A New Wrinkle/Opinion on O'Bannon Case and a Surprising Revelation

[Jarhead]

It's true at Duke.

http://dukefinancialaid.duke.edu/und...ats/index.html

I said merit, not need based. Athletic scholarships count as merit in my book. I said the majority of merit based scholarships go to athletes.

Again you misinterpreted the info in your link. It clearly shows three types of student aid: merit, athletic, and need. For an easy breakdown go back look at the charts. The first of the charts breaks it down this way:

Total Enrolled Undergrads: 6,813

Total Aid Recipients: 3,469

% of Total Aid Recipients
Merit Aid Students: 6.1%
Athletic Aid Students: 7.3%
Need-based Grant Aid Students: 86.6%

% of Total Enrolled Undergrads
Merit Aid Students: 3.1%
Athletic Aid Students: 3.7%
Need-based Grant Aid Students: 44.1%

In no way does this data intermingle merit aid and athletic aid. Furthermore, the fact that 86% of all aid is need based is astonishing to me. However this information makes me think the whole debate we are involved in is a sham. A large segment of students pay their own way; almost half it looks like. The rest get financial aid with 86.6% of the aid being need based. Merit and athletic aid is a very small of percentage of the whole picture.

Looking at all of this together my position is that all of the recipients of aid get all of the aid required, but no more than that. The NCAA would be involved in that a lot of the needs are taboo under their rules, but that should be easy to fix. Here's what I said in a earlier post in this thread:

Full scholarships, athletic or otherwise, should cover the following costs of attending college: tuition and student fees, room and board, books and required educational supplies, and travel expenses home during recesses and certain holidays. Medical expenses with some limitations would be nice, too, but that's it. Luxuries such as automobiles, mobile digital devices, and partying should be totally the student's responsibility.

That is, of course, still open for discussion. Before I close, take a good look at all of the charts linked by Bostondevil:

http://dukefinancialaid.duke.edu/und...ats/index.html

[JNort]

In general, I agree with your concept, but I don't believe that it is the responsibility of the university to cover the costs of automobiles, digital devices, and entertainment for athletes or students on financial aide. On the other hand, I believe that a stipend for personal expenses is appropriate. In following the media discussions, I see that a crowd of folks are calling for salaries for athletes. I have made my own conclusions, and I see it this way. Full scholarships, athletic or otherwise, should cover the following costs of attending college: tuition and student fees, room and board, books and required educational supplies, and travel expenses home during recesses and certain holidays. Medical expenses with some limitations would be nice, too, but that's it. Luxuries such as automobiles, mobile digital devices, and partying should be totally the student's responsibility.

So athletes should not be given the same opportunities as other students? Im not saying pay them because they are on the football team or soccer team or what have you nor am I saying to include extra money in the scholarship. Just pay these kids for doing a job (Minimum wage!) just like many others on campus are doing. If they do not want to pay minimum wage then they need to shorten down on all sporting activities so that players who need money can get a job after praactice like they could in high school.

[Lid]

In no way does this data intermingle merit aid and athletic aid.

No, the chart doesn't intermingle it, but Bostondevil said she considers athletic scholarships to be merit-based in a merit/need duality. I think a strong argument can be made for that approach, and she stated that assumption clearly.

Furthermore, the fact that 86% of all aid is need based is astonishing to me. ... Merit and athletic aid is a very small of percentage of the whole picture.

Unless I'm misinterpreting (which is entirely possible), these charts are showing the number of students receiving each type of aid, not the dollar amount of the aid. That's a big difference -- if the average need-based aid is $2K and the average athletic- or merit-based aid is $30K (I'm making those numbers up), then it becomes clear why the charts use number of students instead. It may sound better to have 86% of students receiving need-based aid than to have 25% of your aid dollars (again, made-up number) going to need-based aid.

(Also, apologies to Bostondevil if I incorrectly remembered your gender from previous posts!)

