<p>
Do you have a cite for that "fact"?</p>
<p>The Higher Education Research Institute prepared a report called "The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2004"</p>
<p>Here are a few facts:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>between 2.7 and 5 percent of men (depending on the type of college in which they were enrolled) participated in no exercise or sports in a typical week of their senior year in high school. </p></li>
<li><p>In contrast, between 4.7 and 16.1 percent of women participated in no sports or exercise. On the high end, between 11.6 and 17 percent of men reported having spent more than 20 hours participating in exercise or sports as high school seniors, while only between 5.5 and 7.6 percent of females spent that much time. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>The College Sports Council has great info. Their goal is to protect women without harming men. Here's the website:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.savingsports.org/issues/%5B/url%5D">http://www.savingsports.org/issues/</a></p>
<p>I think many cc posters, like myself, have athletic daughters who will always have sports in their lives, whether competitive or for fun & fitness. It's that old data point of one. Our perception can be off because we can't imagine a house not full of sports equipment & a d running from practice to meets to games, keeping training needs for next season in mind all the while. It's not like that for most college women. They've moved on to a "fitness mentality," while their male counterparts would still give their eyeteeth for a spot on the team.</p>
<p>Read Tilting the Playing Field by Jessica Gavora for more facts on the Title IX situation.</p>
<p>Let's face it. It is the semi-professional sport of football which causes the problem. Get rid of the big football programs and I would guess that women would be equally interested and deserving of support for competitive athletics.</p>
<p>edad: That's not what the interest surveys show.</p>
<p>Football is an integral part of many colleges' social life & traditions. You don't have to play, or even attend the games, to enjoy the hullabaloo of the big gameday festivities. This is no secret. If that's not your thing, find another campus with a better fit. But shutting down the program will add what exactly to the campus? More than likely, it will leave a huge void, anger alumni, and send the school on a downward spiral. Football & basketball are unique programs that attract huge fan bases & benefit great numbers of students (even if the program is a net $$$ loss.) While I have great admiration for women's lacrosse teams (d plays), I hardly think the loss of the program would greatly impact the student body in the way cutting football would.</p>
<p>My own d hates football & thinks it is a pointless game. But she attends games at the all-boy Catholic "sister school" because the atmosphere is so much fun. Seeing friends, eating junkfood, the whole exciting experience (of a nationally televised team) is what gets her out & cheering. At her lacrosse games, there are probably 25 fans in the stands. At the boys' football games, the fans number over 5000.</p>
<p>Huge fan base? To see JMU play Towson State? Duh! I'm sure the alums pour funds into the university every time they play Appalachian State.</p>
<p>But no one forces them to cut football. If they want to cut their losses, they can go Division III. They can limit the number of football scholarships. Or they can increase those for women. No one "forces" them to do anything.</p>
<p>"So as long as girls aren't clamoring for more teams, why on earth should there be a problem?"</p>
<p>Clamoring for more teams. Here. HERE. HERE!!!</p>
<p>What makes you think you speak for all college women? The interest surveys show that most college women DON"T WANT TO PLAY INTERSCHOLASTIC SPORTS! You may find that upsetting. Perhaps it rocks your little world view of a meddling government that will control our thoughts and mold us into the perfect image of the modern human if only enough laws can be passed. But back in the real world, most women are choosing not to play competitive sports in college.</p>
<p>It sounds to me as though JMU is just using Title IX as an excuse to cut spending on some of their athletic teams.</p>
<p>According to the Chronicle of Higher Education article quoted below, there are three ways for an institution to show compliance with Title IX. One of those ways is as simple as an email survey showing that they are "meeting the interests of current and prospective students." </p>
<p>That seems pretty straightforward to me. They are offering lots of women's teams currently. If the number of women going out for those teams is not proportionate to the overall student population, it might simply reflect that women are more interested in other campus activities. (It's a good bet that the drama club and the chorus are disproportionately female.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to Education Department regulations, institutions must show compliance with Title IX , which bars sex discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funds, by satisfying one of three criteria: having the same proportion of women playing sports as are enrolled as undergraduates; having a history and continuing practice of expanding programs for women; or meeting the interest of current and prospective female students. The 2005 clarification allowed e-mail surveys as a means of satisfying the third part of the compliance test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>source: <a href="http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/08/2006083103n.htm%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/08/2006083103n.htm</a></p>
