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.

BRAVO!!!!! Excellent response!

How are these students any different than those that play an instrument? Dance? Are leaders in any type of after school activity? Have worked all of high school? Are on student government?

The only difference is that it is much easier for the kids that play sports to get into top schools.

It isn't sour grapes. It's reality. Just own it.

The rest of the world seems to survive with universities that don't have sports.

U Michigan and any other public funded - don’t forget the pensions! Look it up - those are public info. Some collecting $300k and above pensions.

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.

Lol. Sure.

Agreed. Like a PP said, this describes every kid that works toward anything.

I’m also very dubious of the link between college sports and future success. I attended a NESCAC school, where sports was big, but obviously nothing like a D1 powerhouse. Pretty much all of my female athlete friends are now SAHMs and all the guys who are making a ton of $ (which I don’t necessarily think correlated with success) got there because of connections. Or, they are now coaching their sport at a HS.

"How are these students any different than those that play an instrument? Dance? Are leaders in any type of after school activity? Have worked all of high school? Are on student government?

The only difference is that it is much easier for the kids that play sports to get into top schools."

Actually, it isn't easier for students that just play HS sports to get into top schools than those in the band or whatever.

In all cases, the colleges are looking to see how important the activity is to the student and/or to the other students.

If a student gets elected/picked to be the captain of their sport or the student gov president, which do you think is going to have the edge?

Exactly, the student gov president even though almost no one runs for the office whereas, 30 or 40% of the students played soccer at some point.

Maybe 10 or even 20% of students try out for the soccer teams and pretty much everyone who starts on the varsity believes they should be captain.

The students who have it much easier to get into top schools are not just leaders on the level of their school, they are leaders on the level of a large county or a states worth of schools.

Not only are they leaders of a bigger group, their leadership is much easier to see, their teams won something.

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.

Lol. Sure.

Agreed. Like a PP said, this describes every kid that works toward anything.

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.

Lol. Sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought they just need to hand out equal scholly money to males and females if they take public funds ( which almost all do)

So keep women's sports that are successful like college softball. On average over 1.8 million people watched each game of the 3 game final of the women's college softball World Series. More than watched men's baseball college final. Dump women and men's golf and tennis, and soccer and rowing.

Any school with football needs to find women's sports to match those numbers for Title IX purposes. The school should have athlete participation in proportion to the student body. If 55 percent male, then 55 percent of athletes male. Well if you have 85 on a football team and no female equivalent, that's an issue. So women's crew is a godsend because it can have a huge roster, same with women's track and field. Men's nonrevenue sports would be the first to go.

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.

On what planet is college track and field earning a million dollars? Unless you are talking about tuition from the athletes paid to the school. Other than football and men's basketball, maybe hockey at a few places, maybe baseball at a few places, no college sports teams turn a profit.

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!

How are these students any different than those that play an instrument? Dance? Are leaders in any type of after school activity? Have worked all of high school? Are on student government?

The only difference is that it is much easier for the kids that play sports to get into top schools.

It isn't sour grapes. It's reality. Just own it.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So you are the loser academic who can't get a real position. Nailed it.

A different professor here. You struggle with logic. Ask one of your "relatives" to help you out. Following true DCUM form, I'm sure you will claim you are a lawyer who makes 750K, but you fail to make any cohesive argument, so.....

To another poster: Non-tenure track professors are full-time, and often conduct research, but they will never receive tenure. Or, they were tenure-track at one time, but id not earn it.

Adjuncts are part-time and are hired on a class-by-class basis. These used to be only MAs/MSs, but with the PhD mills, some have PhDs.

There are also instructors, these are generally 3/4 time or full-time. They only teach. Rarely, but it is possible, they can earn tenure.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with you 100%. Most of my friends that work at a Division I college just go to meetings. They do nothing for the students. They go to local meetings. They travel to international meetings at least every 10 weeks or so (non Covid).
I honestly don't know what they do or even meet about. They are not even high level. I would say they are very low midlevel workers. They are not professors and have nothing to do to curriculum. There is a lot of B.S. admin type of jobs at colleges.

University of Michigan reveals that the flagship institution's diversity office has an $11 million payroll. Over $11 million a year on 93 diversity, equity and inclusion "administrators". Average diversity administrator makes $10k more than a PhD-holding junior professor. Husband and wife diversity duo -- Robert Sellers and Tabbye Sellers -- bank over $600,000 a year. $11 million is enough to give over 700 kids full-ride scholarships.

https://www.mlive.com/news/g66l-2019/01/5ecdebc7cb7398/university-of-michigan-defends-spending-millions-on-diversity-plan.html
https://umsalary.info/index.php?FName=&LName=sellers&Year=0

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.

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.

So you are the loser academic who can't get a real position. Nailed it.

What does distinguish a non-tenure track professor from an adjunct? AAUP seems to lump them together as contingent faculty. https://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-facts