I can't remain silent on this anymore.  The argument for making amends in
the PWR for the intangible and alleged "disparity in academic burdens" is
just about the biggest pile of elitist crap that I've ever read--and that's
saying something, since I've been teaching college for over 10 years.
 
On second thought, perhaps I should have figured out long ago what Bob
Griebel argues, since I'm at one of those institutions whose lack of
academic rigor leaves me with all kinds of time to ponder how much harder
the kids out east work.
 
Let me say from the start that my post does not address the age factor;
that's a different argument all together.
 
 
At 05:00 AM 2/23/98 -0500, Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>Disparities in academic burdens create disparities in the time athletes can
>devote to their sport and, accordingly, to gaining competitive advantage.
>They can be the result of intentional disregard for individual student
>responsibilities or significant differences in the academic demands among
>member institutions.  To the extent they result from a flagrant disregard of
>the student's academic role, they work against the interests of legitimate
>student-athletes who compete for a place on a team and also against other
>teams which maintain reasonable academic standards.
>
>Anything so far that's not self-evident?  I don't think so.
 
Yeah, Bob, there's a whole lot that's not self-evident.  Just who decides
whose academic institution is more rigorous?  Those who make the same
policies on more rigorous campuses where grade inflation is so rampant that
it warrants serious discussion in "The Chronicle of Higher Education?"  Do
we judge by the courses of studies offered?  If so, who is to say that
University X (perhaps the fabled Jock U of previous posts)--the large,
midwestern land-grant university--is offering a less-challenging course of
study than Rigorous U?
 
What criteria shall we use?  Who is to determine the criteria?
 
As someone who has taught many, many student-athletes at Jock--um, I mean
Ohio State--University, I can tell you that the young men and women I've
encountered have just as difficult a time balancing studies and athletics as
do their more--ahem--academically challenged counterparts.  And, as I've
stated on this list again and again, if I've been influenced at all where
Ohio State athletes are concerned, it was done so to make sure their grades
are *not* inflated (do you want the names of some of my former
student-athletes to ask them how many breaks I gave them, or was encouraged
to give them?).
 
>
>It occurs to me that disparities of these types which produce unwanted results
>could probably be addressed in a quantitative system which could, when used in
>conjunction with the quantitative PWR, remove the rewards incentive to recruit
>in a way which promotes objectionable results.  It could also be useful for
>smoothing the inequities of disparities which, although honestly and
>fortuitously created, grant one an unfair advantage; a "handicapping" concept.
>I haven't tried to produce that computation, but I think it shouldn't be hard
>to produce what is merely a "broadbrush" influencer, not a scientific
>determination to the nth decimal place.
 
This is a ridiculous suggestion.  Not only is it impractical (as pointed out
in previous postings), but any attempt to do as suggested would itself be a
biased endeavor.  The criteria for eliminating the "disparities of these
types which produce unwanted results" would be inherently biased from the
start.  As I've asked, *whose* criteria?  Based on *what* quantifiable research?
 
Most of the college hockey players I have met are bright and articulate.
Are they all "A" students?  No.  Are they all rigorously disciplined?  No.
But most of them throughout the CCHA are smart kids who work toward
balancing academics and athletics every bit as hard as kids in other, more
allegedly demanding conference/schools.
 
In fact, I know quite a few scholar-athletes who chose to come to the big,
bad Jock Universities not because the academic standards of those "better"
colleges were too tough, but because these kids wanted to play hockey in the
CCHA, a conference that these kids have told me they consider to be tougher,
in terms of hockey.
 
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to revise the syllabus for an upper-level
writing course I'm teaching to the nitwits in Ohio State's College of
Engineering next quarter.  I'll be sure to leave in my syllabus all that
free time I've penciled in, just to keep the status quo.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.