Just curious: As a former college cox'n (walk on, not a recruit), one thing about this story that puzzles me is this - did Olivia Giannuli pose as a rower (as suggested by all the reporting I've seen) or a cox'n? At 5'4" and 100 lbs., the notion of Ms. Giannuli being a rower is as credible as the notion of her being a basketball player. But she was at least the right size to be a cox'n.
It is ironic that this issue is about coaches being offered bribes to let fake athletes attend their schools as compared to the usual issue of coaches offering bribes to get real athletes to attend their schools.
2
125 members on a women's crew team to comply with federal equality laws? That's not gaming the system? This should be examined for compliance with Title IX
5
Whom are we really kidding here? Admissions for the elite is as old as the university system -- preferential treatment for desirable traits is the norm -- be it for diversity, athletic or other prowess, or achievement. The admissions office did not oversee the Athletic Dept.? Did not follow up with sending high schools? Truly hard to believe. This along with huge donations (Kushner) is the norm. Let's not kid ourselves as it seems to result in an alumni pool for these schools which functions very well for it's own continued success!
2
What about the vast number of high school athletes left behind by this glorification of college sports?
Millions of kids are spending 30+ hours per week, 12 months a year, not to mention lots of money, to participate in sports so that they can get a leg up in the college admissions process. But for nearly all of them, it doesn't result in either a scholarship or a "preferred walk on" admission.
We all would be far better off if they spent even a fraction of that time on grades, other activities and test prep, and their odds of being admitted to the college of their choice (as well as their options should they be rejected) would skyrocket.
4
"The Yale athletic director will begin reviewing every proposed recruit’s credentials before admission..."
And not the Admissions Department? What is this one big dereliction of responsibility?
72
@abo The Admissions department will be reviewing the candidate, but the Athletic Director will be "vetting" the candidate as an actual "athlete". It's not that hard to do in the minor sports. It's far easier for the Athletic Director to do this as he knows where to look and to whom he should speak about a recruited athlete.
9
Sports are great for some, but we have to admit we have one darn weird system. Even at a Division III school, being on a varsity team can take a huge amount of time, and these schools, some with undergraduate populations of less than 2000, have up to 30 separate varsity (read - traveling) teams? So, as the article says, a college may have 40 percent of its student body actively spending a lot of time during at least one semester a year, competing and training.
When did those in charge decide to have college resemble a mini Sparta?
102
@Sam you have it correct, Sam. ban all inter-collegiate sports. encourage students to exercise in different intra-mural sports. they might learn to pay a sport that they will enjoy the rest of their lives. this would help encourage better health for many more students throughout their lives.
taxpayers are now being forced to pay taxes so some people can go to games for their own enjoyment(and financially benefit some coaches, some administrators and the media. why should taxpayers be OBLIGATED to pay for this?
38
@john boeger I agree wholeheartedly. Skip the formal university teams (do the football and basketball programs even pay for al the other sports teams, or are they being subsidized by everyone's tuition?). Intramural teams at varying levels are the better solution. The same should apply at high and middle schools. The amount taxpayers pay for fields and their maintenance, busing and more is ridiculous. I have read that it is because of sports that school times can't start later, though the academic effects of later start times are overwhelmingly positive. Sports are not the mission of education and we should not be paying for them on more than an intramural level.
17
@john boeger l Your tax dollars are NOT supporting this!!! Most of these smaller colleges are PRIVATE - that means they receive no tax money.
Yes, some do have a high percentage of students participating in athletics. How is this a bad thing? They learn time management, gain camaraderie, must keep their grades up for eligibility and are physically very fit and healthy. What would you have them do for recreation? I'm sure you are equally opposed to the Greek system, so no parties at the frat house!
Most of the minor sports ARE lifetime sports, or at least until one reaches middle age. I was very sorry to see my son drop off his twice-weekly water polo team when he reached 40. It was killing him physically and with two children at home, he needed to put his time toward them and their well-being. Most love their sport - they're not doing it to "go pro"!
8
For several years I have conducted alumni interviews with applicants to the Ivy League university from which I graduated and now, as a PhD student at another Ivy League school, teach undergrads. Beyond the fact that recruited athletes are given all kinds of passes once they’re actually enrolled - such as being allowed to miss as many classes as they need to in order to travel for games - it is patently obvious who is a recruit and who is not. 9 times out of 10, they are not up to the work. Some care, and seem embarrassed that they are not on the same level as their classmates (they know why they got in),and plenty of others are along for the ride. This system really doesn’t serve anyone— including recruited athletes who could be much happier at a school with lower academic standards. Meanwhile, of the dozens of outstanding candidates I have interviewed for my alma mater, one was admitted. I can’t help feeling resentful when I think of the spots the rest were refused being held by athletes who aren’t there to study in the first place. There are more than enough decent athletes among those students admitted on their academic merits to fill out the sports teams. Finally, the problem clearly stretches beyond athletic recruitment. Head coaches at my university are paid many times the salary of a top professor. This says a lot about what our culture values, and it doesn’t look good.
183
@Opossum This was to my late husband's experience when he was head of his Ivy's Alumi Schools Committee and did innumerable interviews in multiple states.
He found the applicants very mature, articulate and highly organized. They pretty much "had it all".
5
@Opossum
Coaching a college athletic team requires excellent interpersonal skills, attunement, management skills, energy and focus. You may not respect it but it’s not a job that many people can do, Nevermind do well.
4
@Opossum So all those elite schools should eliminate NCAA sports, few if any will miss them. My school is an elite University in the south with championship teams in almost every sport. They add a lot and we would be happy to take any exceptional individuals that you don't give an opportunity to especially females.
3
As a Haverford alumna, I must point out that it's a little easier to hold high standards when you don't field a football team. That said, the athletic recruiting at elite Division 3 schools is out of control. Salon had an excellent piece on this last year which focused on Wesleyan, but raises many questions about the relationship between athletic recruiting and admissions that can be applied to most elite D3 schools: https://slate.com/culture/2017/12/wesleyan-university-football-is-good-business.html
3
@gotham_gal Even without football, Haverford is so small, the number of recruited athletes for other sports ends up being a large percentage of each incoming class. I think I read somewhere that recruited athletes at Haverford represent roughly 40% of each class. You still need students to field a swim team, a soccer team, a field hockey team, etc., so those recruits take places that could otherwise be given to non-athletes. That said, the rumor is that Haverford does a better job than most in terms of recruiting athletes who "make the grade."
It is no accident that often the highest paid employee at a university is the football coach.
4
In my experience most of the athletes at elite universities DO meet the academic standards of the school. I was one of them, I know lots of them, and they work very hard! I know a champion swimmer who aced 15 AP classes and had perfect test scores, and who is also a genuinely fun person to be around - now at an elite university and still competing - these people are not unicorns, they exist! Whether public colleges should have sports or not is a different question. I just want to acknowledge that it is possible to be both a a brilliant student and a very good athlete, in fact those pursuits often complement each other, as both require dedication and hard work. Katie Ledecky comes to mind - she is not just the best swimmer in the world, but also a truly gifted student: https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/essays-education-and-excellence-the-classroom-side-of-katie-ledecky/
4
Two of my daughters were recruited runners who attended elite D III schools. The were above the average of their admitted class in SATs and GPAs as well as multi-racial, but I am sure that the coaches who supported their "files" made the difference in their acceptances. Some of the coaches told them that in order to be sure that they would get in they should apply early. The schools they attended were "need-blind" so early decision did not affect their aid packages, which were generous in both cases. When you have a boat load of qualified applicants, what is a fair way of choosing?
3
It sounds like your daughters are well qualified for the schools they attend. However, the fact that a coach was shepherding them through the process is in itself an advantage that gifted poets, robotics team members, and yearbook editors don’t have. Academics should always come first. After that, a kid’s skill at a sport should be judged right alongside other students’ skills and prowess in their chosen activities.
6
Pretty incredible that students can apply for admission stating that they were members of a team sport and NO ONE, checks to see if that is true.
The colleges are in contact with the high schools to receive final transcripts as well as a document that show how the high school does their grading to calculate the GPA.
So asking for one little additional question about the students registered extracurricular activities be it sports or clubs seems pretty basic.
5
@SB
No surprise this scandal involved women’s crew where many have no experience in the sport.
@Shamrock
Some of the best women rowers really are walk-ons who played other sports or did dance or cheer in high school but didn’t get recruited for their original sports. And they can beat a fair number of the gals whose parents paid through the nose for the boutique rowing clubs to get preference. My kid is one of them. And it burns me that people will take advantage of this. They take someone else’s spot and make the whole group look bad.
@Shamrock
True, but here the applicants appear to have claimed to be on the Marina Aquatic Center club team, which is among the most prominent and successful women's rowing teams in SoCal.
As a college professor in a Division III school, it seems that there isn't a great interest in any of our sports, which is fine with me. However, the bigger question is the usual defense of sports: that they are good for your health. A number of years ago, I took a look at the physical education faculty, and compared it to the music faculty. There wasn't an obese person on the music faculty, and all of the former athletes were overweight, and with chronic health issues--shot knees, hips. As the insane interest in sports has swept across the country, it is no accident that sports medicine has become a big "thing." I'd submit that is is a lot healthier to play the piano or the violin than to do competitive sports.
8
Sure! Duke, Kentucky and other top Division I football and basketball programs will now be more "selective" in their recruiting and college admissions process. Nonsense.
2
Just follow the example of Oxford, no legacies and no sports preferences.
