<p>Regarding cptofthehouse’s comments on rigorous schedules that keep athletes out of the classroom:</p>
<p>That is one of the tragedies of the high profile sports at D-I schools. Since only about 2% of college athletes go on to be professional athletes, what happens to these kids when they leave college with no education and no skills (other than being really good athletes, but not good enough). Also, even those students that are fulfilling the academic guidelines, I wonder what really goes on behind the scenes - how many BS classes they take and how much the faculty is pressured to pass them.</p>
<p>In response to my statement, " I do not think anyone is implying that all athletes are stupid as stones", you stated, </p>
<p>"Yes, they are. It is immediately assumed they are in the bottom third. Even you just did it in your post. "</p>
<p>No I did not imply that. What I did mean was the athletes given preferences in admissions fall into that category and that was the concern raised in the OP. Certainly there are athletes who are admitted every day into selective colleges whose admissions credentials place them in the upper rank of students admitted.</p>
<p>"Do successful college athletic programs stimulate additional applications from prospective students and greater contributions by alumni and other donors? And if so, is it likely that additional investment in such programs is a cost-effective way of increasing these benefits?</p>
<p>In this paper I first consider these questions from a theoretical perspective that focuses on the economic incentives confronting institutions that participate in big-time college athletics. I then review numerous empirical studies that have attempted to measure various aspects of the relationships between athletic success and success in other domains.</p>
<p>The findings reported in these studies are mixed, but the overall message is easily summarized: It is that if success in athletics does generate the indirect benefits in question, the effects are almost surely very small.</p>
<p>I also suggest that the most important decisions confronting policy makers, both at individual institutions and at collective athletic governing bodies, do not hinge significantly on how strongly alumni giving and the quality of entering students depend on athletic success. Policies that would create incentives for all institutions to reduce their spending on big-time athletic programs would free up resources for other purposes at no cost either to alumni giving or the size of applicant pools."</p>
<p>If the girl is so exceptional at anything (including lacrosse) that universities are willing to bend/break the normal rules to get her, I applaud her (even is she is not taking AP English). She must not only have had natural ability, but must have worked VERY hard to accomplish what she has.</p>
I could be wrong on this but I’m betting God couldn’t care less. There is no “moral” issue here, vango. Only in how you think about the world does it become even an issue of fairness. Others see it differently and they appear to be the ones making the policies you don’t like at some schools. Go to another school.</p>
<p>Personally, I think God is a women’s basketball fan and couldn’t care less about a piccolo. But hey, I could be wrong. ;)</p>
<p>The problem that Vango raises in #162 is at most tangentially related to the question of admission to highly selective schools. Suffice it to say that the best thing you can do for these kids is to get rid of the SAT requirement for athletic scholarships–a requirement that only serves to reallocate scholarship money from city black kids to white kids.</p>
<p>I’m not sure that this hasn’t been brought up before, if it has I apologize. But an additional unfairness of the current system of preferences for recruited athletes is that done to the other students in the classroom. A large part of the experience is classroom discussion. I hate to argue from personal experience, but I have to tell you when I taught, the recruited athletes ranged from poor students who were nice guys to pitiful students.
Yes, I did receive a call from the coach of one student asking me to raise his grade so he could maintain eligibility. In addition to that he was a discipline problem.</p>
<p>Wow Vango, your assumption that after 4 years of college sports these athletes leave with “no education and no skills” is ridiculous.</p>
<p>At the very least, these students are better prepared for life than they were upon graduation from high school, and to assume that no education is gained from the travel and teamwork alone is naive. If nothing else, they have their connection to their alma mater community that will last a life time, and the D1 athlete credential that can in itself open some doors for some.</p>
EEWWwwww, galwaymom. Sorry to disappoint but I’m pretty sure that if she is not a fulltime resident at the Ferrell Center in Jerusalem on the Brazos, Texas (Baylor) she must reside indeed at Rocky Top. "Rocky Top you’ll always be , home sweet home to me … </p>
<p>I’m just teasing. Women’s ball is so much fun, even though my personal ballplaying kid has gone over to the dark side. (Uggh. A club sport of all things. Ultimate Frisbee, the anarchist’s friend. I’m so depressed.;))</p>
<p>^^^EEWWwwww, galwaymom. Sorry to disappoint but I’m pretty sure that if she is not a fulltime resident at the Ferrell Center in Jerusalem on the Brazos, Texas (Baylor) she must reside indeed at Rocky Top. "Rocky Top you’ll always be , home sweet home to me …^^^</p>
<p>OK, OK- so she moved! She and Geno Auriemma had a falling out, I heard, and she has a Texas twang now.</p>
<p>I remember your post, curmudgeon, about your dd’s switching to UF- I can relate with my own (sigh), no longer competing in her sport and dance.
