<p>I wasn’t, but once again, “people liking to watch their football team kick Rival U’s butt” has little to do with inculcating “sound mind in sound body,” which was talked about upthread as a really important reason to have sports on a college campus. I think “sound mind in sound body” is plenty fine to have as a goal, but let’s not pretend it has anything to do with SPECTATOR sports. That has to do with intramural sports and physical fitness opportunities available to all. </p>
<p>If some are proposing that students should just be able to major in football (not the study of sports or exercise physiology or whatever, but just football itself), then should I be able just to take aerobics classes and major in aerobics? What’s the difference? And then why not baton-twirling?</p>
<p>Sigh. If football / basketball are just extracurriculars, exactly like any other extracurricular (newspaper, theater club, baton-twirling, a cappella group, insert EC of your choice), then why are football / basketball players held to lower standards and given different accommodations from other students? And why is there discussion that they should just be allowed to create a major out of whole cloth just because they happen to like / enjoy / be good at their activity?</p>
<p>Yes, what IS your point, Pizzagirl? (cross-posted). </p>
<p>The discussion about majoring in sports arose from another poster’s argument that, in essence, athletics has no purpose in college if you can’t major in it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok. This question has been asked and answered a million times, if not on this thread, then on others. And the answer is “yes.” The reason being that playing at a recruitable level in high school, and at the NCAA Div 1 level in college requires an inordinate time commitment that, whether you personally like it or not, impinges on study time . One that is different and more demanding than having another passionate EC, or a part-time job (yes, we can debate that too, but this is the party line). Athletes who can achieve a both a 4.0 and elite athletic accomplishments are rare, and therefore are highly sought after. College sometimes have to go <em>deep</em> to find athletes who are Div. 1 competitive.</p>
<p>It only requires an inordinate time commitment because the colleges are running, in essence, farm-teams for the major leagues. Nothing prevents the colleges from taking it less seriously and the coaches from instituting schedules that enable their students to be scholars.</p>
<p>But why should they care about being Div 1 competitive in the first place? Isn’t the PRIMARY mission of the school to educate the students, not prep them for the major leagues?</p>
<p>That’s interesting. I didn’t realize there was a major league gymnastics league? Or multiple other sports? Sure, there’s baseball, basketball, football, and a few others but there’s not professional leagues for 30+ sports are there?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I think you just answered your own question:</p>
<p>“Isn’t the PRIMARY mission of the school to educate the students…?” Yes it is the primary mission, but not the only mission. And remember that education occurs in many different settings, not just in classrooms.</p>
<p>So much of this discussion focuses on football and basketball, and although these are the big revenue sports, they are only a tiny fraction of the sports available at D1 schools and only represent a tiny fraction of the athletes participating in sports. Most D1 athletes are not performing in front of a stadium full of screaming fans. How many fans come to field hockey game? Swim meet, anyone? Track meet? Volleyball game?</p>
<p>Football and basketball are money makers and raise name recognition and alumni loyalty. Most of the rest are sports that kids play for the love of playing. The overwhelming majority of college athletes will never play professionally, and will go on to careers that have nothing to do with their sport. But they will be better disciplined, well-rounded, happier people for having played a sport they loved at a high level of competition during their college years. They will learn life lessons about teamwork, sacrifice, victory and setbacks. </p>
<p>(Just to clarify, neither of my children will play a D1 sport - or a D-anything sport. One was a varsity athlete in HS, but they are/will be strictly intramural players in college).</p>
<p>This is true, and the Ivies do this to some degree, but remember even they have elected to be members of NCAA Division 1, the most competitive of the divisions, which enables their athletes to participate in the highest level of competition.</p>
<p>And remember that in athletics, it does <em>matter</em> to differing degrees, whether you win or not. That is the point of playing. Particularly in the high-profile sports (basketball and football), if colleges want to achieve their alumni support, etc goals.</p>
<p>Div 1 basketball only allows 12 scholarships total, across all grade levels. So you are talking about 3-5 recruits per year that have compromised academic standards, out of student populations sometimes in the 10s of thousands. Some with football: you are talking about 20-30 recruits, and not all of them will be “dumb.” It really is not that much to get worked up over, considering the potential pay-off.</p>
<p>It really ISN’T that much to get worked up over. I love college sports and would attend almost any college sporting event over a theatrical or musical presentation any day. That is MY preference.</p>
