Beat that horse Vedder. Beat it!

Agree with SBH. Its very hard to make a compelling case that spending millions on athletics is worth the ROI. Particularly when most of our students care very little.

Agreed. I don't like what he says, but it is factual. However, using Harvard and MIT as examples of "another model" to follow is a bit disingenuous.

One could argue that athletic scholarships is the least effective way to provide college educations to those who could not "afford it." I use quotes there because no one can actually afford college these days.

Its a bad idea because athletic success is not a strong indicator for academic success (and that's being generous). In an ideal (sensible?) world scholarships would go to students based on academic merit. You could pay for several hundred students with $17M.

The priorities are totally out of whack. And almost certainly to the detriment of higher education in this country. How much longer can schools like Ohio charge students to 150K to "find themselves?"

That's exactly what is done with the $17M; you do pay for several hundred students with it. If you don't count the cost of the scholarships, I wonder how much loss, if any, the athletic department actually has? I suspect it has no loss at all, or a very small loss. I suspect that the miscellaneous revenues offset things like coaches' salaries, building expenses, etc, and that all of the loss ends up being attributable to scholarships.

Without considering the source of the money to pay for the scholarships, let's then ask if it is an effective use of scholarship monies. You argue that these are not the most academically qualified students, and, if you look at indicators such as the ACT, that surely is true. However, in my opinion that's the wrong question. I believe that the correct questions should not be addressed to the input, but rather to the output.

How does the graduation rate of student athletes compare to the graduation rate of the general students? How does it compare to the graduation rate of other students that might be admitted under some alternative program? What is the post-graduation success rate of student athletes, and how does it compare to general students? How does it compare to what these same students would have achieved had they not gotten an athletic scholarship?

I don't claim to know the answer to these questions, other than that I'm fairly sure that the graduation rate of student athletes is significantly higher than that of regular students. I would speculate that because the rigor of trying to be both a student and an athlete is so demanding, it adds additional discipline to these people, and that not only is their graduation rate high, but their success rate is much higher than what those people would have experienced without athletic scholarships, and quite possibly higher than success rate of the general student population.

To be honest, I believe that I have argued that the correct solution is totally in the opposite direction than Vedder goes. Rather than eliminating the idea of student-athletes, I have suggested making all students have an athletic requirement. I believe that would enhance their success rate not only in academics, but also after graduation.

The last time I brought this up, I got a lot of flack for it, but I personally have experienced such an environment. In my high school all students were required to compete in 3 sports a year, one in each of fall, winter, and spring. They could participate at the varsity level, or at the club level, but they had to participate. Personally I participated in swimming, water polo, golf, football, and squash. The result did not harm the education in any way. I still believe that by keeping active and fit, you can perform better in all ways, including academically.

LC, sorry but I completely disagree.

First, student athletes are given advantages that few other students receive. Yes, their study/free time is greatly constrained...but the use of that study time is maximized by resources that other students could only dream of (and the rich only get richer with the latest development in the arms race). This includes both tutors and more generally mentors like their coaches, athletic dept folks and the even the president himself. With their very livelihood on the line...you better believe coaches are going to make sure their players are passing their courses and graduating.

Second, the majors we've seen our athletes get are not very difficult. Anyone with basic reading/writing skills can get a degree in X as long as they try. And that's why the tutors/coaches are there...to make sure they do.

So yes, if all Ohio students had Solich/Schaus/McDavis and their minions making sure they were at their classes instead of sitting in their dorms watching Duck Dynasty...then of course the graduation rate would be great.

Again, the problem is here you are putting tremendous resources behind a group of students that are academically run-of-the-mill...or worse. And why? So that rich donors will donate millions to the arms race?

EDIT - I don't think your idea about students being forced to do some form of athletics is bad.

No, problem Paul. Nowhere is it written that we have to agree.

Basically my perspective is very different than Vedder. He seems to view athletics as a total waste, $17m down the drain. I view it as $17m spent on an affirmative action program that is not only effective at lifting the specific athletes who do get college scholarships from their surroundings, but also one that motivates a lot of young people to do better in high school while they are hoping to get one.

Because of my perspective, it is an important question to me what becomes of these athletes after college. Do they go back to where they came from, and pick up where they left off? Or, do they go on to be better than they would have? If, after their 4-5 years in college, they end up with a useless degree, and they end up working for Walmart, or worse, unemployed, back in gangs, etc, then the effort was entirely wasted. I haven't seen any studies, though, dedicated to trying to determine how participating in athletics affects the end lives of the individuals involved, so it is all speculation. My speculation is that it is far more effective than most other affirmative action programs.

I also see athletics from the perspective of D.A. It clearly provides advertising for the school, and an economic benefit to the community, too, and those benefits are substantial. I don't think it's a coincidence that, aside from the super-elite schools like the Ivy League schools, U. of Chicago, M.I.T, etc, most of the universities that do not play sports are struggling to grow their endowments, while schools that do have strong athletic programs are seeing double digit annual growth in endowment. Is that a good thing? No, I think it reflects a misplaced priority on a massive scale, but it is an effect that I believe is real.

As for the tutors, and study facilities, yes, I agree that they have tutors, etc, but I believe that's included in the athletic budget, and if, I'm right, the athletic budget is not in deficit if you exclude the scholarships. Thus, they do get tutors, but the tutors are paid out of the revenue produced by their efforts, and I see nothing unfair about that.

Back to the tutors, though. Let's say that a non-athlete feels he needs a tutor. Wouldn't the University accommodate him? I know I was a TA in Operations Research when I was in graduate school, and I was paid by the school, not the students. Anyone that wanted help was free to ask me for it at any time, and I had help sessions for people individually or in groups. These were not athletes, just regular students. Most students did not request help, though (at least, not until the students who were getting help from me started outperforming the rest of the class. I was pretty shocked when, for my last help session, right before the final exam, the entire class showed up, and rather than tutoring 5-10 students, I had about 80).

Edit - BTW, I would add that, because of my perspective, it is more important to me that the athletes do well in school than that they win a MACC. For some a MAC Championship is everything, but for me I understand why the athletes want it, but I'd rather see a high academic success rate, and a high post education success rate than a championship. For me, I love seeing things like the "Gaige's Gift" thread, and that, to me, is a better indication of the true success of the program.

I cannot speak to MIT, but Harvard offers NO Athletic Scholarships, nor do they grant any academic scholarships.

My biggest problem with their argument is that they are attacking something that does show a positive investment. The numbers are tough to work with because scholarships make up most of the budget and we are essentially paying ourselves. So the real cost is much less.

When you look around at the University and see some of the other areas that could cut some waste....it starts to become a vicious cycle. Is a classics and world religion department worth the investment? Is it worth it to have an auditorium? These things are all very hard to track direct impact because they are a piece of a much bigger picture just like Athletics is.

The classics and world religion department epitomizes the purpose of the university. Not just Ohio University, but all universities. Football is a much different thing.

And one more thing that particularly irks me about Vedder's article: the Academic Center. Do you think he would be pissed if an alumnus wanted to donate funds for a facility for the exclusive use of Economics students? HELL NO!

I've been aware of this policy since my youngest daughter was applying to college around the turn of the century. It seems to me that Harvard's move away from giving academic scholarships on the undergraduate level will mean that over time they will admit less and less of the nation's best and brightest because they will be drawn to schools that recognize their academic achievements and reward it appropriately. It seems to me that Harvard is in the process of slowly slitting its own throat, a multi-billion endowment notwithstanding.

P.S. Let me add to show my bias that my extremely well-prepared aforementioned daughter, who was accepted to every school to which she applied, ended up at the University of Michigan on an academic scholarship.