College athletes exploited?

[UcMiami]

Phillycoach - I really like you take on this. And CocoHusky, I am not really trying to be argumentative. I am a college professors son, and truly believe in the mission of higher education and find the compromises of athletic departments and schools to be very problematic. The UNC situation is really disgusting and the degradation of an academic department into a farce something that should be taken seriously and punished severely. The death penalty is an appropriate response to such institutional corruption.
At the same time, I went to university with interests both academic and practical - a premed intention but with a huge interest in pursuing theater as well, and after a few really dreadful science professors, theater began to win out. And I became friends with a number of other students who were also pursuing 'non-academic' courses of study, from artists to musicians to dancers. We generally have no problem with the students who graduate with degrees who beyond the basic general ed requirements of college have never had to crack a book while studying sculpture or painting or modern dance or experimental theater, and many schools offer MFA degrees for those who want to continue in an 'academic' pursuit of these 'practical' studies, but go all high and mighty when the students main course of study is basketball or football or general physical education. In reality athletes are in fact getting collegiate level training and instruction in a course of study - their particular sport. Is that so dissimilar to the 'non-athlete' who graduates from the department of modern dance or the theater department, or the department of music? They have about the same chance of employment in that discipline, and if they are employed will generally make a heck of a lot more money! (I should know! )

My biggest problem with this thread and much of the discussion here is that I personally consider the word 'exploitation' to be a very powerful term that should be reserved for very strong unambiguous situations like human trafficking, slavery, sweat shops, and similar situations. When people use it in the case of athletes in college, in many cases they are trying to associate those strong connotations to a situation that is much more complicated. Especially when they try to add in a framework of racism. What might be being taken advantage of is athletic skill, but coaches could care less about the ethnic background of a basketball player or football player when it comes to stretching the academic requirements for admission.

And while many recruiters tell monstrous lies in pursuit of the next star athlete, I also find the idea that parents and children are oblivious to their own or their child's academic deficiencies to be disingenuous in most cases. There may be some true innocents that get caught up in the lies of academic excellence that will be achieved, but I don't believe there are many. So most are complicit in this charade and are using the school just as much or more than the school is using them.

And while the vision of academic success may be a pipe dream, the practical facilities supplied to athletes are real - academic advisors, tutors, and monitoring of study and class attendance. Many more resources than are provided to the general student population. And universities do not guarantee an education to any student, just access to the facilities and teachers to pursue that education - 'horse to water' and all that.

 

[PhillyCoach]

Phillycoach - I really like you take on this. And CocoHusky, I am not really trying to be argumentative. I am a college professors son, and truly believe in the mission of higher education and find the compromises of athletic departments and schools to be very problematic. The UNC situation is really disgusting and the degradation of an academic department into a farce something that should be taken seriously and punished severely. The death penalty is an appropriate response to such institutional corruption.
At the same time, I went to university with interests both academic and practical - a premed intention but with a huge interest in pursuing theater as well, and after a few really dreadful science professors, theater began to win out. And I became friends with a number of other students who were also pursuing 'non-academic' courses of study, from artists to musicians to dancers. We generally have no problem with the students who graduate with degrees who beyond the basic general ed requirements of college have never had to crack a book while studying sculpture or painting or modern dance or experimental theater, and many schools offer MFA degrees for those who want to continue in an 'academic' pursuit of these 'practical' studies, but go all high and mighty when the students main course of study is basketball or football or general physical education. In reality athletes are in fact getting collegiate level training and instruction in a course of study - their particular sport. Is that so dissimilar to the 'non-athlete' who graduates from the department of modern dance or the theater department, or the department of music? They have about the same chance of employment in that discipline, and if they are employed will generally make a heck of a lot more money! (I should know! )

My biggest problem with this thread and much of the discussion here is that I personally consider the word 'exploitation' to be a very powerful term that should be reserved for very strong unambiguous situations like human trafficking, slavery, sweat shops, and similar situations. When people use it in the case of athletes in college, in many cases they are trying to associate those strong connotations to a situation that is much more complicated. Especially when they try to add in a framework of racism. What might be being taken advantage of is athletic skill, but coaches could care less about the ethnic background of a basketball player or football player when it comes to stretching the academic requirements for admission.

And while many recruiters tell monstrous lies in pursuit of the next star athlete, I also find the idea that parents and children are oblivious to their own or their child's academic deficiencies to be disingenuous in most cases. There may be some true innocents that get caught up in the lies of academic excellence that will be achieved, but I don't believe there are many. So most are complicit in this charade and are using the school just as much or more than the school is using them.

And while the vision of academic success may be a pipe dream, the practical facilities supplied to athletes are real - academic advisors, tutors, and monitoring of study and class attendance. Many more resources than are provided to the general student population. And universities do not guarantee an education to any student, just access to the facilities and teachers to pursue that education - 'horse to water' and all that.

Hey UC - Good stuff. Well said! I'm in.

