Skip to main content

81 replies

Academic support for athletes fair?

FungoFungoHighly Regarded and Beloved Old Timer
Universities offer athletes academic help
By By Chris Talbott
Associated Press

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

OXFORD, Miss. -- From the moment he arrived on campus, 320-pound tackle Michael Oher seemed destined to be a star on Ole Miss' football team and a failure in its classrooms.

Oher was the son of a crack-addicted single mom, and as a teen could barely read. His educational record -- 11 schools in nine years as he moved from home to home in Memphis -- read like an indictment of a failed education system before finally landing at Briarcrest Christian.

But four years later, at a school that graduates fewer than 60 percent of all students within six years, Oher has cleared every hurdle and nearly earned his degree -- the only barrier to graduation is the upcoming NFL draft.

"I haven't struggled a bit in college," the standout offensive lineman says. "It's been a breeze."

It's a tribute to Oher's determination and character, to be sure.

His story also says something about the state of big-time college athletics.

Like a lot of other college athletes, Oher got not only tutoring help but a full range of academic support services throughout his career. At Ole Miss, 14 full-time staffers line up tutors for student-athletes, help them choose classes, monitor study halls and check attendance. Athletes at Ole Miss averaged about 1,000 tutoring sessions a week this fall.

Such services are not unusual. The last five years have seen an astounding jump in the time, money and resources spent on academic support for student-athletes. Tougher regulations instituted by the NCAA now punish schools for poor academic performance, fueling a major spending binge with private and public funds on tutorial staff and athletes-only facilities filled with study rooms and computer labs.

The developments have been hailed by the NCAA. And yet faculty are disturbed by what they see as a shift that puts athletes ahead of other students.

Before the first kickoff this season, The Associated Press began a survey of the 65 schools from the six major conferences involved in the Bowl Championship Series plus independent Notre Dame. The AP obtained at least some financial information from 45 schools about the resources they devote to graduating athletes.

The picture formed by the data is one of schools frequently spending more than $1 million annually on academic support with some spending hundreds of thousands of dollars more in 2008 than they did in 2004, the AP found. Eight BCS schools reported spending increases of more than 70 percent in the last five years. Four increased spending by more than 100 percent.

Helping athletes graduate has become its own profession. A group for people in the field has nearly doubled to around 1,000 in just two years.

Glitzy academic support centers are popping up everywhere. A few weeks after Mississippi State opened a $10-million center last month, South Carolina upped the ante with a groundbreaking ceremony for a $13-million facility.

Oklahoma, with a 30,000 square-foot facility that cost between $7 million and $8 million, spent $2.45 million helping all its athletes last year.

Florida, the Sooners' opponent in next month's football national championship game, spent $1.67 million. Texas ($1.90 million), Ohio State ($1.89 million), Kentucky ($1.86 million), Tennessee ($1.83 million) and Georgia ($1.77 million) are in the same league.

Even some critics of college sports agree that when schools recruit often underprepared students, and demand thousands of hours of practice and travel time, they owe them extra help. Sure enough, the changes have helped push NCAA graduation rates to record levels.

"Now, when I go around and speak on campuses and speak to coaches and athletic programs and to student-athletes, they want to brag about how well they're doing academically," NCAA president Myles Brand said. "They want to show me the academic study centers. The coaches want to talk about and brag about their APR. All that is good. A few years ago, that was the last thing people wanted to talk about."

But there's also a range of criticism. Faculty have raised concerns about oversight, and the growing disparity between concierge-style academic support for athletes and what nonathletes receive. They also worry growing academic support hurts America's educational values and that athletes never learn the lessons of personal responsibility that are supposed to be part of a full college education.

"It grates," said Kenneth Holum, a veteran University of Maryland history professor and chair of the faculty senate there. "Why are the athletes more deserving than the other students? We try hard to give all the students an equal chance to profit from the material we're providing them, and other students don't have this opportunity."

Advisers to athletes consider themselves educators. Several at North Carolina State emphasized they do a lot more than line up tutors. They teach study skills, and offer career and personal advice. Increasingly, those in the field have graduate degrees in subjects like psychology and special education.

