FB: Empire 8

[maxpower]

I think anyone that says athletics don't divert attention from studies is lying to themselves. Of course, it would also be silly to say that athletes are the only ones that get distracted from their studies. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find another school activity that had as many mandatory missed days of class.

As far as DIII vs. DI, there is little comparison between the way the sports are carried out. But I hate all this "DIII athletes play for the love of the game" cop-out stuff. It bugs me for two reasons:

1) DIII athletes get plenty of perks from their respective schools, including academically, or so I've heard. (again, this obviously doesn't approach DI, but still).
2) It kind of implies that DI athletes are in it for the money. I'd be willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of DI athletes not only LOVE playing their sport, but that they would play it no matter what college they went to, regardless of division.


I guess in summary it's not really a shocker that athletes perform worse academically. BUT athletic programs also have minimum GPA requirements, so you could also say that athletes have at least more motivation to stay above 2.0.

This is a good point.  I would add though, that at least from my perspective, the idea about d3 and the love of the game, is more about the 'system' of d3 as a whole versus the 'system' of d1 as a whole.  I dont think anyone would disagree with your point about all college athletes playing for the love of the game.  The problem is the expansive commercial industry that surrounds D1.

Yeah, not gonna argue that. DIII athletes don't deal with the issue of celebrity. Although, DI athletes outside of football and basketball don't really either.

[maxpower]

I think the bottom line here is that you really have to do a scientific study if you want the real truth here.  Does this include female athletes?  Im willing to bet females do much better than the average female student at a lot of schools.

This is interesting... I don't get it. Explain?

[SJFF82]

There were no academic perks at SJF in the '90's that I am aware of.  I went to all my classes (well most) because I needed to pass to stay in school.  I do not remember there being any connection between football and class whatsoever.  I do remember Vosburgh harping on academics at the end of every practice though.  He used to single guys out and ask "hey [you], gotta big biology test tomorrow....gotta get after those books [you].  He was on top of things.

There was plenty of time as well...although I didnt spend it studying...I spent it in the gym shooting free-throws...yeh...Vos. wasnt sure why I was shooting free throws either....I made 37 in a row once!!! ...i was HUGE

[Yanks 99]

There were no academic perks at SJF in the '90's that I am aware of.  I went to all my classes (well most) because I needed to pass to stay in school.  I do not remember there being any connection between football and class whatsoever.  I do remember Vosburgh harping on academics at the end of every practice though.  He used to single guys out and ask "hey [you], gotta big biology test tomorrow....gotta get after those books [you].  He was on top of things.

There was plenty of time as well...although I didnt spend it studying...I spent it in the gym shooting free-throws...yeh...Vos. wasnt sure why I was shooting free throws either....I made 37 in a row once!!! ...i was HUGE

When you can bench press 400 pounds at age 40, then I will be impressed!!!

[SJFF82]

There were no academic perks at SJF in the '90's that I am aware of.  I went to all my classes (well most) because I needed to pass to stay in school.  I do not remember there being any connection between football and class whatsoever.  I do remember Vosburgh harping on academics at the end of every practice though.  He used to single guys out and ask "hey [you], gotta big biology test tomorrow....gotta get after those books [you].  He was on top of things.

There was plenty of time as well...although I didnt spend it studying...I spent it in the gym shooting free-throws...yeh...Vos. wasnt sure why I was shooting free throws either....I made 37 in a row once!!! ...i was HUGE

When you can bench press 400 pounds at age 40, then I will be impressed!!!

check back in 4.5 years...

[SJFF82]

oooh baby, 4 more posts and 82/Ty gets his Karma gun back

[pumkinattack]

I think I'm falling in the MaxPower camp a bit, though not completely.  I know firsthand that the admissions bar was set differently for maybe a third of the football players at Hobart (let's see everyone come on and say "oh no, not my school though, that must be Hobart specific").  Probably not that different, if at all, for the high income, full tuition payers though (where you also get some slippage of standards).  Once you're in though, there's no breaks, you still have to perform at the same level as a non-athlete. 

I think people saying D3 does it for the love are using that as a euphemism for "DI is all screwed up, half these kids shouldn't be in college period and DI is really a minor league system for the NFL", which doesn't deny that those kids also love the game. 

I'd belive bassed on my anecdotal experience that the level of performance academically at the college level for student athletes is a little lower than the non-athlete body, and not just because of increased responsibilities.  Then again, my social services/"hide the pumpkin" (that one's for you gro, though I hide it with my wife for the record) background leads me to the belief that the education one should get in college and the production and transformation of kids to men is about a lot more than class time and gpa's (I did well so I'm not justifying my own poor performance here) and athletic competition, other extracurriculars and socializing are all a part of the college education. 


