Keeping the Athletic Graduation rate up at UNC,

[Loren Pechtel]

My mother used to teach at a community college and had her own run-in with the athletics department in the form of the star women's basketball player that somehow ended up in her class.
.

It is an extreme outlier. This is not profs being pressured by coaches. IT is profs taking it upon themselves to create fake courses that weren't actually taught and that anyone could enroll in an get an easy grade for no real work. The investigation found that athletes were not given special treatment within these courses. Everyone got fake grades. This is only incidentally related to the athletics programs, because some of the student advisors who had heard about these fake courses in the AAAS department told struggling athletes to enroll in them for an easy grade.

That's what they said. That doesn't mean it's the truth. I don't believe they created fake courses just to boost grades of the less fortunate.

The more common thing is simply to pass the athlete no matter what, but that can blow up in your face when you find a teacher who doesn't cave. (Of course you can simply get rid of the teacher so it at least doesn't happen again.)

 

[bilby]

I have never understood why America insists on conflating the unrelated activities of running professional sport and running universities. Other countries have universities with amateur sports teams, and if a player is good enough to go professional, a scout from a professional team might offer him a contract; and a professional sportsman could, if he was so inclined, enrol in a university course; but in no way is his education tied to his sporting opportunities, or vice-versa.

They are separate things. Trying to combine them is bound to cause problems. It is almost as stupid as combining one's employment with one's ability to access healthcare.

Things that are not related really need to be treated as though they were unrelated, in order to avoid sub-optimal outcomes in one or both areas.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In 2009 The university of North Carolina rake in $20,551,168 in revenue from college basketball alone. Now extrapolate that over the last say, 25 years controlling for inflation and fluctuations in the market and you can easily find you self in the neighborhood os half a BILLION dollars. And we haven't even counted football. Nor have we counted the revenue from tourism or the job creation attributable to college sport.

And Chapel Hill isn't even the top school. UNC is number 3.

Duke is #1
Louisville is #2

Now weigh the cost of this little scandal (and there are people, powerful people in this state, in this nation who are referring to this whole magilla as a "little scandal") against the payoff in sport revenue.

See why it's just a "little scandal?"

And still there are people who think one of the smallest departments on campus was the sole actor in this scheme?

Puh-lease

Yeah and Iran-Contra was just one colonel running a weapons discount store out of the basement of the White House

 

[bilby]

In 2009 The university of North Carolina rake in $20,551,168 in revenue from college basketball alone. Now extrapolate that over the last say, 25 years controlling for inflation and fluctuations in the market and you can easily find you self in the neighborhood os half a BILLION dollars. And we haven't even counted football. Nor have we counted the revenue from tourism or the job creation attributable to college sport.

And Chapel Hill isn't even the top school. UNC is number 3.

Duke is #1
Louisville is #2

Now weigh the cost of this little scandal (and there are people, powerful people in this state, in this nation who are referring to this whole magilla as a "little scandal") against the payoff in sport revenue.

See why it's just a "little scandal?"

And still there are people who think one of the smallest departments on campus was the sole actor in this scheme?

Puh-lease

Yeah and Iran-Contra was just one colonel running a weapons discount store out of the basement of the White House

In 2012-13, Manchester City Football Club raised £271,000,000 (about US$435,000,000) in revenue. At no point did anyone say 'Hey, let's start offering degree courses to students!'. Because no matter how much revenue a professional sports outfit raises, it isn't the same thing as an institute of higher education. Things that are not related really need to be treated as though they were unrelated, in order to avoid sub-optimal outcomes in one or both areas.

The problem isn't caused by the fact that the sports team brings in a lot of money; it is caused by the fact that the sports team is not kept separate and apart from the educational institution. The owner of Manchester City also has a significant stake in Daimler; but he very sensibly does not insist that his football players build cars, nor that his motor vehicle design engineers play football.

There is no reason why the school and the team cannot be related by ownership; but trying to ensure that they are related in terms of the activities undertaken by the participants is a recipe for disaster.

Can anyone offer an explanation better than 'It has always been done this way' for NOT separating the sportsmen from the students? Do that one simple thing, and the whole problem ceases to exist.

 

[barbos]

Everybody knew what was going on.
You can't keep much smaller and insignificant secrets in universities.
It's about money, athletic programs bring in money and if some professor decides to be honest all about teaching he will be fired.
In fact, if he displays some dissent about athletic programs he would not be hired in the first place.
Anyone with a semi-functional half brain understands that any serious education is simply incompatible with level of sports college athletes display. It can not be done, therefore you either play along or the whole thing should be shut down.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In 2009 The university of North Carolina rake in $20,551,168 in revenue from college basketball alone. Now extrapolate that over the last say, 25 years controlling for inflation and fluctuations in the market and you can easily find you self in the neighborhood os half a BILLION dollars. And we haven't even counted football. Nor have we counted the revenue from tourism or the job creation attributable to college sport.

