Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

As a faculty member who has taught thousands of student, I can assure you that student athletes are among the weakest performers in the classroom. Not just because their time or mental energy is taken up by their sport, but also because they are not as intelligent, on average, as non-athlete students. Many of them are actually far, far slower mentally.

You must teach at a very low-ranked school. And I agree with a PP that you don't sound like a legitimate "faculty member."

Athlete-students have overwhelmingly been in the lowest-performing group in my classes for the past 20 years. Only track/cross-country students seem to break this mold. Even with the extra money that the school spends on special study halls and tutors for these athlete-students, they struggle with understanding content and keeping up with assignments. The two issues seem to be that they are at a university that is more challenging than they can handle, or that they lack intellectual motivation.

What is your non-tenure-track position look like and how is it different than an adjunct? Full time writing instructor?

I come from a family of academics. The only one who talks like you do about her athlete students is the one who could never get tenure anywhere and lived her entire professional life as an adjunct.

Wrong. You also reveal that you do not come from a family of academics. There are adjuncts, and then, separately, there are tenure-track and non-tenure track professors.

Or, maybe you just get confused, easily. My bet is that you were the athlete in your family (siblings were the brains?), and your kid has followed in your footsteps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

As a faculty member who has taught thousands of student, I can assure you that student athletes are among the weakest performers in the classroom. Not just because their time or mental energy is taken up by their sport, but also because they are not as intelligent, on average, as non-athlete students. Many of them are actually far, far slower mentally.

You must teach at a very low-ranked school. And I agree with a PP that you don't sound like a legitimate "faculty member."

Athlete-students have overwhelmingly been in the lowest-performing group in my classes for the past 20 years. Only track/cross-country students seem to break this mold. Even with the extra money that the school spends on special study halls and tutors for these athlete-students, they struggle with understanding content and keeping up with assignments. The two issues seem to be that they are at a university that is more challenging than they can handle, or that they lack intellectual motivation.

I come from a family of academics. The only one who talks like you do about her athlete students is the one who could never get tenure anywhere and lived her entire professional life as an adjunct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

As a faculty member who has taught thousands of student, I can assure you that student athletes are among the weakest performers in the classroom. Not just because their time or mental energy is taken up by their sport, but also because they are not as intelligent, on average, as non-athlete students. Many of them are actually far, far slower mentally.

You must teach at a very low-ranked school. And I agree with a PP that you don't sound like a legitimate "faculty member."

Athlete-students have overwhelmingly been in the lowest-performing group in my classes for the past 20 years. Only track/cross-country students seem to break this mold. Even with the extra money that the school spends on special study halls and tutors for these athlete-students, they struggle with understanding content and keeping up with assignments. The two issues seem to be that they are at a university that is more challenging than they can handle, or that they lack intellectual motivation.

I come from a family of academics. The only one who talks like you do about her athlete students is the one who could never get tenure anywhere and lived her entire professional life as an adjunct.

Anonymous wrote:I’m looking at the list of the administrators/staff at my alma mater. We have the dean of the business school. Two associate deans. An assistant dean of diversity and inclusion. Assistant dean for student life. Assistant dean of the graduate school. Dozens of academic advisors and “program coordinators” and “program directors”. Director of recruitment and admissions. Director of communications. Social media specialist. Director of assessment. Director of Faculty Affairs. Director of operations. Operations associate. Director of alumni relations. Alumni relations associate. Senior marketing specialist. Employer relations and events coordinator. International programs manager. VP of finance. Assistant director of student services. Senior student services coordinator. Director of student life. Assistant director of engagement and events.

The list was in alphabetical order and I stopped at the “Es”. And that’s JUST for the business school! Multiply that by the school of nursing, the school of engineering, letters & science, school of education, etc. and the university-wide administrators. It’s insane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

As a faculty member who has taught thousands of student, I can assure you that student athletes are among the weakest performers in the classroom. Not just because their time or mental energy is taken up by their sport, but also because they are not as intelligent, on average, as non-athlete students. Many of them are actually far, far slower mentally.

You must teach at a very low-ranked school. And I agree with a PP that you don't sound like a legitimate "faculty member."

Athlete-students have overwhelmingly been in the lowest-performing group in my classes for the past 20 years. Only track/cross-country students seem to break this mold. Even with the extra money that the school spends on special study halls and tutors for these athlete-students, they struggle with understanding content and keeping up with assignments. The two issues seem to be that they are at a university that is more challenging than they can handle, or that they lack intellectual motivation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always wonder what % of these kids are actually getting sports scholarships? Are all these swimmers, x country, field hockey, women's hockey, volleyball players going to college for 100% free (tuition & room and board)?

