<p>
[quote]
Morning Edition, January 10, 2007 ? When Birmingham Southern gave up athletic scholarships, freshman applications increased, more students tried intercollegiate sports and alumni contributions soared.
<p>OK, 99% of CC readers aren't interested in Birmingham Southern and maybe it is a special cse, but I found the commentary interesting. Apparently the change was made after the Board realized that the school was awarding over a hundred athletic scholarships and just one academic scholarship. There was a certain amount of protest over dropping from Div. I to Div. III. This is, after all, the South and they were talking about football. But some interesting things happened as mentioned in the quote above. Also there was a change in minority representation on campus. Athletic recruitment, which is often promoted as a way to advance minority representation in the student body, increased from 6% to 14% with the change. As someone was said in the piece, they were looking for minorities in the wrong place, the athletic field, instead of the classroom.</p>
<p>Yep, I attended Ohio State and loved the atmosphere and incredible school spirit resulting from it Div 1 f'ball and b'ball programs.</p>
<p>But I applaud Birmingham Southern for its decision to enter into Div 3 athletics and spend the money saved on academics and academic scholarships. Based on Me Deford's report there has been only benefits as a result and the participation of student athletes has greatly increased.</p>
<p>However I find it curious that Mr Deford applauds this increase in intercollegiate athletics while he had previously heaped praise on the book, "The Game of Life" which documented the adverse impacts of college athletics at highly selective Ivy League colleges and small LAC's. The primary reason being the high percentage of students participating in intercollegiate athletics.</p>
<p>For instance at a college like OSU, perhaps 2-4% of the student body participates while at a LAC the percentage is typically 25-33%, a very significant difference. The research presented in "The Game of Life" indicated that the higher percentage of student athletes resulted had a greater impact admissions standards, had a larger impact on campus academics, had a significantly lower participation in civic life following graduation and contributed significantly less to the college following graduation in terms of both monetary donations and alumni activities. </p>
<p>I am not suggesting that BSC made any mistake in choosing to go into Division 3. It seems they did not and a big booya to them. But Mr Deford needs to reconcile his current report with the conclusions in the book he praised.</p>
<p>Three cheers for the president and trustees at Birmingham State! It's nice when such a principled decision is rewarded so immediately and concretely. </p>
<p>An aside: I'm not sure that there's anything inconsistent in praising both "The Game of Life" and the actions at Birmingham State. The root of the Birmingham State decision was a gross imbalance between the central academic mission and athletics (the 100:1 ratio in athletic to academic scholarships). The criticisms in "Game of Life" and "Reclaiming the Game" are fundamentally the same: a lack of balance between academics and athletics. The fact that large percentages of students participate in varsity athletics at LACs is not the brunt of Schulman, Bowen, and Lewin's critique. (Admittedly offering lots of varsity teams at colleges with modest enrollments and high selectivity does fuel temptation to let things get out of balance, but wide athletic offerings were not the main cause of questionable admissions and recruiting policies, academic underperformance, etc.)</p>
<p>I do not agree that the percentages do not matter. In fact, Shulman and Bowen discuss the percentages cited in my prior post as the reason intercollegiate athletics impact smaller and highly selective colleges to a greater degree than the big Div 1 universities. Below is an exerpt from a book review which illustrated this point.</p>
<p>"Shulman and Bowen show that athletic programs raise even more difficult questions of educational policy for small private colleges and highly selective universities than they do for big-time scholarship-granting schools." </p>
<p>"If a culprit emerges, it is the unquestioned spread of a changed athletic culture through the emulation of highly publicized teams by low-profile sports, of men's programs by women's, and of athletic powerhouses by small colleges."</p>
<p>Now it is true that these adverse impacts at small and highly selective schools could be minimized if there was no athletic recruiting, now admissions advantages given to prospective athletes and the elimination of varsity athletic EC's as a basis for admissions decisions. Perhaps this is what you meant in your post and I would agree. However that is not the world we now live in.</p>
<p>At my alma mater (Div III), the percentage of varsity athletes is now over 40%, and when one counts in junior varsity and intercollegiate club sports, it is over 50%. Among male students, and white students, it is even higher. Sports play a much greater role in the campus culture there than at any Div. I school I have ever visited, down to the very scheduling of classes.</p>
<p>Sorry for the confusion. We agree completely: high participation rates in varsity sports at small, D-III schools create pressures that have led to questionable policy decisions, particularly on the admissions front. </p>
