 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Stan Katz teaches public and international affairs and directs the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies at the Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is a past president of the American Council of Learned Societies, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society for Legal History. He comments frequently on policy issues relating to higher education, particularly liberal education, and on the humanities and social sciences, philanthropy, scholarly relations with Cuba, and the interplay of civil society, constitutionalism, and democracy. And on his beloved Cubs.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Michael Nelson, guest blogger
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
The Rankings Game | Comment [3]
Weather Woes | Comment
The Higher Education Act and the Education Industry | Comment [2]
A Good Day for History Teaching | Comment [4]
Good Luck, President Simon and MSU! | Comment [7]
Featured Articles By the Author
How Many Gyms Does Corpore Sano Require?
I was fascinated by the Chronicle’s piece by by Eric Kelderman last Friday on the athletics-facilities boom in the Centennial Conference. This is a NCAA Division III league, but more importantly it is composed of 11 high-quality liberal arts colleges, including Ursinus, Gettysburg, and Franklin & Marshall. These are places that take liberal undergraduate education really seriously, and I admire their academic programs — Ursinus is one of the most creative colleges I know. I had never stopped to consider their athletic programs, however, but I assumed that they fielded modestly competitive teams in some league (I had not even heard of the Centennial Conference until last week). I also assumed that, like all selective colleges, they were under competitive pressure to provide their student body with respectable fitness facilities, since sports and fitness is one of the bases on which colleges market themselves to prospective students. My impression has been that the same pressure has also led to major investments in new dormitories, health facilities, fine arts centers and the like. It is wonderful that students in these colleges will have more and better facilities, but the building boom has been substantial, and one wonders whether it has not come at the cost of purely educational programs.
I wrote in my last blog about the attraction of donors to nameable buildings at large universities, but of course on this score Ursinus is no different than Penn, or Gettysburg than Princeton. The numbers are smaller, but substantial. Kelderman tells us about a new $25-million swimming palace at Gettysburg, a $4-million fitness center at McDaniel College, and a $13-million field house (“big enough for two full-size batting cages, four basketball courts, three tennis courts, a volleyball court, and a six-lane, 200 meter track”) at Ursinus. He notes that while these buildings, mostly intended to recruit intercollegiate athletes or/and to retain successful sports coaches, are sprouting up in all conferences across the country, 14 of the 50 newest facilities were built on Division III campuses. In other words, the sports-building boom is not just at Ohio State and UCLA.
Of course one of the rationales for the new buildings is that they serve all students, not just intercollegiate athletics. Up to a point that is true and admirable. But I wonder whether, if a careful cost-benefit analysis were undertaken, colleges would make such investments. I mean by that, if the bottom line is liberal education (learning outcomes), wouldn’t we be spending more on other things — library and information centers, IT capacity, academic facilities, community engagement centers, and the like? I know the argument is mens sana in corpore sano, and I believe there is such a relationship, but these colleges are paying a very high price for the competitive student “body.”
Kelderman quotes John A. Fry, the president of F&M (a fine institution where my daughter taught religion very happily for a year), as saying that “there is a bit of an arms race in Division III. . . . You see a lot more spending on athletics, and you wonder if that’s the highest and best use of those dollars.” Good question, Mr. Fry. Good question for all colleges and universities.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Naming Rights and Wrongs
Next: Humanities Cyberinfrastructure: Project Bamboo
I understand your point in the last paragraph but isn’t there also a “learning outcome” that happens as an athlete or on an club team? Doesn’t the teamwork, work ethic, and learning that happens outside the classroom in an athletic venue support a “liberal education”?
— Paul · Jul 14, 07:43 AM · #
No.
— Mr. Wiki · Jul 14, 10:03 AM · #
Paul, I think Stanley has acknowledged the benefits of being an athlete and participating on a club team. What he’s trying to highlight is the amount of money colleges are investing in these facilities – what’s the marginal value gained to students from using that $25 million on a new sports venue versus investing that in other educational endeavors?