<p>Why do you keep forgetting that one of the ways the university can comply with Title IX is by showing that its spending conforms to SURVEYS about student desires for participation?</p>
<p>If they don't want to play intercollegiate sports, the university is NOT REQUIRED under Title IX to provide the opportunities. What is so difficult to understand?</p>
<p>My recollection also is that as soon as Title IX came into force and colleges started offering more sports to women they became very popular. Women's crew for example only got started at Harvard in 1971, but it quickly became hugely popular.</p>
<p>Yup. If you build it, they will come.</p>
<p>Some folks see that as a problem.</p>
<p>Title IX is just an excuse, plain and simple. It's surprising that this late in the game, they'd pull it out and use it with a straight face. Their just now realizing they're out of compliance? :) OK, sure.</p>
<p>Nobody is forgetting that, mini. The problem has been that these surveys have faced constant challenges from advocacy groups. A year ago, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights first issued a clarification of Title IX's three-part compliance test. After the law has been on the books for over 30 years, and over a thousand men's programs have been cut (because this is what advocacy groups want, not true equity,) the third prong is finally clarified. It's ridiculous. </p>
<p>What you don't understand, or perhaps choose to ignore, is how tenacious & relentless these advocay groups have been. If the interest surveys were shot down, the universities were, in fact, forced to cut men's sports or face loss of federal $$$. The radical feminists are furious about the new acceptance of interest surveys, because now the truth will be exposed. Men like competitive sports more than women.</p>
<p>Here's a fun fact from The College Sports Council: • Participants in collegiate intramural sports, which are totally interest-driven, are about 78% male.</p>
<p>They've been "building it" for over 30 years and we still have much greater interest among men than among women. It's human nature. You can't fight it. And why should you? </p>
<p>I lived in the no sports opportunities for girls world. It stunk. In 1973, my high school opened up a girl's track team. (Volunteer coaches/fundraisers for equipment & uniforms/waited for the boys to be done with the pits & weight room.) Over 1/3 of the entire school came out. We were starved for a chance to play a sport. The numbers quickly dwindled after a few weeks of practice, though, when the novelty wore off. So I have no doubt that a new crew team at Harvard was instantly popular. But how many girls was it servicing?</p>
<p>The broader question--there is a very large athletic budget at JMU which is supporting a small minority of varsity athletes. </p>
<p>According to the article from the student paper, much of this budget is coming from the overall student population. </p>
<p>Would students overall be better off if even more teams were cut and other less expensive extracurriculars were substituted that would appeal to broader participation?</p>
<p>
[quote]
JMU Athletes Can Thank Their Fellow Students Posted 2006-09-22
Because they pay the bills for the Dukes’ broad-based sports program.</p>
<p>EDITOR’S NOTE: James Madison University has begun the new school year with high hopes in football and women’s basketball. But, without the TV money and other revenue streams that fuel major-conference universities, how does JMU pay for the resources necessary to be successful? This story – using the latest available figures – examines that question.</p>
<p>They’re kind of like mini Steinbrenners or Snyders – the cash cows behind James Madison University’s athletic department.</p>
<p>Big donors? State legislators? Advertisers?</p>
<p>No, no and no.</p>
<p>They’re the university’s students, all 16,000 of them. And, unlike the Yankees’ and Redskins’ owners, they have no choice but to foot the bill for the Dukes’ sports teams, whether or not they attend a single game.</p>
<p>And many, apparently, don’t – even though few, if any, publicly complain about the fee.</p>
<p>An average of 339 James Madison students attended each home men’s basketball game in 2004-05, but – taken together -- all students paid the athletic department nearly $18 million in fees.</p>
<p>Twelve times as many students – 4,065 – took in each Dukes football game at Bridgeforth Stadium that year, but without the aid of student-fee subsidies, Mickey Matthews’ Division I-AA team operated at a deficit of nearly $2 million.</p>
<p>The price of intercollegiate athletics is steep, and the brunt of that burden at Madison is borne by the students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>source: <a href="http://www.dnronline.com/sports_details.php?AID=6442&CHID=3%5B/url%5D">http://www.dnronline.com/sports_details.php?AID=6442&CHID=3</a></p>
