More title IX garbage

Devil's advocate (and probably dumb) questions for everybody: why do colleges even give out scolarships for sports like swimming? How does it improve the academic or even athletic environment (see below for more on this)? Why do we think our kids have the right to go to college for free if they excel at a sport? So what if it impacts our ability to compete internationally? Why should colleges have to front the cost of that? Why should taxpayers, who partially fund colleges, have to pay for that? Why should people who actually have to pay to go to the schools pay for that? Don't get me wrong--I totally see the value of athletics as part of a complete collegiate experience. But you don't need to give away free scholarships to make that happen. Maybe if they stopped giving everyone free scholarships, more schools could afford to keep their swimming programs. Keep the opportunities--kill the scholarships? What's wrong with the D.III model? This mirrors my own views on the subject. (Which makes me somewhat of a hypocrite, I know, since I benefited from an athletic scholarship.) Since I work at a university -- and one that cut men's swimming & diving over the objections of the women swimmers, even though the men's team was non-scholarship and used the same coach as the women -- my views on college athletics have evolved over the years. While I too love athletics and athletes in college: -- Colleges are not meant to be the training grounds of future professional or olympic athletes. The NBA and NFL (and yes, USAS) should build their own developmental programs. It works for MLB, right? (I notice that no one mentions college baseball as a "money-maker.") -- Athletic scholarships can put a lot of pressure on students to continue in their sport even if they have little desire to do so. It screws up your priorities, to say the least. And makes for some desperately unhappy (and sometimes seriously injured) student-athletes. -- Speaking of screwed up priorities...many college coaches exert subtle or not-so-subtle pressure on their athletes to choose less demanding academic programs. I'm not saying all coaches do this, and even for the ones that do, the motivations are understandable: they are often judged largely by their success (so they want their athletes training rather than studying) and they are also judged by their students' academic performance (GPA, graduation rate, etc, all of which are increased by choosing a less-demanding major). Sometimes they do this for logistics: I have talked to a student who declined to major in a particular subject because they had too many required classes at 9am, and that conflicted with practice. Coaches and their staff (and ADs and their dept) will swear up and down and right and left that they are willing to accommodate such students. But the students themselves often don't want to cross their coach over this. -- I hate hate hate that universities accept student athletes with weak academic records (relative to their classmates). Most athletic programs have a certain number of "byes" that they can award to get lesser-qualified student-athletes admitted to the university. So you have a situation where these weaker students have to work harder to "keep up" with their classmates...in addition to their training and travel time. Again, combined with other factors, it pushes them into less demanding majors/programs. And it also instills something of an academic inferiority complex in these students: they think they "don't belong" with their peers. (I know this from direct conversations with such students.) -- My university has a very active study abroad program, and many students' educational experience is greatly enriched by it. It is no secret that the majority of college athletes basically do not have access to this opportunity because of training and competition schedules. Okay, slightly off-topic, but I feel better for getting that off my chest. And I can use this cool smiley: :rantonoff:

Amy, please don't get me wrong. I think what happened to you in the 80s--and to almost all women my age in the 70s and earlier--was shameful. No worries, Jim. I was just being a smart aleck right back at ya'. And, I actually feel extremely lucky to have been a woman growing up in the era of feminism and Title IX. Things were not equal but they were certainly much better than they had ever been. It's women of generations before me who really got the shaft. (Yeah, I know where you're going with this one--Alpha Male...) :) I think of my mom, for instance, who is the big sports fanatic of our family. She's in her 70's and knows all the players' names on her college basketball team every year. She keeps track of all of her school's sports. Her much older brother played basketball at that same school years and years ago and she went to every game. I know if she had ever had the opportunity to really play sports she would have loved it. But girls just didn't have the opportunity to play back then. I'm so lucky to have grown up when things were changing for women. And I think Title IX did some tremendous things.

If Jim is the operational definition of an alpha male, then I agree they are very few and far between...

Hello. I appreciate the dialog. I thought I would re-post a guest editorial on the topic that ran recently on SwimmingWorld.com. I hope you find it thought-provoking.... Kevin - Thanks for the post. The numbers presented are pretty revealing, at least from a swimming perspective. The problem is, that the article only elects to review swimming, and not the total number of all scholarships offered, which is part of the problem. People rail about the total opportunities, not just those within a given sport. And as long as football teams are as big as they are, this will continue to be an issue.

As I was driving to the Long Beach pool to warm up before swimming in the meet tomorrow,I turned on a sports talk show where they asked the question"which is the more corrupt organization,the NCAA or the mafia." they decided it was the mafia,but that the NCAA was more corrupt than the Bloods and the Crips.That is a silly conversation,but it emphasizes a point I have made before about the NCAA. The NCAA doesn't really care about athletes,it cares about money and power,It certainly doesn't really care about swimming,either men's or women's.Any real change in opportunities for swimmers are going to have to come from elsewhere.I wonder if swimmers and swim parents and interested others(and the USOC) couldn't start a trust fund for scholarships for swimmers.