[DU82]

So athletes should not be given the same opportunities as other students? Im not saying pay them because they are on the football team or soccer team or what have you nor am I saying to include extra money in the scholarship. Just pay these kids for doing a job (Minimum wage!) just like many others on campus are doing. If they do not want to pay minimum wage then they need to shorten down on all sporting activities so that players who need money can get a job after praactice like they could in high school.

I cannot say that basketball and football players are included, but other scholarship athletes are allowed to have jobs on campus during the semester. My nephew's D1 baseball players work basketball games (arena assistance including gates, set-up, clean-up, etc.) While not all are on full-scholarship, the do receive partials. (Unlike most other sports, which are full scholarships, Baseball has, I believe, 13.75 scholarships to divide among the players on the team in roughly 1/4 shares.) They must be paid no more than what other students in similar roles get. IIRC, the OK State issue with football "jobs" was that it was during the off-season, and they were being paid more than the going rate. (This according to the SI stories; not debating if the allegations are true at this time.)

I believe I understand that your point is that practice takes up too much time for many players to get "after school" jobs (and whether their sport IS a job), but wanted to point out that they are able to get one if they choose.

[JNort]

I cannot say that basketball and football players are included, but other scholarship athletes are allowed to have jobs on campus during the semester. My nephew's D1 baseball players work basketball games (arena assistance including gates, set-up, clean-up, etc.) While not all are on full-scholarship, the do receive partials. (Unlike most other sports, which are full scholarships, Baseball has, I believe, 13.75 scholarships to divide among the players on the team in roughly 1/4 shares.) They must be paid no more than what other students in similar roles get. IIRC, the OK State issue with football "jobs" was that it was during the off-season, and they were being paid more than the going rate. (This according to the SI stories; not debating if the allegations are true at this time.)

I believe I understand that your point is that practice takes up too much time for many players to get "after school" jobs (and whether their sport IS a job), but wanted to point out that they are able to get one if they choose.

Football in particular has long practice hours or multiple practices a day to go with time spent in the weight room and meetings. It's fine if the sport allows time for having a job but I used to work with the football team and many of them would not be done with practice till 6 or 7 and still had homework for classes plus studying, many still had to go eat supper and shower while still be expected to get up at 6am. Not much time for a reasonable job unless you don't need sleep.

[sagegrouse]

Again you misinterpreted the info in your link. It clearly shows three types of student aid: merit, athletic, and need. For an easy breakdown go back look at the charts. The first of the charts breaks it down this way:


In no way does this data intermingle merit aid and athletic aid. Furthermore, the fact that 86% of all aid is need based is astonishing to me. However this information makes me think the whole debate we are involved in is a sham. A large segment of students pay their own way; almost half it looks like. The rest get financial aid with 86.6% of the aid being need based. Merit and athletic aid is a very small of percentage of the whole picture.

Looking at all of this together my position is that all of the recipients of aid get all of the aid required, but no more than that. The NCAA would be involved in that a lot of the needs are taboo under their rules, but that should be easy to fix. Here's what I said in a earlier post in this thread:
That is, of course, still open for discussion. Before I close, take a good look at all of the charts linked by Bostondevil:

http://dukefinancialaid.duke.edu/und...ats/index.html

Good points, all. Let me add a different twist, which has really affected the Ivy League. If all athletes, somehow, got admitted to Duke, some would receive close to a free ride on economics alone. Harvard is not asking students with family income below (I believe) $60 thousand to pay any part of tuition, which -- of course -- makes the Crimson pretty competitive in the market for athletes.

sagegrouse

[cf-62]

Are you aware of the recent cheating scandal at Harvard?

I'm kinda making two arguments and I realize I haven't really firmed up what I believe about a lot of it.

One other point you brought up, a lot of football players go to medical school? I'd really like to see the statistics on that. It may have been true when we were in school, I doubt it's true anymore. The only football player I know currently in college who wants to go to medical school ultimately had to give up his football scholarship so he could concentrate on his studies. He even chose a D-1A school because he knew it would be hard to manage both. He had too many practices to be able to go to the lab sections of his science classes. Something had to go, he let football go because he knows his career won't be in the NFL. Smart kid. From a timewise perspective, it is harder to major in a science. I'm not insulting anybody's intelligence nor am I saying that one major is worth more than another, but it's harder to major in a science. Athletes no longer have the time to do it.

