Chapter
5
Athletics
and Education
The
Union of Athletics With Educational Institutions
The yoking of athletics and education in
the United States today has become so deeply intertwined that many of us assume
that this relationship is perfectly harmonious and entirely appropriate. To
paraphrase John Stuart Mill, people tend to think of things as being entirely
natural if they have existed for a reasonably long period of time.
Intercollegiates have been around for nearly 150 years, and consequently it has
been a part of American education during our lives. Thus, for many of us
athletics seems to be a natural part of what goes on in educational
institutions. Furthermore, some of the most prominent universities in the
United States including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Cornell,
Duke, Rutgers, and the University of Chicago were in the vanguard of developing
and promoting intercollegiate athletic programs. This approbation by the elite
further reinforces the bond between academics and athletics giving legitimacy
to sport as an important component of American education. Yet, there have been
and continue to be critics of this marriage, with one observer expressing a
commonly perceived viewpoint:
What in the hell is a commercial entertainment
enterprise doing on a university campus. Big-time intercollegiate sport is a
business enterprise...functioning as part of a cartel, and employing athletes .
. . who are paid slave wages. (Sage, 1979, p. 189).
Nonetheless, today, as in the past, many
educational institutions are recognized for the success they have experienced
in the athletic domain. Notre Dame, Florida State, Ohio State, Stanford, and
Pennsylvania State Universities are readily associated with football, and the
University of Tennessee, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Stanford, and Georgetown
Universities with basketball. Yet these institutions are recognized as equally
great for their academic achievements, of which most people probably know
little. Many other schools have sought athletic success in order to produce
instant name recognition, both on the college and secondary levels.
A reasonable question to ponder though
is why athletics, philosophically thought to be a peripheral and
extracurricular activity, became such a prominent and central force in higher
education in America? Thousands of people attend games on a regular basis,
millions view them on television, and hundreds bet on their outcomes. Coaches
in high profile programs typically earn more money than University presidents,
and several times more than typical professors. Athletes are recruited with
much greater zeal than students who are acclaimed for their scholarship.
Athletic budgets are often in the millions, and are typically much larger than
for the largest academic departments. As well, stadiums and field houses with
accompanying training rooms are among the most costly facilities on campuses,
rivaling or exceeding expenditures for state of the art laboratories. Is it
possible to rationally understand how and why the athletic enterprise has
become such an integral part of an environment originally designed to promote
traditional education in the arts and sciences?
Unfortunately, there are no simple or
clear cut answers to such questions. Athletics have evolved over a long period
of time, and program development has not always followed a clear philosophical
rationale. Seemingly, a brief historical review of how athletic programs began
and were nurtured on American campuses will provide a basis for better
understanding where they stand today, and the major athletic-academic issues that
colleges and universities face. Among these are the traditional problems
regarding: (a) player recruitment, (b) the conflict of being a student and
being an athlete, (c) pressures to finance athletics at the expense of
academics, (d) athletics as a public relations tool to recruit students and win
support from financial supporters, (e) equity for women's athletic programs,
and (f) the appropriate mechanisms to develop, monitor and enforce rules.
Brief History of the Beginning of Intercollegiate
Sports
Males
According to Lucas and Smith (1978), in
1850 the importance of athletics on American campuses was of no consequence,
but by the early 1900s it had become their most important social function.
Consequently, they believe that an awareness of this period is essential for
understanding how intercollegiate athletics have come to be.Essentially, this
was a period during which the civil war occurred, industrialization of the
country was taking place, and people were moving from an agrarian society to
one which was city oriented. In fact, by 1880 the United States became the
number one industrial country in the world, having been in 7th place only a few
decades earlier. With this change people became more interdependent in their
recreational interests, and more sophisticated in building and standardizing
facilities for play and spectating. Some of the activities popular during this
period included: baseball, bicycling, bowling, boxing, cross country running,
football, golf, horseracing, pedestrianism (distance running), rowing, rugby,
skiing, soccer, squash, swimming, tennis, track and field, volleyball,
wrestling, and yachting (Betts, 1974). As well, an information and
transportation infrastructure was created which made it possible for
competitors to travel to different venues, and for results of contests to be
communicated to interested supporters (e.g., the telegraph was first used in
the 1840s and newspapers were increasingly published and read). As important
were the changes in mentality taking place in society resulting from increased
wealth that allowed a middle class of people more time for recreational
pursuits. With this also came increased organization and commercialization in
sport.
Lucas and Smith (1978) emphasize the
importance of the Civil War in the development of intercollegiate sports. They
convey that the war created a need for trained military personnel, and to
develop the means to train officers the government elected to support the
creation of colleges which would have this as one of their goals, along with
educating larger numbers of lower and middle class students. In 1862 congress
passed the Morrill Act, creating land grant colleges which were funded from the
sale of federal government lands. As expected, this provided educational
opportunities for many individuals who would not have been able to attend an
institution of higher learning. With these students came a broader range of
interests than had been typical of the elite group who had frequented colleges
in the past. As conveyed, the war also brought large numbers of young men
together who participated in and observed each others games. When the war
ended, the trend continued.
Embedded in this dynamic period was
higher education. According to Lucas and Smith (1978), mid-nineteenth century
colleges were typically church affiliated liberal arts institutions which
focused on teaching classical studies and preparing students for the ministry,
law, or the professoriat. As well, institutions were typically headed by
clergymen who enforced a rigid behavioral code which prohibited such activities
as smoking, drinking, dancing, and card playing. Absence from campus required
presidential approval and, in many institutions, compulsory chapel was an
expectation. From general accounts one can surmise that colleges were quite
paternalistic and somewhat removed from the great changes affecting the larger
society.
As might be expected, students often
rebelled against such a narrow and stifling environment. Not only did they
become involved in direct acts of insurgency such as disrupting classes,
destroying college property, and physically assaulting professors, but they
began to create an extracurriculum to provide for interests that were not being
served by the formal classical course of study. The extracurriculum included
the forming of literary and debate societies, as well as musical groups, and
college newspapers. Athletics were also included in this array of student run
and financed activities.
Interestingly, the first intercollegiate
athletic contest was partly a commercial endeavor. The Superintendent of the
Boston, Concord, and Montreal Railroad, interested in generating business,
offered to pay all expenses, and provide an eight day vacation for crew members
if Yale would row against Harvard on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire
(Lewis, 1967). The event took place in August and drew approximately 1000
spectators who saw Harvard defeat Yale in a race lasting about 14 minutes. In
1859, the first intercollegiate baseball game was played in Pittsfield, Massachusetts
between Amherst and Williams Colleges, while the first intercollegiate football
game was played between Princeton and Rutgers in 1869.