Hello. I appreciate the dialog. I thought I would re-post a guest editorial on the topic that ran recently on SwimmingWorld.com. I hope you find it thought-provoking. It is time for a change. Specifically, Title IX needs to be changed. Unfortunately, the wrongs that Title IX set out to right, over 38 years ago, are now being inflicted on our sons. While this particular forum is focused on swimming, you could easily substitute many other sports that are suffering the same fate. The factual evidence is quite compelling. I believe the reason there is not a greater outcry, is that people are just not aware of the situation. But the time has come for some righteous indignation about what is happening to our sons. The standards are not equitable. Male high school swimmers need to perform at an elite level if they want to be considered for a college swimming scholarship. Girls, on the other hand, can still receive a scholarship to a NCAA, Division I program even if they don’t have a Junior National cut. The opportunity to participate is not equitable. According to the NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report, for the 2008/2009 academic year, there were 510 women’s Swimming and Diving teams and 393 men’s teams. There were a total of 11,626 women, compared with 8,868 men on NCAA Swimming and Diving teams. At the Division I level, there were 5,298 women (up 143 from 2007/2008) and 2,823 men (down 847 from 2007/2008). The opportunity for scholarships is not equitable. There are 249 NCAA swim teams offering scholarships to women, and 192 offering scholarships to men. The NCAA allows each D1 swimming program to offer 14 scholarships for women and 9.9 for men. Overall, there are 3,108.4 NCAA swimming scholarships for women and 1,810.8 scholarships for men. Similarly, the NAIA (National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics) colleges with swimming programs offer 19 scholarships for women and 16 for men. (Sources: Athleticscholorships.net and Collegesportsscholarships.com) Swimming is growing for every age group from Novice to Masters, with the exception of the men’s collegiate level. It is clear that Title IX has hurt men’s swimming. By the way, hurting men’s collegiate swimming also hurts US Olympic swimming. Again, you could insert many other collegiate and Olympic sports that are being similarly impacted. When it was passed, 38 years ago, Title IX was overdue, and right for the time. There have been many great strides since then, and in areas there is still work to be done. However, times have changed, and it is time for Title IX to change. There are those who will cry “Never!” They will not entertain the slightest possibility that the law should be amended. I would point out that even the Constitution has been amended (27 times). To some extent, this is about power. And those in power do not share or relinquish it easily. Those who oppose change attempt to deflect and misdirect the conversation. They say that we should plea our politically incorrect case to the individual colleges and universities. However, almost 40 years ago, after failing to get individual colleges and universities to do the right thing on their own, Title IX was put in place to force the issue. It is cynical to suggest that we should restrict ourselves to the failed tactics of the past, but don’t dare consider touching this sacred piece of legislation. The attempt to divert blame from Title IX to the universities reminds me of the bumper sticker, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Title IX supporters put a law in the hands of universities, but they assume no responsibility for how it is used. Universities can exacerbate the problem through lazy administration and budget management, or mismanagement. It is possible to comply with Title IX by conducting student interest surveys, and offering athletic opportunities in proportion to the level of interest of male and female students (the interest is greater amongst males). But, this requires more time and effort, and isn’t as easy as just enforcing quotas. Each year, our college age sons are losing access to universities and scholarships all across America. It’s probably too late to make a difference for them. But think of all the novice boys out there, learning their strokes, going to age group meets, usually being beat by their female teammates until at least 12 or so. Who will be their advocate? I’m just a dad. Not a coach or an attorney. But it wasn’t until I viewed this issue as a parent, that it went from something that seemed vaguely unfortunate to something that moved me. All those boys out there have fathers AND mothers who want the best for their sons. They are too important to us, as parents, to let this lay. This is not a gender issue, this is a fairness issue. For something to gain momentum, it must capture both the hearts and the minds. The facts are obvious. But being right isn’t enough. Hopefully, this also connects with you on an emotional level. Maybe you are motivated on behalf of a son, or a brother, or a teammate or boyfriend, or just on behalf of what’s right. My goal is to shed some light, promote a dialogue, and maybe move a few people to say “This doesn’t seem right. Why don’t we change it?” If you are fired up about this too, I would encourage you to check out the websites for The College Sports Council at SavingSports.org and their member organizations, including The College Swimming Coaches Association of America. Thank you, Kevin Weissman Your point is well taken. However, your premise is still that women's programs should be cut. Is that really "what's right"? I think it is football, and it's place in a university setting, that needs to be addressed and modified so that "unfairness" is not inflicted on our sons. Otherwise, we could just revert to the unfairness being inflicted on women. And we should let college sports be determined by "student interest surveys"?! WTH? And, yes, I have a son about to go off to college and all he does is endurance sports.

