The Chronicle: 9/19/2003: Revisiting 'The Game of Life': Athletics at Elite Colleges

time -- indeed, for at least a century. The generally unstated -- or at least un-tested -- assumption has been that all is well at colleges and universities that provide no athletic scholarships and treat college sports as a part of campus life, not as mass entertainment.

The positive contribution of athletics in these contexts is emphasized on the sports pages of student newspapers, alumni magazines, and official publications, which, taken together, provide a generally healthy corrective to a societal tendency to emphasize problems. The director of athletics and physical education at Bryn Mawr, Amy Campbell, surely spoke for many dedicated coaches and administrators at such colleges when she wrote: "College athletics is a prized endeavor and one that enriches the experience of college students. The question should not be 'at what price athletics' but rather how to structure athletic programs that serve both the student athletic interest and the greater goals of liberal-arts institutions."

We identify strongly with this pro-sports mindset and cannot imagine American college life without intercollegiate teams, playing fields, and vigorous intramural as well as recreational sports programs. But we are concerned that all is not well with athletic programs at many colleges and universities outside the orbit of big-time sports. One of our principal concerns is that widely publicized excesses and more subtle issues of balance and emphasis may undermine what many of us see as the beneficial impact of athletics.

"Save us from our friends" is an old adage, and it has real applicability here. Zealous efforts to "improve programs," boost won-lost records, and gain national prominence can have untoward effects that may erode the very values that athletic programs exist to promote -- as well as the educational values that should be central to any college or university. From our perspective, the challenge is to strengthen, not weaken, the contribution that athletics makes to the overall educational experience of students and to the sense of "community" that is important not only to current students but also to graduates, faculty members, staff members, and others who enjoy following college sports.

A principal thesis of our new book, Reclaiming the Game, is that there is an urgent need to recognize that the traditional values of college sports are threatened by the emergence of a growing "divide" between intercollegiate athletics and the academic missions of many institutions that are free of the special problems of "big time" sports. Until recently, this problem was largely unrecognized. Readers (and reviewers) were very surprised by the evidence in our previous study, The Game of Life, that documented a persistent and widening split between academics and athletics at selective colleges and universities that offer no athletic scholarships, do not compete at the Division I-A level, and presumably exemplify the "amateur" ideal.

The new book is a direct response to requests by presidents of colleges and universities (and other interested parties) that we address a number of questions raised but not answered by The Game of Life. Many observers of the educational scene (including those of us who conducted the original study) were taken aback by the degree to which athletes at Ivy League universities and highly selective liberal-arts colleges have underperformed academically, by which we mean that they have done less well academically than they would have been expected to do on the basis of their incoming academic credentials.

To be sure, there were suspicions that increasing specialization in athletics, more intensive recruitment, and growing pressures to compete successfully in the post-season as well as during the regular season (combined with rising academic standards in general) were taking a toll on the academic performance of these athletes relative to that of their classmates. But no one could be sure this was true because no systematic data existed. The need to "find the facts" is what motivated the first study; the need to find more of the facts, and to understand them better, is what motivated our follow-up study.

In seeking to fill in gaps that The Game of Life left open, Reclaiming the Game has several distinctive features. First, the coverage of higher-education institutions is both more inclusive and more focused. The new study includes all eight of the Ivy League universities and all 11 members of the New England Small College Athletic Conference; it also includes more universities in the University Athletic Association, an association of leading urban universities, and more liberal-arts colleges outside the East. At the same time, it does not present new data for the Division I-A private and public universities such as Stanford University and the University of Michigan that were part of the original study. The issues facing the big-time programs, although similar in some respects to the issues we discuss in Reclaiming the Game, are so different in other respects that it did not seem sensible to tackle both sets of questions in the same study.

Second, the new book contains data for a much more recent class -- the putative class of 1999, which entered college in the fall of 1995. That updating allows us to answer the important question of whether the increasing and spreading academic underperformance among athletes noted in The Game of Life had reached a peak at the time of the 1989 entering cohort (the most recent entering cohort included in that study) or whether this disturbing trend has continued.

Third, and perhaps most important, Reclaiming the Game incorporates an important methodological innovation: We are now able, as we were not in The Game of Life, to distinguish recruited athletes (those who were on coaches' lists presented to admissions deans) from all other athletes (whom we call "walk ons"). Thus we can deal directly with the extent to which it is the recruitment/admissions nexus that has created the academic-athletic divide. A pivotal question, which no one has been able to answer to date because the data did not exist, is to what extent recruited athletes perform differently, relative to their formal academic credentials, than other students -- including walk-on athletes.

