People often dismiss philosophical disputes or differences of opinion as mere quibbles about words. But shifts in terminology used can turn the tide in perception of many different discussions that take place every day. People get caught up in in heated discussions about topics often based on a perception they have or partial information which distorts reality.
Such is the case with the perceptions of student-athletes. The notion of the student-athlete playing university sport and being at the highest echelon of non-professional sport is really unique to North America. It really isn't the case any where else in the world and for most sports, elite athletic development does not take place via academic institutions but from national training centers, academies or professional clubs. There are also very different realities faced by student-athletes on both sides of the border within the NCAA, NIAI and here in Canada USport. Many people have broad stroke general perceptions about student-athletes, about what being one means, about all the benefits they get, all the corners that get cut for them etc. Is this truth or is it a myth? Well .................. In the US especially think about the frenzy that takes place during football bowl season or during basketball's March Madness. We see it here in Canada on a smaller scale where only during playoff time do we get a wider exposure for university sport. During big time competition, we will hear people refer to these student-athletes. But is this term accurate? Or should we perhaps leave it behind for a more honest and precise name? The term “student-athletes” implies that all enrolled students who play college sports are engaged in secondary (“extra-curricular”) activities that enhance their education. Their status, the term suggests, is essentially the same as members of the debate many coaches including myself. puts it, “Student-athletes must, therefore, be students first.” There are, of course, many cases of athletes who are primarily students, particularly in “minor” (i.e., non-revenue producing) sports. But what about NCAA Division I football and men’s basketball, the big-time programs with revenues in the tens of millions of dollars that are a major source of their schools’ national reputation? Are the members of these teams typically students first? Especially now that NCAA basketball has the one and done rule where student-athletes play 1 year then are eligible to move on into the pro draft. Knowing they are moving on after a year, are they really taking the studies seriously? Many studies, both formal and informal have shown that by a wide variety of measures the answer is no. For example, football and men’s basketball players (who are my primary focus here) identify themselves more strongly as athletes than as students, gave more weight in choosing their college to athletics than to academics, and, at least in season, spend more time on athletics than on their studies (and a large majority say they spend as much or more time on sports during the off-season). The same priority is reflected in many colleges’ own practices. Football and men’s basketball players are admitted and given full scholarships almost entirely because of their athletic abilities. Academic criteria for their admission are far below those for other students (for example, their average SAT scores can be pro-rated down to allow for the fact that they perceived to be spending time in their sport so somehow it is ok that they have lower scores.) In Canada, there is anecdotal evidence that some schools will "add" a few percentage points to a students overall academic average for the process of admissions assesement to improve their chances of acceptance in a program. Realistically, given the amount of time most such athletes devote to their sports, they would have to be academically superior to the average student to do as well in their classes. As a result, the graduation rate for student-athletes has been consistently be shown to be lower than for the general student. This is usually for various reasons. Student-athletes might take the minimum amount of classes in order to participate in sport and once their eligibility is used up, they leave the school or simply university sport is used a springboard for athletes into the pros and they just leave before graduation. Even these numbers understate the situation, since colleges provide under qualified athletes with advisers who point them toward easier courses and majors and offer extraordinary amounts of academic coaching and tutoring, primarily designed to keep athletes eligible to play. Now, this is not the situation for all student-athletes everywhere across North America, and in fact, it is probably a small percentage of all student-athletes, but most will get tainted by this perception. The idea of the so-called dumb jock. It’s clear, there is number of student-athletes who are in reality athletes first and students second, both from their own standpoint and from that of their schools. However, the significant majority move on from the athletic careers once done, with a degree in hand and ready to enter the work force. Of course, many supporters of university athletics see no problem here. They think that athletics provides great entertainment, develops loyalty to schools, and has itself an important educational role for team members — not to mention the millions of dollars it brings in. So what’s the harm if high-profile players are more athletes than students? However, if we were to look at all the universities and colleges across North America, how many really generate these millions in revenue. At a minimum, there’s the harm of saying that players are primarily