Many are former athletes, such as Natasha Criss, who works with Maryland's men's basketball team. When she came to Maryland as a track and field competitor in 1988 there were just four staffers working from cramped quarters in the old Cole Field House. Now she's one of the department's 15 full-time staffers working out of a sparkling corporate-like suite in Maryland's Comcast Center arena.

On a recent Friday, Criss watched the team finish a pre-game walkthrough at the Comcast Center and greeted several players as they left the floor, laughing with and hugging them. But she's pushing them hard. In 2006, none of Maryland's four seniors left with a degree. All three seniors on last season's team graduated.

"She helps us pick our classes, she checks our classes. To be honest with you, our graduation rate is getting better because of her," said forward David Neal, the lone senior on this year's team. "She's hounding us to do our work, we have a mandatory study hall because of her. Her job is to make us graduate, and she's doing a great job of it."

Critics readily acknowledge that all students, student-athletes included, are entitled to academic help. But the rapid spending growth makes them skeptical the new money is being doled out thoughtfully.

Spending on Academic support for student-athletes

To learn about what U.S. colleges and universities are spending on academic support for student-athletes, The Associated Press requested information from 65 schools in the six conferences that participate in football's Bowl Championship Series plus independent Notre Dame. Seventeen universities declined to provide any answers to The AP's questions. Eleven of those schools are private. Some highlights of the information obtained by the AP:

Twenty-six of the schools answering the query spent more than $1 million on counseling, tutoring and salaries in 2007-08, up from 14 in 2003-04.

One school spent more than $2 million -- Oklahoma at $2.4 million.

Overall spending on academic support for student-athletes increased during the five-year period in 42 of the 45 schools that provided information.

Twelve schools increased spending by at least 50 percent.

Four schools more than doubled their spending during the period the AP studied. They were South Florida, Illinois, Georgia and Kansas.

Seventeen of the 31 schools that reported the number of full- and part-time workers involved in academic support had more than 100 employees involved in counseling and tutoring.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
Fungo,
Good article.
This is my way of looking at it. If an athlete is playing a sport that brings revenue and prestige to improve a schools athletic program, which in turn brings revenue to enhance the schools' facilities and an athlete is doing this for NO PAY, you better provide resources for the player to be able to get his diploma.
Recruiting a student athlete should not all be about the athletic facilities and schools realize that many parents and their players are just as interested in athletic academic support programs too. Many kids particiapte in sports for these special opportunities not just those that play football, basketball or baseball.
Strong winning college athletic programs also means increase in the demand for enrollment from non athletes. It becomes a win win situation for everyone. A college student not working, has only 15 hours a week in class, more time to study and more time to join study groups, and seek out other means for assistance. Problem is that many do not.

JMO
Last edited by TPM
coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
I have to admit that I am torn on this issue. On one hand you are doing everything possible to help these students get a degree. Especially when we hear all the stories of kids like the one mentioned early in the article. It's easy to say that without sports those kids don't have a chance.

But on the other hand the school is using millions of dollars to bend over backwards to help such a small percentage of the student body. Where is the help for the student who comes from a single parent who works three jobs? Or the student who is a parent themself?

I think it also gives more and more power to the argument as to why you don't pay athletes. They are getting paid in an education that most people do not have access to.
DB Danny Boydston1,000+ posts
quote:
They are getting paid in an education that most people do not have access to.


Coach, I agree.
Although they are getting NO PAY, the full ride (especially in football) is quite substantial.
I think I mentioned in another thread once before that a kid who graduated from my sons school the same year, received a full ride to Rice in football.
At our graduation, they announced that if he completes his four years, that his scholarship would be worth $249,000. If you ask me, he's getting paid pretty handsomely.
coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
quote:
But on the other hand the school is using millions of dollars to bend over backwards to help such a small percentage of the student body. Where is the help for the student who comes from a single parent who works three jobs? Or the student who is a parent themself?


There are other services available for those groups.


I agree but on average do you think those services are as good as the ones as the services the athletes get?

Can you compare the amount of time a low income athlete has available versus a low income student who is not an athlete?