Lucas and Smith (1978) make the point
that in the beginning intercollegiate teams were run by student selected
captains whose role was similar to that of coach. He was responsible for
creating training rules for the team, strategizing, and selecting players to
start. Interestingly, if a team was successful, it was likely that the captain
would become the campus hero since he was viewed as responsible for the team’s
fortunes, and for bringing it distinction.
As might be expected, the popularity of
intercollegiate athletics grew at a rapid pace, and with it’s growth came
larger schedules, greater travel, longer practice hours, and the need for
uniforms and equipment. All of this, of course, required more money, which was
raised by students through what became known as the athletic association, an
organization made up of athletes and non-athletes, which supported teams
financially, and helped to take care of facilities and administer contests.
Money was also raised from fund raising drives.
Lucas and Smith (1978), make the
important point that although athletics began as a recreational diversion, it
was not long before winning became very important. They hypothesize that as in
industry where the Puritan work ethic prevailed, it filtered down to athletic
competition, with success becoming synonymous with winning. The increasing need
to win was accompanied by a host of dubious practices including: (a) using
non-students to compete, (b) recruiting students primarily for their athletic
prowess, (c) recruiting athletes from other institutions to play for another
college, (d) paying students in various ways to play (e.g., providing room and
board, providing vacations, and allowing them to sell and keep the money from
programs), (e) hiring professional coaches to replace student captains, and (f)
spying (i.e., scouting) on the opposition. A more professionalized operation
also called for purchasing better equipment, traveling first class, and having
a better training table. All of these changes increased the costs of fielding
teams, which in turn required seeking new sources of revenue. In addition to
athletic association funds, alumni were solicited for donations, and gate
receipts began to play an increasingly important role in financial viability.
As in the present day, the creation and maintenance of such programs was
costly, and income was highly dependent on winning. Consequently, winning
became increasingly important as a program moved along the path from obscurity
to prominence.
As one might surmise, a system so
predicated on winning, with little or no regulatory control from college
authorities was bound to generate problems. Primary among these was the amount
of time, travel, and energy that students devoted to sports in contrast to that
allocated to academics. As well, a general lack of financial responsibility,
often resulted in teams generating debts that they were unable to repay. Many
observers also questioned the lack of ethical and sportsmanlike behavior that
often was associated with a win at any cost mentality. Student spectators were
also often involved in betting on games, and partying to extremes at rallies supporting
their teams. Many faculty also objected to the glorification of athletic stars,
since they viewed such deification as distracting students from fully
appreciating scholars and their work.
With all the problems associated with
athletics one wonders why colleges did not simply abolish them? One argument
used against their eradication was that despite all their problems, conditions
on campus were actually better with them than without them. In contrast to the
pre-athletic era during which institutions were viewed as more repressive and
student disorders more common, the diversion of athletics had, to some extent,
distracted students from the destructive and mischievous behavior
characteristic of earlier times. The idea was that athletics provided a type of
catharsis for dissipating excessive energy. Another observation, closer to
justifying athletics as an adjunct to education, was that involvement in
vigorous competitive physical activity was important not only for health
reasons, but because it provided a medium through which men could develop
attributes such as discipline, courage, self-reliance, responsibility, and
leadership.
But, perhaps the greatest support for
athletics came from college presidents who were motivated to grow their
institutions. As pointed out by Chu (1989), the leadership of colleges during
the 1800s was changing from individuals who were clergy or professional
educators, to individuals with business acumen. These presidents were also
responsible to boards whose members were also changing and were increasingly
becoming dominated by people from the business world. As mentioned previously,
the world outside of academia was changing rapidly and many of the more
conservative and restrictive colleges had difficulty adjusting to a clientele
that wanted more than a traditional scholastic education . Consequently,
prospective students sought out what they thought to be the most progressive
and interesting institutions, leaving those failing to modernize struggling for
survival. In fact, unlike today, the need for a college education in the 19th
Century was not obvious, since upward mobility could just as easily be achieved
through apprenticeship in a trade. For many, enrolling at college was perceived
not only as a waste of time because of what was viewed as an irrelevant
curriculum, but it was also seen as a period during which potential income from
employment was lost. Thus, responding to changing market forces became
increasingly important in attracting students and maintaining financial solvency.
College presidents saw the need for
marketing their institutions and sought ways to increase their school's
viability and prestige. An interesting example of this process may be found in
the history of the University of Chicago (Lawson, & Ingham, 1980). William
Harper was given the task in 1890 of building the University to a world class
institution starting with a grant of $600,000 from John D. Rockefeller. From
1896 to 1909 enrollments increased from 1,815 to 5,500. As part of his master
plan, Harper hired Amos Alonzo Stagg, one of the most prominent football
coaches of the period, to improve Chicago's team and make the University
competitive with better known institutions. The football program and the
University prospered together during and after Harper’s presidency.
Interestingly, though, once Chicago had attained a reputation as a first rate
University, had a large student base, and the financial resources to support
its objectives, President Robert Maynard Hutchins in 1929 decided to dismantle the
football program that Stagg had built. He argued that the University was about
intellectual activity not big-time football. Of course, Hutchins had the
liberty to be more idealistic than Harper, or less well financially endowed
contemporaries, given the financial security associated with John D.
Rockefeller’s contributions of some $34.7 million dollars.
As student run programs grew in
complexity problems also continued to increase. These included, but were not
limited to students taking extended time away from campus for contests,
unsportmanlike behavior during games, recruiting irregularities, coaches who
were poor institutional representatives, financial deficits, and brutality
associated with sports like football. It was not long before institutions began
to be involved with the regulation of these student run programs. Lucas and
Smith (1978) convey that by 1900 three models of oversight existed with one
model having student, alumni and faculty representation, a second with student
and alumni representation, and a third which had a faculty board that set
policies which students were obligated to follow.
But the most profound change in
intercollegiate athletics resulted from the formation of conferences. The Big
Ten, created in 1895, is a good example of how associating with other
institutions led to the creation of more standardized regulations for the
purpose of creating a more level playing field. Conference rules prohibited the
use of non-students and coaches as players. Furthermore, participants were
required to be academically viable, and to receive no compensation for their
participation. As well, students who transferred from another institution and
wished to compete were required to sit out a half a year before they could
play. The Big Ten used a model of presidential and faculty control, which other
institutions and conferences would soon follow.
