<p>patient-</p>
<p>If what your post says about Stanford is correct, it would support the argument that less-qualified students “were” getting in based on their athletic skill and now the other-than-athlete pool has pushed the academic threshold so high that the athletes aren’t cutting it. Many people here claim there is no preference given to athletes, that they are as qualified as anyone and just bring in a skill set that the college values more than someone else’s.</p>
<p>“I just remain unconvinced that the link between higher education and athletics is necessary to the degree it is.”</p>
<p>Again, we could fill in the blank (grades, frats, money, etc.) and have a similar arguement (arguement in a good way) </p>
<p>There are people who see no need for certain fields of study. What do we need archelogists for? The earths 6,000 years old? Animal sciences, who cares how chimps communicate? Environmental sciences, there’s no such thing as global warming? Ever watch the 700 club? 
</p>
<p>College is a place to open up and learn to accept other thoughts. I heard somewhere learning is realising what you know to be, is wrong and changing your thoughts consitutes learning.</p>
<p>"the Duke lacrosse players already had a whole host of behavioral violations against them - there is no way they should have been having a beer party with strippers. "</p>
<p>You realize you’re implying that if they weren’t in sports they wouldn’t have behavor issues… think about that one for a few seconds. </p>
<p>"no way they should have been having a beer party with strippers. "</p>
<p>absolutely… it wasn’t like a bachorlete party… I mean no one was getting married or anything…:)</p>
<p>part of my reaction to this string is an ongoing string of statements that seem to be a one-size fits all argument. The lastest is the discussion about monet spent on sports for college. The schools fall into very different tiers which can drive very different discussions.</p>
<p>Schools with big-time D1 football, basketall, and hockey certainly often spend big bucks. Of those schools somewhere between 25-50 are “profitable” depending on whose accounting you believe … so for those few schools having sports is a financial win. </p>
<p>There are another 100 schools or so who are playing D1 and spending big bucks and not making money … some losing big money … with football being the 500 pound gorilla in this discussion. </p>
<p>That leaves about 2800 D2 and D3 schools that tend to have more sports teams and athletes, who “lose” money on sports, but don’t lose tons … and I have not idea how it compares to how much these schools “lose” on marching bands, theatre groups, etc.</p>
<p>I think one interesting tidbit is that MIT, of all places, tends to have one of the highest percentages of students who either play a varsity sport or play an intramural sport. Then again we all know MIT is an out of control sports factory … or maybe they believe a low tempature low-cost D3/intramural program harkens to the whole person model (mind/body/spirit) that has been around for about 2000 years. (and of all the schools out there MIT is much closer to the norm than Ohio State).</p>
<p>
Vango, as any college raises its academic standards, the athlete’s academic requirements rise as well. Have you played varsity? The time investment on a competitive team is enormous. Kids getting off the bus from a meet or game at 11:00 is not uncommon. It is understandable that at high levels, athletes’ grades & stats will suffer. What is the big deal about a kid with a 2000SAT getting in when 2250 is the average? The kid will still be fully capable of doing the work. The fact he was able to juggle academics, sports, and all the rest says a great deal about him. </p>
<p>Here’s what football paid for at Notre Dame: The $70million Jordan Hall of Science
<a href=“http://science.nd.edu/jordan/[/url]”>http://science.nd.edu/jordan/</a></p>
<p>Yeah, not every program is as successful as ND’s, but it’s a goal to strive for. When done right, college athletics is a wonderful thing.</p>
<p>“College athletes are routinely in the news for drunkenness, assaults, and other bad — even criminal — behavior off the field. Sharon K. Stoll, a University of Idaho sports ethicist who has measured thousands of college players’ abilities to make ethical decisions, has found that athletes have significantly lower moral-reasoning skills than other students — and she says the competitive sports environment is largely to blame.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2006/08/morality/[/url]”>http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2006/08/morality/</a></p>
<p>
LOL!!!</p>
<p>Good points about not knowing how much money is “lost” on other activities & programs. Somehow I doubt that many of them run in the black.</p>
<p>“College athletes are routinely in the news for drunkenness, assaults, and other bad — even criminal — behavior off the field. Sharon K. Stoll, a University of Idaho sports ethicist who has measured thousands of college players’ abilities to make ethical decisions, has found that athletes have significantly lower moral-reasoning skills than other students — and she says the competitive sports environment is largely to blame.”</p>
<p>And Van,</p>
<p>She also has a program to $ell. I read the article you listed. I came away with a different perspective. In order to make money for a system you have to convience people of a problem special to the situation and I quote “Anymore and I give away the trade secrets :-)” </p>
<p>Are ethics a problem? absolutely. Is it confined to one particular type or activity? no. Does a college sport reduce personal ethics? doubtful very doubtful. If yes, did the reduction of personal ethics begin freshman year? doubtful, very doubtful.</p>
<p>Are there other factors besides sport that would or could contribute to a reduction in ethical values? Hmmmmm</p>
<p>Gee, I’d love to address these issues but you’ll have to buy my book…:)</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>"The Air Force Academy is investigating allegations of cheating by 28 freshmen and has restricted all 4,300 cadets to campus over the weekend, asking them to meet in small groups to consider “their self-image and the image of the institution,” Air Force officials said.</p>
<p>In addition to the cheating, the academy’s superintendent, Lt. Gen. John F. Regni, cited other recent disciplinary problems in a stern speech this week to the entire student body, faculty and staff… "</p>
<p>HMMMMM VAN, do you think they were all atheletes? ;)</p>
<p>I wonder what the idaho vandal professor would think? ;)</p>
<p>Only about 117 schools have D-1 football and of those only around 63 are truly majors (BCS schools).</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.educ.uidaho.edu/center_for_ethics/research_fact_sheet.htm[/url]”>http://www.educ.uidaho.edu/center_for_ethics/research_fact_sheet.htm</a></p>
<p>"We have been studying moral reasoning and moral education intervention programs in athletic populations for 20 years, with a data base of approximately 72,000 individuals. Below find what we know about the process of moral reasoning and its effect on moral development.</p>
<pre><code> 1. Athlete populations score significantly lower on moral reasoning inventories than do non-athlete populations.