I'm sure there are some schools where the services they provide for non-athletes is pretty good but IMO they are the minority and are still inferior to what the athletes get.

Plus an athlete cannot have a job and has a coach pushing / forcing them to take advantage of the services while a non athlete doesn't. I can't see justifying so much time, effort and money being set aside for a small percentage of the student body.
coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
quote:
At our graduation, they announced that if he completes his four years, that his scholarship would be worth $249,000. If you ask me, he's getting paid pretty handsomely.


That is an astounding number and thanks for sharing. People need to realize that you can get paid for something without getting money. Think of the investment that student just made? They get a $249,000 education which will pay a lot of money over the next 30 years (if they take advantage of the opportunity).
rz1rz15,000+ posts
It's a class system like every other system we deal with in life. Within the entire student body, students and athletes, we can see some get an unbelievable deal, some get a good deal, and some pay "full boat" hoping to recoup that investment down the road. I'm living both ends of that story.

My son had a very good deal, but he worked his arse off for it it. Some say athletes can not have a job, I say he did, 30 hours a week he worked for the University and his paycheck was applied toward his tuition and with that came "support perks". With that statement many will counter and say "baseball is not work". To those I say, look at every college web page and you will see an "athletic" pulldown menu. Those web pages are not there to take up space, they are used as a recruiting tool for the prospective student and the donating alumni. A big part of "college life" is the support of athletics, and in order to be competitive in the recruitment of college students and pulling in alumni dollars a school also has to be competitive on the athletic field.

Obviously there are those "Ivy" type schools that use academics for recruitment but that is not main stream. The kid that comes home for the weekend with "State U" sweatshirt is not advertising the History Dept, he is flaunting the Athletic Dept. In order to keep those sweatshirts on the back of "Joe Student", schools have recognized that they have to maintain a solid Athletic Dept and the resources (athletes) within.

It's a vicious circle. In order for any school to sell an Athletic department it has to maintain the competitive physical aspect of the AD to the public, at the same time it has to sell the academic support for the athlete who makes that department strong. You cannot have one without the other and none of this comes without cost.

Face it, if institutions felt they were better off "jock free" there would not be athletic departments. Since they realize (for the most part) that athletics are needed to compete with other academic institutions in the recruitment of students as a whole, they must find ways of providing academic qualifying tools to athletes.
Last edited by rz1
TRhitTRhit10,000+ posts
Are we to presume that the academic student, say physics major, does not get "support"

As a senior in college and a math major I reached the finals with a cast on my right wrist taking care of a broken wrist attained in a ballgame--I could not write---I took three math final orally in the profs offices---is that not support and I was not on scholarship--I was a math major the and the math department in their own way took care of their own


SUCH IS LIFE !!!!
FungoFungoHighly Regarded and Beloved Old Timer
rz1, AND then there is Vandebilt ---
This is another "Cut and paste" from an earlier article. Probably along the same line of the Ivies.

The President of Vanderbilt University said: Student-athletes were drifting away from the core of university life. They lived, ate and studied in a jock bubble.
Sure, most went to class. But they missed out on virtually every other important college experience, from studying abroad to Greek life.
He planned to disband Vanderbilt's athletic department, and fold it into the division of student life.
The reaction was immediate. Reporters figured Vanderbilt was giving up on competing in the powerful Southeastern Conference. Some alumni fumed. Smart alecks gibed that coaches would be renting canoes and refereeing intramurals in the offseason.
But nobody's laughing now.
ClevelandDadClevelandDadHSBBWeb Administrator
Interesting topic. I think it is going to be hard to find unbiased opinions on this site. As a parent of a hard-working player and student, I feel the support is not only justified but genuinely earned. From the outside looking in, I can see why some feel slighted that the same resources are not available to the general student population. Human nature I guess
rz1rz15,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by BOF:
The facts are that there is significantly more funds available for academic scholarships than for athletic. There are also academic services available for those who seek them. Most kids who are at the Ivy's are not paying the full bill anyway.