I imagine that the difficulties of finding well-defined metrics for the actual benefits of these sports/recreational/student life investments is what actually allows colleges to spend more than they should
but, this also raises a deeper question – who is really holding colleges accountable for such spending. Sure, parents and students say they value academics and amenities, but do parents/students actually penalize colleges (by perhaps not matriculating there) for over-investing in these non-academic amenities?
— Response to Paul · Jul 14, 11:51 AM · #
“…do parents/students actually penalize colleges (by perhaps not matriculating there) for over-investing in these non-academic amenities?”
My experience is that the colleges fear that the parents/students will penalize them if they under-invest in such amenities. And when faced with tuitions and comprehensive fees that frequently exceed $30,000 and $40,000 a year, the students and their parents feel it’s reasonable to expect such extras. The spiral continues.
From a strictly financial perspective, do the marginal benefits exceed the marginal costs? Hard to say, but schools are running scared. I teach at one such institution. Our tuition discounting keeps increasing, making us ever more dependent upon attracting the full- and high-pays we need to balance the budget.
Does the non-academic spending hurt the academics? Perhaps, but the general plan is to use the athletics to lure the students and then hope that the required academics will serve to broaden and deepen the students’ understanding. Doesn’t always work, though frequently the major difficulty is the faculty attitudes that turn off the students who don’t come to college interested in learning for its own sake.
— dm · Jul 15, 11:22 AM · #
There has been a building boom of “recreational sports facilities“on campuses for at least the last 15 years. They have quickly become the most used and most popular facilities on campus, and besides promoting good health and fitness, they have become the new “student unions” of this decade – the primary on-campus place where students meet, talk, and socialize (most also include some kind of food service). Most of them on public campuses do not compete financially with academic programs, as their construction, maintenance, and operating costs come from a desingnated student fee (often voted upon by the students themselves). On most campus tours for prospective students, these buildings now are always included and are extremely popular with young people (and often, their parents!). On most campuses, these facilities are separate, both financially and administratively, from the intercollegiate athletics program, and often involve as high as 80 percent of the student body. As a long time (now retired) student affairs administrator, I believe these fine facilities and programs are doing more to create postive places for students to interact, to promote good health, and to create community than anything I’ve seen in the last 40 years.
— Carl · Jul 15, 01:21 PM · #
Thanks for you input and insight on this Carl. As a student, it’s good to know where those “recreational fees” go to.
That said, it’s hard for me to believe that the fixed costs of construction for some of these facilities are covered by just an annual student fee.
Moreover, while these projects may be financially independent in university budgets, that doesn’t mean that university boards ignore such capital expenditures when considering funding academic ventures and vice versa. Everything has an opportunity cost.
Another important caveat to consider is the varying effects of these recreational facility projects on colleges/universities of different sizes. Large state schools are better positioned than smaller liberal arts colleges to invest in such things.
Finally, I agree with you Carl that such facilities and programs have had a very positive impact on students’ lives. The question is: can we construct facilities that are not necessarily, top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art, etc. and still achieve those positive gains while perhaps saving a lot of money?
— Response to Carl · Jul 15, 01:38 PM · #
Parallel to professional sports teams:
The fans want the team to win.
The team competes in the market for the best players, and pays them high salaries.
To meet the payroll, ticket prices go up.
The fans complain about ticket prices.
Why doesn’t anybody see a direct connection between these palaces to physical culture and (part of) the rise in tuition and fees?
On the campuses of small liberal arts colleges and mid-size state universities (say, up to 12,000 – 15,000 undergraduates) I’ve been to, these Taj Mahals of recreation are not separate from the athletic department’s facilities.
Thinking you “need” these places for students to get exercise is like thinking you “need” expensive spandex and lycra unitards (instead of a T-shirt and shorts) before you can run around and work up a sweat.
And these facilities are about as green as a blast furnace.
— Just Passing Through · Jul 15, 02:02 PM · #