<p>I just thought that DeFord's throw-away line at the end of his NPR piece--praising an increase in student participation in athletics at Birmingham--was not inconsistent with his praise for Shulman/Bowen, whose real gripes are not with significant student involvement in athletics per se.</p>
<p>mini and marathonman88, i agree. My wish is that Div 3 intercollegiate athletics would devolve into club sport status, with no paid coaching, admissions benefits or significant admin/alumni support. Div 1 is another matter altogether. For top tier programs we are talking about big financial incentives. For the rest, financial purgatory or conference largesse.</p>
<p>I wlould hate to see OSU f'ball abd b'ball relegated to Div 3 status even if the status qou would not significantly impact the culture/academics of the university. But I would readily approve an imrovement in academic achievement in f'ball/ and b'ball scholarahip recipients in these programs.</p>
<p>I'm not sure I'd go nearly as far as originaloog, hoping for D-III teams to devolve into club sports. Good coaching and high-level competition is an important part of the college experience for many students. I'd settle for a scenario where "students on all intercollegiate teams are representative of each institution's student body." The quote comes from the NESCAC statement on admissions practices. Although there's been some progress toward that ideal in the past few years, there's still a long way to go.</p>
<p>My computer would not let me listen to the blurb so I googled Birmingham Southern because the info given here did not jibe with what I have been hearing about sports. The big deal here, and my opinion of what happened here is NOT that dropping to D3, brought up enrollment, but they ADDED football to their program. Birmingham Southern HAD no football team. They are ADDING a D-3 football team. THis move is being done with a number of colleges that are facing diminishing student apps particularly in the males and minorities. There was a NYTimes article that went into this pretty thoroughly. Shepherd U in WV is the school they feature in this article. By adding a football team, these schools are finding that the problem is alleviated. In BS's case, this is clearly at the expense of higher level athletes in other sports, but the results are clear. Apparently there are many highschool football players who want to keep playing, and a shortage of colleges where they can play. And the parents are willing to PAY for them to have the privilige of playing college ball. And when the football players come to a school, it attracts other students. For all the negativity that you hear about football, the team shenanigans, etc, it is the biggest draw a school like BS can incorporate in one fell swoop. Can't argue with the results that have been consistent whereever this strategy has been used. So football bashers can bash away about eliminating the sport, when a program can bring in more paying bodies than endowing a chair and adding merit scholarship,at a far cheaper cost,.... well, what I can I say.</p>
<p>Thanks cpt! This throws the story into a whole new light. The way the NPR story was framed was so idealistic: chairman of the board of trustees marches into president's office and asks "Is it true we give over one hundred athletic scholarships and only one academic one?" and from there onward an upward to the eliminatation of D-I sports. The story did mention the addition of football, but only in passing. </p>
<p>If the result is no net decrease in the quality of admitted students, higher minority enrollment, more males in the applicant pool, de-emphasis on competition in other sports, more academic scholarships, and an increase in school spirit, this could still prove to be a great move for Birmingham.</p>
<p>I'm falling over laughing - and I like Frank Deford - the piece is true, true and very probably unrelated!
For example, I'm fairly familiar with BSC, and I know that they give lots of academic scholarship money, but most of it is in smaller dibs and dabs, not full academic scholarships. The school is small, and mostly draws in-state, the kids who would qualify for a full ride often have lots of offers to consider. Also, they are rolling admit, but the scholarship system is competitive, so you have to basically show a lot of interest to be considered for anything other than a basic "discount". My D applied in Oct-Nov, was accepted in a few weeks, and got a scholarship offer of about $6000 (some of which was because we are Methodist, UM students get a small discount, regardless of grades), to get more money she actually had to go to the school and be interveiwed, and compete on Honors Day. My guess is when all the dust has settled and the competiton is over, and kids have examined their options, BSC ends up with only 1-2 students a year who get the full ride scholarship.</p>
<p>A lot of this is about GETTING a football team. Both of their cross-town rivals, the Baptists and UAB, have football teams now, and I'm sure it is affecting BSC's student recruitment. For years, BSC was the "artsy" school with a number of students who were purposefully escaping football. I bet their surveys show students choosing Samford and UAB (which is working hard to make a residential campus), and listing school spirit as a reason.</p>
<p>And, believe me, I really like BSC, it is a great LAC that gets no exposure on this board at all.