Fourth, we probe much more deeply the causes of academic underperformance by athletes; in our view, this systematic underperformance is the most troubling aspect of the academic-athletic divide. Key questions include: Are problems of academic performance concentrated at the bottom of the SAT distribution, or do they extend more broadly? How do recruited athletes fare if they stop playing intercollegiate sports? How much attrition is there, and how does it correlate with performance? How did recruited athletes and walk-ons perform academically in years when they were not playing -- as compared with how they did in years when they were competing?

Fifth, we present a far more "textured" explanation of processes such as recruitment and the role of coaches. Through conducting interviews, commissioning papers by athletic directors, and reviewing internal self-studies at specific colleges, we have been able to gain a more nuanced understanding of both the dynamics of the present-day process of building intercollegiate teams, including the forces responsible for the steady widening of the athletic divide, and the consequences of the athletic divide.

Sixth, the new study is more prescriptive than its predecessor: We include an extended discussion of why we regard the present "divide" as unacceptable from the standpoint of educational values, the kinds of reform efforts at both conference and national levels that seem to us especially promising, and the lessons about process and leadership that can be gleaned from recent experience.

A frequent reaction to The Game of Life by college and university presidents, as well as by others, was: "All right. It is clear that there is a problem, but what are the main choices we have in considering what actions, if any, to take?" "What are the implications of just 'staying the course'?" "Is it possible to sustain -- and even enhance -- the positive value of college sports without paying a large academic price?"

To determine the answers to these and other questions, we supplemented earlier empirical research by gathering and analyzing data on 27,811 students who entered 33 colleges and universities in the fall of 1995. We also collected data on 132,301 applicants in the 1999 admissions pool for 22 of the institutions in our study and obtained records from the Educational Testing Service for 21 of the institutions.

What did we find?

Athletes, and recruited athletes in particular, constitute a much larger percentage of the student body at small liberal-arts colleges than at research universities. At the colleges in the New England Small College Athletic Conference, 43 percent of male students and 32 percent of female students were athletes. Recruited athletes alone made up 24 percent of the male student body and 17 percent of the female population. Relative to colleges in Division I-A, the percentages of the student body who are recruited athletes are high at all the colleges in our study; at the Ivies, 25 percent of men and 19 percent of women were athletes, and more than half of those athletes were recruited.

We also found that recruited athletes -- defined as those applicants included on a coach's list -- enjoy a significant admissions advantage over other applicants. That advantage was most pronounced in the Ivy League, where recruits were four times more likely to be admitted than similarly situated applicants who were not on a coach's list, but it was present and substantial in each group of colleges for which we have data.

Recruited athletes arrive on campuses with substantially lower SAT scores than both their fellow athletes and other students. Recruited high-profile athletes (men playing football, basketball, and hockey) had SAT scores more than 100 points below those of students at large at the Ivy League institutions, the colleges in the New England Small College Athletic Conference, and other coed liberal-arts colleges. Though not as pronounced, there are also SAT gaps between students at large and recruited lower-profile male athletes and female athletes.

Athletes tend to be concentrated in social-science and business fields of study, to spend large amounts of time together even outside of the formal demands of membership on a team, to limit extracurricular activity to their sport, and to live with other athletes -- evidence that points to the existence of a separate athletic "culture."

In addition, recruited athletes earn far lower grades than both their fellow athletes who were walk-ons and other students. At the Ivy League universities, 81 percent of recruited high-profile athletes were in the bottom third of the class, as were 64 percent of recruited lower-profile male athletes and 45 percent of recruited female athletes. A similar pattern was present in the New England Small College Athletic Conference.

Recruited athletes also earn far lower grades than what might be expected on the basis of their incoming academic credentials and demographic characteristics. This striking "underperformance" phenomenon appears to be related directly to the criteria used in recruiting and admitting these athletes -- and not to time commitments, differences in race or socioeconomic status, field of study, or the intensity of the athletic experience. Recruited athletes underperform even in seasons or in years when they are not participating in athletics.

Other groups with heavy time commitments, such as musicians, do not demonstrate any underperformance. Nor, for the most part, do legacies. In fact, these groups tend to achieve impressive academic results, and musicians, in particular, tend to outperform their classmates.

Although students from underrepresented minority groups also receive an advantage in the admissions process and exhibit underperformance, this group has shown steady improvement in both their entering academic credentials and their academic outcomes over the past quarter century -- a period when the academic performance of athletes has declined steadily. Moreover, there are, in our view, compelling reasons for giving underrepresented minority students an admissions advantage, related directly to the educational missions of colleges and universities and the needs of the country, that do not pertain to athletes.