Don’t be depressed, wait for those grandchildren (I am TRYING to convince myself that will help)!</p>
<p>Vango, there are many who agree with your stance. But more who disagree. Those who run the universities and have to decide how things are done, particularly disagree. Which is why we have the status quo. </p>
<p>A few years ago there was someone at Dartmouth who thought along your lines and was vocal about it. Well, I guess someone had to remind him that the IVY league is a sports league, and for Dartmouth to drop out of it would not be a good move. When Dartmouth announced it was dropping its swimming progam, those who made that decision said it was an irrevokable one and that was it. Well, it was revoked, and Dartmouth continued with a swim team even the following year; did not even miss a season for all of that, and I doubt swimming is favorite sport up there.</p>
<p>Shoe, they were not on spring break. It was mid November. And I found out this is typical of that league. I am not making up a thing. I talked to one of the adult team managers who accompanies the team to all of its games. I can tell you that my son missed very little, if any classes due to his sport, but he was at a D-3 school and his sport was not basketball. However, his weekend schedule during prime season did not lend itself to study at all. Despite NCAA rules restricting practices and such, the fact of the matter was that he spent most of the weekend at his sport in one form or the other. And though this is a very rigorous school, I did not see anyone with his nose in a book during downtime that weekend, and I went with the team to see how things worked.</p>
<p>You need to read my post more carefully. I was talking about D-1 football and basketball which has been known to treat its players as a commodity. The whole reason the Knight Commission was formed was to look into all the scandals and abuses taking place. The graduation rates among players were abysmal back then and despite attempts at reform there are still issues. Many of these players are URMs who think they will make it big only to find they are not recruited professionally, and yes, for the most part they probably have not gained an education or skills while in college (aside from athletic skills).</p>
<p>As I continue to read posts, I’m picking up on a suttle bit of racism/elitism going on. I read over and over this asumption that a kid coming in with lower numbers than you is going to fail and drop out or isn’t worthy of the education opportunity… man, I’m embarrassed for you.</p>
<p>At the best schools the retention rate of a student body is roughly 70% into the second year… Those 25-30% of the entire class can’t all be atheletes can they? At my son’s lac they spoke of a 78% retiention rate ( no scholarships d3) it is considered one of the best in the country. So 22% of the class don’t make sophomore year. They aint all jocks kids. </p>
<p>I think overall it’s 60/40 nationally, so every year we lose 40% of a incoming class to sophomore year. Figure it out kids. Jocks are just people and people leave school for all sorts of reasons, even the bright kids leave. </p>
<p>How dare some of you assume because somebody comes in with a lower gpa and SAT than you (or some deserving student) that they will leave with one or fail altogether… How certain are you that they will make less than you? or have worse grades? How arrogant to assume somebody with a gpa a little lower than yours or even alot lower than yours is somehow a blight on the college system because you think they will never rub two nickles together? </p>
<p>The racism/elitism aspect of this is alot of kids on scholarship come from the lower economic strata (hence the question of ethics and comparitive cultures)and through their physical efforts they at least have a shot to improve their lives? I raised my gpa in college almost a full letter grade from HS. I finally took it seriously. </p>
<p>You know kids, no one garantees your success or failure in college. It’s not what you are coming in, it’s what you are coming out. </p>
<p>I’m sure you all are all for helping the disadvantaged, except if they want to get a good education. </p>
<p>And yes, I know they’re wealthy kids who do poorly in school and kill time in college, but we aren’t really talking about them are we?</p>
I’m sorry, Vango, but that’e just naive. THe bean counters at any college are ACUTELY aware of every move the athletic programs make and the impact these moves have on both $$ and quality/quantity of admissions candidates. Ask Boston College what impact Doug Flutie winning the Heisman had on their applications. He put the school on the map. Before 1984, many people didn’t know there was both a Boston University AND a Boston College.</p>
<p>Really, if you don’t see a role for sports in college, head to one of many that agree with you. Different strokes for different folks. Athletes choosing a school have to be smart & choose well. The level of support & commitmant to the STUDENT-athlete varies greatly.</p>
