next »

[Forums Moderator]

The National Collegiate Athletic Association issued last week what amounts to a report card for all of its Division I teams. The grades showed that roughly 20 percent of teams are on track to graduate less than half of their athletes. Next year the association will begin taking away scholarships from teams when their athletes flunk out. Is that plan fair? Will it have the intended affect? Will the approach promote academic integrity in Division I sports? Read more...

[%sig%]

[Ceceilia Haasis]

We all know that college is for academic pursue not athletic prowess. But, to many schools have lost sight of the prize, graduating students, substituting  NCAA trophies instead.

I don't think that the new ruling will change anything, colleges will just get alumni and other resources to foot the bill for failing student's, in the end we all pay the price, another student with no future.

[Mike Fulford]

My concern about the reform is that is still does not change the way the institutions support student-athletes.  Unfortunately, they are bound by rules that other students are not in terms of flexibility.  What is the educational component from these policies to help institutions look at new ways of doing things?

[Anonymous]

The title of the forum may be misleading as schools will not have to literally "pay" when a student 'flunks out', therefore, alumni and colleges will not have to foot the bill if Ms. Haasis's comment was meant in a literal sense.  Penalties could include the loss of a scholarship for a team's given number of scholarships and could not be reawarded to another student within a given period of time.
Regarding 'another student with no future', some coaches/schools would argue that offering certain students, perhaps more impoverished ones,  a chance at a college education with an athletic scholarship is akin to offering them a chance at a future regardless of whether or not they end up graduating.  Further, that the exposure to higher education for some students alone is worth it and may have some positive benefits to the individual.
The new legislation will hopefully get coaches/schools to look critically at a potential recruit knowing that their team will be negatively affected if the student didn't have the best intentions in wanting a college education and attempting to succeed academically as well as athletically.
Colleges have to be concerned about retention rates but if any student, athlete or non, leaves the university it doesn't mean he/she wasn't gaining an education along the way.

[nycfan]

The most probable outcome will be for the schools at risk of such sanctions to continue stuffing weak students into fluff courses, hire "tutors" to "help" them write papers, and otherwise give the illusion that  "student-athletes" wind up with what are increasingly worthless degrees.

The incentive to cheat will remain as long as the financial incentives to do so are so great.

[Gloria Chamberlin, Adult Grad]

Perhaps Harvard should set the example by highlighting the real problem to begin with: Colleges are taking too long to review their applications. They should have  rotating seasonal applicants, not making graduate wait a year to be reviewed for one year in advance! Duh..

This is signicant since millions of dollars are involved in government guaranteed student loans and indebtedness. Any questions? Then perhaps is the degree confering that needs revamping altogether.

"Been there, having waited too long for rice-bowl santimony".

[wondering]

Gloria, what forum are you responding to. This forum is on student athletes, not admissions.

[Theresa Tiso, Stony Brook Univ]

As a former Div I volleyball coach, and current academic administrator, I wonder just how much this will work.  It seems as if the NCAA is approaching the problem piecemeal, instead of an overall "Summit on Collegiate Athletics."  It just means more paperwork for already overworked and underfunded compliance departments.  Increasing the paper work only increases the layers of bureaucracy and contributes to inefficiency at all levels of athletics adminstration.  Those who are wont to cheat, will cheat, regardless of the rules.  It is time for coaches and adminstrators of high profile programs to be censored from NCAA institutions when their teams consistently break the rules - not only of the NCAA but of their institution. It is unfortuante that many presidents and faculties of major institutions have turned such a blind eye to the ever-increasing costs, both materially and academically, of out-of-control athletic programs.  More NCAA rules is just putting a bandaid on an uncontrollable bleeding injury.  Unfortunately, this also penalizes the majority of well-run athletic programs that do follow the rules.

[anon2]

This dodges the larger issue: why are universities investing
large amounts of money in competitive athletics? Having recreational facilities is good for student health -- but having a very limited number of academically mediocre students play quasi-professional sports is simply not a valuable campus activity. I suspect that most students and faculty members would prefer better library facilities, smaller classes, more comfortable classrooms, etc.
than to have large amounts of money sunk into sports facilities only accessible to a very small group of students. And decent workout facilities, volleyball courts, ultimate frisbee areas, etc. would be usable  by everyone.

[Dale]

But what about the competition?  What about honing your skills against others?

You're right, it's ridiculous and wasteful.  Maybe Richard Vedder at Ohio U. could study the use of money in collegiate athletics and how that money could be better spend on educating students.