6
@Richard
What about affirmative action? I have read many columns in the Times that opposition to Affirmative Action is racism. An athletic preferential admission to a minority is counted as Affirmative Action also.
I think that the obscene salaries paid to college football coaches is part of the issue here. Any sports administrator or any coach of sports other than men's basketball and football will NEVER make what the coach makes . . . NEVER. What seems odd to me is the man who perpetuated so much of these scams, Mr. Singer, will walk at the end of this. He won't walk in the millions, but he's going to walk. As a professor and administrator at a Division I school, big time athletics do not add anything to our academic pursuits. Universities have been scammed by big time sports. #MustBeTheMoney!
4
This highlights why athletes should not be paid. Candidly, most don't belong in college; too may take buttercup classes and just hope to jump to the pros. So let's stop the educational nonsense and actually focus on the true student athletes who are students first, then athletes - in all sports.
7
@Bob
Great idea. Right after the dominant athletic program, Stanford, ends preferential admissions for athletes.
3
The primary frame of reference for discussing this scandal should be crime, ie, bribery and conspiracy to commit fraud against universities, among others. Parallels in the “real world” include the allegations about how Trump-Pence campaign won the 2016 presidential election.
The parallels for the Yale women’s soccer coach of course is corrupt world of soccer administration from FIFA World Cup slush money to the USA’s rigged “pay to play” system.
The question of the corruption of big-time men’s college basketball and football is separate and worthy of debate - and which needs reform in my opinion. The parallels in that case are Citizens United case and the ongoing financial poisoning of democratic representation.
2
It's obvious that a large number of people commenting do not understand the value that athletics provide universities. Tens of thousands of people are not going to get together on a Saturday to watch a science lecture. Athletics bring people within university communities together. Numerous studies have shown that when schools are performing well in sports; applications go up and the quality of admitted students go up. Donations also go up when schools are performing well on the court/field. A number of comments imply that student-athletes are free loaders. The amount of hard work student athletes put in cannot be understated.
6
All we are saying is that they should not be given advantages in the admissions process over kids with better academic profiles.
5
@Kevin They provide more value to the university than regular students so why shouldn't they? They also graduate at a higher rate than normal students.
4
As a group, recruited athletes do not perform as well as their un-recruited peers. Some may, but most don’t. would like to see data to support this, google “Middlebury College study on recruited athlete GPA.” They studied 80,000 athletes and found that recruited athletes college GPAs were significantly lower than their non-recruited peers. College is supposed to be about academics, not sports.
10
Every time my alma mater called me for money, I told them as long as they could pay a football coach millions, build a huge expensive training center and offer unqualified students scholarships, they clearly did not need my donation. I told them to stop calling me until they changed their policies. They stopped calling me.
9
@Carr Kleeb You know that the football program makes the school more money than it cost right?
@Kohl Not according to others, and I quote, "Only seven other athletics programs at public universities broke even or had net operating income on athletics each year from 2005-2009, according to data provided by USA Today to the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (for which I consult). The others were Louisiana State University, The Pennsylvania State University, and the universities of Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas at Austin. "
2
@Viktor prizgintas
Purdue has a self sufficient athletic department. Why else would it have so few varsity sports? It doesn’t believe the university should fund competitive athletics. It is one of very, very few.
2
The Ivy League is an athletic conference. Athletes receive no scholarship money and put in 30 hours a week 52 weeks a year in training and competing. Athletes are not in their rooms playing video games or complaining about "safe spaces". Depending upon the season, athletes remain on campus during regular academic breaks and forego much of the "college experience".
Employers hire athletes because they know how to work as a team. They are excellent at time management and do not complain about long hours and what can be perceived by your typical current graduate at "menial". Athletes know how to accept responsibility for failure and move on from a loss by unemotional examination and moving on.
Which is exactly what a lot of the angry parents commenting here need to do. Children who learn to deal with disappointment thrive. Move on.
14
Athletic prowess is admirable, for sure. I love to watch a great tennis match as much as the next gal. What “we” believe is unfair, however, is giving good tennis players (or football players, or squash phenoms, or lacrosse superstars...) any advantage in admissions to competitive schools. Kids learn teamwork and leadership and all kinds of other valuable skills from many different types of extra curricular activities and part time jobs. Athletes are all about fair play — admissions ought to be as well. All kids should be held to the same standards in the admissions process — even athletes.
7
@JPP As a former college athlete in a so-called "Olympic sport," I endorse your comment whole-heartedly!
1
@JPP
BS. The Ivies apply grant in aid, scholarships and whatever else to takes to recruit athletes. They just don’t call them Athletic Scholarships. You are dead wrong in implying that the Ivies don’t provide financial aid to athletes.
4
Athletics in this country deserves the scrutiny it’s getting and things are going to get worse before they get better. Parents are now paying through the nose for their kids to be on “travel” teams, narrowing a child’s play and free time to practices and games year round. It is not as narrow an experience as playing Fortnite four hours a day, but it’s not that far off, and the kids are being cheated.
3
Genuine students who are in college to get an education may also enjoy playing a sport, and some might want the challenge of facing the best athletes from another college. That's what varsity sports are /for/.
Lowering academic standards for semi-pro teams makes no sense. Contrary to what they say, these teams lose money for the universities.
The article advocates "transparency." But at my university, which has a certain reputation for academic excellence, the faculty and the administration are complicit. Our football coach is the highest-paid employee of the State of California: more than the governor, more than the president of the university. Our campus invested many millions of dollars to rebuild the football stadium a few years ago, taking on a debt burden that will be holding back teaching and research on campus for decades.
There is a faculty committee in charge of admissions. Every year that committee rubber stamps a byzantine policy by which the coaches have a certain quota of substandard admits, and a smaller quota of /absurdly/ substandard admits. When I was on the committee I tried to get rid of the latter; my colleagues got angry at me.
Used to be, the sports teams were required by law to be financially self-supporting. For many years the campus just flouted that rule. But the same past chancellor who approved the stadium convinced the Regents to change the rules so that football can now legally drain money away from academics.
This is shameful.
11
I just straight up don't understand how it even makes sense to award "bonus points" to someone applying to university based on how well they've done in activities unrelated to schooling.
6
@Asta Because they have a marketable skill set.
1
what does being an athlete have to do with whether a student is qualified to attend a certain school? the colleges should first determine whether a student is qualified and whether the college wants him as a STUDENT, then if he is an athlete, see if he qualifies for some sort of scholarship, etc.
some colleges have permitted the media to spread false info regarding the admissions process. do the colleges that give preference to legacies and athletes publicize such info in their published info? do they give the percentages that are now coming out in the trial against Harvard?
colleges have not been truthful with the public. they should be held accountable by reducing or eliminating all federal taxpayer monies and benefits of all kinds. taxpayers have been cheated.
3
Thank you for the first detailed article on athletic recruitment. I look forward to similar pieces on other forms of recruitment -- debating, music, Model UN, etc. etc.
I have two children who went through athletic recruitment at Div 1 schools where their academic and athletic credentials were rightly scrutinised before admission. Their teammates are clever, hard working, talented and humble.
As others have said, the majority of athletes on campus train as many as 30 hours a week in addition to attending lectures, undertaking research and other campus activities. They are aware of a responsibility to their coaches and their teammates 'not to let the side down'.
This scandal, unjust and ugly as it is, is a matter of a few rotten apples. Some scrutiny by Admissions officers is now called for but please be careful of dismantling a system which is carefully governed by national regulations -- these athletes have spent years training to get where they are -- just like the maths geniuses and concert pianists with whom they attend college.
The world needs young people with a variety of skills, aptitudes and appetites to help solve a myriad of problems. Athletes bring a unique perspective.
8
@ConfusedinLondon i am certain that your children are good upright students, etc, but the system is unfair to all taxpayers. what does being a trained athlete have to do with being educated? wouldn't a good intra-mural program with good coaches and facilities be better for the health and safety of more students? they could learn to enjoy lifetime sports rather than go to games on Saturdays and cheer on a few gifted athletes.
let the pro teams train its own athletes. don't force the taxpayers to pay huge salaries to coaches and administrators, build huge stadiums, etc. taxpayers have been sold a bill of goods by the schools. it is all because of the money for some of the few big power houses.
6
Thank you for this. My son plays a sport for one of the universities caught up in the scandal. He worked his butt off to make the grades and test scores required for admission. As did a lot of other people: The acceptance rate for his school is in the low double digits. Did sport help tip the scale in his favor? Maybe. Probably. Just as a talented musician, dancer, actor, or debater’s chance of acceptance would be increased because his talents and skills contribute to a richer, more interesting and diverse, community.
5
There is no way that any debater or musician or artist received the kind of extra attention in the admissions process that your child did. For those kids, admissions officers were looking at the transcript first — as it should be.
6
Athletes should be required to follow the same afmissions process as every other student. The athletic department should only be allowed to recruit a student after he /she has been admitted. The knock-on benefit - high school students who want to play college sports will also have to care about their grades.
6
@Douglas Weil agreed. remember the one Ohio State player who said"i did not come to college (Ohio State) to play college"? this is what the one and done players do. as bobby knight said, these players can play for a year and never go to class. the taxpayer pays for this and the school continue to fool the public.
4
@Douglas Weil
What about Affirmative Action? By definition it gives preferential admissions to those who would not otherwise be admitted. That’s the whole point. Are you against Affirmative Action?
