From Beauford:
Brian's got his response up at
mgoblog. WARNING: Brian will make you think. If you're against that, don't click. It will only lead to frustration. In a nutshell, Brian comes to the conclusion that...academics at BCS schools are really messed up. Carty's not 100% wrong, but he's not holding the smoking gun either.
An elaboration on my own response:
People obviously want to talk about this, so I will. Here goes: I have long given up the pretense that BCS schools are really about the student-athlete. I've dropped the student part altogether. BCS schools, in football, are factories designed to produce talent for the NFL, and generate revenue for various groups - notably media outlets - who have less than stellar intentions when it comes to the athletes themselves. Basically, you sell anything and everything you can, and in today's market, that means the academic rigors that athletes face have been bought and paid for. It's taken care of - just go out and play hard on Saturday, son.
Thus, Carty's article doesn't really bother me all too much. Does he raise some legitimate issues? Yes. Mostly the late "transfers" to Independent Studies. Are there some other question marks? Yes. Mostly the anonymous sources, and the fact that...um...the Psych department at UM has already investigated, and cleared, the parties involved. If that sounds fishy to you, it's because it is. You have to trust that the department holds themselves to a high enough standard to conduct a real investigation of themselves. Carty obviously doesn't buy it. Whether you do is up to you.
Bottom Line: I am thrilled when I hear an athlete has taken on a real academic challenge. I am not shocked when I hear that the majority of them, apparently, don't. This article is fodder for OSU and ND message boards, but so far, it is of no surprise, or real consequence.
From Champ:
Anyone else have a slight problem with the fact that Carty goes into such tremendous detail regarding athletes struggling or being filtered into Kinesiology, etc... yet he makes no effort to even compare the percentage of athletes in these majors to the percentage of non-athletes in these majors. If the contrast is so stark, SHOW US, give us the comparison! You can't just say look at this, boy that looks bad without giving us some means of actually judging it. For all we know from this article, everyone else who takes kinesiology graduates with a 4.0. Yes, there has been a clear shift to general studies majors on the football team... but how does that compare to the student population as a whole? How many general studies majors are there period? How many kinesiology majors?
So Michigan, in order to admit kids who are borderline, places them in the program with the lowest admission requirements? This is shocking? What would be of concern to me would be if the University and the Athletic Department weren't making it crystal clear to these kids what their future options were in terms of degree's they'd be able to pursue. You have to be upfront about it. The best part is, I don't see anywhere where these kids are being left behind, aren't graduating with degrees, or being left to struggle in the world as a result of the degree they did earn. Perhaps that's the next installment??? Citing two successful grads from the football team doesn't seem to be the best way to pull back the curtain on such a terrible program if you ask me...
So basically, the university has complied with prop 48, it has admitted kids who meet the prop 48 requirements, but are likely below the standard of the student that is otherwise admitted into certain programs, and they tend to have a tougher time? Really? Again, show me where the U is admitting these kids and then hanging them out to dry, show me where these kids come and play football and then have no future as a result of not earning a degree... because the kids that do earn a degree sure seem to be doing just fine and dandy. I want to see them address that question, show me where athletes are coming out of the university with a degree that seems to have given them less of an opportunity to succeed in their life after college, show me where the athletes are getting a lower quality education.
So Carty and the Ann Arbor News somehow feel that the University of Michigan shouldn't be helping these kids achieve an education of some sort? They feel that these athletes who are clearly borderline should just be thrown to the wolves? There's a MAJOR difference between giving a kid the opportunity to succeed, and literally hand-feeding him along the way. I've seen absolutely zero evidence of the latter. There hasn't been one mention of tutors doing students work, students never going to class and getting credit, students cheating on tests... not ONE. I just don't get the attack. The fact that athletes are enrolling in less demanding majors that are offered by the university to everyone isn't shocking, it doesn't affect the academic integrity of the university, and it certainly doesn't reek of wrong-doing. Again, Carty and the AAN do absolutely nothing to draw a comparison to the student body at large. This of course would make the article actually worth reading, but alas, why provide useful statistics when it's much easier to only examine the football team?