Your point is well taken. However, your premise is still that women's programs should be cut. Is that really "what's right"? I think it is football, and it's place in a university setting, that needs to be addressed and modified so that "unfairness" is not inflicted on our sons. Otherwise, we could just revert to the unfairness being inflicted on women. And we should let college sports be determined by "student interest surveys"?! WTH? And, yes, I have a son about to go off to college and all he does is endurance sports. Leslie, I definitely agree with you about football. It is crazy, in my opinion, that this is the tail wagging the dog. But we live in a country where money seems to be all that matters to the powers that be, and so tolerating the unfairness in "minor" sports in the hopes that the football lunkheads will some day do the right thing seems to me impractical and just a way of preserving a new status quo that is, if not as unfair as the old days were to girls then, nevertheless still pretty unfair to boys today. One of the sad statistics to emerge in the wake of that book about Ophelia and how schools are cheating girls, etc. is how colleges are now being swamped with girl applicants and far few boy applicants. I don't know if you happened to read the NYT article on college dating at schools where the gender ratio is far out of whack here--and the lengths to which college girls at such institutions are slutting themselves up and tolerating all sorts of cheating as the sine qua non of getting and keeping a boyfriend. I truly don't believe this situation is what the Cheating Ophelia authors hoped to bestow upon the younger generations, but this appears to be what is happening. I wonder if there are any college swimmers on this forum who could opine on this subject? Do girls really like being on swim teams where there are either no boy swimmers or a disproportionately small number of them? To me, that was always one of the fun aspects of swimming--hanging out with friends of both genders. I have heard that college admissions these days are practicing a kind of de facto affirmative action, where the standards for male admission to many colleges are somewhat looser than those for women because guys are doing more poorly in high school and applying to college in far few numbers than girls. College administrators seem to know that co-ed colleges that have no boys are going to become increasingly less popular to girls, too. What if there were a new Academic Title IX that required roughly equal numbers of male and female college students, a law that codified by regulation what college administrators are sort of doing now on the sly? Academic Title IX could argue that the conditions in modern high schools, which reward skill sets that girls tend to have in abundance more than boys (studiousness, lack of lunkheadedness, an aversion to spending 12 hours a day playing video games, etc.) are unfair. Unless we mandate equal numbers in college, and design programs to help bring boys back up to girls' achievement levels, the current phallo-punitive policies of persistent discrimination are, and are likely to remain, a societal abomination!

Far from being a "great example," I'm not sure it's even accurate. Though it is invoked anecdotally quite often. Here at least, the availability of collegiate scholarships and increased opportunities for female rowers has caused the high school and club rowing teams to increase in size and become very competitive. Girls are starting to row at younger ages. And at our high school, the girls rowing team may be better than the men's team. Isn't this exactly what was supposed to happen? Those of us who were in school in the before the 70s know what sports today would look like without Title IX. Giving females access to sports benefited not only them, but also the "minor sports" (such as swimming) that they would participate in.

Kevin - Thanks for the post. The numbers presented are pretty revealing, at least from a swimming perspective. The problem is, that the article only elects to review swimming, and not the total number of all scholarships offered, which is part of the problem. People rail about the total opportunities, not just those within a given sport. And as long as football teams are as big as they are, this will continue to be an issue. Fair point that I just addressed swimming. We are a swimming family, and I was commenting in a swimming forum. Here are the latest NCAA stats for the number of teams, in sports which have both men's and women's programs: Basketball M - 1,030 W - 1,054 Bowling M - 1 W - 55 Cross Country M - 916 W - 996 Equestrian M - 3 W - 46 Fencing M - 34 W - 41 Golf M - 792 W - 543 Gymnastics M - 18 W - 84 Ice Hockey M - 139 W - 84 Lacrosse M - 247 W - 319 Rifle M - 30 W - 35 Rowing M - 63 W - 146 Rugby M - 1 W - 5 Skiing M - 38 W - 41 Soccer M - 777 W - 959 Squash M - 28 W - 28 Swimming/Diving M - 393 W - 510 Tennis M - 749 W - 900 Track, Indoor M - 593 W - 661 Track, Outdoor M - 701 W - 758 Volleyball M - 83 W - 1,015 Water Polo M - 42 W - 60 Surprising, huh?

...As for college football, as much as I wish some of the exorbitant number of scholarships for that team were diverted to the swim team, I'm acutely aware now (and believe I was when I swam in college) that the football team funded the swim team and other sports. I don't care how many times the Texas men's swim team wins NCAAs, I doubt the team is "profitable" or even cost neutral. Even with the 5-7 season the football team had, they're going to fund the swimmers... money.cnn.com/.../index.htm