<p>EDIT: Wow, I'm still digesting the content of this article. According to the article the average student pays $1,127 annually to college sports. (84% of their athletic budget comes from student fees--which add up to almost $18 million collected from 16,000 students.) </p>
<p>Something seems terribly awry here--and I think folks are missing the bigger picture worrying about men's and women's sports equity. </p>
<p>What about equity between student-athletes and the general student population, some of whom are struggling with burdensome loans and part-time jobs to finance their way through a state institution?</p>
<p>Moving toward less expensive extracurriculars (that require less travel, less expensive professional coaches & trainers, less expensive liability insurance, etc., etc.) would seem to be a huge benefit to me.</p>
<p>mini: What do you mean by "some people see that as a problem?"</p>
<p>
Not me. I don't care how they spend their money. More sports, less sports - just make it equal between the genders. ;) </p>
<p>And as to women not being as interested in competitive sports , I think women's participation increases in jr high and high school are evidence that that "truth" (if it ever was one) is on the way out. Thankfully. Hold somebody back for generations by belittling their efforts in sports and then point the finger and say "See. They don't like to play sports." Not really a model I think is fair . Do you seriously think it is? That's one reason why Title IX is there. To get past wrong-headed thinking like that.</p>
<p>Boys tend to like math and science more according to some interest survey, so let's spend more on their math/science education than we do on girls. Hogwash. </p>
<p>Look at the enormous strides women's sports have made in just the last 30 years. Amazing. My high school didn't even have women's track. You can't turn back the clock to the 50's. We won't let you.;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would students overall be better off if even more teams were cut and other less expensive extracurriculars were substituted that would appeal to broader participation?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If James Madison's athletic programs are drawing such a tiny number of fans, then I would answer yes. It seems as if the varsity programs are offered in numbers completely out of whack with.....INTEREST! And I would consider fan interest as part of the equation, although Title IX makes no provisions for fan involvement & support at all.</p>
<p>Another quote from the article I linked above really bothers me:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Although athletic director Jeff Bourne said he was not worried by the high fees -- the average student contributed $1,127 annually to Madisons sports -- he did stress that his department is looking to increase alternate revenue sources, such as private donations and gate receipts.</p>
<p>"One of the things that we, as an athletic program, have worked very hard to do over these past several years has been to try and generate more revenue from private or gate-receipt functions, so we can rely less on support from the university," Bourne said. "Obviously, that has to be a very long-term goal because it takes a considerable amount of time to actually move that percentage of allocation one way or the other.</p>
<p>"We feel very good about what were doing right now within the athletic program to rely on the students."</p>
<p>Because of student fees, the state of the Dukes athletic finances is strong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It sounds like he's empire-building but requiring students to be involuntary first-level financing without getting much payoff for it. This all seems very wrong to me.</p>
<p>curmudgeon, I promise I'm not trying to turn any clocks back. (Wait, I wouldn't mind shedding about 30 years myself and jumping into some cool sports opportunities....)</p>
<p>I'm just being realistic. Girls who have been raised eating, sleeping, breathing equal opportunity -- girl power -- the whole package, are turning away from competitive sports in college. The sports opportunities did their job, I'd say. Made them confident, sure-footed decision makers. Team players, aware of fitness, goal-directed. The whole package. But they don't want to continue with the competitive grind in large numbers anymore. </p>
<p>Your d is an athlete. Mine is an athlete, too. But they are not in the majority. Why pretend they are? And if women's sports don't draw nearly as many fans as men's programs, isn't that part of the reason? The roar of the crowd (well, maybe not quite a roar at James Madison) is like a narcotic to boys who have always experienced it. I even see a big drop-off of interest in sports at my d's all-girl h.s. as the girls approach senior year. If their athletic exploits haven't earned them any college admission/scholarship opportunities, many drop out. Playing in front of a crowd of 25 fans isn't thrilling if you don't play for the sheer love of the sport.</p>
<p>wisteria : interesting point. It applies to more than just sports. So many of the student funded organizations on most campuses would be condsidered offensive/pointless/extravagant to the students who are forced to shell out $$$, I wonder if some type of interest level/funding equation could be instituted?</p>