And Chapel Hill isn't even the top school. UNC is number 3.

Duke is #1
Louisville is #2

Now weigh the cost of this little scandal (and there are people, powerful people in this state, in this nation who are referring to this whole magilla as a "little scandal") against the payoff in sport revenue.

See why it's just a "little scandal?"

And still there are people who think one of the smallest departments on campus was the sole actor in this scheme?

Puh-lease

Yeah and Iran-Contra was just one colonel running a weapons discount store out of the basement of the White House

In 2012-13, Manchester City Football Club raised £271,000,000 (about US$435,000,000) in revenue. At no point did anyone say 'Hey, let's start offering degree courses to students!'. Because no matter how much revenue a professional sports outfit raises, it isn't the same thing as an institute of higher education. Things that are not related really need to be treated as though they were unrelated, in order to avoid sub-optimal outcomes in one or both areas.

The problem isn't caused by the fact that the sports team brings in a lot of money; it is caused by the fact that the sports team is not kept separate and apart from the educational institution. The owner of Manchester City also has a significant stake in Daimler; but he very sensibly does not insist that his football players build cars, nor that his motor vehicle design engineers play football.

There is no reason why the school and the team cannot be related by ownership; but trying to ensure that they are related in terms of the activities undertaken by the participants is a recipe for disaster.

Can anyone offer an explanation better than 'It has always been done this way' for NOT separating the sportsmen from the students? Do that one simple thing, and the whole problem ceases to exist.

Look at the first post I made. I said how to fix this.

 

[bilby]

In 2012-13, Manchester City Football Club raised £271,000,000 (about US$435,000,000) in revenue. At no point did anyone say 'Hey, let's start offering degree courses to students!'. Because no matter how much revenue a professional sports outfit raises, it isn't the same thing as an institute of higher education. Things that are not related really need to be treated as though they were unrelated, in order to avoid sub-optimal outcomes in one or both areas.

The problem isn't caused by the fact that the sports team brings in a lot of money; it is caused by the fact that the sports team is not kept separate and apart from the educational institution. The owner of Manchester City also has a significant stake in Daimler; but he very sensibly does not insist that his football players build cars, nor that his motor vehicle design engineers play football.

There is no reason why the school and the team cannot be related by ownership; but trying to ensure that they are related in terms of the activities undertaken by the participants is a recipe for disaster.

Can anyone offer an explanation better than 'It has always been done this way' for NOT separating the sportsmen from the students? Do that one simple thing, and the whole problem ceases to exist.

Look at the first post I made. I said how to fix this.

Indeed; and your idea is sound - but unless those minor league teams are subsumed into the same ownership structure as the colleges, the academic side of things stands to lose a potential source of subsidy.

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing; but I do think it will make the idea politically impossible. Nobody wants to lose control of the money. The solution is to keep the colleges as owners of the sports teams - perhaps they could buy minor league teams, or perhaps their current teams could play in the minor leagues - but make a clear distinction between people who are at the college as athletes, and those who are there as students. There seems to be no reason for a footballer to attend lectures, any more than there is a need for Biotechnology undergraduates to play football.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Look at the first post I made. I said how to fix this.

Indeed; and your idea is sound - but unless those minor league teams are subsumed into the same ownership structure as the colleges, the academic side of things stands to lose a potential source of subsidy.

Oh it will. This only works with a total overhaul of the education system.

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing; but I do think it will make the idea politically impossible. Nobody wants to lose control of the money. The solution is to keep the colleges as owners of the sports teams - perhaps they could buy minor league teams, or perhaps their current teams could play in the minor leagues - but make a clear distinction between people who are at the college as athletes, and those who are there as students. There seems to be no reason for a footballer to attend lectures, any more than there is a need for Biotechnology undergraduates to play football.

http://www.edgeofsports.com/2014-03-30-911/

 

[dismal]

You could read the report then decide what you believe. I linked it my previous post.

Or I could do what I have been doing which is talk to my friends who work and teach at UNC, talk to members of the Rams club (as a former member I know quite a few), not to mention former athletes, other alumni and the a couple of members of the University North Carolina System Board of Governors who work with me in my church's state convention.

But you have a report.

You should go with that.

The people who wrote the report were given full access by the school. They interviewed hundreds of people and reviewed thousands of emails.

It's rather stunning that you would simply ignore their findings.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Or I could do what I have been doing which is talk to my friends who work and teach at UNC, talk to members of the Rams club (as a former member I know quite a few), not to mention former athletes, other alumni and the a couple of members of the University North Carolina System Board of Governors who work with me in my church's state convention.

But you have a report.

You should go with that.

The people who wrote the report were given full access by the school. They interviewed hundreds of people and reviewed thousands of emails.