Great point! What would be interesting to ask is of those academic scholarships, What is asked of that student in return? I'll stick my neck out and say that those on an academic scholarship do not put in the time required to keep that scholarship as does an athlete to keep his/hers. While at no time do I minimize that academic reward, I feel that the "John Q Public" does not have a clue in what goes into an athletes college life. All that is seen is the football player that does not graduate and takes advantage of the system to play football only. When it all shakes out, don't point your finger at the system, rather, rip the player who skated by. He/she is the biggest loser in the end.

What really bothers me is the lack fan fare many publications have spent on this subject, instead jacking up Micheal Phelps as the US athlete of the year. My vote would have gone to......

Myron Rolle

When you point at a Student/Athlete, that is the picture you should be looking at and challenging our kids to strive for.
Last edited by rz1
S spizzlepop1,000+ posts
This discussion seems to pop up here from time to time. To me, this is an old-school argument that at its core tries to link athletics to decreased academic performance across the board. Pretty broad strokes IMO. There’s a balance that needs to be held, for sure, but it’s certainly not all out of whack. If you look at primary and secondary education over the recent years, cuts in extra-curricular activities have contributed to decreased academic performance, not the other way around. It’s probably a few old conservative profs with zero interest in athletics that have the most invested in keeping the argument alive.
If the point of academic support for athletes is primarily to prop them up long enough to complete their eligibility and walk away with a piece of paper, then of course it's not fair. Not fair to the athletes who are sold on an offer for scholarship at a reputable post secondary institute. Not fair to the parents of the athletes that send their children off to school to receive an education, and not fair to the taxpayers or alumni that donate to an institution. I see that scenario as the exception rather than the rule, but obviously others differ. Most diploma mills don’t even have athletics.
Fairness for the academic-only student should be evaluated separately, unless you want to call on them to participate full-time in athletic (or other non-academic) performance-based activities as an adjunct requirement to their curriculum. I managed to get through college with a family to feed and a full time job, and I got as much academic support as I wanted (I didn't have access to all of the other options of academic life either Wink).
I admire the fact that more and more students seem to be offering their services as academic tutors or advisors. By helping educate others they enrich their own knowledge, and they learn valuable pedagogy skills. These are not wasted resources!
I agree with RZ1 here, and most posters I’d bet, that the role of the SA is exceedingly more difficult due to the rigors of training and competition. Holding up the exceptional student athlete as an example is what we need more of, and that will highlight the argument that more challenges for the collegians can be a very good thing. Fairness with respect to the general student body is a non-starter for me.
Last edited by spizzlepop
observer44observer441,000+ posts
.
Give me a break...

Here is a article that might give some perspective...

http://alabama.scout.com/a.z?s=14&p=2&c=660593

In 2007 University of Georgia projected an athletic department a revenue stream of $77M and a net profit (after expenses but before wealthy athletic donors) of $44 Million.

Let me repeat that....$44 Million in NET profit

I don't care where your allegiances lie, this level of return, this amount of revenue simply gives universities life, particularly given the current economic situation. And this doesn't into account the PR value and the giving, and the related product sales.

And the engine that runs that cash cow is athletes and the vast majority football and hoop. If you are a university and you simply have to keep your athletes eligible...and it's a PR bonanza when they shine.

It' a no brainer.