They have had a terrible, heartbreaking year, and I'm sure that plays a part in this decision, it is coloring everything else going on at the school. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they are looking for good publicity.
It also makes me excited because I think BSC might be a good choice for my son, who loves to follow football, not play, and would not have considered BSC because of the no football status.</p>
<p>The argument that D-I schools should devote the money that they spend on athletic scholarships to achidemic ones is not valid. It is fairly common knowlege that at most large schools sports pay for themselves. Some schools actually are able to turn a profit from these sports. I read an article, I think it was in USA Today arround the time of the BCS championship that schools like OSU and uMich make somewhere in the region of $10 million a year in profit from their athletic programs.</p>
<p>actually marathonman88, athletic clubs are the systems that many if not most European universities employ. And yes, the universities provide them some $ to hire coaching and purchase the necessary equipment and supplies. But the clubs themselves arrange their intercollegiate schedules and the hiring of coaches which are often past players themselves. They also usually drive themselves to their matches and meets. Nary an Administrator poking his nose into the locker room.</p>
<p>And what about developing those leadership and organizational skills which are so important. Here is an exerpt from the UofEdinburgh football club web page which is quite entertaining.</p>
<p>"The committee is formed on an annual basis at the club AGM. At this time of year a Captain is elected to run the club. EUAFC has seen many of its Captains go on to successful careers in the world as it requires a great deal of effort and ability to organise four teams on a weekly basis whilst also looking after your committee. The Captain is not alone in their quest to make the club as successful as it is; they are supported by a further 10 members, 4 who hold senior roles and complete tasks on a weekly basis to ensure that the club meets all of its responsibilities.
Second in command of the EUAFC team sits the Vice Captain who works alongside the present Captain and views how the club is run. The Vice Captain is generally elected on the basis that they are not in their final year so that they are able to continue their work as Captain the following year although this progression is not a requirement.</p>
<p>The operational team at the club include the Treasurer, Secretary and the Assistant Secretary who are at the heart of the clubs daily business. The Treasurer is responsible for the clubs finances and holds a vital part in the financial and indeed overall success of the club. EUAFC would not exist nor would it be able to maintain its presence in the University if it were not for the exact calculations that go on with the clubs riches.
Fixtures for all of the 4 teams are organised by the Secretary, responsible for the 1st & Reserve Team fixtures and his Assistant Secretary who is responsible for the 2nd & U21 Team fixtures.
Behind these senior positions on the committee lie a further 8 positions created by the club members over the years in roles that are deemed necessary for the successful running of the club.</p>
<p>These include;</p>
<p>Webmaster – responsible for the maintenance and updating of the club's website.
Social Convenors – responsible for being the clubs social guru's.
Sponsorship Officer – responsible for securing funding for the club through sponsorships and affiliations.
Merchandise Officer - responsible for the club's annual merchandise.
Equipment Officer - responsible for the club's equipment.</p>
<p>Payments Officer - responsible for the collection of payments and funds towards the club."</p>
<p>This is a model I would like to see current Div 3 colleges strive for. These are real student athletes. BTW, because football is by far the biggest sport at UofE, most other sport clubs are far lower key opperations.</p>
<p>I have a feeling that the money for D-1 scholarships in the current sports is going to go towards putting together a football team. Even without football scholarship that is not a cheap endeavor. </p>
<p>But if their end result is achieved, it was a good move. I did not listen to the blurb because my computer would not cooperate, but from the OP's intro, it sounded like the school was giving their move a whole different spin. Cangel's comment that her son would consider BSC if it adds a football team is the sort of thing that I have heard a lot about local schools. Even non football players like having a football team at their school. You can see how it can impact admissions. Yes, there are those who feel otherwise, and there are schools who are successful without a football team, but the bottom line is that adding a football team is what a number of these local schools find will solve their admissions problems the fastest and most cost effective way, not giving other sports (unless they are high profile) and merit scholarships.</p>