Most of us would benefit from some sort of athletic endeavor, and I think athletic activity have an important place in education -- mens sana in corpora sano -- so schools at all levels should support sports that students can continue throughout life. Not many people who play football in high school will still be playing football in their 60's and 70's. On the other hand, people who play tennis or swim or ski as adolescents often continue well into their later years. Colleges and universities should provide facilities and training rooms and coaching to all students in athletic activities one can continue to enjoy throughout life and that do not require a lot of specialized equipment. Many of these sports -- swimming for example -- are relatively non-competitive and should be given priority.
1
@Tokyo Tony i agree. ban inter-collegiate sports, but improve intra-murals and physical education programs so many more students can learn and train in life time sports for health and enjoyment.
This problem stems from the limiting reagent being that there are not enough spots for students. People become desperate. To fix the problem expand the capacity of institutions so many more students can attend!
1
When will an article cover special internships - like the ones Malia Obama received as the daughter of a sitting President?
Yes, athletes get special favors.
Yes, rich kids and kids of celebrities get special favors.
Look around: Life is not fair.
8
@jdoubleu
It’s a good thing when a liberal receives special favor. But can you imagine if Harvard announced affirmative action for poor white conservatives from West Virginia?
This “scandal” concerned 50 students. Who cares in the grand scheme of things.
Much worse is the overtly racist policy called affirmative action that unfairly targets and kills the dreams of tens of thousands of Asian and white kids, simply because of their race.
3
"But in the lower-profile sports like crew, volleyball, tennis and soccer..."
Translation: "But in the predominantly rich, white, and non-revenue generating sports..."
The human condition. If right does not get the job done, wrong usually works. If educational institutions were purely about education, keeping track of improprieties would be far simpler. The pro leagues should donate to the universities and colleges because without them, there would not be the “farm system” they use for their businesses. In other words, the pros should sponsor a portion of scholarship costs of the athletes. Better yet, in the money sports the pro leagues should have their own farm systems as in baseball. The colleges then can concentrate on their primary function, education of America’s youth.
1
It's time for this farce to end. Athletics do not belong in schools. Elite schools should lead by no longer recruiting athletes. State schools should be barred from spending money on athletics. Schools should be in the brain business not in the psuedo professional sports business. No country has this crazy system. Messi and Ronaldo did not have to fake their way through the Universidad de Salamanca to play soccer.
45
@Ines College athletics are not a farce. Lets get real they are never going away either...ever. They have existed at our universities for well over a hundred years. University sports have had a positive social impact on students and fans. What is a farce is the money involved in college athletics today. It's now a multi billion dollar industry. This is especially galling when you consider this business is built on the backs of college athletes who are considered amateurs and their compensation is limited to athletic scholarships. Unpaid student athletes generate millions of dollars for their universities and private entities. It's out of control when the highest paid state employee is the Head football coach who has a five year 7 million dollar guaranteed contract. First pay the athletes a fair salary and you will address the sports biggest problem. Second some readers will be offended but due to the passage of Title IX in the United States, universities must offer an equal number of scholarships for women and for men. This is absolutely ridiculous. There simply is not a demand for women's soccer, crew or in many cases even women's basketball. It is insane to have 125 athletes on women’s crew to help a college comply with federal equality laws by balancing out the number of male athletes in football. End this now. All sports should be self sustaining. Those that aren't can be non scholarship sports. Do these two things and you will have less people trying to game the system.
2
@Ines Did you know that student-athletes graduate at a much higher rate than regular students?
4
@Kohl What is the source of your information?
3
The students at the school LOVE the sports as spectators. Applicants gravitate to schools for their sporting atmosphere. Just look at the orgy-like glee in the stands of events and at the ça puis parties the night post-game. It is part of the whole collegiate experience. If you don’t like it, ignore it or go elsewhere.
2
@Will Eigo fine, but stop forcing taxpayers to pay for it at these so-called schools. stop all taxpayer benefits, including grants, tax donations, exemptions, tuition loans, etc.
2
Things are getting a bit overwrought. A handful of wealthy parents committed crimes to get their kids into certain schools and there are posts calling for Federal intervention and all sorts of things.
Let them be prosecuted and punished, along with the coaches who took bribes. A salutary lesson for them all and next year’s seniors too.
But otherwise, let’s not set our hair on fire, OK?
4
This is not new. Athletes with low GPAs were almost always given special entrance to schools...not just fancy schools. Most colleges focus more on sports than academia....so nothing new here except that it became so common people let their guard down.
1
In the late 2000s my daughter graduated from a single sex school in Suburban Washington D.C.
There were "admissions coaches" who for a hefty fee would package the student for admission to elite colleges.
Several classmates were told to pursue obscure sports (E.G. women's ice hockey), apply to a STEM program (engineering) and aspire to be a middle school science teacher. They garnered admission to marquee name colleges.
As soon as these students arrived on campus they switched from engineering to liberal arts, did not play any sports and did not become teachers.
These were smart enabled young women who legally gamed the system.
Bribing the coaches is a logical if illegal extension of this strategy.
The Ivies, particularly the President of Yale, are particularly hypocritical and heinous in denying their active participation in this evil scenario.
6
Minimum qualifications for all applicants.
Ivy league: 32 ACT and 3.8+ with 8 AP classes, then the application may be looked at. Everything else in the trash
Allowing athletes in the side door destroys the kids, colleges, and the sports itself. Who benefits, the parents, the alumni?
FYI: I was on a DIII team which was top 20 in the nation with athletes taken from the student body, accepted on there own, who played for the love of it, and what a great time we had, and what good friends we still are
3
Let the punishment fit the crime. Expel all students involved, whether they were aware of it or not. Let them reapply if they want, but the parents committed these crimes for the benefit of their child and that benefit should not be allowed to continue. That’s like allowing a bank robber to keep all the things they bought with stolen money, and only return what they hadn’t spent.
Those with degrees should be stripped of them, just like they stripped honest parents and their children of an opportunity.
The only way to show the world that these schemes will not be tolerated is if parents know the consequences will fall upon their children.
5
There is an under appreciated issue hiding here. Athletes are recruited on a “good enough to succeed” basis even at very “selective” schools, and yet their graduation rates - at least outside the huge revenue programs where being on the team amounts to an unpaid full time job - and academic results generally are comparable to those of non-athletes. If this is true, what is the justification for selecting by so-called “merit” in the first place? Why not assign places by a lottery - weighted for affirmative action to the extent it is legal - among all applicants crossing the threshold the university claims is sufficient to succeed academically for their athletes? Surely this is much fairer than the current system, which provides enormous advantage to the children of rich and/or dedicated parents.
1
The qualifying statement of “rosters are becoming white” at many colleges surely is referring to non-Division I. In D-I, it’s all about winning regardless of race, ethnicity and increasingly, national origin, as schools regularly recruit the world to find the best not just in the high profile sports of basketball and football, but also in soccer, skiing, golf, gymnastics, et al.
As far as admitting non-athletic athletes into otherwise prestigious schools? As long as they’re private institutions, who cares? If they’re public, then we have an issue. Otherwise, it’s an elitist problem and in the end, many of these undeserving scions won’t be able to compete with the kids with some dirt under their nails. Sure, the spoiled scions have a leg up and will continue to enjoy the fruits of access; but they’ll likely never achieve the greatness they’ve been told they possess since birth and will eventually be bypassed by the gifted, the talented, the genuine alphas, the truly special.
2
There is an argument for treating athletic accomplishment as a criteria for gaining admission. Athletes almost always need to go to college to move up in their careers and get recruited for pro teams. Therefore, althletic accomplishment should be treated similar to SAT scores in the admissions process.
However, ideally, it should be even more difficult to qualify on your athletic merits than it is with your SAT and high school GPA. Athletes who make it in the college sports scene should be the best of the best, not just anyone who’s ever tossed a ball or taken pictures of themselves rowing a boat. And of course, they should be required to participate in their sport if accepted. If they aren’t planning to continue their sports career, they should be evaluated on other criteria, just like everyone else. Sorry, but high school football just does not make you better at math, science, or the liberal arts.
2
@Mr. Adams
Actually a fair number of the true walk-ons end up doing better at the yuppie sports than the kids whose parents paid for ten years of clubs to burnish the applications.
Until I had a son that became a recruited division one athlete, I never understood why athletes were given preferential treatment in college admissions. Now I do, having seen it first hand. The dedication, discipline, resilience, and teamwork required to compete at that level all are characteristics that serve these athletes and society well in the future. This is particularly true for the sports where the future reward is not some pot of gold received by turning pro, and where the athletes have demonstrated strong academic achievement, but maybe not as good as others getting into the college.
It is hard being a successful division one athlete. It is hard to get there. To be successful, there is only time for studying and training. Parties are not part of the college experience for the most part. You have to sacrifice a lot. You have to overcome many obstacles and be patient to succeed. You have to work incredibly hard.
Having known my son, and met his teammates, who could go to any school they want because of their combination of academic and athletic success, I would gladly hire them before I hire the other graduates of their class with objectively better academic performance. It’s because they have shown grit, resilience, and determination to rise to be the top 1 percent of where they chose to focus their efforts. And that experience will serve them well in many areas of their life.
18
Went to CCNY after the basketball scandals but before open admissions.There was a selection process but if you belonged in college you got in.
Sports were good but not great the potential for education was limitless.There was $85 student activity fee each year and a used textbook exchange program.I supported myself for 3 and a half years to get my diploma and left college with no debt and no financial help from anyone.Why are we going backwards?