students when they are not. This is a falsehood institutionalized for the benefit of a profit-making system, and educational institutions should have no part in it. The deeper harm, however, lies in the fact that, in the North America there is a strong strain of anti-intellectualism that undervalues intellectual culture and overvalues athletics. As a result, intellectual culture receives far less support than it should. Money is poured into sport but cultural activities, the arts, music programs, quality educational initiatives don't always get a fair a share of the pie. When universities the main centers of intellectual culture and higher education, lower standards of academic excellence in order to increase standards of athletic excellence, they move away from their primary vocation which is to educate young adults. It is often said that the money brought in by athletics supports educational programs. But the large majority of schools lose money on athletics, and the fact that some depend on sports income confirms, in monetary terms, the perceived superiority of athletics. To show proper respect for and support of what should be their primary mission, universities need to ensure that their athletes truly are students first of all. To do this they could look no further than their standard practice regarding nonathletic extracurricular activities. They could take account of athletic potential in the admission process the same way they do potential for debate, theater, student government or service projects. All admitted students would have to fall within the same range of academic ability, with exceptionally talented athletes meeting the same standards as applicants with exceptional talents in other areas. Such a move should be obvious for the many schools that lose large amounts of money on their athletic programs and have relatively little success with them. (I don’t, however, underestimate the pressures to continue even such disastrous programs.) But there’s little practical point to suggesting this move to universities that make large amounts of money from athletics and strongly identify themselves with winning at the highest level. Still, it’s hard to see how even these schools can maintain the myth that their revenue-producing players are primarily students, particularly as the moral case grows stronger for paying the athletes who are central to the tens of millions of dollars some teams bring in each year. But there is a way that profit-making athletic powerhouses could avoid the hypocrisy of the student-athlete. The counter argument to this is always that the student-athletes are benefiting from a high quality free education thanks to scholarships. However, once again, this is a false statement that while true for a small percentage of the student-athlete population does not apply to a majority. So is there a possible alternate solution? Well how about maybe, admit athletes who fall far short of their regular academic criteria as “associate students” (or maybe even “athlete-students”), who take just two or three courses a term as required for participation in sport and are not expected to receive a bachelor’s degree after three or four years. They would instead receive an certificate or diploma as currently exists at many universities which would, after four years, put them in a position to gain regular admission to a university where they could complete a bachelor’s degree in two more years. (There would, of course, still be athletes who met standard criteria of admission and so would be expected to earn a regular degree in the normal cycle of study). This would end the bad faith involved in pretending that unqualified students, devoted primarily to playing sports, could truly earn a bachelor’s degree. But it would also give a significant educational purpose to the under-qualified athlete’s four years on campus. Although this is hardly an ideal solution, it’s better than trying to maintain the myth of the student-athlete. But what a magnificent gesture it would be if, say, a school with a legendary and lucrative football program could find the courage to give up the money and the glory for a ringing endorsement of intellectual values. I share my opinions here as both a coach of a varsity team in a Canadian university and as a management professional in the work force who regularly hires employees. I do believe that someone able to complete a degree successfully while playing university sport is a well rounded, very hire-able person who will bring a unique skill set to his or her employment. However, just like university is not for everyone in the general sense, must everyone who plays university sport absolutely need to complete a full bachelors degree? I have seen first hand the effort and commitment that student-athletes require to meet all the demands of their role and I think that the student-athletes I work with and work around are much more indicative of what the majority of student-athletes in North America go through. They should be seen as any less of an accomplished student than the so called regular student but at the same time, we shouldn't how a lower perception of the individual for whom the athlete part of the being a student-athlete is more important. Like many things in society, rather than generalize, we should take things are these are, each being their own reality and knowing that it isn't always black or white, but more often simply lots of gray.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorAfter many years of coaching at various levels and with different teams, I thought I would share some of my experiences and thoughts about coaching. Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|