<p>And you bet winning matters. The coach’s office of a team that has been losing for a couple of years is an ugly ugly place to be. Seriously, that should be an NCAA red flag alert for abuse.</p>
<p>But winning? Does it get any better than this?</p>
<p>"2008 NCAA Tournament</p>
<p>In 2008, Davidson defeated the Gonzaga Bulldogs, Georgetown Hoyas, and Wisconsin Badgers to advance to the Elite Eight. The Wildcats nearly made the Final Four, but lost to the Kansas Jayhawks 59-57. Prior to their Sweet Sixteen matchup, the college’s board of trustees supplied students with tickets, transportation and lodging for the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight games[1]. Following the tournament, the Wildcats earned a number 9 ranking in the ESPN/USA Today poll.[2]"</p>
<p>No amount of money can buy that kind of publicity and alumni support. And I’ll bet Davidson has a pretty high athlete graduation rate too.</p>
<p>Right! No doubt it’s a lot of fun for students and alumni! That still doesn’t justify athletes getting more perks and being held to lower academic standards.</p>
<p>Some schools require those things to graduate, and they’re not just academic lightweights. Caltech for example is one of those schools.</p>
<p>And I would imagine that most schools do give credit for people that do “baton twirling.” I think most already give credit for being in the marching band - not much difference there.</p>
<p>Nothing in this statement above is controversial. Of course sports bring in revenue, increase alumni loyalty, most players will never play professionally, and they’ll look back at their time playing with fondness. None of those things convince me that “therefore athletes are entitled to breaks that non-athletes don’t get.” Theater brings a lot of prominence to my college, talent scouts are all over the campus at certain times of year and there is tremendous alumni strength in the entertainment community, but none of that would be a sufficient reason to say that theater majors should have special study facilities or other perks.</p>
<p>The Atlanta Journal Constitution did an interesting investigation of football players and SAT scores.</p>
<p>UFlorida’s gap between the average football player and the average undergraduate was 346 points (CR and M only), with the average football player combined CR and M score being about 890.</p>
<p>Florida states that it expects a minimum of 440 for each section on the SAT.</p>
<p>The average football player is quite close to the minimum, if we assume 445 for CR and 445 for Math.</p>
<p>I’m sure that there are a few who are being granted exceptions, but with only about 25 students recruited in a class, I’m curious about the total number of students who would fall below the minimum of 440. It doesn’t seem like that much.</p>
<p>I just don’t get the concept that “because it’s only a few, it’s not that big of a deal.”</p>
<p>If the chemistry professor handed out to the answers to the exam, but only to 5 of the students in the 300-student lecture class, it wouldn’t be less of a big deal because it was only a few people. I don’t get this rationalization that it’s ok to drop standards and/or provide special perks because it’s “only a few people.”</p>
I think the argument against would have a lot more teeth if these athletes getting a big break to get in were bumping out other students. </p>
<p>But big schools like Florida tend to give big breaks to some athletes but these schools tend to have relatively few sports and I doubt admissions is bumpig kids because of the latest DB or RB they recruited … the athletes are just added onto the huge freshman class. These athletes are lost in population of students just as developmental or legacy admits are lost in the large student population.</p>
<p>To me the much more interesting situation is at top LACs like Amherst and Williams … these schools do not give big breaks to athletes (at least not to a lot of athletes) but they do give some break to some athletes … and these schools tend to have a lot more sports (2 to 3 times as many as big time sports schools) … and they have small class sizes … so the athletes at an Amherst or Williams make up a big percentage (it can be a much as 1/3rd of a class) so the admissions policies on athletics have a big affect on the academic feel of a class.</p>
<p>Using your analogy, those 5 students would have been prevented by a contract entered into with the college (and therefore the college is complicit in the situation), from studying 3 hours everyday (and maybe traveling on the prior weekend) when everyone else is studying for the exam, and instead are required to do something physically taxing, which requires them to spend more hours in the day sleeping. Therefore, they are placed at a tremendous disadvantage in their ability to prepare when it comes to taking the exam, so the college gives them a break. In exchange, the 5 students are adding value to the school with their presumably outstanding athletic performance.</p>
<p>3togo- But the majority of athletes at Williams et al have very close to the academic profiles of the rest of the student body. Their sport just gives them a possible “tip” for admission. No one in class is going to notice that the Williams swimmer or runner can’t do the work! That just isn’t the case. My own kid was a Williams recruit who chose another school and he was perfectly qualified for admission.</p>