13
At my University nearly everyone played a sport. I rowed for my college, played varsity golf, soccer and cross country in the winter and cricket and field hockey in the summer. By now you’ll have worked out this wasn’t in the US. Not only do you not get the issues with recruitment thus scandal reveals but you also get a healthier student body, everyone plays and no one watches. We weren’t very good though some of the varsity teams were world class but we were there to study. Those who were to become athletes went to the pro leagues like they do the world over. We did not miss them.
13
@David Both sport and education would be improved if we were on the club sport model the rest of the world uses.
The academic progress rules should be relaxed for student athletes. It’s not like having a part time job where you can trade with someone so you can study on Saturday afternoon for the Monday exam. Enormous demands are made on their time for practice and the home & away games. Between these demands, being less academically prepared, and the constant temptations it’s no wonder they so easily fall behind in classes.
Instead of a full time schedule, they should be allowed to take 6 semester hours for any term in which demands are placed on them. At the end of their eligibility they can be offered further scholarships that they can choose to pursue or not. This would give them a chance to focus on fewer courses while active, and hopefully achieve greater academic success. It would also free up class space in their early years for other students, while holding a place for them during the later years.
5
@Louisa Glasson
If you're talkin' elite college football, that is a full time, year round job. It's really hard to envision when a majority of the players could ever be like "real" students with demanding classes. That academic stuff of course, is not why they're there. So, why is it a legitimate role for our major institutions of learnin' to be fielding professional football teams. The logic escapes me.
7
@Louisa Glasson
I agree with your idea, but with many athletes it would need to be remedial and if actual classes, maybe 3 credits.
I taught basketball players 30 years ago, they had unfair demands on them to be in class, travel for games, practice, and study. It was impossible and few were literate to the extent college required.
1
@Louisa Glasson athletes graduate at a high rate than regular students.
Finally an article that starts to get to the heart of this issue - the opaque nature of college admissions. Sport is an easy and somewhat unfair target to single out. What is needed is reform of the entire admissions process.
I suggest that the Federal Government step in and require publication of minimum admittance criteria. Any one who qualifies goes into a lottery. A separate pool will be established for economically disadvantaged candidates. Then from those pools an incoming class will be selected randomally. Publication and certification to this process will be required to receive federal funding. No exceptions.
This will move away from today’s merit/money/connection based system. No more preferences for kids of alumina. It will give freedom of schools to define their criteria and open for all to see.
7
This discussion will take a backseat for a while so we can fill out our brackets.
28
Higher education is not synonymous with college athletics. Colleges are cutting back on academics while expanding sports programs. Undergrads are taught by part-time instructors while coaches make huge salaries. The whole US college scene is being corrupted by money. As tuition goes up steadily, students understandably act like consumers who want special gym facilities and the equivalent of piped-in music. Make pro sports establish farm teams and take the money out of college sports. Oh, and pay the athletes.
24
@Tom W
And while we are at it, pay the part-time instructors.
Which I quit doing, a scam. For Ph.D. instructors and the students, who are both robbed by lack of time and money and waste of appropriate education.
1
With club fees, team program costs, travel, private coaches, fitness trainers, nutritionists, physical therapists, and memberships for access to good facilities, not to mention at least one parent with the know-how to do all this, time to schedule and organize, AND with flexibility for help to transport to and from all that, I wonder if anyone could come up with a ballpark estimate of cost to make an elite athlete these days from pre-k to high-school graduation?
3
You have to be wealthy to do all that, plus hire an athletic recruit college counselor to get your kid into an exclusive college of choice. The whole thing is rigged for the rich, even when it's all legal and by the rules.
@Momo That is just plain untrue. Yes, some parents in some sports spend a fortune on private lessons and travel, but most just do the beat they can and go to great lengths to stress to their child that their top qualification will always be their grades test scores. Remember, they must excel in their sport AND get very high grades while taking hard courses, if they hope to be a recruited or supported applicant to an Ivy.
Really, why does it matter? 60 -100 kids who got in because mommy and daddy cheats? They still have to produce or fail. We should be used to this nonsense. Their kids will learn to cheat, maybe run daddy's real estate company and maybe become President of the US! What could go wrong?
6
How about we eliminate all but intramural and club sports from college? Division 1 sports reek of corruption and exploitation, the whole college sports industrial complex is absurd. If kids think they have a chance at the pros, let the pro franchises set up farm systems like they do in Europe and let the Colleges focus on learning.
51
Bring back the entrance exam for ALL students at all colleges and universities.
6
@Maggie
It’s considered racist because some groups will score higher than other groups. But thanks for playing.
1
Given the heightened enthusiasm, some would say obsession, that alumni and alumnae of Division 1 universities display over the successes of their highly competitive athletic teams, primarily in football and basketball, it is reasonable to posit that what occurs in stadiums and on courts is much more important to them than what goes on in classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and lecture halls. There clearly is something askew in American higher education, and the perceptions of its mission. Then there's the other depressing subject of the status of faculty salaries versus those of coaches, assistants, and the athletic directors at these sports-centric universities.
15
I am the father of a high school senior, who just happens to be a recruited athlete, we spent the better part of the past year and a half traveling the country to play in front of college coaches so he could be recruited to play at the collegiate level. My son loves his sport, indeed it is his great passion. When he told me that he wanted to play at the collegiate level I encouraged it and helped him pursue it. My son is bright and articulate but has a genuine learning disability that has affected his high school GPA, and he does poorly on standardized tests. Athletics was one thing that provided him structure, discipline and a concrete goal. He is good enough that he is getting to play at a well regarded (top 10% ranked university). One of the appeals to me of a college sport is the structure it provides with workouts, practice and proctored study halls. He has to maintain a minimum GPA to play, the coaches make sure that classes are attended, that there is good sleep and exercise hygiene. For my son, and I suspect others, sports is the entry to universities that are struggling to simply attract young men. (His school is 60% female)
9
@C D Nothing personal, but your son's admission sounds as if it is unfair to the better students turned away from that top ranked university. I'm sure your son is a fantastic athlete, and it sounds like he is a fine young man who has overcome much in his life so far. But colleges and universities are supposed to be about higher learning, not sports. No offense to your son, but with a genuine learning disability, he has no business at a top 10% ranked university.
27
Actually, students with a “genuine learning disability” can be extremely bright. I know that my son is, and luckily for him his grades and scores reflect that. However, he needed support in order to achieve at the level that his intelligence would allow. For example, he had great difficulty copying assignments from the blackboard. Emailed assignments are no problem. I had to convince his teachers that out in the real world, work assignments are frequently emailed and rarely copied from a blackboard. It’s unfortunate to think that in previous generations he would have fallen through the cracks. He is a senior now and awaiting final college decisions, but has already received generous merit scholarships from 3 schools and full tuition from one. In short, kids with learning disabilities deserve opportunities that meet their needs and allow them to flourish.
16
@A Flockhart- The fact that a student has “a genuine learning disability” in no way means (as you state) that he or she “has no business at a top 10% university.” Many students with learning disabilities manage—through medication, ADA accommodations or some combination—to excel at even the highest tier colleges and universities.
8
Here’s the simple, although very implausible, solution - dump all college sports. College sports are corrupted by money and are not contributors to education. Yes, you might learn some things, such as the reality that you can become very rich if you are a highly accomplished athlete and that you are more highly valued by the college/university, but not anything that qualifies you to be granted s degree. Higher education and sports have proven to be incompatible and we have arrived at a point in history when the model of the student athlete serves no one, except for those who profit from it, and that is very few people.
32
Some complicated solutions have been offered but this solution is much simpler.
If you are recruited for a sport, then you should be required to participate in that sport.
The fakers would be bounced out easily.
5
I was a TA with grading responsibilities about fifteen years ago and had several university lacrosse players in one of my classes. They regularly submitted one-sentence answers to essay exams; I always failed them, only to have the professor "meet" with them and change their grades to a C equivalent, every time.
Lacrosse was big at the school and it made money. Always weird to me that universities could have a money making lacrosse program but there's really no chance of a significant professional league happening.
22
@Dan
Why are you not identifying the school and professor so we can verify your story. Why not leak it to the Times if it is true? If you have not, I have no reason to believe it.
4
@Dan
Been there, TA at a big basketball school 30 years ago.
The kids had no time to attend lab with travel, practice, etc. and many were functionally illiterate.
It was not fair to them!
No one believed me then and at least you recognize now, thank you.
1
@Dan Lacrosse made money? Great sport but I find that hard to believe. And nice job smearing college athletes, many of whom are good students.
1
As an American, I have never understood the obsession of many universities with sports. A university is about learning. And please spare me the values of sports in learning. Our daughter plays varsity sports and got 5 A's in 5 AP courses last semester (and this semester). Wonderful, but her playing sports has nothing to do with deep learning. 12% of Harvard's and 11% of Yale's most recent freshmen classes were recruited athletes. That means over 400 slots unavailable to students likely much better academically qualified than the recruited athletes. Similarly at other private universities and many state universities. What a loss for the qualified students (and our society) who are bumped simply because they do not excel at ball throwing, kicking, spinning. etc. And let's not talk about the salaries of major coaches at universities.
For an historical, and depressing, perspective, see: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-r-cole/a-little-secret-athletics_b_787461.html
28
Yale , along with many other Ivies , claims they don’t provide athletic scholarships .
Believe it?
3
@Michael Patlin Yes, I do.
When it comes to athletes there is only one acceptable solution - only students within the same range as pure academic admits should get one of the coveted spots. No more lower standards - the coaches have to make their teams strictly from students who belong at the school independent of their athletic ability. Then, finally, maybe these schools can go back to being institutions of higher LEARNING.