The Harvard cheating scandal is NOT an athletics scandal. It is a student cheating scandal that INCLUDED the captains of the basketball team, but nobody that I've ever met believes for 1 microsecond that the cheating was a sports issue.

Re: doctors. 90% of my interaction with doctors is with orthopedic surgeons (and other sports med individuals). A GREAT MANY of them were DI football players. My anecdotal data is going to be extremely skewed by my really bad knees.

[Jarhead]

Good points, all. Let me add a different twist, which has really affected the Ivy League. If all athletes, somehow, got admitted to Duke, some would receive close to a free ride on economics alone. Harvard is not asking students with family income below (I believe) $60 thousand to pay any part of tuition, which -- of course -- makes the Crimson pretty competitive in the market for athletes.

sagegrouse

Thanks for that, sage. Let me see if I can clarify my position. What I am saying is that all full scholarships including athletic should provide for all of the costs of earning a degree. If there are partial scholarships involved some adjustments would be required, of course. I like the Harvard model, and would like to see it copied by other institutions, but even that would not provide for all costs. Other than that, their is the student loan which I think is some kind of punishment.

[Bostondevil]

No, the chart doesn't intermingle it, but Bostondevil said she considers athletic scholarships to be merit-based in a merit/need duality. I think a strong argument can be made for that approach, and she stated that assumption clearly.



Unless I'm misinterpreting (which is entirely possible), these charts are showing the number of students receiving each type of aid, not the dollar amount of the aid. That's a big difference -- if the average need-based aid is $2K and the average athletic- or merit-based aid is $30K (I'm making those numbers up), then it becomes clear why the charts use number of students instead. It may sound better to have 86% of students receiving need-based aid than to have 25% of your aid dollars (again, made-up number) going to need-based aid.

(Also, apologies to Bostondevil if I incorrectly remembered your gender from previous posts!)

Nope - you're right, I'm a she-devil. And thanks - I was making the merit/need duality. To me, athletic scholarships are merit based. You don't get them because you can't afford to pay, you get them because you'll help the crew team win Head of the Charles. (Also, I suspect you are right Lid, if you look at the number of students with a full-ride, athletes are probably the dominant group.)

[Bostondevil]

The Harvard cheating scandal is NOT an athletics scandal. It is a student cheating scandal that INCLUDED the captains of the basketball team, but nobody that I've ever met believes for 1 microsecond that the cheating was a sports issue.

Re: doctors. 90% of my interaction with doctors is with orthopedic surgeons (and other sports med individuals). A GREAT MANY of them were DI football players. My anecdotal data is going to be extremely skewed by my really bad knees.

Was the Harvard cheating scandal only an athletic scandal? No. Part of the scandal, if you ask me, is that there is an open book, open note, you don't have to attend class to pass Introduction to Congress course at Harvard in the first place. But why? Why does it even exist? Is it an accident that so many athletes take that class? (We've never met but I do think the scandal is - partially - a sports issue, so, there's one.)

Also, cf-62, I think the inability of scholarship athletes to seriously consider going to medical school is a recent thing, last decade or so. If you're still being treated by former D1 football players in 20 years, let me know. They could still go, they're just going to have to take all their science courses after they've used up their eligibility.

[sagegrouse]

Also, cf-62, I think the inability of scholarship athletes to seriously consider going to medical school is a recent thing, last decade or so. If you're still being treated by former D1 football players in 20 years, let me know. They could still go, they're just going to have to take all their science courses after they've used up their eligibility.

Is football practice in the afternoon? I thought there was a recent innovation at a bunch of schools, including Duke, to move it to the early morning and leave the rest of the day (after ten AM) open.

Which is not to say that the time pressures on athletes is not still very tough, but that lab time (is it still 2-5) doesn't conflict with practice.

I really should come back to campus sometime.

sagegrouse

[Bostondevil]

Is football practice in the afternoon? I thought there was a recent innovation at a bunch of schools, including Duke, to move it to the early morning and leave the rest of the day (after ten AM) open.