An important theme throughout these
developments was that athletics programs were clearly not viewed as an
important educational endeavor, but rather something to be tolerated, and
regulated because of their popularity and importance as a public relations
tool. Consequently, programs were required to maintain financial solvency from
fund raising, and from their commercial value. Had they been viewed as an
adjunct to an institution’s educational mission, funding would presumably have
come from a school’s operating budget. This precedent for keeping athletics
separate from other college programs may have been responsible for their
prodigious growth and increasing commercialization. As well, it may also be an
important historical element in guaranteeing sustained abuses over the years
since the necessity of generating income places a premium on winning, which, in
turn, may place extraordinary pressures on coaches to circumvent rules.
Despite the clearly extracurricular
status of athletics, there were those who believed that they did have redeeming
educational value. Chu (1988) points out that the model of English "public
schools" which incorporated sports into its curriculum, served as a model
for those who held that education required more than simply molding the mind.
As well, at the beginning of the 20th century philosophers John Dewey and
Charles Pierce were advocating the importance of yoking thought and action,
while psychologist James Watson was demonstrating the importance of the
physical environment in shaping behavior. Generalizing from these ideas some
advocates claimed that sport experiences provided a potential for students to
acquire important character attributes (Williams, 1930). The discipline,
responsibility, teamwork, mental fortitude, and assertiveness necessary for
success in sports was believed to generalize to other activities and result in
personal fulfillment and national vigor. Guttmann (1988) also makes the point
that such a view was conveyed by Theodore Roosevelt who advocated participation
in rough sports for the purpose of building manly character. Whether or not
athletic involvement actually served this purpose remains problematic. Nonetheless,
the philosophical rationale for its promotion on educational grounds by those
interested in supporting it against critics was and is quite compelling.
The Creation of the NCAA
Perhaps the culminating event in the
institutionalization of intercollegiate athletics was the creation of the NCAA.
The motivation for its inception resulted from the commercialization,
brutality, and propensity for serious injuries experienced by football players
during the period 1880 - 1905. To illustrate the rising popularity and
commercialization of the game, Lucas and Smith (1978) point out that in the
early 1880s Yale's income from football was approximately $2,800, but by the
early 1890s it had risen to over $50,000, and by 1903 it had reached $106,000.
This sum represented one-eighth of the total income of Yale University! At
Harvard, receipts for football had gone from $11,000 in the 1890s to $72,000 in
1904.
Although commercialization of football
spread across the country quickly during the late 19th century, it was the
brutality, injuries and death that ultimately led to reform and control.
According to Guttmann (1988), after an unusually violent contest between
Harvard and Yale in 1904, Harvard decided to drop football. It was at this
point that President Theodore Roosevelt, a Harvard graduate of 1880, stepped in
and convened a conference of the Presidents of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton at
the White House. His intention was to explore ways to preserve football, a game
which he personally admired because of its strenuous nature and character
building potential.
While Roosevelt brought attention to the
need for reform, it is the meeting in New York in 1905, convened by Chancellor
of New York University, Henry McCracken, which really set reform in motion.
McCracken wanted either to abolish or reform the sport, and was partially
motivated by the death of a Union College player against NYU in the last game
of the 1905 season. Presidents from thirteen colleges met in an initial meeting
(NCAAa, 1998) in early December and decided to create a new football rule's
committee, and to convene a national meeting of institutions at the end of the
month. On December 28, in New York City, the Intercollegiate Athletic
Association of the United States (IAAUS) was founded by 62 members, but it was
not until January of 1906 that recalcitrant members from the old rules
committee, led by Yale’s Walter Camp, agreed to participate in the association
(Lucas and Smith, 1978). In 1910 this group first called itself the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The creation of the NCAA was a significant
event in the evolution of intercollegiate athletics since it not only reformed
football, but centralized sport governance, and clearly established
institutional, as opposed to student control, over athletic competition.
However, over the years, although the
intentions for athletic reform have been honorable, practices have tended to be
otherwise. With the evolution of "big time" football into a
commercial and social enterprise on campus, pressures were sufficient to prompt
coaches, and indirectly, administrators, to do what was necessary to field
winning teams. According to Rader (1983), between 1921 and 1930 attendance at
collegiate football games doubled, while gate receipts tripled. Part of the reason
for this was that the game not only attracted students and alumni but came to
transcend the institution by symbolically representing states, regions, ethnic
groups, religions, and ideologies. Stadiums were build, some with seating
capacities exceeding 70,000, publicity offices created, and schedules having
intersectional play assembled to stimulate even larger audiences. Rader (1983)
notes that in 1924 Notre Dame traveled over 10,500 miles to play prominent
teams across the country.
As in the earlier years athletes were
recruited for teams who were marginal students, and then treated more like
professionals than the amateurs which they were alleged to be. As well, large
crowds yielded large gate receipts, and the spectacle of the game and events
surrounding the game, made many wonder about whether the mission of
Universities had been diverted from teaching and scholarship to fielding
winning football teams. Perhaps, the Carnegie Foundation Report of 1929 (Savage
et al., 1929) provided the most comprehensive analysis of intercollegiate
athletics to date, examining issues raised by critics. The report identified many of the problems found
in intercollegiate sports during that period, focusing on the uneasy
relationship of having commercial and intellectual enterprises so closely
linked. Items to which the report brought attention were: (a) the recruitment
of players who were weak students, (b) the inordinate time demands placed on
training, (c) the special treatment accorded athletes, and (d) the professional
coach. The report argued that it would be impossible for institutions to
self-regulate themselves since what one school did was dependent on what others
were doing. However, it then concluded that college presidents and their
faculties should provide the necessary leadership for institutions to exhibit
self-restraint.
In the final analysis athletics’
programs developed from student interests, not educational philosophy. Although
they were problematic because of a variety of abuses including what faculty saw
as a diversion of student energy and interest away from academic pursuits, they
were too popular and important to an institutions well-being for elimination.