I proposed something like this when I was an undergraduate.  The idea was to abolish all intercollegiate athletics as wasteful and antithetical to the educational mission of the institution (mid-size public U).  Our football program routinely lost $3 million each year, out of about a $70 million budget - that's a chunk right there.  So we replace intercollegiate teams with intramurals at a fraction of the cost.  Competition ensues, lessons are learned (hard work, perseverance, overcoming obstacles, believing in yourself, teamwork), money is saved, and the educational goals of competition and sport are maintained.

Needless to say, my idea didn't go very far.

[Lithia Springs High School]

A simple first step: a student cannot represent the school until he achieves a 1600 (out of 2400) on the new SAT. (or an equivalent on othe ACT) The school can admit and support anyone it wishes; the student can take any
course(s) he or the school wishes. The student will gain the experience of a university education (mentioned as a reason for admitting athletes.
An outside arbiter would now decide initial eligibility.
If a college cannot tutor its own admittees to reach an average score when competing against high schoolers, two or three years younger, either its admissions or its tutoring program (or both) need work.
I would not single out "sports: debate; marching band; discipline competitions (i.e. math or literature competitions), but the NCAA can decide.
AFTER the student achieves a 1600, THEN the staggeringly complex other rules for eligibility can be applied.

[Anonymous, again]

Oh, OK.  If you want to go that route, I'm sure there's a slew of reform that could be done.  College athletics is here to stay--there is way too much invested in it.  But coming from a school where millions are made (& spent), you can't help wonder why schools invest so much.  Do people love college athletics that much?  Yes, sport culture is ingrained into our society.  My proposal - keep college sports but make the athletes employees of the university.  They don't attend school, they just represent & compete for the school & get paid for it.   After sports, if they want to attend that school for educational purposed, they're given automatic admittance (within general admittance standards) and they themselves pay for it.

[anon2]

Assuming that binge drinking, vandalism, and the occasional rape are desirable factors in the community, it's a start ... but ...

... not to long ago people said the slavery, segregation, etc. were
here to stay -- if people could manage to get rid of those, university sports seems an easier task.

I'd think a good solution would be for football and basketball to have their own minor leagues (as baseball does) and have universities make money by renting out current facilities. There is no reason to pay salaries to jocks as well as overpaid bureaucrats.

Anonymous, again wrote:

> Oh, OK.  If you want to go that route, I'm sure there's a
> slew of reform that could be done.  College athletics is here
> to stay--there is way too much invested in it.  But coming from
> a school where millions are made (& spent), you can't help
> wonder why schools invest so much.  Do people love college
> athletics that much?  Yes, sport culture is ingrained into our
> society.  My proposal - keep college sports but make the
> athletes employees of the university.  They don't attend
> school, they just represent & compete for the school & get paid
> for it.   After sports, if they want to attend that school for
> educational purposed, they're given automatic admittance
> (within general admittance standards) and they themselves pay
> for it.

[Dale]

I come down about where anon2 does on the issue.

I think that colleges/universities (and the state taxpayers) are paying for a semi-pro minor leagues of football and basketball (and some, hockey - although I'm kind of glad it's mostly dead).  They also pay for semi-pro baseball in the case of some programs (FLA, Texas, etc).  

I don't know if the leasing of space is a good idea, although it's a start.  After all, pro sports leagues benefit immensely from the talent production of the NCAA levels.  Why shouldn't they pay to reap the benefits?  Same holds true with high schools (LeBron James, anyone?).  If sports leagues benefit from player development in pre-professional leagues (let's face it, that's what these are), they should pay.  

The fact is, we don't NEED college athletics.  Sure it's fun and it brings in money to a few schools, but overall it's a losing proposition for the vast majority.  The educational outcomes of competition can be derived elsewhere, as I've stated, and the marginal benefit of enjoyment can also be reached using alternative means (i.e. having professional leagues pay for the service).

Makes sense to me!

[Free Marketeer]

When alumni and visitors come to campus, they don't spend too much time hanging out at the library (however decent) the small classrooms, or the volleyball courts. They hang out at the stadiums watching the games and tailgating. And alums and their companies are the ones that give big bucks to universities.

Trust me: if there wasn't a financial incentive, college presidnets would not have the quasi-prof sports you speak of. Just like if there wasn't an audience, we wouldn't have ghastly reality shows, or Paris Hilton (ugh!) or big box stores, etc. etc. Gotta go where monies flow.