Which is not to say that the time pressures on athletes is not still very tough, but that lab time (is it still 2-5) doesn't conflict with practice.

I really should come back to campus sometime.

sagegrouse

I'll admit I don't have statistics to back up my argument. I have only anecdotal evidence. I did ask an Ivy League physics professor recently how many athletes he usually has in his upper level physics class (for physics majors). None. Not a one. Hasn't had a single athlete in the class for a decade and I'm not just talking football, no varsity athletes in any sport. Now - are there no athletes capable of a physics major or is the time just too much to ask? I suspect it's the time factor. I could be wrong.

[AncientPsychicT]

I cannot say that basketball and football players are included, but other scholarship athletes are allowed to have jobs on campus during the semester. My nephew's D1 baseball players work basketball games (arena assistance including gates, set-up, clean-up, etc.) While not all are on full-scholarship, the do receive partials. (Unlike most other sports, which are full scholarships, Baseball has, I believe, 13.75 scholarships to divide among the players on the team in roughly 1/4 shares.) They must be paid no more than what other students in similar roles get. IIRC, the OK State issue with football "jobs" was that it was during the off-season, and they were being paid more than the going rate. (This according to the SI stories; not debating if the allegations are true at this time.)

I believe I understand that your point is that practice takes up too much time for many players to get "after school" jobs (and whether their sport IS a job), but wanted to point out that they are able to get one if they choose.

I can. Blair Holliday, who is still on scholarship and of whom I like to think as still on the team, and I worked simultaneous shifts as intramural flag football officials last night.

[Bostondevil]

I can. Blair Holliday, who is still on scholarship and of whom I like to think as still on the team, and I worked simultaneous shifts as intramural flag football officials last night.

Awesome!

[cf-62]

I'll admit I don't have statistics to back up my argument. I have only anecdotal evidence. I did ask an Ivy League physics professor recently how many athletes he usually has in his upper level physics class (for physics majors). None. Not a one. Hasn't had a single athlete in the class for a decade and I'm not just talking football, no varsity athletes in any sport. Now - are there no athletes capable of a physics major or is the time just too much to ask? I suspect it's the time factor. I could be wrong.

Wow, talk about extremes.

I'm not discounting your friend's answer, but you're talking about comparing "basket weaving" to physics. Now if you had told me he was a Chem professor, I'd buy more into it. You're right about the time commitment making it tough to maintain a difficult major, but Wall Street doesn't hire dummies, either - and there are plenty of varsity athletes that end up on Wall Street.

I think you're ignoring a critical point - ANY student is going to make their major and class selection based on more than answering the question "can I do it?" They have to take other things into consideration.

I'm going to cite personal experience. I transferred into EE at Duke sophomore year. I had ignored some of the "engineering track" classes freshman year, so I knew I would have to be able to put together an intense technical schedule. It was an extremely stressful 3 years, but (given what I was able to do with my technical career) worth it. HOWEVER, if you had told me at 18 what the next three years were going to be like, I would have passed on the Engineering degree and stayed with my original Trinity plan.

Varsity Athletes have more counseling and "tribal advice" than the rest of us had, so they tend to have better information about these things. Thus, they're going to select a major and course that is conducive to their time - and focus - requirements, while providing them the basis for their next step, whether that is law school, business school, med school, or a job on wall street (or a job as a coach for some).

[Bostondevil]

Wow, talk about extremes.

I'm not discounting your friend's answer, but you're talking about comparing "basket weaving" to physics. Now if you had told me he was a Chem professor, I'd buy more into it. You're right about the time commitment making it tough to maintain a difficult major, but Wall Street doesn't hire dummies, either - and there are plenty of varsity athletes that end up on Wall Street.

I think you're ignoring a critical point - ANY student is going to make their major and class selection based on more than answering the question "can I do it?" They have to take other things into consideration.