Indeed, athletics helped colleges to attract students, win alumni support,
captivate the surrounding community, and capture the attention and good-will of
state legislatures that funded public institutions. As well, they were seen as
a mechanism that brought increasingly fragmented campuses together. Many
traditions and rituals became associated with athletic contests including pep
rallies, college songs, marching bands, and homecoming. These all contributed
to building an "esprit de corps" among a diverse student body and
other constituencies important to an institution’s support and survival. Nonetheless,
the cost of maintaining such an enterprise on campus was having to live with a
quasi-commercial enterprise which, in many cases, emphasized
"athlete" over "student" in the "student-athlete"
equation.
Females
According to Lucas and Smith (1978), intercollegiate
competition for women was not an issue in the mid 19th century because very few
attended college. But as part of the 19th century woman’s rights movement, more
females opted for a college education by the 1870s. A prevalent belief,
however, was that women were not up to the rigors of doing college work, and
would consequently break down physically and psychologically. Consequently,
physical activity, first in the form of gymnastics program, was viewed as an
ideal way for women to build themselves up for the academic challenges that lay
ahead.
In contrast to intercollegiate sports
for men, woman's programs evolved in a carefully controlled fashion under the
guidance of female physical educators (Gerber, Felshin, Berlin, & Wyrick,
1975). The classical pyramid model shown in Figure 1, exemplifies the extent to
which forethought and organization permeated sports programs during the late
19th century and well into the 20th century. The basic philosophy was that the
most essential program was instructional which served a large number of
students who varied across a wide spectrum of skill. For those seeking lower
level competition, a program of intramurals was offered. Individuals interested
in more intense competition could become involved in intercollegiate athletics.
However, as the pyramid infers, an institution was responsible for first
developing the base. Only when it was well led and funded did the intramural
program get attention. Athletics then followed the establishment of a sound
intramural program.
Figure 1. The Pyramid Model for Woman's
Sports
As conveyed, sport, like the gymnastics
programs which proceeded it, was viewed as a means to promote health and grace,
and to strengthen students for the rigors of academic work. It was also
believed that involvement in team sports promoted important social values,
while engaging in individual sports would provide the ability to continue with
physical activity after graduation. Activities found in instructional programs
during the 19th and early 20th century included archery, basketball, crew,
cycling, fencing, field hockey, golf, horseback riding, lacrosse, rowing,
swimming, track and field, and volleyball, (Spears, 1973).
It is important to acknowledge that much
of the competition that occurred was within rather than between institutions.
Gerber et al. (1975) make the point that many writers dismiss women's sports
during this period because they were characterized by interclass, inter-dorm,
or inter-sorority competitions. As well, intercollegiates were typified by
sports days, play days, inter-class-interschool, telegraphic meets, and varsity
contests. This seemingly large array of forms, contained mostly within the
walls of institutions, under the guidance of physical educators made women's
athletics not only less of a spectacle, but less problematic than those
organized and run by male students. Clearly, the focus was on the educational,
developmental, and recreational benefits of sport than on its commercial and
public relations aspects.
The first women’s intercollegiate
competitions were in basketball, and held in 1896 between the University of
California at Berkeley and Stanford , and the University of Washington and
Ellensburg Normal School (Gerber et al., 1975). It appeared that early in the
century seasons were fairly restricted with schools which competed having less
than a10 game schedule. As well, it was not uncommon for an institution to have
an intercollegiate schedule one year and not have one the next.
Furthermore, the form of competition was
often different than that followed by men. Concern by female physical educators
for involving more students resulted in some schools following an
interclass-interschool model. Here, intramural-interclass competition would
first produce a winning team that would then go on to play against their class
counterparts at another institution. This followed the pyramid of having
intercollegiates first follow intramurals. Another variation was the
telegraphic meet. In this format standardized conditions were created on
different campuses for activities such as archery, bowling, and riflery and
results were communicated between schools via telegraph. The telegraphic meet
provided an opportunity for intercollegiate competition without the need for
being away from campus. As well, such activities were conducive to greater
numbers of students being involved.
Other variations of interschool
competition during the first half of the twentieth century were play days and
sports days. Play days involved students visiting another campus where they
would be assigned to a team with students from other schools to participate in
a series of recreational and sports activities. Sports days allowed intact
teams from a school to compete against intact teams from other institutions,
but often teams did not know ahead of time in which activities they would be
competing. As well, winning was de-emphasized, and scores were often not even
kept.
Clearly, intercollegiate athletics for
women in the late 19th Century and early part of the 20th Century had an
entirely different flavor than that found in men’s programs. In essence,
educators were in control, and wished to remain in control. Although they
believed that sport was good for women, they also believed that programs should
be available for all students, not just a few "elite" varsity
participants. As well, they believed that competition which was too intense
would produce injury to both the body and mind, thus control and moderation
were essential. The essence of this philosophy was embodied by sixteen
statements produced in 1923 at a conference devoted to athletics and physical
recreation for women and girls (Schoedler, 1924), and, with the exception of
the AAU, was endorsed by virtually all groups involved with women's sports.
While much of the philosophy upon which statements were built appears to be
consistent with earlier beliefs about the unique needs of women, much of what
was stated also seemed to be a reaction to abuses found in men’s programs. For
example, statements included: (a) protecting programs from exploitation by
spectators or gaining a commercial advantage for an institution, (b)
emphasizing sportsmanship and minimizing the need to win, (c) placing control
in the hands of properly qualified individuals, and (d) discouraging
competitions that require travel. The fear of intercollegiates for women
becoming similar to that of men's programs was further encapsulated by Mabel
Lee, first woman to become president of the American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation. She studied the issues during the 1920s and
1930s (Lee, 1931), and concluded that if intercollegiates could be conducted as
a purely amateur endeavor and not as men’s intercollegiates have been
conducted, there would be less resistance to its development by directors of
physical education. This restrictive philosophy prevailed until the 1950s and
1960s.
During the middle of the 20th
century, intercollegiate competitive programs began to increase in popularity
despite their lack of support from a more conservative leadership. According to
Gerber et al. (1975), in 1966 the Commission on Intercollegiate Sports for
Women (i.e., CIAW) was organized by the Division of Girls and Woman's Sports
(i. e., DGWS), which for the first time promoted national championships. While
somewhat of a departure from the previous philosophy of limiting competition to
more local or intramural events, the intent of providing opportunities for all
in an environment which promoted personal development rather than mass
spectacle was maintained. Championships were sponsored in golf, tennis,
gymnastics, track and field, swimming, badminton, and volleyball. The CIAW was
replaced by the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women in 1972 (i.
e., AIAW), which became not only the organizer of national championships, but a
governing body which had the power to set rules, and punish violations.
