Читать реферат по английскому: "Title 9 Essay Research Paper Athletic Scholarships" Страница 3

(Назад) (Cкачать работу)

Through”). One of the areas in which this lack of progress is

most visible and measurable is athletic financial aid and

scholarships.

A 1992 NCAA study of gender equity in colleges that

play big-time sports showed the degree to which men’s sports

received more money than women’s sports. The following

graph illustrates this disparity in spending.

Fig. 1. Summary of Comparative Spending for Men’s and

Women’s Sports. Based on information from Douglas

Lederman, “Men Get 70 Percent of Money Available for

Athletic Scholarships and Colleges That Play Big-Time Sports

Programs,” Chronicle of Higher Education 18 Mar. 1992: A1.

The NCAA study found that men’s teams received almost 70

percent of the athletic scholarship money, 77 percent of the

operating money, and 83 percent of the recruiting money.

And, as a 1997 New York Times article reports, “for all the

progress women have made, they are still far behind men on

the playing fields” (Chambers A1). In fact, the 1992 NCAA

gender equity study found that “the finding for men’s

athletics continues to dwarf the money spent on women’s

sports” (Chambers A1).

Supporters of women’s programs argue that the

distribution of money should be based on enrollment, which,

as reported in a Chronicle of Higher Education study of

gender equality, would give women a slight edge over men

(Lederman, “Men Outnumber” A1). In order for progress to

be made in gender equity in college sports, it is important for

the NCAA and other independent organizations to continue

surveys like the NCAA gender equity study. And, as Durrant

points out, it is also important that complaints continue to be

filed when discrimination is suspected or encountered (63).

Admissions irregularities have also plagued college

athletics. Proposition 48 was an effort by the NCAA to address

the problems. When it was made public that some of

America’s star college athletes were unable to read (Dealy 111),

the NCAA was forced into action. Proposition 48, the result of

much compromise and maneuvering during the NCAA’s 1983

convention, required that athletes meet two basic academic

requirements before they could receive athletic scholarships.

Alvin Sanoff reports that the potential recipients had to score

at least 700 out of a possible 1,600 points on the Scholastic

Aptitude Test (or 15 out of 36 on the American College Test) or

attain a C average in eleven core academic courses. If the

student achieved only one of these requirements, he or she

was a “partial qualifier” and, although eligible for an athletic

scholarship, would not be allowed to participate in sports

during his or her first year (68). Since Proposition 48 went into

effect in 1986, approximately six hundred students per year

have received athletic scholarships under the “partial qualifier”

umbrella. Of these students, 90 percent were African-American

football or basketball players (Sanoff, par. 6).

In 1989, however, the NCAA voted to enact a series of

reforms, the most stringent of which was to take effect in

August 1995, when, as reported by Lederman, first-year

athletes would be required to achieve a 2.5 grade-point

average in thirteen academic core courses rather than 2.0 in

eleven courses as previously required. Students would also

have to score a minimum of 700 on the SAT in addition to the

GPA requirement (”NCAA Votes” A1).2

Because underprivileged athletes are most affected by

these rule changes, the proposed reforms were extremely

controversial. John Chaney, the men’s basketball coach at

Temple University, called the new rule “an insane, inhuman

piece of legislation that will fill the streets with more of the

disadvantaged” (qtd. in Sanoff, par. 7). The late tennis player

Arthur Ashe believed, however, that “any time educational

standards have been raised, the athletes have gotten the

message” (qtd. in Sanoff, par. 7). Preliminary results of ongoing

studies have indicated that the athletes are indeed getting the

message: the graduation rate of Division I scholarship athletes

entering college in 1986 was six percentage points higher

than the average graduation rates of athletes who enrolled at

those same colleges three years before Proposition 48 took

effect (Blum, “Graduation” A42). Other study results show

that the number of academically underprepared athletes

enrolling in Division I colleges dropped in 1991. As reported

by Debra Blum, however, these statistics do not necessarily

indicate improvement:

The decline in the number of academically

underqualified athletes going to Division I and II

colleges may mean that more athletes are meeting

the standard, as supporters of the standard

contend. On the other hand, the decline may

suggest that the underprepared students are simply

moving in greater numbers into junior colleges or

preparatory schools or, as some critics fear, that they

are not continuing their education at all. (”More

Freshmen” A39)

Despite the problems, colleges should retain athletic

scholarships–with certain changes. Academic support

programs should be reformed so that they are fair to all

student athletes–men

Похожие работы