I'm going to cite personal experience. I transferred into EE at Duke sophomore year. I had ignored some of the "engineering track" classes freshman year, so I knew I would have to be able to put together an intense technical schedule. It was an extremely stressful 3 years, but (given what I was able to do with my technical career) worth it. HOWEVER, if you had told me at 18 what the next three years were going to be like, I would have passed on the Engineering degree and stayed with my original Trinity plan.

Varsity Athletes have more counseling and "tribal advice" than the rest of us had, so they tend to have better information about these things. Thus, they're going to select a major and course that is conducive to their time - and focus - requirements, while providing them the basis for their next step, whether that is law school, business school, med school, or a job on wall street (or a job as a coach for some).

Not sure I understand what you mean about extremes. But the rest of your post kinda proves my point. Varsity athletes get tutoring and guidance and help setting up their careers and get to graduate with no student loan debt? Bully for them. I said back in this thread somewhere that I view college athletics as a moral morass. I'll still cheer for Duke teams but the system isn't fair to a lot more than the O'Bannons of the world.

Wall Street doesn't hire dummies? I beg to differ. (I will concede that they don't actively try to hire dummies.)

[Bostondevil]

One other thing, I like to think that every Duke student could major in any course of study the university has to offer. Even for those on athletic scholarships, "can I do it?" (apart from time constraints) should not be part of the equation for a Duke student. I don't think every major is for every student nor do I think every student would do equally well in all majors, of course not, but every Duke student should be able to cobble together a degree in any subject. For the record, I do think that every athlete at Duke could manage to graduate with a degree in a science. I think it's time that prevents them from doing so. But yeah, I've got a problem with giving those students the majority of our merit based financial aid. Ability to pay? A Duke degree costs upwards of $250,000 now. No student can pay that.

[cf-62]

One other thing, I like to think that every Duke student could major in any course of study the university has to offer. Even for those on athletic scholarships, "can I do it?" (apart from time constraints) should not be part of the equation for a Duke student. I don't think every major is for every student nor do I think every student would do equally well in all majors, of course not, but every Duke student should be able to cobble together a degree in any subject. For the record, I do think that every athlete at Duke could manage to graduate with a degree in a science. I think it's time that prevents them from doing so. But yeah, I've got a problem with giving those students the majority of our merit based financial aid. Ability to pay? A Duke degree costs upwards of $250,000 now. No student can pay that.

I think you're mostly right, but BD you're way off if you think every student can do any major at Duke. There are lots of extremely smart people that neither want to -- NOR CAN -- do the math heavy lifting in Engineering, Math, Physics, or Chemistry.

[Bostondevil]

I think you're mostly right, but BD you're way off if you think every student can do any major at Duke. There are lots of extremely smart people that neither want to -- NOR CAN -- do the math heavy lifting in Engineering, Math, Physics, or Chemistry.

Don't burst my bubble. Let me keep my illusions that all Duke athletes are smart enough to cut it in the (science/math/engineering) classroom, they just don't have time. Because if you convince me otherwise, the fact that we give those students more money to attend school than the ones that have the goods academically, well, where does Duke (or Stanford or Harvard) get off calling itself a top school? Are they universities or sports complexes? Math heavy lifting - I don't think mathematics gets beyond what any extremely smart person should be able to do until after linear algebra. I'm not saying get an A, I'm saying pass, scraping by with a D is enough. And yeah, I'm not saying everybody should have to do it, but they should be able to, just like they should all be able to write a coherent scholarly paper. (I would entertain arguments that first year calculus is enough, maybe. ;-) )

[sagegrouse]

One other thing, I like to think that every Duke student could major in any course of study the university has to offer. Even for those on athletic scholarships, "can I do it?" (apart from time constraints) should not be part of the equation for a Duke student. I don't think every major is for every student nor do I think every student would do equally well in all majors, of course not, but every Duke student should be able to cobble together a degree in any subject. For the record, I do think that every athlete at Duke could manage to graduate with a degree in a science. I think it's time that prevents them from doing so. But yeah, I've got a problem with giving those students the majority of our merit based financial aid. Ability to pay? A Duke degree costs upwards of $250,000 now. No student can pay that.

I hear you and agree with your sentiment, but I assure you, I would have flunked out as a music major.

sagegrouse