Some options for Yale's athletic programs

On Fri., Feb. 2, the Herald ran an article entitled, "Should Yale abandon intercollegiate athletics?" that highlighted some disturbing trends in college athletic programs that have been generating debate among journalists and athletic officials. The future of college sports has become a hot-button issue recently due in part to a new book, The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values, by James L. Shulman, BR '87, GRD '93, and former Princeton President William G. Bowman.

SHAWN CHENG/YH

A quick summary of the most salient facts included in the article: Yale boasts 798 varsity athletes who represent 15 percent of the student body, and at smaller schools like Williams, this number can reach 40 percent. Recruited athletes at Yale enjoy a significant admissions advantage over other students, even if their high school academic record falls well below the University's average. In college, 72 percent of high-profile players (i.e., football, basketball, hockey) fall in the lower third of their class.

Here are four options that Yale (and, more logically, the Ivy League) should consider to address this pressing issue at our nation's selective schools:

1. Change nothing.

Despite the problems exposed by Shulman and Bowman, this seems to be the most likely option, at least in the near future. Yale seems reluctant to change its current athletic program, and instead points to it as one of the University's strengths. President Richard Levin, GRD '74, has always supported Yale's athletics, and, in Geoff Chepiga's article, stated that the school's size both precludes athletes from being a divisive element and minimizes the effects of athletes with poorer academic records than those of other students.

2. Cut the athletics program altogether.

The article's headline hypothesizes that the athletic program could be eliminated altogether, which would be by far the most drastic option. College sports have been an important aspect of American universities for 150 years, and abolishing them would eliminate the benefits that they bring. For a university, a sports program spurs publicity, raises the spirit of the students, demonstrates mastery of an area outside academics, and keeps alumni involved. For athletes, teams develop both mind and body, improve leadership, and cooperation, and teach time management and hard work.

3. Eliminate admissions advantages for athletes.

If selective colleges really place too much emphasis on sports and compromise their academic goals, this solution should be considered. Why should a golfer with a 1200 SAT have a better shot of getting into Yale based on his talent, while a chess player with the same score does not? Under this option, athletic aptitude would be one of the many talents reviewed when admissions evaluated a prospective student. Schools could maintain sports teams, but they would be filled only by recruited athletes who met the academic standards and by walk-ons. The argument that "Yale should try to be the best at everything" would no longer cut it. As a leading university, Yale's main goal should be to create the best intellectual environment that it can. It ought to strive to make all of its other characteristics—its sports, dining halls, arts programs—as good as they can be without compromising this intellectual environment.

4. Allow admissions advantages only for athletes who play selected, "big-time" sports.

The truth is that thousands of students and alumni attend home football games, and when the basketball and hockey teams are successful, there is a feeling of spirit around campus that is not present otherwise. But if a low-profile team wins a championship, students read about it in the newspaper and do not give it a second thought. There are, of course, obstacles that must be overcome were this option ever seriously considered. It is the least egalitarian of the solutions, and it is hard to determine what is a "big-time" or a "small-time" sport. Even so, why can't Yale allow admissions advantages for athletes who play sports that do the most for the University and let other teams be filled with students accepted without such an advantage? This option could help reduce the athlete/non-athlete divide, and could free up a number of admissions spots for more academically talented students.

This column attempts to present options that Yale, the Ivy League, or even the NCAA should look at to address problems in college athletics. I am not necessarily arguing for one option over the other, nor would I ever begrudge an athlete his spot at Yale or question his academic aptitude. Yale already takes steps to counter the negative effects of its athletic programs, employing less radical versions of some of these options. Football players do get greater admissions advantages than squash players, for example, and academic standards for the admission of athletes are far higher than they are at most other schools. However, due to the alarming trends in college sports today, particularly at selective universities, responsible administrations should examine these trends rather than discarding them as out of hand.

Back to Sports...