My two questions are:
1.  Is that .09 on the GPA differential or 9% (e.g. the difference between a 3.00 and a 2.91 OR 3.0 and 2.73 - there's obviously a meaningful difference).
2.  Is a college kid who focuses solely on their sport (including DI) any worse than a kid (I've known many from UVA and UMich like this) who have top notch grades in undergraduate coursework like business/finance/accounting/trade apprentice line of study, but did nothing else and comes out equally one dimensional and not really fit to be a future leader, but probably a good "Indian" (as opposed to potential chief because he can only see the reflection on the moon from one angle off the lake).  It's interesting because parent have gotten their kids into thinking they should be renaissance people vs. becoming excellent in one thing, so there's probably a lof of room to debate this question.

[maxpower]

2.  Is a college kid who focuses solely on their sport (including DI) any worse than a kid (I've known many from UVA and UMich like this) who have top notch grades in undergraduate coursework like business/finance/accounting/trade apprentice line of study, but did nothing else and comes out equally one dimensional and not really fit to be a future leader, but probably a good "Indian" (as opposed to potential chief because he can only see the reflection on the moon from one angle off the lake).  It's interesting because parent have gotten their kids into thinking they should be renaissance people vs. becoming excellent in one thing, so there's probably a lof of room to debate this question.

Great question, +k. This is a cliche, but good grades are hardly everything when it comes to future potential.

[Jonny Utah]

I think the bottom line here is that you really have to do a scientific study if you want the real truth here.  Does this include female athletes?  Im willing to bet females do much better than the average female student at a lot of schools.

This is interesting... I don't get it. Explain?

Which part?  But in terms of a scientific study, I meant you have to actually go out and get written proof from a good scientific pool, not just certain schools, sports, teams, races, genders or whatever.  Plus whenever you factor in the GPA stuff, you have to figure in the dropout rate as well.  A good percentage of all students at many schools drop out for a wide variety of reasons.   But this leads to the real issue I think and thats the admissions process and if kids get into the schools that might not get in if they weren't good at sports.  Do you include frosh GPAs?  Dropouts?

In terms of female athletes, I always found that they tend to be more  dedicated all around people that excell in everything they do, including the classromm.  But I waso found that to be true with many of the football plaers as well.  In fact, I kind of remember being suprised that many of the football players you might think were a-hole jocks did very well with hard majors.  And then you have the phys ed factor and thats a wierd one in itself.  It would have been easier for me to have bee na FRench major than it would have been a phys ed major with all the requirments and anatomy classes that they had.  Does a 3.0 in phys ed count more than a 2.7 in French Lit?

[bomber3]

My understanding of the article was that it was 9% not GPA points lower than non-athletes, which is a significant number.  This would equate to the average student receiving a 3.0 and an athlete a 2.73. That is a very wide gap if that is in fact how the study was performed.

[AUKaz00]

I think the bottom line here is that you really have to do a scientific study if you want the real truth here.  Does this include female athletes?  Im willing to bet females do much better than the average female student at a lot of schools.

This is interesting... I don't get it. Explain?

Which part?  But in terms of a scientific study, I meant you have to actually go out and get written proof from a good scientific pool, not just certain schools, sports, teams, races, genders or whatever.  Plus whenever you factor in the GPA stuff, you have to figure in the dropout rate as well.  A good percentage of all students at many schools drop out for a wide variety of reasons.   But this leads to the real issue I think and thats the admissions process and if kids get into the schools that might not get in if they weren't good at sports.  Do you include frosh GPAs?  Dropouts?

In terms of female athletes, I always found that they tend to be more  dedicated all around people that excell in everything they do, including the classromm.  But I waso found that to be true with many of the football plaers as well.  In fact, I kind of remember being suprised that many of the football players you might think were a-hole jocks did very well with hard majors.  And then you have the phys ed factor and thats a wierd one in itself.  It would have been easier for me to have bee na FRench major than it would have been a phys ed major with all the requirments and anatomy classes that they had.  Does a 3.0 in phys ed count more than a 2.7 in French Lit?

Perhaps Thornton is alluded to something like this in regards to the performances of female student-athletes.

[maxpower]

I think the bottom line here is that you really have to do a scientific study if you want the real truth here.  Does this include female athletes?  Im willing to bet females do much better than the average female student at a lot of schools.

This is interesting... I don't get it. Explain?

Which part?  But in terms of a scientific study, I meant you have to actually go out and get written proof from a good scientific pool, not just certain schools, sports, teams, races, genders or whatever.  Plus whenever you factor in the GPA stuff, you have to figure in the dropout rate as well.  A good percentage of all students at many schools drop out for a wide variety of reasons.   But this leads to the real issue I think and thats the admissions process and if kids get into the schools that might not get in if they weren't good at sports.  Do you include frosh GPAs?  Dropouts?