Cool 44
.
Last edited by observer44
B BobbleheadDoll5,000+ posts
Totally agree. The value to the college life is not even just profit but the general student experience. Going to football,BKTB, BB and other sports add a break for students in the rigors of the academic grind.
Canadian Universities rarely give scholarships and they lose all their top athletes to the US colleges. They just can't see the benefits of retaining their best sports athletes. There is constant pressure to change their mentallity but it is slow in coming.
Last edited by BobbleheadDoll
FungoFungoHighly Regarded and Beloved Old Timer
I know for a fact that student/athletes are athlete/students at many universities. The bigger the college the more resources they have to provide academic "support" for the athlete. Academic support goes much farther than providing a tutor for an English class. Academic support could mean something like "Introduction to English" taught by former Coach S***X with open book tests. I think it's all out of kilter and has been for decades. I think recruiting should be eliminated and the athletic teams should be picked from members of the student body instead of the student body made up of recruited players from numerous athletic teams. While I'm not a big fan of the NCAA, SOMEBODY has to control collegiate athletics. With 44 million in NET profits you can bet UGA is trying to figure ways to further "improve" athletics ---- not academics (unless it ultimately helps athletics).
Fungo
B BobbleheadDoll5,000+ posts
Fungo I don't see this at all. As in every thing we do we have choices. It would be nice to have full rides for every player in BB but that just won't happen soon. BB is a money loser. Most programs are lucky to get over 100 spectators at a home game. Most BB programs do fund raisers inorder to build their program.
Whe I got my football offer I never ever saw the coach or spoke to them. Not even sure if they saw me play. I turned it down because back them it was basket weaving 101. I don't think BB is anywhere near that low level. Maybe if they threw money around like that BB would be full of low level academic guys who took basket weaving 101.
I think the strict rules have kept the BB player at a higher academic level.
Last edited by BobbleheadDoll
CT Clint Taylor100+ posts
I can hear the backlash now but I will post anyway.
As a graduate of the Univ of Georgia, I know firsthand that the improvements for student/athletes have been very successful and rewarding for the university and the individual.

Fungo, as for your statement "I know for a fact that student/athletes are athlete/students at many universities".

As far as student/athletes vs athletes/students I submit there are many, not only at Georgia, that are party/students and not students/party. Most students don't envy the athlete/students because we see the amount of time and energy spent training and practicing. The non athlete has a variety of educational help from professors, teaching assistants, and departmental study groups at no additional costs; however, those costs never seem to be challenged. I participated in several during my college years and the participation was very low. On several occassions, the professor even handed out some of his prior tests for preparation.
I would submit to you that whatever avenue the individual is seeking (athletics, partying, education) is available at UGa. Just as an athlete must train constantly to go to the next level, the student must train as well, to go to the next level.
Maybe this is not fair, but life is not fair. As I tell my children "the fair comes once a year and you can go ride the rides if you like".
Just my opinion!
rz1rz15,000+ posts
I don't know about everyone else but my sons school did not have a football team, "athletic economics", and the power of athletics over academia did not exist. Many times athletes even felt targeted because they were athletes.

Often times these discussions tend to evolve into the microcosms of the elite programs. IMHO, I feel that a majority of our kids do not fit into that elite sub-culture and those that do fit that mold, probably have no clue of the realities of mid-major, D2, D3, and juco academic/athletic environments. This is not a rip on those who have, or had that opportunity, but rather an opinion that life is a little different on the other side of the tracks and that we should be careful not lump all situations in the same group.

On another note. I doubt My sons school or many smaller schools could afford a fully funded program. With that said, is the 11.7 an alternative way the NCAA looks to leveling the playing field ?
Last edited by rz1
FungoFungoHighly Regarded and Beloved Old Timer
Clint Taylor, I wasn't singling out UGA for sure. They just happen to have very successful well supported athletic programs and their "athletic books" look very strong as indicated by the link provided by O44. The academic support my son received at Auburn was excellent! It helped my son tremendously and I appreciate it. This isn't about UGA or Auburn but simply disagreeing with the academic template used for some student/athletes. "Extra academic support" is "need based" and many student/athletes just don't need the "academic parachutes".

BobbleheadDoll, I'm not comparing baseball to football but basket weaving 101 still exists for baseball players at the highest college levels. Not ALL colleges and definitely not ALL baseball players ---- but it's there.
Fungo
OLDSLUGGER8OLDSLUGGER81,000+ posts
quote:
On another note. I doubt My sons school or many smaller schools could afford a fully funded program. With that said is the 11.7 an alternative way the NCAA looks to leveling the playing field ?



Or is it the other way around?

Assume money wasn't an issue, for example each D1 team was able to fund 27 full baseball grants by rule and with full institutional support.

Recall the recent thread about a fixed amount of roster positions available each season. Assume the same identical kids got the spots. What would change?
FungoFungoHighly Regarded and Beloved Old Timer
quote:
On another note. I doubt My sons school or many smaller schools could afford a fully funded program. With that said is the 11.7 an alternative way the NCAA looks to leveling the playing field ?