It's rather stunning that you would simply ignore their findings.

I didn't ignore anything. I just see it for what it is.

 

[dismal]

The people who wrote the report were given full access by the school. They interviewed hundreds of people and reviewed thousands of emails.

It's rather stunning that you would simply ignore their findings.

I didn't ignore anything. I just see it for what it is.

Which is a thorough investigation involving interviews with 100+ of the most relevant people and a review of 1,000,000+ relevant emails to ascertain the facts right?

If not, what was it?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I didn't ignore anything. I just see it for what it is.

Which is a thorough investigation involving interviews with 100+ of the most relevant people and a review of 1,000,000+ relevant emails to ascertain the facts right?

If not, what was it?

Look, I'm not saying the AS/AAS department was righteous. A report that says they weren't righteous doesn't cause me any dissonance. The report, is fine, as far as it goes. It just doesn't go far enough. But if you think you got me, which you don't, and that make you feel like a big man, then feel like a big man.

You do that, you stick with that,

And I will know the truth. That no show classes are not new nor department specific at UNC. That nothing like this goes on for nearly two decades without at least tacit support from a whole lot of people, people who will never be mentioned in any report ever. That people don't want to think bad things about Tobacco Road so this too shall pass and business as usual will continue at UNC.

Until the citizens of the old North State, the TAX PAYING citizens of NC, demand not a pretty narrative of nothing but love for Tobacco Road, but a university that actually provides a world class education for EVERY student, nothing will change.

But things as changing. More people are catching on and are ready to make that demand.

 

[dismal]

Which is a thorough investigation involving interviews with 100+ of the most relevant people and a review of 1,000,000+ relevant emails to ascertain the facts right?

If not, what was it?

Look, I'm not saying the AS/AAS department was righteous. A report that says they weren't righteous doesn't cause me any dissonance. The report, is fine, as far as it goes. It just doesn't go far enough. But if you think you got me, which you don't, and that make you feel like a big man, then feel like a big man.

You do that, you stick with that,

And I will know the truth. That no show classes are not new nor department specific at UNC. That nothing like this goes on for nearly two decades without at least tacit support from a whole lot of people, people who will never be mentioned in any report ever. That people don't want to think bad things about Tobacco Road so this too shall pass and business as usual will continue at UNC.

Until the citizens of the old North State, the TAX PAYING citizens of NC, demand not a pretty narrative of nothing but love for Tobacco Road, but a university that actually provides a world class education for EVERY student, nothing will change.

But things as changing. More people are catching on and are ready to make that demand.

I don't consider this to have all that much to do with you personally.

 

[Bronzeage]

Which is a thorough investigation involving interviews with 100+ of the most relevant people and a review of 1,000,000+ relevant emails to ascertain the facts right?

If not, what was it?

Look, I'm not saying the AS/AAS department was righteous. A report that says they weren't righteous doesn't cause me any dissonance. The report, is fine, as far as it goes. It just doesn't go far enough. But if you think you got me, which you don't, and that make you feel like a big man, then feel like a big man.

You do that, you stick with that,

And I will know the truth. That no show classes are not new nor department specific at UNC. That nothing like this goes on for nearly two decades without at least tacit support from a whole lot of people, people who will never be mentioned in any report ever. That people don't want to think bad things about Tobacco Road so this too shall pass and business as usual will continue at UNC.

Until the citizens of the old North State, the TAX PAYING citizens of NC, demand not a pretty narrative of nothing but love for Tobacco Road, but a university that actually provides a world class education for EVERY student, nothing will change.

But things as changing. More people are catching on and are ready to make that demand.

Imagine a five story office building with a leaky roof. Every office on the fifth floor has a leak and everyone puts the trashcan under the leak. On the fourth floor, about half the offices have trashcan under a leak. Only a quarter of the third floor sees any water coming through the ceiling. By the time it reaches the second floor, every leak is caught in a trashcan. The building maintenance supervisor's office is on the first floor, and he never sees any water.

One day part of the roof caves in and it attracts a lot of attention. An building inspector is called in to figure out what happened. In the report, a couple people on the second floor are blamed for the collapse, because they kept emptying the trash can and never reported the leak. The maintenance supervisor is blameless, because how was he to know the roof was leaking?

 

[Blahface]

I have never understood why America insists on conflating the unrelated activities of running professional sport and running universities. Other countries have universities with amateur sports teams, and if a player is good enough to go professional, a scout from a professional team might offer him a contract; and a professional sportsman could, if he was so inclined, enrol in a university course; but in no way is his education tied to his sporting opportunities, or vice-versa.

They are separate things. Trying to combine them is bound to cause problems. It is almost as stupid as combining one's employment with one's ability to access healthcare.

Things that are not related really need to be treated as though they were unrelated, in order to avoid sub-optimal outcomes in one or both areas.

