last 15 years.

Evidently, the costs associated with running a big-time sports program are not so great that they overwhelm the benefits, at least using these measures. But there are intangible costs associated with big-time sports that universities do pay, among them a kind of collective insincerity when they pretend that commercial sports is not important to them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

sarahebel

Who lands in your Final Four under those scenarios?
11293505

I hope the book is more incisive than this waffling, inconclusive interview.
_perplexed_

My guess is that the positive effect of big-time sports among private universities is due largely to USC– a sports powerhouse that is among the very few institutions to actually improve substantially in the U.S. News rankings during this period.
hariseldon

I can’t help but wonder whether his results were biased by his prejudices. I also wonder whether US NEWS rankings, which are heavily dependent on the prejudices of various constituencies, is the right tool for the job.
darccity

The author neglects the most disturbing “trend” in big-time college sports: insulating athletics budgets by creating into a separate foundation. Thus, when the record recession and ensuing state budget crisis clobbered higher ed funding (big-time sports are state universities except for a handful, notably Notre Dame, BYU, USC, Duke, Stanford, Vandy, Boston College, Rice, Tulane, and Northwestern), athletics budgets were immune and even expanded. Despite zero operating costs for their “amateur” employees, athletic programs lose money (including the biggest, Ohio St.); and creative accounting drastically low balls these losses because “student athletes” share use of university facilities and the classrooms. Most U.S. students never attend a single athletic event, but are charged huge “fees” that are added onto escalating tuition. Research refutes the common rationale that athletic success translates to higher donations or more freshman applications. These studies find that sports donors are no more generous than others. The most cynical benefit of big-time sports is that the athletes (usually exhausted from living in the weight room) are often the only ones attending classes (NCAA requirement) — regular students are too hung over from partying. How sad! Read “Beer and Circus” by Murray Sperber for additional insights.
manoflamancha

I read this as a Puff Piece…very little science done on correlating data, or even doing a proper research job of it. Shame.
marvchron

Students expect you to take calls from students at all hours.
11267276

Clotfelter is a respected economist. This article does not go into the statistical models at all; before making judgments about “puff pieces” or “biases” one needs to actually read the book.
roybartels

* You don’t own a laptop
* You do own a laptop but you turn it off every time you finish using it
* You do own a laptop but you never use it unless it is connected to external power
* You have trouble grading online assignments without watching “World’s Biggest Loser”
* You think pencil & paper tests are the only true measure of student learning
* You never heard of EBSCO
* You think Wikipedia is THE authoritative online source of information
http://www.facebook.com/Reedonly Brad Reed

…if you have fewer than three email accounts.

…if you still file stuff in an actual filing cabinet.

…if you still distinguish “work” from “home life.”
david_balch

I loved the post and the replies. They came it just the right time to put a little humor in my day.
Like many professors, I live their fantasy – drinking a cup of coffee, sitting in my “p.js”, not sitting on the freeway for an hour each way, having to clean up the classroom since my prior user was just wayyyyyy tooooo busy to do that dull work, and on and on.
Are there problems? Yes, but my guess is those are more related to the professor than the delivery method.
Well, back to my coffee :-) and I think there is something on my BIG screen TV that needs my attention and my cell phone is ringing, but I think I will just let it ring.
mmcknight

-You have never Skyped.
-You don’t know how to use a Mac.
cynical5

I have a PhD, from a respectable university, and I had to look up “microcopy”; perhaps I should not be an online educator, or have a PhD for that matter. But I love the comments!
drtanssein

I agree with Rob…. & I get a good response by teaching German online through Facebook…
minnesotan

Agreed. Students will contact you when they feel like it. If you’ve never let them have your cell number (and good on ya for that!), then just have a look at the email timestamps from their messages for a week. You will note that they do not distinguish between AM and PM when they want an answer. I really don’t feel like fielding questions about “What did I miss in class today?” at 4:30am on a Tuesday.
profalbrecht

You probably shouldn’t teach online if you have a dial up modem.
profalbrecht

You probably shouldn’t teach online if you have a dial up modem at home.
palladio

SOMETHING OF INTEREST TO ME WOULD BE AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER COLLEGE ATHLETICS IS JUST SOME BIG PONZI SCHEME. IT USED TO THAT UNIVERSITY WAS ALL ABOUT PREPARING ONE TO HAVE A ROLE IN THE ECONOMY. THESE DAYS WE WONDER WHY AMERICA IS FAILING EDUCATIONALLY-JUST LOOK AT COLLEGES. FOR THE MOST PART IT’S ALL ABOUT SPORTS & BRINGING IN TICKET REVENUE & ADVERTISING REVENUE & BUILDING SPORTS RESORTS. WHAT HAPPENED TO ACADEMICS? DO ANY OF THESE STUDENTS REALLY GO TO CLASS? I BET NO. I BET THEY ARE GETTING A FREE RIDE & DEANS GIVE PROFESSORS MARCHING ORDERS TO GIVE THEM PASSING GRADES. YOU CANNOT MAJOR IN ENGINEERING OR PRE-MED IF YOU HAVE 3 GAMES A WEEK. YOU CERTAINLY CAN’T BE LEARNING TOPOLOGY IF YOU ARE NOT IN CLASS. WE ARE SUBSIDIZING THE FARM TEAM FOR THE PROS & DOING STUDENTS A TREMENDOUS DISSERVICE WITH THIS SCHEME. I MEAN REALLY–TO SUBSIDIZE A STUDENT BECAUSE HE PLAYS FOOTBALL WELL–IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE TICKET SALES OR ALUMNI DONATIONS–ALL FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF HAVING STATUS–WHAT ABOUT THOSE STUDENTS WHO ARE THERE FOR ACADEMICS?
interface

Jesus God, everything on this page is an embarrassment.
yes_gotocollege

It is true, figuring out the college process can be difficult and overwhelming, even for those who are not first-generation college-seekers.

We all should be committed to helping students and parents go through the process in a reflective and educational (and yes, enjoyable) way.

So, until (please do not hold your breath) our society is willing to put “real” $ for guidance counselors, college counseling assistance programs, college preparation programs (such as TRIO), funding, etc-all assistance should be welcomed.

Let’s do what is best for our furture-help our students, however it is possible.

Let’s keep sharing good, free websites. Another website which will be offering free services, I am told that will be up in a month is:
http://www.newpathtocollege.com
muntzp

Andrew Ferguson says “One out of four students enrolled in a private college or university hired a private counselor to help through admissions.” I’d love to know where he gets that stat because it simply can’t be factual. Perhaps there might be a certain profile of private institution where that might be true, but not across the board. Almost 5 million students attend private colleges and universities in the US (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372). Did 1.25 million of them use an independent counselor to help them with the admission process?
lsadc

How about some statistics and hard data from an objective source? What percentage of consultants’ clients are pro bono? What percentage of clients are from public schools? The terms “many” and “for the most part” are too vague in this article. I am skeptical of her assertions without some evidence to back up her claims.
hoosierbeth

JAKARLSON-People who have more resources, like wealthy people, can buy bigger houses, nicer cars, better health care, and can afford to eschew the resources provided by the public sector by opting to pay for programs offered by the private sector. This is why private schools and religious schools, in particular, exist. Its the reality of life in a free-market economy. Do you think we should tell the companies that make Hummer and Lexus cars that they shouldn’t make those cars anymore because people who aren’t affluent can’t afford to buy them? Should we prevent people from sending their kids to Catholic or other private school because poor people can’t afford them?
richardtaborgreene

Americans cannot do it and would not do it well—so you Brits doing it is a great idea and will help us all. The average parent and kid need reminding of what the whole civilization thing entails.