However, by 1980, the NCAA had taken over women's intercollegiates, and shortly
thereafter, the AIAW ceased to exist. Today, women's and men's programs have
become indistinguishable with regard to their philosophies, organization and
administration.
Athletic
Issues
In examining whether or not
intercollegiate athletics, on balance has had a positive or negative impact on
institutions of higher learning, one must first acknowledge that athletic
programs, like the schools they represent, vary greatly. Some programs are
small, participant focused, receive little media exposure and generate no
income, while others appear to be large commercial endeavors with professional
facilities, national media coverage, and operating budgets in the millions.
Because of the diversity in philosophy and associated program implementation,
three competitive divisions have been established by the NCAA. These are
primarily determined by the number of teams an institution must sponsor,
playing schedule requirements, minimum spectator attendance at football games,
and whether athletic scholarships are awarded.
In Division I institutions are required
to have seven teams for men and seven for women (or six for men and eighth for
women). As well, there must be two team sports for each gender, and each gender
must have a team in each of the three season (i. e., Fall, Winter, Spring).
Excluding basketball and football, teams must play 100% of their minimum number
of games against Division 1 opponents, and 50% of games above the minimum
number must be played against Division 1 teams. Men’s and women’s basketball
teams must play all but two of their contests against Division 1 opponents, and
men must play at least one third of their games in their home arena. In
Division 1, football is further sectioned into 1-A and 1-AA. Division 1-A
schools must play at least 60% of their games against 1-A opponents, and
demonstrate their ability to attract a high level of spectatorship.The following criteria
must be met for Division 1-A status:
- The institution shall have averaged more
than 17,000 in paid attendance per home game in the immediate past
four-year period, or
- The stadium utilized regularly for the
institution's home games during the football seasons being evaluated shall
contain a minimum of 30,000 permanent seats. Further the institution shall
have averaged more than 17,00 in paid attendance per home football game
for games played in that stadium at least one year during the immediate
past four-year period, or
- Be in a conference in which at least six
conference members sponsor football and more than half of football schools
meet the attendance criterion" (NCAA, 1998).
To be classified in Division 1-AA in
football schools need to play more than 50% of their games against I-A or I-AA
opponents, but do not need to meet attendance requirements (NCAA, 1998).
In Division II, schools need only
sponsor four sports for men and a minimum of four sports for women, and have at
least two team sports for each gender. In addition, there must be a team for
each gender in each of the three seasons (NCAA, 1998a). Furthermore, men’s and
women’s basketball teams must play at least 50% of their games against Division
II or Division I opponents. Men’s football teams can include Division 1-A and
1-AA opponents in their 50% count. In basketball, 50% of games must also be
against Division II or I opponents. There are no scheduling requirements for
teams other than football and basketball. As well there are no attendance
requirements for football or arena game requirements for basketball.
Both Divisions I and II may offer
athletic scholarships ( also known as counters or head counts) which can
include tuition, fees, room, board, and books. However, a difference exists
between divisions in the number of awards that may be granted in a sport.
Division 1 is permitted more scholarships in basketball, and significantly more
in football. For example, Division 1-A football is permitted 85 scholarships,
while Division II football may allocate only 36 scholarships. In Division I
basketball , men are allotted 13 scholarships and women 15. In Division II
basketball, men and women are each permitted 10 scholarships. In general,
Division I is also permitted more scholarship awards than Division II across
remaining sports (NCAA, 1998; 1998a). Consequently, Division I programs are
clearly permitted to spend more (i. e., minimum of 50% of maximum allowable in
each sport) to attract a greater number of highly skilled athletes than
Division II counterparts (i.e., no requirement for financial aid). As well,
football and basketball are set-off in Division 1 from other sports by allowing
them to have a higher percentage of scholarship athletes.
Division III, like Division II, must
offer at least four sports for men and four for women. In addition, each gender
must have two team sports, with at least one sport for each sex in each of the
three seasons. An additional requirement is that football and men’s basketball
teams must play at least 50% of their games against NCAA Division III members,
or institutions that do not grant athletics scholarships. There are no
scheduling requirements for other sports other than playing a minimum number of
contests. In Division III, athletes may receive financial aid based on need and
academic prowess (NCAA, 1998h).
Examining philosophies across divisions
(NCAA Manual, 1998), all either state explicitly, or infer implicitly, that
academic excellence and opportunity is a primary objective for individuals
participating in intercollegiates. Division I then mentions that member schools
strive for regional and national prominence in athletics, and in so doing,
attempt to serve participants, the student body, faculty-staff, and alumni.
Additionally, Division I acknowledges the importance of its programs to the
community, area, state and nation. Division I also states that their athletics
programs attempt to be self-supporting by producing income, presumably from
football and basketball, that can then support the entire athletics program.
The Division II philosophy mirrors that
of Division I, except that the scope of its aspirations seem to be a bit
smaller. Division II also recognizes the importance of its programs to the
campus community, but appears to limit its general public appeal to the state
level. Division II also notes that it believes in the principle of athletic
scholarship, but on a more modest level than Division I.
Division III philosophy is clearly
different from those of Divisions I and II. It places emphasis on the
importance of athletics as an educational medium for participants, and
explicitly devalues its importance as entertainment for others, although it
does recognize that it may be of interest to students, alumni, and
institutional personnel. As well, regional competition and conference
championships are primarily emphasized, although national championships are
also a goal. The philosophy further states that athletes should be treated no
differently than other students, and consequently no athletic scholarships are
permitted. Finally, Division III proposes that athletics programs, as an
educational endeavor, should be financed along with other academic programs
through an institution’s general operating budget.
Clearly, intercollegiate athletics is
not one thing, but a mixture of different philosophies and practices. Probably,
little would be said about it if all institutions ascribed to the Division III
philosophy, since there would be little need for high pressure recruiting,
keeping players eligible, winning, media attention, bowl games, final fours and
producing a large amount of revenue to cover extensive expenditures. In
contrast to the hoopla and mass hysteria characterizing Division I programs,
Division III, which actually comprises most NCAA schools (DI = 32%, DII = 27%,
D3= 41%, NCAA, 1998c), is viewed as somewhat of an anomaly (e.g., see Looney,
1994). Indeed, the historical thread which joins the birth of men’s intercollegiates
with its present day form is found predominantly in Division I, and to a lesser
extent in Division II. Philosophically, and operationally, programs have not,
and are not, just about the participants, and their educational development. As
clearly stated, programs strive to attain national recognition, and in so
doing, generate enough income to support their large budgets. On the other
hand, Division III philosophy comes closest historically to the development of
women’s sports. Clearly, such programs had a strong educational philosophy
which promoted an exclusive focus on participants, with no responsibility or
interest in providing entertainment for spectators or generating income.