26
@BMD
How will African Americans be admitted? There are not enough with high enough test scores.
1
@Shamrock
Stuyvesant is a good example.
@Shamrock
School funding funded federally and not based on property taxes could be a good start, but I don't see that happening.
Ask any high school senior to fill you in on recruited athletes, and prepare to sit back and enjoy (or be horrified by) the tales of students going to great division 1 and division 3 schools who never got above a 26 on their ACT and/or who struggled through geometry as a junior. It is so disheartening to parents and kids who are attempting to get into these schools through the front door; you know, by struggling through AP Chem and AP French while also playing in jazz band, running the debate club and scooping ice cream all summer. What message are we sending to kids when we give athletes such an unfair advantage?
55
@A. Flockhart: The message we are giving is: if these "prestigious" schools privilege athletics over other achievements, go elsewhere. Do well, learn well, and bring prestige to the college or university that wants you. The US higher education hierarchy has power over us only because we allow it to. Get free of it; don't allow USNews to dictate how your child feels. AP classes and jazz band are valuable for their own sake, not as tokens on a game board. Remind your kids of that; don't let them obsess on going to Number 36 instead of Number 8 which they really wanted. Show them the amazing opportunities they have at No 36 and remind them it's better come than No 1 was thirty years ago.
14
@A. Flockhart
A university counts a preferential admission for an African American as an Affirmative Action admission. They don’t separate the two.
3
The reason this system is so easily gamed is a logical and predictable consequence of Title IX.
There is no way that you are going to walk on to a NCAA football team with no experience but somehow you can do that on a rowing team?
5
My roommate was a walk-on for the rowing team and ended up in the NCAA winning boat due to great coaching, determination and a solid work ethic.
2
The actual athletes who do actually play these sports bring value to their university's "brand." Schools love to brag about their successful non-revenue sports, especially women's teams. I remember some years ago the Knight Report expressed surprise at the tenacity of these programs. At the first hint that a school is thinking of cutting the lacrosse team or the diving team, alumni come out of the woodwork to complain.
3
Wait. So is this article saying that Zion and the other first-round freshman on Duke's team might be slightly below par academically vs. other Duke students? #shocked
18
@E
Zion is a great person,great athlete I wish I had a son like him
1
@E And how much more value did he bring to the university than the median student with a microscope instead of a basketball?
Please help me to understand how New Jersey's Rutgers
football coach gets over 2 Million and the basketball coach
also earns over 2 million dollars.
I can't leave this state fast enough.
21
@mainesummers
Unfortunately, in many states, the highest paid public employee is the college football coach at the state university.
6
Its supply and demand and relative utility to a commercial enterprise. The market has spoken as to the worth of coaches in big time college athletics. If your not a sports fan or never competed you might never understand.
@mainesummers It's quite simple actually: Rutgers receives $51 million dollars each year for being a member of the Big Ten conference. Seems like a good ROI to me.
NYT, here's a story idea for your investigative reporters:
1. Obtain the full and complete rosters for every sports team at every top college and university. This information should be either readily available, or obtainable via some digging and threats of legal action. Focus especially on the lower-profile teams such as tennis, crew, field hockey, etc.
2. Pull out the names of the real athletes, and see who's left. How did they get there?
20
@PABlue and while you are at it, get a list of students who were granted "special" test taking privileges...the other loophole as we recently learned
4
America's unhealthy sports obsession meets American parents' unhealthy elite college obsession. Every college consultant will say that to get in to these elite school you need a "hook". By "hook" they mean some contrived passion where you have excelled nationally to show you are worthy of their institution and you have a passion and a willingness to go "above and beyond". Other "hooks" include being an under represented minority, geographic balance and other generally made up nonsense. Admissions departments in all the elite schools put themselves on a pedestal and think they are doing an amazing job. They never hold themselves accountable to the disservice they do with this contrived game they perpetuate. They are generally smug and think they can read through all the applications when each kid is giving their heart and soul to their application. It would be nice if they didn't go towards a "holistic" approach and concentrated more on objective merit.
10
I look at Connecticut's flagship university UCONN. Last year the athletic department lost $40.5 million. The state is bankrupt and we are forcing students and the state taxpayer to subsidize this mess. Football in particular is black hole of huge coaching salaries. Hire one coach and can him while still owing millions. 500K offensive coordinators and a relatively new 40K seat stadiums that had 3,800 people at one game last year. Who is the brave soul who is going to say enough is enough? Even the woman's basketball program that has won 11 national championships, loses money. Stop the insanity.
49
All this cheating and bribing to get their children into elite schools is not so much to give their children an opportunity to get excellent education but only to get bragging rights in social gatherings. For that, they have to live rest of their lives with that false. It is not a healthy life for parents or children.
30
It's interesting that this topic is still hot with the NYTimes but so is the article about Stuyvesant HS - NYC's most "elite" public high school. Only 7 black students admitted out of 895 slots. The article goes on to state that 66% of those admitted were Asian students, and 22% were white. Latino students got those last few places.
This is a school on which admission is by ONE EXAM - a true "meritocracy" if you will. No activities, sports, teacher recommendations, no legacy preference, not even grades. One test.
The NYC Mayor) would like to ditch the test and make spaces for under-represented minority students, ie blacks and latinos. They would have had to score "pretty high" but missed the cut-off. Many agree with him about this great "unfairness".
Is this the kind of admission criteria those complaining about any sort of athletic or legacy preference, would prefer us have? If so, do they not realize that the courts might well then throw out all preferences that are now given for being an "under-represented minority" or a "first generation" applicate?
If this happened, then what would our elite universities look like? They would look very much like Stuyvesant HS, mainly a school where the majority of the students are Asian. They would be the most "deserving" to be there.
One commentor here suggested a "cultural revolution". Remember, Mao closed down ALL the universities. Problem solved. Is this what you really want?
4
I’d love to read the mission statement of the NCAA. Im sure the original purpose of inter collegiate athletics was to foster teamwork and developed leaders, period. Those are definitely the traits one learns in team sport.
Somewhere along the way it became a revenue source for all parties (I remember reading, during the Jerry Sandusky scandal, that PennState football brought 80 million dollars per year into the local economy. That kind of money will sadly corrupt ones sense of morality.
Title IX sought to redistribute scholarship money and afford women the same opportunities to develop leadership. A noble and no doubt successful program. The only problem is that it exacerbated the real problem of preferential admission. For every student admitted to a University there is one that is not. There are a finite number of spots in any freshman class.
My nephew was recruited to play a sport at a Big 10 school. Half scholarship and told he would never start. He was told he didn’t need to take the SAT but simply graduate with a 3.0 GPA. My son will attend the same University but his requirements were minimum 3.5 GPA with Honors and AP classes Prefered. His GPA is 3.71 and SAT a so so 1250. He was deferred until this month.
The NCAA has lost its way.
2
@Husky
Point of information. The NCAA has absolutely no role in college admissions, never has. The NCAA does not accredit schools. The NCAA has no role in the curriculum of any school. It simply is empowered by its member schools to establish and enforce eligibility rules and conduct championships in some sports. The NCAA does not conduct a Division 1 football championship. It does in basketball, but not Division 1 football. It has no role in bowl games. I hope these facts are helpful.
The NCAA can do nothing to modify the admissions of its member institutions. Appeals to the NCAA in your situation is ridiculous. You would be better of writing the trustees of the school. They can tell you the NCAA has nothing to do with their admissions office,
1
@Husky
something about your story doesn't really add up. A coach told a player who's receiving 50% aid that he would NEVER start? Sports that can divide scholarship money (i.e. not football and basketball) already have limited funds and therefore would never waste 50% of a scholarship on a kid that would never start. Furthermore, ncaa athletes HAVE to take the ACT or SAT. Sounds like sour grapes.
7
@travis
I played as a scholarship golfer in the Big Ten. I agree that no half scholarship would ever be wasted on a player who would never contribute in competition. Impossible to believe in men’s sports.
3
I dream of a day when perhaps applicants could receive scholarships just as worthy for a lifelong dedication and study of world language, music, theater, community service, or science, I have never understood the fascination for billions of dollars of athletic scholarships.
35
@Juliana James What's not to understand? It's practically slave labor--the marginal costs of admitting athletes are practically nil in a large university and the programs allow "coaches" who are mostly public relations managers to earn millions of dollars. A head football coach with a dozen assistants, who is also a skilled recruiter and administrator, doesn't have to even know much about football. The real games are off the field.
"In a sport like women’s crew, where rosters can balloon to 125 athletes, many teams have scores of recruited walk-ons. (Such large rosters can help a college comply with federal equality laws, balancing out the number of male athletes in football.)"
As a least one other commenter has already noted, that in itself is a problem.
9
@Alex
No surprise here that women’s rowing would be involved in abuse of preferential admissions. NCAA rules allow 20 full scholarships, the most of any sport. Men or women. At many, many schools recepients of scholarships have no rowing experience whatsoever. I was shocked when a relative of mine received a Big XII scholarship with no experience and the coach said he doesn’t want women with rowing experience. If you are wondering what the NCAA scholarship limit for men’s rowing is the answer is none since there is no NCAA men’s rowing championship. Women’s varsity college rowing exists for one reason. Satisfy Title IX.
6
@Alex
The article neglected to mention that they're rowing 100 person viking raiding ships in competition.
4
@E
Now that is what I call competitive athletics!