<p>Re retention rates — Check out Notre Dame, arguably one of the top athletic & academic schools in the country:</p>
<p>99% of Notre Dame students complete their first year successfully
98% return for their sophomore year
96% of Notre Dame students graduate on time </p>
<p>“You need to read my post more carefully. I was talking about D-1 football and basketball which has been known to treat its players as a commodity”</p>
<p>So your solution is not to allow them in at all??? That’s what you’ve been saying along with a few others that these kids aren’t worthy and are taking smart kids slots. That’s a great solution.</p>
<p>Having been involved myself and brothers also in college atheletics it’s no pinic. It’s close to slavery, but if it’s your only means of getting into college to at least have a shot at a better life… you want to take it away? So you’d take three degrees and a masters from my family? er, gee thanks for looking out for me. </p>
<p>Here’s a solution I like that the UW did for it’s football players. As long as it takes they will pay for the education of a player. A few years ago a 45 year old former footballler returned to finish his education (dropped out junior year) on the Huskies dime. No matter how long it takes. </p>
<p>As far as being a commodity, welcome to adult life. Unless you’re the owner, you’re a line on a balance sheet, no matter how smart you are.</p>
<p>Whoa, there. Some colleges have shamefuly retention rates in certain sports, and I don’t think there is an argument about that. Each year as we move toward the Final Four in basketball, editorials pop up showing the abysmal graduation rates for the top contenders. And many of these schools have great academic reputations. Just not for that portion of their students. When the diffential is that great in a given sport, the colleges should be ashamed of themselves. I think UW’s policy is great. But are there other colleges doing this? This past year, I have read too many articles on former sports recruits who dropped out of college and are shot, incarcerated, killed, involved in terrible felonies.<br>
Even though I am not one who is so interested in sports, and have trouble seeing the impact it has on our society, I recognize that impact, and can see why colleges have sports teams and athletic recruiting. I do believe that there are responsibilities in recruiting athletes that are clearly going to have academic issues that some college in some sports are not addressing. That to me is the true shame in giving leeway to an athlete in admissions.</p>
<p>Apart from making the “this is the way things are so they should stay that way” error, I think your post on University Administrations is just wrong. Bok, former pres at Harvard, points out in his book “Universities in the Marketplace” that many university presidents would like to change the emphasis on athletics but find that they have a tiger by the tail and can’t figure out how to do so. That is very different than supporting the current system.</p>
<p>Opie,
As far as the charge of racism I suggest you reread your own posts.</p>
<p>This is not about racism. The case with the lacrosse player is one that has to do with being an academic match for a school. If that makes me a racist, then just about every Ivy League school is racist, because lets face it, they do look for kids that are academic matches. Lacrosse as of now is primarily a sport of the upper classes, and the girl in question comes from a wealthy family. She herself recognizes she is not an academic match for the school in question. Also, she is white.</p>
<p>The issue with the D-1 basketball and football players is a travesty because they are treated as a commidity - they are there to win games and if they are lucky enough to graduate, I guess that’s icing on the cake. I don’t want to deny anyone an education. If you sell the dream to these kids that the only way out is by being a good ball player, and then things don’t pan out, what do they have left. These basketball and football players are being recruited for one thing only, their athletic skill. It sends a message to inner city kids that it is better to work on your athletic skills than your schoolwork. I didn’t make up the graduation rates, they are facts. If the schools really wanted to do these kids a favor, they would bring them in on need-based scholarships and let them spend their time in a classroom actually learning something.</p>
<p>Also, a scholar-athlete that gets into a Div. III school probably can graduate even if their stats are lower than the rest of the student body. That is a whole different story than the Div. I football and basketball players. At some point it would make more sense to just call them professionals, pay them and dispense with the “education” aspect altogether.</p>
<p>Stickershock-
That quote is not from me, it is from a white paper written by someone who researched the topic. Also, you are right about Notre Dame, but it is held up as a model and the exception, not the norm.</p>
</p>