2. Male revenue producing sport athletes score significantly lower than non-revenue producing sport athletes do.
3. Females score significantly higher than males, either revenue producing or non-revenue producing.
4. Females scores are dropping and we predict they will converge with men’s scores in 5 years.
5. Longitudinal studies of discrete competitive populations drop over a four-year period whether high school or college.
6. Moral reasoning scores of non-intervened athletic populations are decreasing at significant rates.
7. The longer one is in athletics, the more affected is one’s moral reasoning.
8. Intervention programs can have a positive effect on moral reasoning.
9. Effective intervention programs have a long-term effect on moral reasoning.
10. Moral reasoning is one facet of a highly complex process of moral development."
</code></pre>
<p>Ms. Stoll seems to have excellent credentials and she has been a consultant for some pretty presitigous orgs. (Navy, Air Force, Pres. Commission of the NCAA, Atlanta Braves). Just because you don’t like what her studies have found doesn’t mean they are not true. It confirms what many have experienced anecdotally. She reports that ability for moral reasoning is declining and you can definitely see that as you go down to the youth sports level. The behavior of some of the parents, coaches and kids is atrocious.</p>
<p>I’d like to see how I Bankers do on that test.</p>
<p>Opie-
I am in no way naive enough to believe moral decision making is imperiled in athletes only. But I do believe the “win at all costs (because the stakes are so high)” pressures athletes more than other students. And Ms. Stoll’s studies find that athletes have significantly more difficulty making moral decisions than the general student population. And it’s worse in high-stakes sports like football. Gee, I have to say that makes sense to me. Everyone here is talking about how sports=$'s, so doesn’t it make sense that a student who is constantly told he must perform might get a distorted sense of what is okay and what is not. Coaches weren’t procuring hookers for athletes for no reason - those were incentives.</p>
<p>Furthermore, there are plenty of threads on this forum that discuss cheating. It’s kind of the same thing - on one hand students feel pressured by parents, teachers, peers to get into a good college, so they start to rationalize cheating because they feel it is necessary to get ahead - ends justify the means. Now apply it to an athlete that has been pressured to perform for years, possibly since elementary school. That could definitely warp someone. See point number 7. in post 111.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, Barrons. BTW, there’s a pretty big overlap between those two groups from what I hear ;).</p>
<p>“Just because you don’t like what her studies have found doesn’t mean they are not true.”</p>
<p>I didn’t say I didn’t like it. I questioned the basis. Without seeing the questions and there wording I have no idea if her testing is bais free or done in such a way to make her point. Again, you will learn that those who find problems and happen to sell a solution for them aren’t always the best source for clean reasearch. “Numbers don’t lie, but liars can figure.” ever heard that? Know what it means? </p>
<p>I am skeptical, not disapproving. There’s a difference van. </p>
<p>I don’t argue there’s definately a problem going on, but it is a problem society wide. I don’t think the factor is sport compared to say income levels, living conditions and cultural issues. </p>
<p>As I read this, there seems to be a bit of racism built in as well. Revenue producing vs. non revenue producing sports. Blacks make up roughly 70% of revenue producing sports, is this a color blind test? There’s alot of questions that without answers makes me skeptical. I hope you can understand. </p>
<ol>
<li>Athlete populations score significantly lower on moral reasoning inventories than do non-athlete populations.</li>
</ol>
<p>Are they of the same ethnic, socio economic backgrounds? or are we comparing apples and oranges? </p>
<ol>
<li>Male revenue producing sport athletes score significantly lower than non-revenue producing sport athletes do.</li>
</ol>
<p>Does the comparison data base match? Does the swim team have the same race, economic background as the football team?</p>
<ol>
<li>Females score significantly higher than males, either revenue producing or non-revenue producing. </li>
</ol>
<p>Duh, girls are smarter. Except when dating boys.</p>
<ol>
<li>Females scores are dropping and we predict they will converge with men’s scores in 5 years.</li>
</ol>
<p>Girls are now growing up with sports especially contact sports. </p>
<ol>
<li>Longitudinal studies of discrete competitive populations drop over a four-year period whether high school or college.</li>
</ol>