1
I am a Yale graduate of long ago who subsequently served years on the Yale Alumni Admissions Committee for Southern AZ. Then, Ivy League Universities could not award athletic scholarships per se. PERIOD. They could give financial aid to financially NEEDY applicants who met the same admissions standards as everyone else but happened to be good athletes. I hope that policy has not changed, and that the recent bribes to a women's soccer coach in no way impacts the long-standing Ivy League admissions policies. In other words, I hope these these bribes are abnormal and rare. This tradition may be why Ivy League athletic teams are seldom competitive nationally. In other words, scholarship and leadership first, athletic ability a very distant last. IMO, universities should be primarily a place of academics and not a place to produce super athletes as a business.
11
@BlueGoose
Athletic ability is the best thing to help get you admitted to the Ivy League. These schools offer far more sports than any other conference. No conference has a higher percentage of students participating in varsity sports than the Ivy League. And never believe the Big Lie that Stanford doesn’t give preferential admissions to women athletes. Men too.
7
At decent schools coaches may make an "offer" but those in admissions make the final decision. Many years ago a famous coach made an offer, admissions rejected it. When he publicly complained he had to apologize. Since he is revered as both a player and a coach at that school I suspect nobody would get in athletes without admissions having the final say. Now you could be corrupt or incompetent, but admissions should have the final say.
4
It seems to me that the parents who cheated to get their children into exclusive colleges were doing them no favors. These same children likely will continue to have the same ethical makeup their parents have when they enter the working world (think 2008 Wall St- no consequences). I also find it hard to believe the parents haven’t been cheating all along on their way to the top.
8
Let me get this right: Institutions of higher learning, their reputations based on acedemic excellence, are letting jock coaches sneak jock students in, while those coaches sell some of those spots to even more people that aperently wouldn't qualify otherwise? Why are we mad at that admissions guru/hustler when it's the athletic programs that broke the trust? Why aren't all college teams required to pick players once they get in to the university the same way all the other students do? Oh right, we care more about having a winning team than we do about values and learning.
34
@JohnDnyc Admissions should always have the final say!
1
“There is now this notion that admissions is a competitive cesspool, and it’s not,”
give me a break. anybody who’s been through the admissions process with a kid for the last 10 years has seen up close what a corrupt pile of garbage the admissions process at elite universities has become. it’s a total disgrace and needs to be overhauled, the whole system.
19
This UCLA Soccer player stole a spot from a true athlete.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ucla-admissions-soccer-recruit-20190319-story.html?fbclid=IwAR3aqIJO6f-hj0SYqSbR0uRXvA0sE7JWexbbBCnsOwMdy_gRQjh3RFuV3MY
2
The idea that the media is uncovering some sort of vast underbelly of college sports is a joke, every normal citizens has known and spoken about it for years. There’s a reason the Ivy League does terrible in basketball compared to other (ostensibly) academically strong schools like Duke or Carolina. You think Zion Williamson scored a 34 on his ACT like the rest of his classmates? It’s not a knock on the kid, most of us including myself could not, but it’s an implicit understanding that we all are aware.
You think anyone is shocked that Louisville and LSU were caught bribing recruits? Or that most P5 schools don’t? You think the rich don’t bribe their way into even better situations constantly? This is normal stuff that all Americans are aware of. Our “meritocracy” is a sham, the only thing that changes is the degree to which you’re willing to accept it.
13
For decades now we all know that Division 1 athletics is a cesspool--from recruitment, to classroom attendance, to expectations on the field. The entire concept of student athlete is left Division 1 locker rooms a long time ago...
7
"(Such large rosters can help a college comply with federal equality laws, balancing out the number of male athletes in football.)"
That sounds like an abuse right there. Shouldn't real female athletes be what is balancing the number of male athletes rather than imaginary ones?
11
@Robert Holmen
The liberal elite wanted title IX.
Just why do coaches have admission slots? Yes, it's obvious. It's all about sports and alumni support (financial, that is) for old Alma Mater U. So, surprise! A system based on money allowing coaches to pick winners is corrupted. Who'd a thought. With March Madness upon us, we now see how money mad the whole sordid NCAA college sports complex is. Forget the faded, now jaded, image of the scholar athlete. Duke is rated #1 with athletes who are "one and done" in terms of spending the mandatory one year in college before finally cashing in themselves after Duke gets it bounty first. And, of course, famous and infamous coaches like Joe "Pa" Paterno and Rick Pitino get paid more than any professor and often more than the University president. So, don't blame the rich parents with average students when it's a systemic cancer where, as usual, "money is the source of all evil" and avaricious universities and their coaches are eager to haul it in. Go team!
4
@Paul Wortman
Actually duke is known as a school that is NOT one and done. So it’s particularly tragic their basketball team is apparently seen as such by some. Despite the very low number of duke players that have ever been drafted before graduating.
Kentucky on the other hand is a big time one and done.
I've read over the last several days several different proposals to fix the "College Recruiting" problem.
Here's mine
1) College Players get paid
Put the money in a "pension system" that the player can access upon turning 60 years old or in the case of serious medical (i.e. likely terminal or severely disabling) condition prior to 60
2) Set a minimum SAT score for admission to the schools
The school can set a maximum of say 1350 because lets be honest here a kid who scores that can graduate Harvard or Yale or Stanford and the difference in performance between that and a kid who gets a perfect SAT is negligible.
3) Each school that is "over applied" i.e. more applications than openings holds a OPEN Lottery. Your chance if you meet the minimum score of getting into Harvard or Brown or Stanford or USC or Cal or wherever is random
You're a lottery player.
The colleges won't like this system
The "rich parents" will hate this system
The parents of "brianiacs" will go ballistic over it..
But for everyone else
It'll we be as fair and equitable as possible
Of course you realize that means it will NEVER happen!
3
@Java Junkie
Based on testimony from the Harvard admissions trial your description of a lottery essentially already exists, at least at Harvard, for the seats not occupied by athletes, donors, legacies, standout applicants and others with unique circumstances. The dean of admissions said they get so many equally extraordinary applicants that they cannot possibly admit all of them and thus essentially choose based on totally random factors among the thousands deemed qualified by admissions.
2
@Java Junkie I don't like it so that it will never happen is great.
Perhaps we should start at the root of the problem by not turning athletes into demi-gods by the time they finish middle school and hold them to standards, academically, behaviorally and morally, as required of the rest of a student body. And, while we're at it, let's work on their parents as well. I fear that might require a Cultural Revolution of our own.
24
Colleges are where young people should learn to think, to appreciate different varieties of thought, and to get used to hard work.
Colleges should not be spending money on lackluster, indifferent scholars who are good at throwing balls around.
Or building multi-million dollar gyms.
12
@B. Well at my school the athletic department pays for their students and their facilities. And they all have to pass classes, not that they don't get help but they do have to pass.
It’s simple: rules should be the same for ALL applicants. Period. Athletics simply should be to complement academics and there should be no athletic scholarships.
30
@David Well at my school the athletic department pays for every athlete, the school pays nothing. And without such there would be few if any opportunities for those who currently have at least some. Many very poor families with few options.
@vulcanalex
I do have a friend that had a college football scholarship that enabled his undergrad and then later w/o football M.D.
It works for a few.
This situation has been going on for 20 years. Every parent with kids applying to college knows this game, hence all the expensive private lessons, travel teams, and seeking mis-leading/meaningless individual rankings. In 90% of the cases parents aren’t doing this to develop their kids athletically but to help them get an edge or “complete” their application for getting into college. Many aspects of the college application are a farce. For example, when my son was in high school he was on the track team so I watched a lot of meets. Early on it struck me as odd how the most popular event was the girls 100 meters where they were often nearly 10 heats totalling say 60-80 girls, many of who ran slowly. Finally it dawned on me. Track was one of those sports that didn’t cut anyone(heavens forbid their self esteem be irrecoverably damaged) so it was a favorite for girls to gather after school at the track, socialize, and on meet day compete in the 100 meters which took the shortest amount of time, say 12-15 seconds, and required the least amount of effort. Everything that’s counter to what competing in sports is all about and suppose to teach a young person just so they could put on their college application that they were on the track team and check one f the many boxes. Why don’t we just find a way to let any kid who really wants to go to college, not necessarily a private “brand name” one costing $60,000 a year, to go and if they don’t apply themselves they flunk out.
1
@Joe baby boomer
If athletic scholarships and preferences were eliminated tomorrow, the youth sports industry would collapse.
7
@Joe baby boomer
You sure don't know much about track to be commenting this way. The women's world record in the 100 meters is 10.49 seconds. To run it in 12 seconds as a high school student would be lightning fast, and no one would get that quick with "the least amount of effort."
You should also consider the possibility that these these girls were running track for health reasons and because it's fairly simple and inexpensive. You don't need any equipment except a decent pair of shoes and you don't need good hand-eye coordination like tennis, softball or golf. Many college-bound athletes in these sports get private instruction, but as a track athlete, you just need a good practice routine and dedication and you'll improve. And yes, if you show that then you shouldn't be cut from the team, because sports supposed to be out about having fun and getting healthy.
Socializing is part of every sport in high school, boys or girls. My best friends in high school were fellow tennis and soccer teammates. We were also the class "nerds," with many of us going to top flight colleges and universities, but none on athletic scholarship.
I'm getting angrier and angrier as I'm writing this because your complete ignorance and chauvinism.
6
I think the complaint is that far too many colleges prioritize sports centers over libraries and research facilities.
