T26E4, since the Ivy League introduced intercollegiate sports to America, the world has changed.
In the last couple of years, we’ve seen two Ivy League institutions face large, organized cheating rings composed of athletes in gut courses. Perhaps such activities happened in the past; nowadays, however, networked computer systems produce easily searched records of plagiarism, attendance, and text and email correspondence. Thus, if it’s alleged, it can be proven.
The other change has been the advent of the “organization kid,” as David Brooks dubbed them. The era of the “gentleman’s C” passed long since, but today’s students are very serious about their studies, at least about the grades. (When was the last time you heard of a student dropping out to “find himself?” I’ve heard of students dropping out because they couldn’t keep up, but not dropping out due to a crisis of identity or meaning.)
Yes, there is the Academic Index, but perhaps that should be revisited. Is it possible for athletes within a standard deviation of the student body as a whole to keep up when the rest of the student body is not only brilliant, but hard-working and energetic? When they hit college, the students who are not athletes are no longer weighed down by the high school load of multiple activities, community service, and the rest of the college application grind. In college these students can be specialists, and they do. They may spend a lot of time on extracurriculars, but they also have the freedom to cut back on those activities as needed. Athletes don’t have that freedom.
How much time are athletes spending on team activities? Are they spending more time than 30 years ago, less, or about the same? Is it possible to raise the bar on academics and athletics at the same time? If not, how does the league adapt the rules to prevent the outbreak of mass cheating by athletes?