In terms of female athletes, I always found that they tend to be more  dedicated all around people that excell in everything they do, including the classromm.  But I waso found that to be true with many of the football plaers as well.  In fact, I kind of remember being suprised that many of the football players you might think were a-hole jocks did very well with hard majors.  And then you have the phys ed factor and thats a wierd one in itself.  It would have been easier for me to have bee na FRench major than it would have been a phys ed major with all the requirments and anatomy classes that they had.  Does a 3.0 in phys ed count more than a 2.7 in French Lit?

Perhaps Thornton is alluded to something like this in regards to the performances of female student-athletes.

A 1% increase in college attendance since title IX? I'm not sure that seems significant...

[Jonny Utah]

I think the bottom line here is that you really have to do a scientific study if you want the real truth here.  Does this include female athletes?  Im willing to bet females do much better than the average female student at a lot of schools.

This is interesting... I don't get it. Explain?

Which part?  But in terms of a scientific study, I meant you have to actually go out and get written proof from a good scientific pool, not just certain schools, sports, teams, races, genders or whatever.  Plus whenever you factor in the GPA stuff, you have to figure in the dropout rate as well.  A good percentage of all students at many schools drop out for a wide variety of reasons.   But this leads to the real issue I think and thats the admissions process and if kids get into the schools that might not get in if they weren't good at sports.  Do you include frosh GPAs?  Dropouts?

In terms of female athletes, I always found that they tend to be more  dedicated all around people that excell in everything they do, including the classromm.  But I waso found that to be true with many of the football plaers as well.  In fact, I kind of remember being suprised that many of the football players you might think were a-hole jocks did very well with hard majors.  And then you have the phys ed factor and thats a wierd one in itself.  It would have been easier for me to have bee na FRench major than it would have been a phys ed major with all the requirments and anatomy classes that they had.  Does a 3.0 in phys ed count more than a 2.7 in French Lit?

Perhaps Thornton is alluded to something like this in regards to the performances of female student-athletes.

A 1% increase in college attendance since title IX? I'm not sure that seems significant...

Yea but there is some interesting stuff in there.

[AUKaz00]

I think the bottom line here is that you really have to do a scientific study if you want the real truth here.  Does this include female athletes?  Im willing to bet females do much better than the average female student at a lot of schools.

This is interesting... I don't get it. Explain?

Which part?  But in terms of a scientific study, I meant you have to actually go out and get written proof from a good scientific pool, not just certain schools, sports, teams, races, genders or whatever.  Plus whenever you factor in the GPA stuff, you have to figure in the dropout rate as well.  A good percentage of all students at many schools drop out for a wide variety of reasons.   But this leads to the real issue I think and thats the admissions process and if kids get into the schools that might not get in if they weren't good at sports.  Do you include frosh GPAs?  Dropouts?

In terms of female athletes, I always found that they tend to be more  dedicated all around people that excell in everything they do, including the classromm.  But I waso found that to be true with many of the football plaers as well.  In fact, I kind of remember being suprised that many of the football players you might think were a-hole jocks did very well with hard majors.  And then you have the phys ed factor and thats a wierd one in itself.  It would have been easier for me to have bee na FRench major than it would have been a phys ed major with all the requirments and anatomy classes that they had.  Does a 3.0 in phys ed count more than a 2.7 in French Lit?

Perhaps Thornton is alluded to something like this in regards to the performances of female student-athletes.

A 1% increase in college attendance since title IX? I'm not sure that seems significant...

Yea but there is some interesting stuff in there.

To me the most interesting section is in regards to occupational choice.  The relationship from sports to additional education to incrementally challenging vocation is fascinating.

[sjfcards]

I know I am a little late on the reasons for the 9 percentage points in GPA difference explanation, but I wanted to chime in. I think there is no one reason why athletes GPA's are lower than the general student body, but more likely a combination of several factors.

Time spent on a sport (practice, games, travel, etc.) is obviously going to take away from study time. But, by itself it does not seem to be enough to explain the gap. I was a soccer player at Fisher, and despite 15-20 games a season, there was plenty of time to finish my school work.

one reason may start before the athlete ever shows up to school. A non athlete chooses his/her school based on several factors, but one big one is probably area of study, quality of the faculty, student to professor ratio, etc. An athlete probably looks at all of those as well, but also has to factor into their decision the coach they will play for, facilities, GPA requirements when choosing a school. I am not saying DIII athletes are not doing well because they are not in the best area of study for themselves, but more that the area of focus may be wider for an athlete. Watering down their willingness or ability to focus on academics.
Other social factors influence students time as well.