Nope. I's pure Title IX (gender equity) Mens D-1 sports were reduced 10% and since D-1 baseball had 13 scholarships they were forced to cut 1.3 scholarships.
13 minus 1.3 equals 11.7.
rz1rz15,000+ posts
quote:
Nope. I's pure Title IX

Agree 100% Fungo.

But in a sick way the NCAA rule may provide an unintentional balancing formula in regard to the number of quality players per school. As we speak many teams don't even fund the full 11.7. Imagine if bb was fully funded, only the rich would fill their quotas of 27 schollys. As the rule stands now, many real good players get spread out to the masses.

Not much thought put into that statement but that's all I got tonight
Last edited by rz1
CT Clint Taylor100+ posts
rz1, I fully agree that (most) athletes at an elite program probably do not have a feel for the academic/athletic enviroment at smaller universities; however, the same could be said for those on academic scholarships.
The academic center (former athletic dorm) at the Univ of Alabama was a major point of emphasis for my son (GPA 3.65). He realizes with that amount of support, school and baseball will be much easier. (Although I know the football program and female population did not hurt)

Also, I think the 11.7 schollys has a direct relationship with Title IX.
coach2709coach270910,000+ posts
I think you guys are selling the average student short when you say they go because of the successful athletic teams. Kids go to school for 4 reasons

1. Education
2. Sports
3. Partying
4. Don't have a clue so why not

As a teacher for the past 10 1/2 years I have talked with countless of students who went to school to get only an education. I never heard one once say "I'm picking state U because their football.....basketball....baseball....track.....wrestling.....softball...etc...is the greatest." They always tell me "I'm going to state U because they have this degree I want".

Even the guys I have sent to college to play baseball were more worried about what degree they were going after than "other sports".

The school does make money off these kids that is sent to the athletics department but that is just a by product of enrollment - not a cause. Here is an article from CU Boulder as to why students chose to go there. This is from 1999 so it's not really up to date but I doubt things have changed that much. If you'll notice sports aren't mentioned and fun time is ranked 7th. This really isn't the best article to back up what I am trying to say but it does start to hit on the point.

http://www.colorado.edu/pba/surveys/ug/99/college.htm

Athletes go to school for several reasons - get a degree, go pro or just to play another 4 years. I'm in favor of helping them get a degree that will help them later in life regardless of why they went. Once they get the degree now the onus is upon them to do something with it. Maybe the school used them or they used the school doesn't matter - they now have a degree which gives them a better chance at a future than someone who doesn't.

I just can't see the help athletes getting being equal as to the help non-athletes get. Think of it like this - the athletes get the best tutors in the school. These tutors are handpicked by someone to help Johnny Football and Bobby Basketball to succeed in class. But a regular student is getting some person getting work study money to buy beer for the weekend.

I ran across this article from the NY Times. Please read it and tell me that what regular students have the same chance at help as athletes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/sports/ncaafootball/0...tml?pagewanted=print

The one thing that stood out to me in the article is this

quote:
Georgia’s $1.3 million budget for academic tutoring for its roughly 600 athletes is the same amount that the university spends on its centralized campus tutorial program for its 25,000 undergraduate students.


I'm not very good at math (seriously I'm not) but I think it comes out to GA is spending about $2,167 per athlete is academic services while a non-athlete is getting about $52 per student.

The article does mention two success stories of the academic success in USC's Chris McFoy and Temple's Leyon Azubuike and that is great. I'm all for it but what about Joe Student? How are we helping him or her?

All this money is being spent on the minority instead of the majority. Also, all this spending will take an effect on the cost of going to college and who does that affect - the athlete or regular student? Paying for all these perks you have to generate money somewhere and corporate sponsorship won't get it done alone. They have to find it somewhere and that place is higher tuition, higher room / board, higher fees, and higher everything.

I'm not against college athletics at all; in fact I love them. I played two years of baseball in college myself at a very small school where these opportunities did not exist. I just feel that colleges / universities have lost their way and made a deal with the devil when they started with TV contracts. ESPN is going to spend $500 million on the BCS series for the next 4 years which is more than 10 countries GDP.
Last edited by coach2709
Next

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×