Not at all. There are very few sports where all the players get a full ride. Men’s and women’s D1 basketball, football, women’s volleyball, maybe one or two others. Here’s a good source: http://scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html In the sport I’m most familiar with, soccer, women’s D1 teams have a total of 14 scholarships per team and men have 9.9, and most are split among the 25-30 players per team. D3 schools and ivies don’t offer athletic scholarships at all.

I’m not really sure why OP wants to see the non-revenue sports abolished. They attract students to schools and are a small fraction of school budgets. I do know a lot of parents who are resentful that athletes get accepted to elite schools and like to push a narrative that all the athletes are dumb and contribute nothing to campuses. Mostly sour grapes IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

BRAVO!!!!! Excellent response!

Anonymous wrote:Yet the students on those teams are precisely the type of students most colleges and universities want. Why? Because those scholar athletes bring something special to the table. They are leaders. They are determined. They understand the concepts of effort and self-regulation. They get along well with others because they are used to working on a team. They work hard because they understand that strong input results in strong output. It would be extremely shortsighted for any university to start cutting sports teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, if you don't like college that stress sports and you think scholar athletes are idiots, why don't you just go to a different college? And vice versa. There are plenty of choices out there. This thread is like arguments whether toilet paper should be hung with the end in the top or underneath. Who the F cares?

OP here- I actually love college sports. I love watching college football and basketball. I watch the college softball World Series every year, except this year I obviously won't be watching. I went to a big flagship state university with a good football team. I still go attend games every couple of years with my kids. I just think it is ridiculous for colleges to be required to have sports barely anyone watches in person or on TV like golf, tennis, swimming, and rowing. Even college soccer at most schools both women and men's is poorly attended. If there are schools where it is popular then those colleges should keep those sports I just don't think schools should be forced to have all of these teams.

Anonymous wrote:You know, if you don't like college that stress sports and you think scholar athletes are idiots, why don't you just go to a different college? And vice versa. There are plenty of choices out there. This thread is like arguments whether toilet paper should be hung with the end in the top or underneath. Who the F cares?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NCAA mandates that schools with revenue producing sports teams like football have in some cases 16 other sports teams. Colleges are trying to get waivers to be able to cut some of these teams. Here is an article with a chart that explains sports like football, men and women's basketball teams, men's hockey make money. Two other sports like baseball and track and field at least earn a million dollars on average, although track and field probably has a huge roster. Sports like tennis, golf, cross country, and men and women's soccer need to be subsidized because they don't make enough money
https://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-revenue-2016-10

And who has to subsidize these sports that don't make money and barely anyone goes and watches- students! At JMU students are paying 2,000 dollars every year to subsidize sports teams. That is $8,000 over 4 years.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/hidden-figures-college-students-may-be-paying-thousands-athletic-fees-n1145171

Colleges should not be forced to have a certain number of sports teams.

The “cost” our vastly over inflated.

Colleges dramatically overstate what they actually spend on scholarships.
If you pull up a school’s report on the USA Today or Department of Education databases, “scholarships” are generally listed as either the second- or third-largest expense, behind salaries and facilities. Tuition is expensive, and if you add up the sticker price for tuition, room, board, books, and more, you could be looking at more than $50,000 an athlete. So it’s easy to see how a school could list scholarship spending at over $10 million a season (in FBS, the median is around $6 million, per the NCAA).

That’s what it says on paper, but the school isn’t actually cutting checks like that.

As economist Andy Schwarz has explained several times, here for Vice, the athletic department is “paying” the school, using something called transfer-price accounting. But that isn’t an accurate depiction of real costs.

This is true whether the department is called ‘communications’ or ‘athletics.’ If central school accounting says each full scholarship costs $50,000, then to the department head or Athletics Director (AD), it likely feels like a real cost. But to the school as a whole, unless forgoing that scholarship really increases total cash by $50,000, that’s not what it actually costs.

Currently, when athletic departments give a scholarship, they commonly get charged the full retail price (sometimes of an out-of-state student) regardless of the actual cost to the school of providing one more space at the school. The food and books provided probably costs half of what they charge. The real cost of tuition and dorm space is probably de minimis, unless by giving that space to an athlete, a paying customer is forced out. Except for very selective schools with tight space constraints, most of the expenses listed as part of an athletic scholarship are overstated and sometimes purely fictional transfer prices.

https://www.bannersociety.com/2019/8/12/20704195/college-football-athletic-budgets

Anonymous wrote:I always wonder what % of these kids are actually getting sports scholarships? Are all these swimmers, x country, field hockey, women's hockey, volleyball players going to college for 100% free (tuition & room and board)?