They should separate the athletes' attendance at the University into their academic period and their athletic period. They should spend the first years as an athlete for the University and focus primarily on sports. After serving time as an athlete, they should have earned credit to attend the University as a student immediately after or some time down the road.

 

[bilby]

I have never understood why America insists on conflating the unrelated activities of running professional sport and running universities. Other countries have universities with amateur sports teams, and if a player is good enough to go professional, a scout from a professional team might offer him a contract; and a professional sportsman could, if he was so inclined, enrol in a university course; but in no way is his education tied to his sporting opportunities, or vice-versa.

They are separate things. Trying to combine them is bound to cause problems. It is almost as stupid as combining one's employment with one's ability to access healthcare.

Things that are not related really need to be treated as though they were unrelated, in order to avoid sub-optimal outcomes in one or both areas.

They should separate the athletes' attendance at the University into their academic period and their athletic period. They should spend the first years as an athlete for the University and focus primarily on sports. After serving time as an athlete, they should have earned credit to attend the University as a student immediately after or some time down the road.

Why?

Athletics is a separate discipline from academics. I can see no more reason why an athlete should be required to get a college degree than should a welder, or a motor vehicle mechanic, or a florist. Nobody says 'Sorry mate, you are the best boilermaker I have ever seen, but I can't give you your R-Stamp certification, because you flunked French Literature'. If someone is good enough at throwing, catching and/or running to attempt to make a living out of it, what is the point of forcing them to also gain skills in some totally unrelated field?

 

[Bronzeage]

They should separate the athletes' attendance at the University into their academic period and their athletic period. They should spend the first years as an athlete for the University and focus primarily on sports. After serving time as an athlete, they should have earned credit to attend the University as a student immediately after or some time down the road.

Why?

Athletics is a separate discipline from academics. I can see no more reason why an athlete should be required to get a college degree than should a welder, or a motor vehicle mechanic, or a florist. Nobody says 'Sorry mate, you are the best boilermaker I have ever seen, but I can't give you your R-Stamp certification, because you flunked French Literature'. If someone is good enough at throwing, catching and/or running to attempt to make a living out of it, what is the point of forcing them to also gain skills in some totally unrelated field?

University athletics was born of the idea that physical fitness and the lessons of teamwork were an essential part of the process of making an liberally educated man. The athletic department was an adjunct to the real colleges, which provided the real learning. The early "technical" or "mechanical" colleges, which produced engineers and doctors, did not have time for such foolishness. Football(the American kind) and basketball are unique in that both were born of the university. All other team sports have distinctly blue collar roots. The vast majority of college athletes play their game, get their diploma and then go to work in their chosen field, assuming they can find a job.

The difference in football and basketball is the money it generates for colleges. Some universities invest great sums and thus demand great returns. It's sort of a viscous circle. More investment demands more returns. There are many colleges which schedule games with schools such as LSU or Alabama, because their share of the receipts for one game pays their entire athletic department budget for the year. It's all about money, not training young men to become pro football players. Every year, thousands of college football players graduate, or not as the case maybe, and hope for one of the few dozen or so openings on an NBA or NFL pro team. They would be better off learning to play high stakes poker, if there were not some level of education attached to their service.

 

[Blahface]

They should separate the athletes' attendance at the University into their academic period and their athletic period. They should spend the first years as an athlete for the University and focus primarily on sports. After serving time as an athlete, they should have earned credit to attend the University as a student immediately after or some time down the road.

Why?

Athletics is a separate discipline from academics. I can see no more reason why an athlete should be required to get a college degree than should a welder, or a motor vehicle mechanic, or a florist. Nobody says 'Sorry mate, you are the best boilermaker I have ever seen, but I can't give you your R-Stamp certification, because you flunked French Literature'. If someone is good enough at throwing, catching and/or running to attempt to make a living out of it, what is the point of forcing them to also gain skills in some totally unrelated field?

I'm not saying an athlete should be required to get a college degree. I'm just saying the option for a full scholarship should be available sometime after he puts in his time as an athlete. Some athletes might want to do this if they don't go pro or briefly go pro, but fizzle out quickly.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why don't they just separate the athletic stuff from the schools altogether? That there is such big money in school teams seems to me to indicate a major failing somewhere. Schools should be about academics, not football.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why don't they just separate the athletic stuff from the schools altogether? That there is such big money in school teams seems to me to indicate a major failing somewhere. Schools should be about academics, not football.

You are correct. It would be nice if the resources spent on big time athletics were spent on books and faculty salaries and the such. For most schools, athletic revenues cover only a percentage of the costs. None of the big money schools could operate the programs without the charity of affluent alumni. College athletics is a very poor business model. It's as if General Motors accepted millions from a private citizen to build a factory and in return, named a car after him.