Educational Benefits of Participating
in Athletics
Since all three divisions claim, in one
way or another, that education is a primary rationale for their existence one
would seemingly be curious to determine how well this objective is actually
being met. Of course, this is not an easy thing to assess since education can
mean any one of a number of things. It could mean the acquisition of knowledge
and skills that a participant gets directly about a sport. It could mean the
types of things athletes learn from participation that can be allegedly
transferred to other activities such as discipline, perseverance, anxiety
management, setting and fulfilling goals, and being a team player. Or it could
mean that sport prowess provides opportunities for individuals to attend
institutions of higher learning, and in so doing, gain access to academic
programs that provide not only a basic liberal education, but a foundation for
future employment. The educational objective could also mean all of these
things.
From a simple observational point of
view there is probably little debate that involvement in an athletics’ program
helps develop specific sport skills and knowledge. While there are a plethora
of studies which empirically assess the degree to which students acquire sport
skills while numerous variables are manipulated (e.g., see Magill, 1993 ),
there is only anecdotal evidence from athletes and writers about how
involvement in a particular program led to a participant’s athletic
development. Perhaps the most interesting approach for conveying the idea that
coaches can be great teachers of their sport comes from Walton (1992) who
reviewed the teaching methods and programs of six individuals he selected as
great coaches. Included in his analysis were Vince Lombardi, Woody Hayes, John
Wooden, James Counsilman, Brutus Hamilton, and Percy Cerutty. Besides their
prodigal achievements in terms of winning, they all had a genius for attracting
talent and developing athletes and teams that excelled in the competitive
domain. While Walton observed many common characteristics running across these
individuals that transcended the immediate sport context, he found all to be
great teachers of their sports. They were experts on techniques and strategies,
innovative in creating or adapting to new practices, and able to convey
information effectively. More recently, Smith (1998) has produced a similar
analysis of basketball coach Pat Summitt, and the impact she has on teaching
her recruits how to play basketball and win championships. Seemingly, the list
of coaches who teach their sport well is long. Not all are nationally
prominent. Nonetheless, there is probably little argument that students who
participate in intercollegiates learn skills and acquire a significant amount
of sport spicific knowledge. Consequently, an issue that might be broached concerns
whether such sport’s specific learning alone justifies the existence of
intercollegiates on educational grounds? I would think that most people would
be hard pressed to make a convincing case that it does.
A second related issue is whether involvement
in athletics helps participants develop a variety of positive character
attributes. This idea has been around for a long time and goes back at least to
ancient Greece and the belief that health and well-being was a function of both
a sound mind and a sound body (i. e., mens sana in corpore sano). The idea was
also found in the 1800s in England where the concept of "muscular
Christianity" became a powerful force affecting educational philosophy and
practice in "public schools". The basic notion was that physical
strength and vigor went hand and hand with moral and spiritual strength. Thus,
being a good Christian required individuals to develop themselves physically.
According to Redmond (1978) team games such as cricket and football were
especially popular during this period since it was believed that besides
developing moral character, involvement also fostered loyalty and patriotism,
which transferred in later life to the military. Perhaps this was the basis for
French Parliamentarian Count de Montalembert, on visiting Eton in 1855 saying,
that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton (Underwood,
1981).
In the United States sport also received
a strong endorsement from the changing philosophical climate of the19th century
(Mechikoff & Estes, 1998). In contrast to mind-body separation advocates
such as Decartes, transcendentalists such as Emerson and Thoreau believed that
mind and body were a unity, that action was more important than contemplation,
and that rugged individualism was something to be desired. Pragmatists such as
Peirce and James further argued for mind-body unity, and the importance of
experience in creating knowledge and shaping one’s behavior. According to
Mechikoff and Estes (1998), Darwin’s work also had a profound effect on the
idea that the physical and social environment had a powerful impact on our
well-being, and that competition was an essential part of our biological and
social survival. Adelman (1986) further makes the interesting point that during
the middle of the 19th Century, as families moved to the cities and fathers
took on factory and office jobs, they feared that their sons would become
feminized by their wives who were at home. Consequently, the physicality of
sport involvement was seen as a substitute for physical work that their sons
would have done on the farms from which they had emigrated.
Embedded in this changing philosophical
and social landscape during the late 19th Century and early 20th Century was
the need for college administrators to justify intercollegiates as a legitimate
part of an institutions educational mission. Seemingly, it could be argued that
sport provided a medium through which students might acquire generic attributes
such as discipline, co-operativeness, competitiveness, tolerance, perseverance
and a host of other qualities that would supplement the knowledge and skills
acquired in more conventional academic areas. Indeed, many prominent
individuals have commented on the hypothesized relationship between sport
involvement and the acquisition of important personal attributes. General
Douglas MacArthur (1971) claimed that "Sport is a vital character
builder" that teaches youth to be strong, brave, courageous, and to learn
how to deal with both victory and defeat. He believed that "the seeds of
victory in World War I were sown on the fields of friendly strife"
(Underwood, 1981). Sociologist,
David Riesman alluded to the importance of athletic
experience in building positive personality attributes when he said, "The
path to the boardroom leads through the locker room" (Underwood, 1981). Famed pediatrician Benjamin Spock, a member of
the gold medal Olympic crew of 1924, similarly believed in the virtue of sport
as an important element in his education and future success when he stated
"Crew made me" (Underwood,
1981). Former President Gerald Ford also wrote about the importance of athletic
competition and winning in building character (Ford, 1974).
Notwithstanding such personal beliefs,
it is not irrefutable that involvement in intercollegiate sports has the
categorically positive effect to which so many have attested. Gilbert (1988),
perhaps, conveyed a more balanced perspective in stating:
Unlike, say, strychnine or tight shoes, the
effects of sporting competition are not automatic and universal. Like eating,
work or sex, competition can be constructive or corruptive depending on
circumstances, individuals and how they behave themselves (p. 92).