<p>What does this question mean in english?</p>
<ol>
<li>Moral reasoning scores of non-intervened athletic populations are decreasing at significant rates.</li>
</ol>
<p>We can intervene for a $$$$. </p>
<ol>
<li>The longer one is in athletics, the more affected is one’s moral reasoning. </li>
</ol>
<p>On what moral issues? Does this mean you become jaded? what issues?</p>
<ol>
<li>Intervention programs can have a positive effect on moral reasoning.</li>
</ol>
<p>general statement no arguement. Again $$$$$</p>
<ol>
<li>Effective intervention programs have a long-term effect on moral reasoning.</li>
</ol>
<p>$$$$ especially ours:) Is this a finding or common sense? </p>
<ol>
<li>Moral reasoning is one facet of a highly complex process of moral development.</li>
</ol>
<p>haleulha! It’s a part of developement, it’s a complex process. Your mom and dad, your race, relgion, hometown and so on are part of that process. </p>
<p>“The behavior of some of the parents, coaches and kids is atrocious.”</p>
<p>Absolutely correct, but did the sport itself cause that problem or did these people have this problem and play a sport? </p>
<p>I ran a 15,000 kid county program in my state for a short while. I also ran a local program for 2,000. I know first hand what goes on. I also was a ref for a decade. I know first hand all this stuff you cite. I lived it. I have had roles as an athelete, coach, administrator and ref. The elephant is always different depending on where you stand and I’ve stood in enough places around the elephant to get an idea. </p>
<p>That is also why I question her study. I don’t think sport itself causes these behavor issues. They just might provide the platform for those behavors to come out. </p>
<p>What she is really saying is it comes down to supervision when her solution is applied. I would agree coaching and administration set the character standards at an institution. Yet your posts blame the players… when really it who runs the program. </p>
<p>Look up Frosty Westerling, football coach at Pacific Lutheran U. Frosty didn’t need Ms. Stoll. His sporting character is part of the entire atheletics department. He’s been retired for a while, but his attitude lives on. Even my S lax team playing them in the regionals for ncaas a couple years ago lost to PLU. I overheard one player from my s team “Man, I want to hate those guys soo bad, but they’re such good guys…” This is just after getting knocked out of the ncca tournament, a win would have put them in the elite eights. </p>
<p>Anyway waay too long a post sorry.</p>
<p>Van, </p>
<p>Your last couple of posts really deal with coaching and adminstration, not players. So which is it?</p>
<p>You started out over whether atheletes should get into school. It started out about the student athelete and now has morphed into supervision. A separate issue from your origial post.</p>
<p>Or are you saying student atheletes shouldn’t be allowed to attend abc college because abc college cannot provide coaches and administrators of character? Isn’t that a different issue? Is that the kids fault or the school administration and the coach? </p>
<p>So are we now talking about coaching responsibilities?</p>
<p>I was in no way suggesting that sports cause the problem - it is the value society places on sports that does. If a group of people have a regular Saturday basketball game because they enjoy the sport, it is very unlikely it is going to affect their character either way. But if you tell a kid from an early age that professional sports is their ticket to the good life and that message is reinforced by parents/coaches in youth leagues, and later on college coaches, all of whom want you to win, win, win, it is likely to compromise some aspects of moral development.</p>
<p>My original question to spark the debate was “Why are athletics so important to most colleges.?” There are many aspects to this question and many have been explored on this thread. I was not limiting the discussion to any particular aspect of the question, but I was particularly interested in the “preferential treatment” issue.</p>
<p>Look, there is plenty of evidence out there to support Ms. Stoll’s findings. And a lot of the evidence comes directly from people involved in college sports. I won’t bother posting links because it’s not that hard to find and I suppose if someone doesn’t want to be persauded they would reject any number of articles offered as evidence. Why would the Atlanta Braves hire Ms. Stoll if they didn’t have a problem? I wouldn’t hire a plumber if I didn’t have a leak, no matter how hard he tried to sell his services. Why be so defensive of the athletic process as it now exists? We all know that athletics on campus are not going away anytime soon, but if they need to be “cleaned up,” isn’t that a worthy effort.</p>
<p>The higher minimum academic stds and limited scholies have improved things already.</p>