I have nothing against sports. My sports experiences in high school were fun. But spending an inordinate amount of time on training -- as if all these students are going to morph into pros -- is wasteful and gives young people a skewed sense of what's important.
When rich people's kids make dumb remarks about not studying in college, everyone is incensed. When we think about the athletic types who spend their time bouncing balls, we are not incensed.
Let kids do track, row boats, bat balls, all that -- within reason. For fun. Not to give strutting coaches higher salaries.
There will not be any hard questions asked. After a piffle of concern, the sports mania machine will continue, with athletes getting a 50% leg up as compared to qualified students. Athletes will still be brought in with lower scores, perform less well in classes than equally busy peers, and they will still give less back afterward. The US people will continue to deride affirmative action, as well as legacies, both of which have more to offer universities than athletes. At best, institutions might care that their coaches aren't bribed - but major brand endorsements are okay - or doing favors for cronies and the connected, but there will never be any hard questions.
16
I was a recruited NCAA athlete (gymnastics). I actually went to a university I was over-qualified for academically because I was so focused on wanting to train at a great facility with a top coach and be on a top team.
I regret that decision. I got a good education but it could have been better...
20
The NCAA makes millions for coaches and athletic directors off of the blood, sweat and tears of amateur student athletes. Those destined to play professional sports are hindered by the myth of education. And those who will never play sports professionally are doing fine.
5
@Blackmamba Those that eventually go pro benefit greatly. Outside any education they get coaching, exposure, and other massive benefits. The unions don't allow them to join out of HS.
2
Hard questions? Maybe. Some of them are easy, like are the accomplishments, awards, and background information provided by the student actual facts?
6
This story makes a passing reference to federal equity laws regarding gender, i.e., Title IX. I favor Title IX, which requires equal amounts of spending on men's and women's sports, but perhaps it can be adjusted. Rather than require absolute equity for on-campus athletes, perhaps the surplus funding generated by men's football and basketball can go to local high school and community programs dedicated to sports for women. Funding would by the same, but where it is spent would be different.
The reality is that in general, more males than females participate in sports in college, where it should appropriately be at an elite level for student-athletes. But at the community level, you could spend money on women's sports at all levels, and in the appropriate sports. Here in Hawaii, that might be on paddling crews for girls or women. In Minnesota, it might be for hockey leagues for girls or women. That way you wouldn't have women's crew rosters of 125 students, many of whom had never touched an oar before stepping on campus.
4
@steve
The vast majority of college athletic departments are subsidized by the general university funds. There is no surplus.
1
@steve
Female students and their parents and female alumni were stuck subsidizing the expensive male athletic depts. prior to Title IX.
3
This is great, but please take it even farther. Many recruited athletes are actually admitted very early, well before their high school classmates have even filed their applications. When will you expose the separate and early admissions cycle of athletes?
65
@Madison Minions Yes, many get "likely letters" in the fall of their senior year of HS. Are you unaware that these same universities send "likely letters" to musicians and top students they are hoping to attract? They are hoping to get these highly gifted candidates and this is how they do it.
Recruited athletes and legacies must usually apply Early Decision or Early Action, depending on the program used by the university to which they are applying. They want to lock in these candidates early.
Would you also abolish all Early Decision/Early Action programs, too? They do tend to favor the students with the best grades/test scores. Is this "unfair" in your mind?
6
Actually, there is a fair bit of research that the early admissions process favors the affluent at the expense of the less affluent.
8
@India You write: "Are you unaware that these same universities send "likely letters" to musicians and top students they are hoping to attract?"
Yes. I am unaware because IT DOESN'T HAPPEN LIKE THAT. As a parent going through this right now, I personally know many students offered acceptances at college for sports (volleyball! fencing!) early - sometimes even their junior or sophomore year. I have heard of exactly ZERO students sent 'likely letters' for academics... or even music.
36
There is the so called Academic Index that the Ivy League and Nescac use to assign a “score” to recruited athletes. Its a hybrid of SAT scores and GPA. A lower score is permitted in sports like Football and Basketball. It would be hard to compete competitively in those sports without the lower standard. In the so called Olympic sports the AI is very similar to regular admits. The system works. Don’t change it because of a few bad apples.
19
@Robert Who cares if they can compete competitively. Sports have NOTHING to do with higher education. The system makes no sense and it should change.
19
The system should change like single payer, guaranteed universal income, free higher education? Give me a break!
2
@Robert You really think they compete?? Join the SEC or the ACC and see if you really compete. No Ivy is going to be NC is almost any sport, that is competing for national championships.
1
As someone who was recruited for rowing in the Ivy league, I can say for certainty that most of the people recruited are within the regular academic range of what is recruited. I'm sure there are people who were below this, but for the most part athlete are on par with the rest of the student body in the Ivy league. There is often a sentiment on these campuses that athletes are less deserving to be there, but I do not believe this is true, I had to do all the same things that other applicants had to do, the only difference is I was guaranteed a spot. I do understand that it is odd that my athletic ability somehow was related to what school I got into. Perhaps coaches should have less clout with admissions, but eliminating college athletics all together will not improve the US education system. The college athletic system is extremely flawed, but so is every part of the education in the system in the US and college athletics is only a very small part of it.
18
As someone who saw many of their teammates and friends go on to be recruited to the Ivy’s for rowing, I have always looked favourably (enviously?) at their experience and the opportunities they had. While none were brainiacs, they were all in the top tier academically, and were to a fault all top-notch young guys.
With that said, I still favour the approach that Oxbridge has. Yes, there are plenty of rowers who apply for a chance to compete in the Boat Race, but you ability to pull stick has zero, sometimes negative ramifications on your application. In the words of Coach Carter, “They’re called Student-Athletes, because student comes first.”
1
@Anonymous
I know several rowers at top colleges. Believe me, they got in because they were good rowers and because they could pay full freight. They would not have been considered otherwise.
You may want to entertain the thought that you would not have gotten in to your college without your athletic ability.
1
Athletes qualify academically same as everyone else - end of problem.
22
@Terry Start of a much different problem. At my school almost no athlete could qualify.
3
@vulcanalex Exactly my point. Think of all the students that want an education that there would then be places for.
The most important thing worth caring about when you choose a college ought to be it's academic reputation in the area you are studying. Unfortunately, most universities seem to value their football and basketball teams even more highly. But as far as sports like crew or skiing or lacrosse, I used to believe they were nothing but a way for rich parents to teach their children obscure sports that would get their dimmer but brawny spawn into schools with elite reputations. Now it turns out you don't even need to do that: just send in photoshopped pictures of your couch potato and fork over some cash to the coach. I couldn't help laughing at the Hollywood parents whose daughter for whom they paid big bucks to get her into USC when I saw her you tube about how she didn't care about going to class, just liked the idea of hanging out in college. Shameless adults; shameless children.
24
@Ceilidth You are doing most of the athletes in a minor sport a grave disservice when you lump them in with those whose parents cheated. Where did you get the idea that they were all "dimmer but brawny"? Where are your statistics about this? Or is your prejudice just showing here.
I've had a son and now have a grandson, who played/play a minor sport in college. They worked hard for years, both academically and at their sport, and doing both at the same time says a lot about the character of such a candidate. They must learn a great deal about time management and always keep their priorities straight. Both sports took all their spare time in college - not much partying, at least not during the season in which their sport is played or the season leading up to it.
Many of these athletes are on the Deans List and some are designated Scholar/Athletes by their sport. They are highly recruited by big business due to their outstanding time management and people (team players) characteristics.
25
My daughter rows in a Massachusetts college
Either you are recruited or you “walk on”
There is no such thing as a “recruited walk on”
“Walk on” means you made it to college on your own and then you try out for the team.
No scams here. No legacy.
And are paying full tuition
41
@SCB
If only that were true. But it's not. Slots for HS seniors who "might" play on a varsity team increase those students chances of being accepted and if that's the case--it ripe for abuse.
How about NO walk on status for frosh students. No possible walk on list. Just a day each year where members of that school's currently attending student body are free to come take a shot at earning a walk on to the team spot.
6
@lawrenceb56 There is a 2nd category for athletes applying to university. It's called being a "supported candidate". This is usually a list of 10 or so candidates whom the coach would like to have, but their athletic abilities are not great enough for them to be one of 3 "recruited candidates". There are no guarantees of admission for these candidates, but they might get an edge if all other things are equal. Most can get into their school on their own ability. Such candidates cannot vary from the school's normal rage of test scores/GPA.
Most do go on to play their sport. A few discover after one year that they cannot manage academics and athletics and drop off the team. They are all members of the team and put in the work-out time.
8
Better that all freshmen choose a sport after they are accepted.
Why an athletic director should get involved at all in reviewing applications is a mystery.
4
If a college football or basketball coach is paid in the millions I’d guess they wouldn’t be as interested in bribes as a woman’s soccer or volleyball coach. Wondering what the pay discrepancy is.
4
@Sheela Todd - probably the same as the ticket sales/ revenue discrepancy.
7
Why are there athletic scholarships at all? Why are universities in the business of providing programming to television broadcasters. Why are the "scholar athletes" spending this month providing entertainment to basketball fans. No where else in the world are universities the sponsors of athletics.
87
@Kenneth Kramer You're talking about something very different than what happened. The Ivy League and NCAA Division III schools do NOT give athletic scholarships. They do allow for 3 recruited athletes per year in each minor sport, and a larger number of "supported" athletes (no guarantees of admission).