Certainly, Robert Hutchins, former
president of the University of Chicago, in convincing his board of trustees to
abolish its football team in 1938 did not view football as contributing to the
development of character (Lawson & Ingham, 1980). Seemingly, the belief in
character development through sport is a mixed bag (Hodge, 1989). Today, those
who study the issue from a more scientific perspective believe that the quality
of experience determines whether people grow in a positive direction, or
develop less desirable attributes. For example, it has been shown in youth
sports that coaches who are trained to be good teachers, supportive of their
athletes, and provide positive role models are better able to develop in their
players the sorts of traits associated with character development (Smith &
Smoll, 1997).
On the other hand, many have wondered
about how the professional model of athletics, and the winning at any cost
mentality has affected players from the highest levels down through youth
sports. From the same social learning perspective (Bandura, 1977), it can be
reasoned that models which display antisocial behavior, reinforce
unsportsmanlike actions, and promote the notion that winning at any cost is the
only dimension worth pursuing will produce less desirable traits in athletes.
While no systematic studies exist which attempt to determine the effects of
negative coaching behaviors, or a negative environment on the characterological
development of athletes, some circumstantial evidence suggests that continued
involvement in sport does not necessarily lead to the development of more mature
moral reasoning. In fact, Bredemeier and Shields (1986) found that although
high school basketball players and nonathletes were not different in their
responses to two hypothetical moral dilemmas set in everyday life and two
sport-specific situations, college non-athletes were superior in moral
reasoning across both situations. When 20 college swimmers were added to the
sample, it was found that they fell between non-athletes and basketball players
on moral reasoning situations, although significant differences only occurred
between swimmers and basketball players. Bredemeier and Shields (1993)
concluded that such findings suggest that it is not experience in a sport which
is associated with less mature moral reasoning, since swimmers were higher than
basketball players even though they had about the same experience, but possibly
"...the amount of physical contact, the length of involvement, the
competitive level, or the type of interpersonal interaction in one’s sport
experience" (p. 593). As well, they suggest that an alternative
interpretation may be that persons with more mature moral reasoning may be less
interested in, or are selected out of certain collegiate athletic programs. An
earlier study by Ogilvie, & Tutko (1971) supported such a Social Darwinian
notion in concluding that for a variety of personality traits a model which
showed a filtering out, rather than a development of attributes was more
tenable in identifying athletes at higher competitive levels.
Certainly, the argument can and has been
made that advanced levels of participation requires a conformity to obeying
rules set forth by those in charge. While learning to follow rules may serve an
important social function, it may also stifle the development of character and
moral development because it can lead to conforming to practices and behavior
without thinking, or without developing the courage to not conform when such
behavior would be more appropriate from an ethical viewpoint. In contrast to a
model of sport in which coaches control most aspects, Crossley (1988) has
argued for a model in which activities are actually less organized.
Accordingly, this would provide a greater experiential framework around which
participants themselves would learn to resolve controversies, and adjudicate differences.
In the end, the argument justifying the inclusion of athletics in higher
education as a means to develop character is ambiguous at best. Perhaps,
Docheff (1998) puts it best in stating:
...character development can be positive or
negative. The outcome of character development is determined by a number of
factors-that is, the character of those that support and drive the endeavor,
including coaches, teachers, administrators, parents, boosters clubs, and the
student body (p. 24).
A third justification for the inclusion
of athletics programs in higher education is that involvement, in some way,
actually can contribute to a participants academic standing (Chu, 1989). Such a
rationale is somewhat surprising in light of arguments to the contrary made by faculty
and administrators throughout the years that athletics distracts students from
their academic work. Indeed, in 1929 the Carnegie Foundation concluded the
following:
The common notion that athletes in general are
poorer students than non-athletes is erroneous. On the other hand,
participation in sports that require very hard training and long practice hours
impairs the academic standing of certain athletes.... The causes of this
condition are ascribable not to inferior mental equipment among college athletes...but
to the conduct, emphasis, and values of modern college sport.
Edwards (1986) further makes the point
that for athletes in big time football and basketball programs the time
commitment to their sport severely limits the effort they can make to their
academic programs. Underwood (1980) estimated that football players at major
Division I schools put in between forty-five and forty-nine hours a week during
the season when preparation, participation and recovery are considered.
Including travel time to the mix increases the estimate to about sixty hours a
week. He estimated that basketball players t put in between thirty-five and
forty hours a week, and with travel time fifty-hours was a reasonable
approximation. Davies (1994) further points out that if an athlete is taking 15
credits a semester and putting in the typical two hours of study for each hour
of class attended, this would mean that athletes must put in work weeks that
exceed seventy hours! Obviously, this is not an optimal situation for a student
attempting to earn a degree.
More recently the NCAA has attempted to
limit such inordinate athletic time commitments by limiting practice time to 4
hours a day and 20 hours a week. But considerable "wiggle room" still
exists. For example, all competition and any associated athletically related
activities on the day of competition counts as three hours regardless of the
actual duration of activities. Travel to and from practices and competitions
are also not included in the tally. Furthermore, individualized conditioning
sessions that are not "required" or supervised by athletic staff are
not counted (NCAA Manual, 1998).
Consequently, one really must wonder
about the basis of any argument which suggests that involvement in athletics
enhances academic performance? Seemingly, the variety of athletic programs in
which individuals engage, and the assortment of measures of academic
achievement used to assess academic development are sufficiently large to make
any type of generalization highly tentative. Involvement in intercollegiates
can range from the more pristine forms that are found in Division III (e. g.,
Looney, 1994; Underwood, 1975) schools such as MIT and Amherst, to the more
professionalized programs that are typified by such institutions as Florida
State and the University of Nebraska. As well, there are also the "revenue
producing" sports of football and basketball and the larger cluster of low
profile sports such as tennis, field hockey, and swimming. Further,
institutions themselves vary in academic reputation with the Ivy League and its
cohorts on one end of the continuum, and a larger number of less prestigious
institutions on the other end. Institutional and sport variability make
comparisons of athletes and non-athletes problematic since being a football
player at Ohio State is much different than being a volleyball player at
Swarthmore. While both individuals are classified as "athlete", and
both individuals may have a tremendous drive to be successful in their sport,
it is more than likely that the expectations and demands for the two concerning
training, travel, and other sport’s related activities are entirely different.
Certainly, there is little comparison between the two in terms of exposure to
large crowds, appearances on national television, and coverage in the media.