Self-generated and mutually reinforcing pressures in both the athletic and academic areas (at the pre-collegiate, collegiate, and post-collegiate levels) have led to increased specialization and intensity in athletics, a growing concentration of academic talent at the most elite colleges and universities, and therefore a widening academic-athletic divide. The academic credentials and performance of students at large have improved dramatically at the same time that recruited athletes have become increasingly focused on their sports (often at the expense of academics). These trends continue unabated.

The University Athletic Association has largely avoided the problems associated with the recruitment of college athletes. Of the colleges and universities in our study, only the University Athletic Association institutions have recruited athletes who look like their peers in terms of entering academic credentials and subsequent performance. This may be the result of less formalized recruitment processes, more careful monitoring of academic performance, the relatively limited size of the athletic programs on these campuses, the absence of intense traditional rivalries, and the strong presidential control of the athletic enterprise.

Based on these findings, we offer the following recommendations for reform:

The problems relating to recruitment, admissions, and academic performance must be addressed. Major ideas to pursue at the conference and institutional levels include reducing the number of recruited athletes, adjusting admissions criteria to raise standards for the academic preparation of recruited athletes, paying more attention in admissions to recruited athletes' academic interests and motivations, monitoring academic performance of recruited athletes, and holding both admissions offices and athletics departments accountable for underperformance.
Efforts should be made to encourage athletic participation by students admitted on the basis of qualifications other than having been on a coach's list -- the students we refer to as "walk ons." Recruiting large numbers of athletes not only claims places in the entering class; it also results in greatly diminished opportunities for other athletically interested (and talented) students to play on intercollegiate teams.
Coaches should share the goals of the institution, including those related to the place of athletics within it. Hiring and evaluation of coaches should be based on their overall performance as teachers and campus citizens rather than primarily on their won-lost records.
The time commitment required to participate in varsity athletics should be reduced. This includes shortening playing and practice seasons, eliminating class and exam conflicts, restricting activities outside of the traditional season, and requiring "time off" periods.
The competitive goals of the athletic program should be focused on success during the regular season at the local and regional levels. In keeping with these goals, access to national championships should be a "rare opportunity," and regional or conference championships should be emphasized.
No athletic scholarships should be given, and monitoring systems should be established to ensure that merit aid and preferential packages of need-based aid are not provided on the basis of athletic ability.
Football presents unique problems of scale, underperformance, and culture. Some colleges and universities may need to consider dropping football. Others will need to find appropriate opponents, and football-only conferences have promise. Limiting squad size may also be desirable.
Competition should be between institutions of similar character, but there should be "flexibility within structure" to allow for orbits of competition that might vary by sport to encourage competitive balance. Some realignments within conferences and within the National Collegiate Athletic Association itself seem necessary.
A new national organizational structure may need to be created, within the NCAA if possible. We favor admission by self-selection. Thus, we propose that any institution be granted membership in this organization so long as its leadership agrees to adhere to principles such as: Athletes should be truly representative of their student bodies (with academic outcomes similar to those achieved by other students); opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics should be widely available to both men and women and not limited to "recruits"; athletes should be integrated into campus life and participate in a wide range of activities; there should be extensive opportunities for vigorous competition structured so as to avoid a preoccupation with national rankings and national championships; and bureaucratic regulation at the national level should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Accomplishing real change will require a holistic approach. History teaches us that piecemeal reforms run the risk of being subverted and are likely to prove ineffective. Because intercollegiate athletics is a competitive enterprise, collaboration is essential to the success of any reform agenda. "Going it alone" will almost surely lead to nothing but losing records and demoralization. Institutions and conferences must work together under strong presidential leadership.

Although leadership is essential at the presidential level, it is also crucial for trustees, alumni, faculty members, and athletic administrators to be proactive in pursuing new directions. Process is important as well; the best plans for reform can be undone by poor timing, insensitivity to the quite natural reactions of coaches and athletes, exclusion of affected parties from the decision-making process, and failure to present compelling arguments.

In the end, difficult decisions need to be made about the rationing of academic and athletic opportunities, the scale and financial cost of athletic programs, and the role of athletics in the educational experience. However, the trends documented in our new study make clear that those decisions will become ever more difficult. Now is the time to "reclaim the game."

William G. Bowen is president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and a former president of Princeton University. He is the author, with James L. Shulman, of The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values (Princeton University Press, 2001). Sarah A. Levin is a doctoral student at the Harvard School of Public Health and a research associate at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. This article is excerpted from Reclaiming the Game, to be published this month. Copyright © 2003 by Princeton University Press.

http://chronicle.com
Section: The Chronicle Review
Volume 50, Issue 4, Page B12

Easy-to-print version

E-mail this story