 

[CocoHusky]

Coco - Always like your common sense thinking and open mindedness about multiple issues. Your perspective seems big picture and you throw out ideas as food for thought.
I have a question for you--and I don't say there is a definitive answer, however I would say I do lean in one direction more than another.
Scenario - Inner-city kid, marginal student (not up to snuff with regard to requirements for that college recruiting him). Probably will not go to any post-HS institution of learning otherwise. College comes in and offers him a full ride.
For the most part there are two choices--
Don't take the ride, struggle in the neighborhood with environment/low-skill job or lack thereof, live at home or really struggle on their own, expectations are bleak and difficult. OR
Take the ride, get out the neighborhood for a year or two or four, maybe make some contacts, maybe have your eyes opened to a better world, maybe even hit the books and find out that you have some smarts, maybe be taken under the coaches wing or a boosters wing, & of course, maybe make it to the show!! Real longshot I know. Could there possibly be frustration and flailing around dealing with the academics? Probably. Could they play for a year or two or four and not make the grade for pro or semi-pro?--Probably. Could they end up back in the neighborhood? Probably. But the players/students/ young men who took the opportunity will be different (better off?)-- then the young men who never left.
When I was at Bartram HS in SW Philly I had numerous occasions to mentor, counsel, or advise young men who had opportunities to accept a scholarship. There were times where the player was not the best student and I did advise (warn them) that it would be difficult, but there are risks and rewards for certain decisions.
To be honest, I never suggested to a student that they should not take a scholarship because they did not fulfill the requirements or were not up to a challenge. Just like I would with my son, I would discuss the big picture and all the ramifications/implications/consequences. IMHO A tough, difficult chance is better than no chance. That chance over-rules any discussion about exploitation.
I look forward to your thoughts.

Coach I do have a definitive answer. Take the ride 100% of the time! College offers significantly more possibilities than staying in your neighbor.
As I said in my original post " Get to class, get your degree and make something off your opportunity!".

 

[CocoHusky]

Phillycoach - I really like you take on this. And CocoHusky, I am not really trying to be argumentative. I am a college professors son, and truly believe in the mission of higher education and find the compromises of athletic departments and schools to be very problematic. The UNC situation is really disgusting and the degradation of an academic department into a farce something that should be taken seriously and punished severely. The death penalty is an appropriate response to such institutional corruption.
At the same time, I went to university with interests both academic and practical - a premed intention but with a huge interest in pursuing theater as well, and after a few really dreadful science professors, theater began to win out. And I became friends with a number of other students who were also pursuing 'non-academic' courses of study, from artists to musicians to dancers. We generally have no problem with the students who graduate with degrees who beyond the basic general ed requirements of college have never had to crack a book while studying sculpture or painting or modern dance or experimental theater, and many schools offer MFA degrees for those who want to continue in an 'academic' pursuit of these 'practical' studies, but go all high and mighty when the students main course of study is basketball or football or general physical education. In reality athletes are in fact getting collegiate level training and instruction in a course of study - their particular sport. Is that so dissimilar to the 'non-athlete' who graduates from the department of modern dance or the theater department, or the department of music? They have about the same chance of employment in that discipline, and if they are employed will generally make a heck of a lot more money! (I should know! )

My biggest problem with this thread and much of the discussion here is that I personally consider the word 'exploitation' to be a very powerful term that should be reserved for very strong unambiguous situations like human trafficking, slavery, sweat shops, and similar situations. When people use it in the case of athletes in college, in many cases they are trying to associate those strong connotations to a situation that is much more complicated. Especially when they try to add in a framework of racism. What might be being taken advantage of is athletic skill, but coaches could care less about the ethnic background of a basketball player or football player when it comes to stretching the academic requirements for admission.

And while many recruiters tell monstrous lies in pursuit of the next star athlete, I also find the idea that parents and children are oblivious to their own or their child's academic deficiencies to be disingenuous in most cases. There may be some true innocents that get caught up in the lies of academic excellence that will be achieved, but I don't believe there are many. So most are complicit in this charade and are using the school just as much or more than the school is using them.

And while the vision of academic success may be a pipe dream, the practical facilities supplied to athletes are real - academic advisors, tutors, and monitoring of study and class attendance. Many more resources than are provided to the general student population. And universities do not guarantee an education to any student, just access to the facilities and teachers to pursue that education - 'horse to water' and all that.

UC,
We are not being argumentative we are having a great dialogue. I struggle to find any disagreement with these very powerful and persuasive parts of you arguments.

• The compromises of athletic departments is problematic-You Bet.
• UNC disgusting-Very good word.
• Basketball & Football should be a major like dance-I agree.
• The word "exploitation" may be too powerful to describe this situation- I also agree.

The only place we may have still a slight disagreement is with the vision of academic success. It is the compromise on the admission standards which makes this vision unachievable for some & far too many AA athletes. For everyone else it is a competitive process to get in these universities and each admitted student via standardized test scores and transcripts comes with a set of basic skills which the university builds upon. For example most universities require that you are able to write a coherent paper. Students that cannot write a coherent paper are not admitted. Some athletes that cannot write a coherent paper are admitted. While you and I may disagree on the numbers of athletes admitted below minimum university admissions standards, hopefully we both define academic success the same way- as getting a diploma. The graduation rates for AA men in the P5 conferences is dreadful. Even after you subtract the athletes leaving early for NFL & NBA.
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/equity/sports
The root cause is that many of the AA athletes lack the basic academic skills to successful complete the college curriculum. So while many of these AA athletes fully utilize the university resources to catch many never do and eventually drop out because while they are learning to write a basic coherent paper their peers are writing advanced ones. The reason I think the "E" word applies is that most often these University do not have to look very hard to find a better AA student who is a less of athlete but .....Better athlete=More $$ for the university.