|
|
|
|
 | Reclaiming the Game: |
Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations for Reform KEY FINDINGS Athletes, and recruited athletes in particular, comprise a much larger percentage of the student body at small liberal arts colleges than at research universities. At the NESCAC colleges, 43 percent of male students and 32 percent of female students were athletes. Recruited athletes alone made up 24 percent of the male student body and 17 percent of the female population. Relative to schools in Division IA, the percentages of the student body who are recruited athletes are high at all the schools in this study; at the Ivies, 25 percent of men and 19 percent of women were athletes and more than half of those athletes were recruited. Recruited athletes-defined as those applicants included on a coach's list-enjoy a significant admissions advantage over other applicants. This advantage was most pronounced in the Ivy League, where recruits were four times more likely to be admitted than similarly situated applicants who were not on a coach's list, but it was present and substantial in each group of schools for which we have data. Recruited athletes arrive on campus with substantially lower SAT scores than both their fellow athletes and other students. Recruited High Profile athletes (men playing football, basketball and hockey) had SAT scores more than 100 points below those of students at large at the Ivy League universities, the NESCAC colleges, and other coed liberal arts colleges. Though not as pronounced, SAT gaps also existed between students at large and recruited male Lower Profile athletes and female athletes. Evidence points to the existence of a separate athletic "culture." Athletes tend to be concentrated in social science and business fields of study, to spend large amounts of time together even outside of the formal demands of membership on a team, to limit extracurricular activity to their sport, and to live with other athletes. Recruited athletes earn far lower grades than both their fellow athletes who were walk-ons and other students. At the Ivy League universities, 81 percent of recruited High Profile athletes were in the bottom third of the class, as were 64 percent of recruited Lower Profile male athletes and 45 percent of recruited female athletes. A similar pattern was present at the NESCAC colleges. Recruited athletes earn far lower grades than what might be expected on the basis of their incoming academic credentials and demographic characteristics. This striking "underperformance" phenomenon appears to be related directly to the criteria used in recruiting and admitting these athletes. Taking account of time commitments, differences in race or socio-economic status, field of study, or the intensity of the athletic experience does not explain the underperformance. Recruited athletes underperform even in seasons or in years when they are not participating in athletics. Other groups with heavy time commitments, such as musicians, do not demonstrate any underperformance. Nor, for the most part, do legacies. In fact, these groups tend to achieve impressive academic results, and musicians, in particular, tend to outperform their classmates. Although students from underrepresented minority groups also receive an advantage in the admissions process and do exhibit underperformance, this group has shown steady improvement in both their entering academic credentials and their academic outcomes over the last quarter century a period when the academic performance of athletes has declined steadily. Moreover, there are, in our view, compelling reasons for giving underrepresented minority students an admissions advantage, related directly to the educational missions of colleges and universities and the needs of the country, which do not pertain to athletes. The academic-athletic divide is widening as the result of impersonal and self-perpetuating forces. Self-generated and mutually reinforcing pressures in both the athletic and academic areas (at the pre-collegiate, collegiate and post-collegiate levels) have led to increased specialization and intensity in athletics, a growing concentration of academic talent at the most elite schools, and therefore a widening academic-athletic divide. The academic credentials and performance of students at large have improved dramatically at the same time that recruited athletes have become increasingly focused on their sports (often at the expense of academics). These trends continue unabated. The University Athletic Association (UAA) has largely avoided the problems associated with the recruitment of college athletes. Of the schools in our study, only the UAA schools have recruited athletes who look like their peers in terms of entering academic credentials and subsequent performance. This may be the result of less formalized recruitment processes, more careful monitoring of academic performance, the relatively limited size of the athletics programs on these campuses, the absence of intense traditional rivalries, and the strong presidential control of the athletic enterprise. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM The problems relating to recruitment, admissions, and academic performance should be addressed directly. Major ideas to pursue at the conference and institutional level include reducing the number of recruited athletes, adjusting admissions criteria to raise standards for the academic preparation of recruited athletes, paying more attention in admissions to recruited athletes' academic interests and motivations, monitoring academic performance of recruited athletes, and holding both admissions offices and athletics departments accountable for underperformance. Recruiting large numbers of athletes not only claims places in the entering class, it also results in greatly diminished opportunities for other athletically interested (and talented) students to play on intercollegiate teams. Efforts should be made to encourage athletic participation by students admitted based on qualifications other than having been on a coach's list-the students we refer to as "walk-ons." Coaches should share the goals of the institution, including those related to the place of athletics within it. Hiring and evaluation of coaches should be based on their overall performance as teachers and campus citizens, rather than primarily on their won-lost records. The time commitment required to participate in varsity athletics should be reduced. This includes shortening playing and practice seasons, eliminating class and exam conflicts, restricting activities outside of the traditional season and requiring "time off" periods. The competitive goals of the athletics program should be focused on success during the regular season at the local and regional level. In keeping with these goals, access to national championships should be a "rare opportunity" and regional or conference championships should be emphasized. No athletic scholarships should be given. Monitoring systems should be established to ensure that merit aid and preferential packages of need-based aid are not provided on the basis of athletic ability. Football presents unique problems of scale, underperformance, and culture that must be addressed. Some schools may need to consider dropping football. Others will need to find appropriate opponents, and football-only conferences have promise. Limiting squad size may also be desirable. Competition should be between institutions of similar character, but there should be "flexibility within structure" to allow for orbits of competition that might vary by sport to encourage competitive balance. Some realignments within conferences and within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) itself seem necessary. A new national organizational structure may need to be created, within the NCAA if possible, with admission by self-selection. Thus, we propose that any institution be granted membership in this organization so long as its leadership agrees to adhere to principles such as (a) athletes should be truly representative of their student bodies (with academic outcomes similar to those achieved by other students); (b) opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics should be widely available to both men and women and not limited to "recruits"; (c) athletes should be integrated into campus life and participate in a wide range of activities; (d) there should be extensive opportunities for vigorous competition structured so as to avoid a preoccupation with national rankings and national championships; and (e) bureaucratic regulation at the national level should be kept to an absolute minimum. IMPLEMENTING REFORMS Accomplishing real change will require a holistic approach. History teaches us that piece-meal reforms run the risk of being subverted and are likely to prove ineffective. Institutions and conferences must work together under strong presidential leadership. Because intercollegiate athletics is a competitive enterprise, collaboration is essential to the success of any reform agenda. "Going it alone" will almost surely lead to nothing but losing records and demoralization. Institutional leaders at all levels should be involved in reform efforts. Although leadership is essential at the presidential level, it is also crucial for trustees, alumni, faculty and athletic administrators to be proactive in pursuing new directions. Process is important as well. The best plans for reform can be undone by poor timing, insensitivity to the quite natural reactions of coaches and athletes, exclusion of affected parties from the decision-making process, and failure to present compelling arguments. Now is the time to "reclaim the game." Difficult decisions need to be made about the rationing of academic and athletic opportunities, the scale and financial cost of athletic programs, and the role of athletics in the educational experience. However, the trends documented in this study make clear that these decisions will only become ever more difficult. File created: 1/29/2008 | |
Questions and comments to: webmaster@press.princeton.edu | |