As to why do schools spend money on "entertainment" with college basketball and football...well, it brings in money and prestige. And the public will be tuned into the Final Four - it will have very high ratings.
2
To the rest of the world, just the basic concept that students gain entry to an institution of higher learning by virtue of their athletic ability is utterly bizarre.
16
@Kenneth Kramer I agree completely. Thank you for your comment.
3
The proposed "reforms" are a farce. The only way to make it truly fair is to eliminate athletic and legacy set-asides. There is no moral argument to be made for either practice, only a financial one. The admission slots should be reserved exclusively for those students who are there to learn.
49
Admissions has never been about assembling a list of all graduating seniors in order of merit, and giving each their choice of school in order, from most qualified to least.
It's about putting together a suitable cohort for the particular school, which is more art than science. Admissions officers do the best they can with the information at hand. There are plenty of suitable slots for all comers. It's the high cost and the poor quality of public education in this country that prevent kids from going to college. No one's life is ruined because any particular highly selective school declines them a spot.
The recent scandal merely highlights the fact that the employees in the admissions offices themselves are not corruptible by bribery. In this day and age, that's remarkable.
In the meantime, there certainly is room for better auditing of the walk-on recruits. The goal of that audit, however, would be to ensure the admissions office assembles the cohort of students it intends to assemble, not to solve the nation's social problems of inequality and privilege.
5
I am a Bernie supporter. Everything from the DNC to college admissions is rigged to some extent. Some news is fake. Its been a rough couple of years waking up to what thereality of our country really is.....and to think this has been going on for many years.....at least we are seeing things for what they are.
5
@DJ We are??? Not even close across the board.
other than the big bucks for coaches and administrators, why are athletes considered to be a favored applicant compared to a smarter and hard working scholastic student who might become a teacher, doctor, lawyer, business leader, social worker, policeman, religious leader, et al? why?
why are taxpayers FORCED under penalty of law, to pay into this system?
ban all inter-collegiate sports and a lot of corruption in our colleges will be eliminated. these sports teach many athletes to cheat and lie. otherwise supposedly good schools(remember the University of NorthCarolina scandal a few years ago?) are corrupted and to this day that scandal has left a bad taste in my mouth.
57
@john boeger WOW!!! So athletes never go on to become teachers, lawyers, business leaders, social workers, policemen, religious leaders? What dod you think they all end up doing? Being elementary school PE teachers?
And why do you also make the assumption that they are all dumb and unqualified academically? Your ignorance is nothing less than astounding.
How would you propose that private universities be "banned" from having inter-collegiate sports? They receive no tax dollars - they have private endowments. I guess it could be done if we adopt Mao's Little Red Book. I hope you're not suggesting this.
Yes, there are frequent "scandals" about NCAA Div 1 schools and their basketball programs - fewer with their football ones. But compared with the number of colleges fielding basketball teams, it is a tiny number.
I assume you were snubbed by the jocks in high school and have still not recovered. Pretty pathetic...
8
Of course, this scandal is incredibly unpleasant. But what an opportunity to make things right!
The wrongdoing of universities and colleges have been highlighted in a way that will almost certainly spur change, particularly in Division 3 schools. In the "Olympic" sports, I have found that many of the athletic admits are also legacies, which is a three-fer for highly selective Division 3 schools, since disproportionately those students can also pay full tuition.
Here's the challenge - at selective Division 3 schools, the athletic teams are the way to enroll males, who (as a group) are far less qualified that the females that apply. Bowdoin is not going to want to change their gender balance. We'll see how that plays out.
12
I have been a professor at a major state university for almost three decades. I have come across "student" athletes who cannot read nor write at the elementary school level, nor handle an elementary algebraic equation - in fact most of them can't. Many years ago I decided that I was not going to put up with this farce any longer. I put rules in my syllabuses that are impossible for them to meet and give an informal "entrance exam" to test whether they have the intellectual abilities and educational background to stay in my classes. This weeds out the athletes as well as all those others who were admitted to college under false pretenses, such as learning disabilities, wealthy parents, legacy students, political connections, etc. It is not uncommon for enrollment in my classes to drop from, say, 40 the first day of classes to 10-15 by the end of the first week. Those students are the only ones who should have been admitted to college. The rest do not belong here. A University education is a privilege reserved to the intellectual elites.
121
@Ajax
Poor Georgia
5
You got a job in the wrong place. Public Universities are a different animal than the Ivy League or elite private colleges. The athletes in the former are recruited from an academically challenged admissions pool. The later more closely resemble regular admits.
6
@Ajax
If you really are a professor--and from the way you write I kind of doubt it (the proper grammar is "not... or," not "nor")--then you are shortchanging both your students and your colleagues. I find it reprehensible that you admit to prejudging students before they've even taken your class. You're also avoiding shouldering your fair share of teaching responsibility by intentionally lowering your class sizes (in my department, those low-enrollment classes would be cancelled and you would be required to teach an extra course the following semester).
And as a purported public university professor, your statement that "A University [sic - shouldn't be capitalized] education is a privilege reserved to the intellectual elites" is a horrifically inappropriate statement. I can only say that, as a professor at a "major state university" myself, I'm very, very glad you aren't my colleague.
55
The University of Michigan athletic director who claimed that every college president in the land called his AD after the Varsity Blues scandal broke has delusions of grandeur. It may be un-American, but there are colleges that don't give any athletic preferences in admissions. Caltech doesn't. MIT doesn't. Oddly enough, neither of these schools gives alumni preferences, either. It makes you wonder what outlandish criteria they must use to choose among their applicants.
60
@Kaleberg
Donald Trump has often mentioned that he had an uncle who attended MIT, as if to imply brilliance by association.
It is no wonder no other member of the family has gone there. No legacies, bravo!
6
@Kaleberg
Cal Tech and MIT are wonderful schools. Both schools seek to build diverse students bodies while also admitting only highly qualified students. One element that they DO consider is athletics, which allows them to include athletes to participate in school sports that make campus life more interesting. There are quite a few brilliant kids that are athletic too.
7
@Kaleberg
That is not true at all . Both of those schools allows athletes to tour campus in their senior years and contacting the coaches among many other things . If they don’t consider athletics as part of admissions , their sports program might have closed long ago .
3
baseball has farm teams and the athletes who work there are paid
why do colleges serve as farm teams for professional sports with unpaid athletes?
80
@true patriot Because we the fans want it, and they get far better training than those in farm teams, many of which get paid so little that they are very poor.
College sports is professional sports.
There's nothing wrong with professional sports aside from some long term health problems with football.
But, professional sports have no obvious connection with the educational mission of the college.
There presence just diverts attention and resources from the educational mission of the college.
70
Students who apply to elite schools, ivy league anyway, with specialties in the arts might be valued by admissions but they do not have a lower academic bar to clear like the recruited athletes do. They are evaluated against the regular academic standard like all the rest of the students. There is however a separate academic indexing system only for recruited athletes and this is institutionalized at the administrative level. The majority of recruited athletes are admitted, hence the “side door” in this scandal involved coaches recruits because coaches are the ones who have their own admissions slots to fill and thus were open to direct bribery.
46
@Me myself i
Right. There's a reason we haven't heard that any orchestra conductors were targeted for bribes.
16
@Me myself i
This is exactly right. The academic bar is lower for athletic recruits. I was wait-listed at one of the top-tier ivies and eventually got in. I had a great talent in the arts which put my application over the edge-- eventually. But as a white middle-class non-legacy kid from the northeast, from a mediocre public high school who didn't play sports, more than half of the admission slots were never, ever going to be open to me. I was one of the rare ones-- someone admitted to a top ivy league school solely on merit, with absolutely no "leg up," including a prep school education at one of the "feeder" schools like Exeter or Andover, where connections means everything.
11
The real issue at the heart of all of this is that of extreme wealth disparity. In this New Gilded Age, with such extreme income inequality, the wealthy, comfortable as they are, are also anxious about passing down that wealth to their descendants. They know how hard it is to make and keep wealth, and even they know how rigged the system is in their favor. What sort of society is this where even the wealthy do not feel safe, or financially stable in the long run, despite all their efforts to hoard and stash their wealth? This really speaks volumes.
19
@James More like arrogant wealthy people, normal ones expect their children to earn their own way.
2
This is nothing new. When I was choosing a college in the 80s, I ruled out all large schools with well-paid coaches. I wanted an education, not a tailgate party.
41
@John Smith
I wanted the opposite, and thoroughly enjoyed myself. Still wound up with a full ride at an elite institution for grad school. Those large schools with well-paid coaches offer a lot of other stuff too.
7
I honestly do not understand why college sports are a thing at all. We do not need to have 39 states where the highest paid public employee is a football or basketball coach.
UW, pictured in this article and my alma mater, was paying their football coach some $3,000,000 a year while I was there. The current coach will make $5.6M his last year.
208
@Randall The dirty little secret is that you don't need all those coaches and teams to have a good school with alumni who support the school. The alums who give because of the football team tend to give to sports related things like stadiums and not to science labs. But the sports industrial complex is totally invested in telling people otherwise and schools are scared out of their minds by these bozos. It's the old emperor has no clothes syndrome. Every time my alma mater is dialing for dollars I tell them I'll donate the day they eliminate the football team or pay the coach what an assistant professor makes.
66
@Ceilidth Case in point: UChicago which abolished its football program in 1939 and withdrew from the Big Ten in 1946 and remains a top school.
Sadly, they've let football creep back from club sport to Division III.
7
@Randall You don't understand why? You answered it already: money.
2