No one here is criticizing self-improvement, no one here is attempting to justify mediocrity... what I want to see here is something that is actually worth discussing. Doesn't it come through to anyone else that the U of M is 100% on top of this stuff? I mean for heaven's sake, how many departmental investigations and meetings have been cited here? Other than some frustrations with students who probably aren't as gifted as others, what else have we seen? Are athletes graduating with worthless degrees that leave them unprepared to move on in their lives???? In essence, is Michigan using a very small proportion of its students athletes to further its own interests on the field, and then leave them behind in the classroom? I certainly don't get that impression, and Carty et al certainly haven't given us any more reason to believe so. Show me former players who are struggling in their lives years removed from Ann Arbor, show me how many former players have fallen into certain categories.
Any one who has graduated from anywhere knows that finding success after school is about both the value of your degree and WHO YOU KNOW. The combination of networking available at the U of M along with the value of a U of M degree certainly puts the students coming out of Michigan in a solid position to succeed. I would love to see the staff of the Ann Arbor News post their college transcripts, schedules, and majors out there. I could stand here and question the rigor that goes into a journalism degree just as these folks are casting stones at the areas of general studies and kinesiology, but that's simply missing the crux of this issue! Does the U of M short-change its athletes academically? Does the U of M conduct illegal activities in order to keep its athletes eligible? The AAN has no newsworthy answers to these questions.
I have particularly enjoyed the response from those within "academia" in the comments section of these articles. You will find no more idealistic and horrifically misguided perception of education than from those who purport themselves to be so offended by this story that they find people like John Hagen to be an affront to the entire academic community. Please. The purpose of education is for students to learn, to equip themselves with tools that will allow them to succeed. The school can offer top notch programs across the board, but it won't do much if the students don't take an active role. Encompassed within that broad spectrum is certainly the question of responsibility. I get a huge kick out of articles like the Petway article where he talks about not even knowing that the U of M had a music school until his Junior year... PICK UP A FLYER BUD! Universities cannot possibly bear the entire burden for making sure that every single individual makes the most out of their time spent at their institution. There has to be some personal accountability and responsibility here as well. The students, ALL students, have a responsibility for their own education. If some choose to make less out of their opportunity than others, than so be it, but don't come back and try to cast aspersions on the academic culture at Michigan for it. I don't see anywhere where the University of Michigan has actively limited a kid, I haven't seen one instance of that appearing in any of this work so far.
I think it's hilarious to watch the comments pour in on these sites from the realm of education, yet NOT ONE address the non-athlete, not one discusses the possibility that the same type of trend exists whether you're an athlete or not. Of course I've been throwing out the word "athlete" here, when what we really should be saying is "money sport athlete". The AAN isn't posting the academic records of the baseball, gymnastics, soccer, lacrosse, softball, etc teams... anyone care to guess as to why that might be?
I am curious as to how the AAN and those in the academic world taking it's point of view would justify the notion that athletes should be receiving the exact same education as those who are not participating in athletics do. How on earth can anyone sit there and say that one person's academic experience should meet the same standards as someone else's when the situations are so different? If I have X hours a week to focus on my course-work, and an athlete has X-40 hours a week to focus on their course-work... who do you think is going to be able to spend more time on their education? Isn't that a reality of being a "student-athlete" across the board? By choosing to participate in athletics, aren't you actively deciding to place that constraint on your time and education? The key is this: are the opportunities there as a student, whether an athlete or not, for you to pursue an area of interest based upon meeting the basic requirements of that program? If you meet those requirements, can you graduate with a competitive degree? If you choose to work to make sure that you're able to extract all that you want from both areas, you most assuredly have that opportunity. If you choose to lessen your academic load to accommodate athletics, then are you still able to move on from your school with an opportunity to succeed? The fact that some majors may require less work than others is there whether you're an athlete or not.
Sorry for the rant, but this whole "expose" thus far has done nothing except foster a discussion of academics and athletics in general, and though some of the findings here are a bit troubling, I see nothing that the University needs to be shamed for, nor do I see any instance where the University has compromised its academic integrity to serve the purpose of athletes. So the question needs to be asked: "what's the story here?"
EDIT: All that typing... and I forgot to list my major thought here... perhaps the question should be: should the U of M be admitting borderline kids? From an academic point of view, if the reputation of the university was earned based upon the rigor of its courses and the quality of graduate it turns out, then is it a good idea to admit kids who fall below the school standards, but qualify based upon the NCAA standards? That's the point that seems to lie behind all of this discussion, and it's certainly one that is tough to tackle.
Come on over guys and check out my crib!!!
Posts