Consequently, when Amherst President Tom Gerety speaks about sports as being
"The sweatiest of the liberal arts" (Looney, 1994, p.77), he is
talking about a totally different enterprise than what goes on in the Rose Bowl
or Final Four. From a research point of view studies which have arbitrarily
contrasted a group of athletes and non-athletes on a variety of academic
measures with the intent of generalizing across all athletes and non-athletes
has little meaning (for a review of such studies see Chu, 1989, pps. 69-73).
Furthermore, in assessing academic
performance there are also a number of confounding issues. GPA would seemingly
be a standardized measure that could be used to compare how athletes fare in
contrast to their non-athletic cohorts, but GPA does not fairly capture course
difficulty which typically ranges from the more challenging mathematical and
scientific disciplines to the less technical, and typically more popular,
"gut" courses and majors. To give meaning to such contrasts one would
need to show that athletes and non-athletes are distributed across majors and
courses in a similar fashion. While there are no wide scale studies that have
examined this issue, it is more than likely that athletes in "big
time" programs are not majoring in physics, chemistry, mathematics, and
electrical engineering to the same degree as their non-athletic peers.
Consequently, when one looks at contrasts of GPAs between athletes and
non-athletes at Division I Schools, such as was done by the American Institute
for Research (1988), and finds that athletes in revenue producing sports have
lower GPAs (2.46) than athletes in other sports (2.61), or students involved
with other types of extracurricular activities (2.79), one wonders what this
actually means? The report also found that athletes had more psychological,
physical, and alcohol and drug related problems than other students in time
demanding extracurricular activities. Seemingly, in this study it does not
appear that athletic involvement enhances academic performance, as was
initially proposed. Indeed, the contrary may be true. Furthermore, given the
likelihood that athletes are disproportionately represented in easier courses
and majors, the argument could be made that athletic involvement actually
depresses academic performance.
In the same study (American Institute
for Research,1988), a factor which makes interpretation even more difficult is
that athletes in revenue producing sports also were admitted to colleges with
an average SAT of 883, which was slightly lower than athletes in other sports
(919), and some 107 points lower than a non-athletic group (990). SAT is a
predictor of subsequent academic performance, thus, one would predict from
these SATs, everything else being equal, that the reported GPAs would be in the
order reported. Thus, the depressing effect of athletics, previously alluded
to, might actually be incorrect. It is entirely possible that athletic
involvement has no affect on GPA, and that students performed academically, as
expected, based on prior academic achievement.
Perhaps, if one wishes to make the case
that sport involvement enhances academic achievement, the most compelling
argument would be that talented high school athletes wish to continue to compete
in organized sport after graduation, and unless they are talented enough to
jump to the pros, their most likely option is playing in college. Consequently,
the argument may be made that involvement in formal athletics’ programs
provides motivation and a path to higher levels of education. Not only may
athletes be motivated to play out their careers through the educational
hierarchy, but colleges are more than willing to accept talented athletes who
meet only minimal academic criteria. Consequently, exposure to at least some
college is more than likely for those who wish to play their sport for as long
as possible. Ultimately, this has the serendipitous benefit of at least
exposing such individuals to higher levels of education.
This general hypothesis has a basis in a
number of interesting observations made by Philips and Schafer (1971). They
point out that several studies have concluded that athletes aspire to attend
college to a greater degree than non-athletes, and that this effect is
particularly marked for individuals lower in IQ and socio-economic status. Some
of the reasons they proposed for this generic finding include: (a) athletes are
more encouraged by coaches, teachers and counselors to attend college, (b)
athletes are more likely to be members of the "leading crowd" who
aspire to be college bound and upwardly mobile, (c) school policies often
require students to meet specified academic standards before being allowed to
participate, (d) athletes must be willing to conform to behavioral standards that
keep them out of trouble, and (e) higher peer status may enhance an athlete’s
self-esteem which transfers to greater motivation for succeeding academically.
Spreitzer and Pugh (1973) further confirmed the relationship between athletic
involvement and educational aspirations, but found that the "value
climate" of a school determined the potency of the relationship. This was
assessed by whether athletic or academic achievement was more highly valued.
For schools in which athletics were valued more highly than academics, athletes
had higher status among their peers, and consequently the argument was made
that such individuals would normally wish to continue to receive recognition
through college attendance. In contrast, the relationship between athletic involvement
and educational aspirations was negligible in schools in which athletics were
not held in high regard. From these studies it is evident that athletic
involvement and educational aspirations are intertwined in a complex fashion.
However, it does appear that when athletics involvement is a means for gaining
social status, a variety of environmental contingencies reinforce athletes to
seek upward mobility through present and future educational opportunities.
As an addendum to the notion that
participation in athletics, in some manner, fosters academic achievement are
the NCAA’s academic requirements for incoming college students. It sets a
minimum standard that must be met in order for an individual in Division I and
Division II to qualify for athletic scholarships, practice and compete (NCAA,
1998). In contrast to earlier times when too many individuals were accepted by
colleges because of their athletic prowess, and were not adequately prepared or
interested in doing college work the recent inclusion of standards guarantees
at least minimal academic competencies. This has had the effect of sending a
message to high school prospects that if they do not take academics seriously
and prepare themselves for the rigors of college work, despite their athletic
talent, they will not be eligible to receive an athletic scholarship, practice,
or compete. Consequently, there is now a structural link between athletic
involvement and motivation to achieve academically in high school.
Besides being a high school graduate,
individuals must meet the following standards in Division I: Successfully
complete a core curriculum of at least 14 academic courses including at least
four years in English, two in math, one year of algebra and one year of
geometry (or one year of a higher-level math course for which geometry is a
prerequisite), two in social science, two in natural or physical science
(including at least one laboratory class, if offered); one additional course in
English, math or natural or physical science; and two additional academic
courses (which may be taken from the already-mentioned categories, e.g.,
foreign language, computer science, philosophy or non-doctrinal religion; See NCAA PowerPoint on Eligibility, 2003).
1. Have a grade-point average (based on
a maximum of 4.000) and a combined score on the SAT verbal and math sections or
a sum score on the ACT based on the following qualifier index scale.
Qualifier Index
|
Qualifier Index: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Core GPA |
ACT |
SAT (old |
SAT (new |
|
|
(new: sum |
scoring |
scoring |
|
|
scoring) |
before |
after |
|
|
|
4/1/95) |
4/1/95) |
|
|