March 12, 2008

Athletics Scholarships Fall Far Below Expectations, Report Says

The athletics scholarships that many parents and high-school athletes perceive as hard-won tickets to a college education actually amount to only a fraction of the total college cost, The New York Times reports.

In a three-part series titled “The Scholarship Divide,” which concludes today, the Times reports that parents’ and athletes’ expectations for winning coveted athletics scholarships are frequently at odds with the financial realities of college sports, in which few scholarships cover anything close to the total amount of tuition and other expenses.

The Times cites data, provided by the NCAA, showing the average athletics scholarship to be $10,409, with awards in some sports, like baseball and track and field, dipping as low as $2,000.

Most scholarship athletes, far from living the high life, keep grueling schedules in exchange for their sometimes paltry awards, the series reports.

As coaches attempt to convince recruits’ parents that, indeed, the long-awaited scholarship is truly only a quarter of the overall cost, the varying amounts of scholarship money distributed to players can fuel dissension among teammates. —Libby Sander

Comments

1. Well, this is not necessarily a bad thing at all, viewed in a perspective larger than the one of the narrow personal interests of individuals involved. College is intended, and needs, to be a time chiefly for learning, for education. Not for playing sports. It’s perfectly fine to play sports during college. Athletics are a good thing. However, paying students amounts close to the costs of attendance, in order for them to play sports, is a grotesque distortion of the mission of academe, of it’s finances, and of college athletics itself. Witness this very phenomenon: students and families approaching the years of college education feeling as if they have worked hard and rightfully earned a free ride to it by being an athlete. That, simply put, is not what college is supposed to be about. When it comes to athletic scholarships, and other merit-based aid, the less the better, overall. And zero is best of all.

   — Seen It All Before    Mar 12, 04:42 PM    #

2. Givign scholarships to student athletes is not a bad thing but the real cost of athletics which is out of control is the coaches salaries and perks peroid. And more than more these coaches want mcMansion type facilities.
   Colleges and universities are losing hundreds of dollars serving as minor leagues for the NFL and NBA.

   — james oakley    Mar 12, 04:53 PM    #

3. Sadly, these families’ expectations and misinformation about about scholarships versus the cost of attending college are not limited to athletic scholarships; the same expectations and misinformation are found when talking to most any family about what need- or merit-based aid covers and what it does not. What is a shame is the way that these coaches have fueled expectations by making promises without adequately addressing the full cost of attendance. These students are not getting the same information and counseling available to every other student through guidance counselors, financial aid offices and admissions offices.

   And I agree – since when did higher education agree to be the farm system for professional sports? We are complicit in this, but if the NFL really believes that players coming out of high school need to grow stronger and get experience before turning professional (which is you cannot enter the draft out of high school), then they should develop their own farm system or pay the full cost of attendance for any recruited athlete and guarantee that assistance until the student turns pro or graduates, regardless of whether the student is injured or otherwise unable to play.

   — laurie    Mar 12, 05:33 PM    #

4. Quiet here in the choirloft, innit? Talk to the coaches in the real sports, that do not involve the bouncing, hitting and throwing of balls. Rifle comes to mind. They’ll tell you they never have to offer more than 50% in a scholarship, because their top candidates already qualify for aid based on their grades and test scores. Only in the “farm team” system for the Big Three Games does the full ride come into play. Now, if ‘Vegas’ had a ‘line’ on rifle, fencing, and crew (which it once did), all that might change. Let’s all hold our breath.

   — comatus    Mar 13, 09:08 AM    #

5. I guess Seen it All Before never played sports!!!

   — AP    Mar 13, 01:48 PM    #

6. No so actually. I have been a good athlete, although largely in individual sports. E.g., cycling. My only team sport was softball as an adult, but I took it seriously – played hard, moderately well maybe, sometimes!

   The real problem here is that athletic aid is only one category of a larger phenomenon – and serious problem: merit-based financial aid, as opposed to need-based aid. I say “opposed” because unfortunately that is what the situation is. Many, many schools use merit-based aid, including athletic aid, to give grants to the selected students they most want to enroll, but many of whom have little or no financial need. Money for the already moderately to very well-to-do. But the problem is that just about every school using merit-based aid also is “able” to meet only some proportion well below 100% of the aggregate formal, demonstrated financial need of its students. That is, the ones who actually NEED the money to be able to attend. Why are the “able” to meet only part of the demonstrated financial need of their students? Because they are spending it on merit-based aid, including athletic aid, much of which goes to students who have low or no demonstrated financial need for it. Money for those with means, at the expense of those who do not have it. And what happens is seriously reduced access to higher education. Students with unmet need who have to borrow the private loans causing so much trouble this year. And other similar things. it is bad economics. it is bad national policy when it is education that hangs in the balance for many students who want it. And it’s wrong to give money to those who do not need it while not awarding it to those who do. It’s fine to give athletic aid, perhaps, at least so long as you are fully meeting all demonstrated financial NEED. It is NOT OK to do so though so long as this is not the case. Which it is not.

   — Seen It All Before    Mar 20, 05:30 PM    #

7. One of the pillars of our education is the Rhodes Scholarship. One of the qualifications is, “fondness of and success in outdoor sports.” Sport at the collegiate level is, I believe, an essential component of success. Should it be based on need or merit? Two students vying for “scholarship” money, both equally talented, who gets more – the one with the financial need? Let us not forget that the NCAA distinguishes between scholarship and grant-in-aid.

   In my opinion, “talent”, “scholarship”, and “need” determine the financial amount decision, with a measure of academic and sport assessment as to the “fondness of and success in outdoor sports.”

   — The Nomad    Mar 23, 05:41 PM    #

Previous: What's Up, Doc? German Law Bars American Ph.D.'s From Calling Themselves 'Doctor'
Next: Colorado Colleges Remain Covered by Rigid Ethics Law, Court Says