Ralph Nader: Eliminate College Athletic Scholarships

kent tekulve wrote:

Nader is going to try to make this happen to "de-professionalize" collegiate athletics. Good luck with all that, Ralph.

Oh yeah those female lax players at my school are completely professionalized. They're only in it for the money. Their entire purpose is to generate cash cash cash and they do it easy. Total distraction from the academic mission of the school.

If something is only true for two sports (I don't think baseball is really "professionalized" except at a few colleges) perhaps Mr. Nader should take up some other cause.

From:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6254572

"Ralph Nader...whose League of Fans [a sports reform group] is proposing that the scholarships be replaced with need-based financial aid."

This actually doesn't sound so bad. In fact, this need-based financial aid would be MUCH higher in value than scholarship money for many cases. Rather than giving some basketball players half-rides or quarter-rides, the schools would be forced to cover full-tuition since many African-American players come from very poor families. This would actually allow more players to enter colleges since they would receive full-rides in basically all cases if scholarships turn into need-based financial aid awards.

This would be an excellent thing to do, especially get rid of football, basketball and baseball.

Most runners don't get anything from scholarships anyway, but a lot of opportunity is taken away by the football programs.

fb, w & m b-ball is the reason 19 out of 20 D-I schools even exist.

the prezs of those u's could care less about educating undergrads.

the prezs of those u's care even less about research / fed gov't lab grants.

only a few (9 or 12) of D-I schools are world class r&d institutions that can financially survive primarily from research.

100% of b12, b10, sec, csu's, suny's, nj sts, beast, mwc, etc. are pure sports institutions. the non-CA pac-12 as well.

i.e. they'll let in class any dildo who can impress on ESPN.

J.R. wrote:

This would be an excellent thing to do, especially get rid of football, basketball and baseball.

Most runners don't get anything from scholarships anyway, but a lot of opportunity is taken away by the football programs.

Speak for yourself. I had a full ride and I needed it.

Great idea. Seriously. The big time sports (fball & bball) have polluted education too long. It's too bad it would also mean eliminating other sports like soccer, t&f, swimming. It also would eliminate the need to pay fball coaches millions of dollars. In most states, a college football coach is the highest paid person (by far) on the public payroll.

There something nice about a person who will stop attempting to perpetuate the fiction that some athletes attend college for anything even remotely associated with an education... that being said, with Nader's history (Uncle Tom!) all he has to do now is attach his name to a movement to guarantee that it is totally and completely not politically viable.

Screw need-based. I'm sick of need-based. I think for those with low income who otherwise could not afford to go to college, interest-free loans are a much better idea. And then offer merit based scholarships to everyone. If a low income person works hard, they'll get a full merit scholarship. If a rich kid slacks off, he gets nothing.

To anyone who objects, tell me why this isn't fair.

I attend a Top 10 USNWR institution and it (similar to the Ivies) is very expensive. Even in the middle-class, I would not be able to attend this caliber or academic institution (upwards of $50K/yr) if I did not receive need-based scholarships. And to advise taking interest-free loans is a little ridiculous. While I am going to be in debt with loans (roughly $45K over 4yrs of schooling) there is no way I could handle $200K debt ($50K x 4). The reason your merit-based scholy idea does not work is because at elite academic institutions the caliber of student is very similar (valedictorians, 4.0s, 2200+ SAT, etc...) and it is very, very difficult to destinguish between who deserves a merit-based scholarship and who does not. Whereas at a state school where you have a definite range of slackers and smart students, this might be a viable option. It is for this very reason that schools like the Ivies and similar caliber unis do not offer a large range of merit-based scholys at this time.

Fair enough. But what if you did the merit based selection not on a per school basis, but per certain testing/GPA requirements nationally? I suppose I can see the complexities you've introduced though.

because a rich kid still can fall in the lap of his rich parents footing the bill. getting a college degree is such a freakin status symbol now a days, some of these crazy parents would rather die than see little suzy not graduate.

Ralph Nader, Steve Jobs, Darrel Issa, Jordan Hasay, Andre Agassi are Muslims and they should be put in the Manzanar Concentration Death Camp.

25 wrote:

Screw need-based. I'm sick of need-based. I think for those with low income who otherwise could not afford to go to college, interest-free loans are a much better idea. And then offer merit based scholarships to everyone. If a low income person works hard, they'll get a full merit scholarship. If a rich kid slacks off, he gets nothing.

To anyone who objects, tell me why this isn't fair.

because sometimes low income can indirectly prevent you from being able to work as hard as you can. sometimes these people havent been given the same chance as someone from a richer support system

The very idea of offering a scholarship is by definition a needs based endeavor. Its a moot point whatever Ralph Nader thinks.

Generally Nader is right on this. College basketball and football has become absurd in the huge money that is made off it. And its actually a pretty conservative notion. He's just say recognize that which already exists. If its big business, recognize it as big business or get out. Just treat it as a professional sports business owned by the university without tax exempt status.

its stuck in me wrote:

because sometimes low income can indirectly prevent you from being able to work as hard as you can.

Not sure how having less income prevents you from studying less. Assuming merit scholarships are initially based off of high school performance, all books are provided, so there is no cost associated with learning at a public school. Please provide an example to clarify what you mean.

true, rich boys/girls simply don't need it as much.

college athletics(basketball/football) honestly is a real joke if you honestly think about it. these corrupt D1 Programs pimp on these recruiting trips for kids who have professional talent but have to go to college to meet certain standards. They don't have this in Europe. Those with great potential to be a professional athlete should not be forced to act as if they are students.

Still, I can see why its corrupt because basketball and football generate all the money for colleges athletic programs and thus allow other non-revenue generating parts of the athletic department to exist(volleyball,tennis,cross country,etc)

25 wrote:

Not sure how having less income prevents you from studying less.

I think I can help here; you can see the truth of this statement most vividly in South Africa, where a lot of the new towns have been built with schools. For many people in South Africa, the first generation to have access to schooling occurred about 10-12 years ago.

Those children were doing well while at school, but struggling with homework. This is because their support at home was (is) illiterate. This is one way in which poverty affects schooling for, apart from being able to offer assistance in actually completing the homework, parents with limited (or no) education are likely to place a lower value on education itself, and are therefore less likely to ensure that required educational tasks are prioritised over other household/work related tasks.

While not as extreme in the US as in South Africa, it is a reasonable claim that the lower the educational level of the parents, the less likely it is that the children will go on to tertiary education. If you have to work 2-3 jobs, you are unlikely to have the time or energy (or belief that achieving a good education will help your children get out of poverty) to ensure that your children are completing their homework, but if you have a poor education yourself, even if you do try to be involved in their education you won't be able to offer much assistance.

Yeah things will get better every generation but it takes time. With the present US population of 35% functional illiterates, parents can't help their kids with homework.

Academic:Athletic scholarship money is something like 300:1

so Nader is tilting at windmills.

If he wanted to wage war on injustice vis college sports, he would lobby for a semi-pro football and basketball league. Right now, its indentured servitude. Only baseball really has it right w/ minor leagues.