DoctorB Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 legitimate question. Legally, yes, I do think SLU, for example, is non-profit. Morally, that is another question. When college basketball coaches are making $$2-3 million a year, they are certainly profiting, in a sense. I would ask you, who do you suggest gets the profits? Not me, that's for sure. One could argue that the Church is making a profit of sorts. All of the material properties of the university are technically some sort of profit, yes? That $80 million for the arena--is still worth $80 million, yes? My main idea in saying that was to knock down the common idea that schools are "making loads of money" or something like that, off of athletics. Outside of a very few cases, like the notorious Notre Dame football contract for TV, that is just not the case. I could use some legal counsel on this question -- AJ, are you listening? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 > >The quote is from Mr. Mark Twain; in the sense that he >popularized it. > >This is an interesting thread. I wish to know more about >it, and I do have my doubts about the extent to which >Marquette's basketball success has improved the students >there, or brought in additional funding/support. > >I also think sometimes people forget that $$$ from any >sports program goes into a pie that feeds all of the sports >teams at a school. Most of these other, smaller programs >lose money, teams like the swimming team, tennis, golf, >volleyball, whatever. > >Higher ed. is non-profit. the only people really making $$ >are the overpaid coaches, I think. It is conceivable that >the school makes out better with contributions, but since >they are from sports-fanatics, it is debatable how much that >money actually helps the school. And SLU proves that a >school can raise $80 million or whatever for a stadium for a >basketball program that has not proven very successful in >recent years. > >One other point--SLU is doing the right thing, I think, in >capping enrollment levels over the 10 years I have been >here. It has gone up a bit but keeping it in the 1500-1600 >range is probably a really good idea. The point is that >rising enrollment figures really do not impress most >educators. Retention, for example, is much more important. >We do, however, want to attract better qualified students; >and in general I can tell you that at SLU we are doing that. > Probably so is Marquette; but is it related to success in >basketball?? >Dubious . . . . Successful athletics can increase the number of applicants and the quality of those applicants. It doesn't have a huge impact on funding and fundraising.(even though their commencement speaker a few years ago, Kimberly Clark President, a huge donor to their school said if they changed their nickname back to Warriors he'd guarantee 7 figures to the school) Marquette's success in basketball has had a direct impact on increased applications and quality of applicants, and the number of spots for Freshman hasn't changed. It has also increased its profile, not only in its community but elsewhere as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glanderm Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I agree with you that there are probably only so many schools that have athletic depts that turn a profit, though I really don't know. I think most top academic institutions, regardless of the fact that they may technically be considered "non-profit", are profit generating machines. The fact that they are some of the biggest institutional investors out there goes to prove that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 courtside; No disrespect, I am also not being sarcastic -- but how would one support that view? what direct evidence leads you to believe that?? I say that because, as has been pointed out on here already, SLU is getting much better applicants and more of them. But our team has not had the success that Marquette has. One part of my explanation is that these kinds of schools are much more in demand that they were 10-20 years ago. It may not be the basketball team as much as the quality of education, small liberal arts feel, religious philosophy, and so on. Many other similar schools with little or no sports success are seeing similar things. In addition, just to put another spin on it: improving test scores are themselves rather dubious to educators. Just because SAT's go up, for example, may not mean that students are any smarter, or any better prepared. Just because today's SLU freshman have higher SAT's than the freshmen at SLU had in 1977, does not mean they are somehow smarter. Fact is, they probably are less well equipped that freshmen in the 70s. But tests change, cultures change, and so do the universities. A 3.5 gpa 30 years ago meant a lot more than a 3.5 does today, I think. Again, as Twain put it, those darned statistics!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 > >courtside; > >No disrespect, I am also not being sarcastic -- but how >would one support that view? what direct evidence leads you >to believe that?? > >I say that because, as has been pointed out on here already, >SLU is getting much better applicants and more of them. But >our team has not had the success that Marquette has. > >One part of my explanation is that these kinds of schools >are much more in demand that they were 10-20 years ago. It >may not be the basketball team as much as the quality of >education, small liberal arts feel, religious philosophy, >and so on. Many other similar schools with little or no >sports success are seeing similar things. > >In addition, just to put another spin on it: improving test >scores are themselves rather dubious to educators. Just >because SAT's go up, for example, may not mean that students >are any smarter, or any better prepared. > >Just because today's SLU freshman have higher SAT's than the >freshmen at SLU had in 1977, does not mean they are somehow >smarter. Fact is, they probably are less well equipped that >freshmen in the 70s. But tests change, cultures change, and >so do the universities. A 3.5 gpa 30 years ago meant a lot >more than a 3.5 does today, I think. > >Again, as Twain put it, those darned statistics!!! SLU isn't getting anywhere near the increase in applicants Marquette is getting in the past 5 years Doc. And I suspect the differential will continue to increase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 > applications increased woo-hoo. So it's quite possible, given the statistics presented, that they spent way more money reading and evaluating applications, with no statistically verifiable difference between the quality of their entering classes and the quality of SLU's entering class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Again: "Increase in applicants" is totally irrelevant if there's no evidence (and I've yet to see any evidence at all save the stuff I've posted) that the quality of the final product is improved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 "Fact is, they probably are less well equipped that freshmen in the 70s." Is this based on what you have seen with your students? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 (plus an editorial comment from the source article from which I've been taking the citations) "After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote one to another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, 'Lies -- damned lies -- and statistics,' still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of." -- Leonard Henry Courtney, "To My Fellow Disciples at Saratoga Springs," The National Review (London) 26, 1895. The successive transfer of attribution of the "damned lies" quote can also illustrate issues of perception and credibility in the use of statistics. It would take a heightened level of historical awareness -- or at least a passion for guitarist Eric Clapton -- for an American to recognize the name Disraeli. Mark Twain, however, is an American icon. In contrast to the other two, Lord Courtney is quite obscure. Thus we tend to believe that Twain could have said it, and arguably it's as frequently cited as it is because people think that Twain said it (or, in Great Britain, people think that Disraeli said it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I know that I have read some articles on the impact Marquette's and Gonzaga's basketball success have had on their admissions and funding. Over the weekend I will try to dig up the links and blog on the topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Average ACT score at Marquette 27 Average SAT score 1310 Both of which are increases during that time. You also again, provide nothing other than test scores. If 13,000 kids apply vs 7500 kids, and test scores are up...other aspects of applications become more competitive for admission as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I have not been around that long; I was a student in the 70s. but the observation that today's college students are not as well prepared as students in the 70s, (let alone the 50s or earlier) is pretty much a consensus among educators. And that college today is much easier than it was in the 70s. I can certainly vouch for that claim, from experience. anecdotal--as an English major at Indiana in the 70s and early 80s (ps--pretty good basketball years), we commonly were assigned 12 or more books / semester in a class--and I am talking weighty books. At SLU today, I commonly assign 6-7 books/semester, and not any of them are Moby Dick or The Ambassadors. And I still get many complaints about the amount of reading. An argument can be made that today's students have a variety of skills and knowledge that we did not possess, in particular computer literacies and other technological skills, such as visual literacy. This is a plausible viewpoint but not exactly convincing to most educators. Not yet, anyway--maybe not till today's undergraduates become tomorrow's professors. I am not making that argument, obviously; I am talking about good old meat and potatoes--i.e. reading comprehension, nalysis, and critical reading, writing, and thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Might be all the drugs making people memories a little foggy about the seventies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Thanks for the reply. I wouldn't have any basis to know one way or the other, although i believe that current generations are generally more advanced in most areas (including education) than prior generations, but that doesn't necessarily speak directly to college prep. How much should educators from the 70's to the present be held accountable for this trend, if at all? I only ask this because something has changed from your day of having been assigned 12 books to current day assignments of 6 books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 In order to prove your point, you need to demonstrate that SLU didn't have similar increases (in test scores) during that time. I can't find those numbers; perhaps you can. My numbers were simply meant to illustrate that SLU and Marquette have *very* similar academic profiles despite one's supposed advantage from basketball success. (My point presupposes that SLU and Marquette were in similar positions academically prior to the basketball success; I think it's valid, but maybe Marquette's academics used to be poorer than SLU's.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 A more interesting set of articles would be the ones surveying a larger universe of schools and indicating whether, in general, athletic success actually improves the quality of the school overall. I, too, remember posting similar articles several months ago; I'll see if I can dig them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 >In order to prove your point, you need to demonstrate that >SLU didn't have similar increases (in test scores) during >that time. I can't find those numbers; perhaps you can. My >numbers were simply meant to illustrate that SLU and >Marquette have *very* similar academic profiles despite >one's supposed advantage from basketball success. (My point >presupposes that SLU and Marquette were in similar positions >academically prior to the basketball success; I think it's >valid, but maybe Marquette's academics used to be poorer >than SLU's.) One would have to assume that academic success is based only on test scores to believe your premise Joe. One would also have to believe that increased applications has zero relevance to the overall quality of incoming applications and competition of incoming applicants. One would have to ignore 25% advantage Marquette holds over SLU in the past few years given your numbers. One would also have to ignore the thoughts and comments of many scholars across the country. One would also have to ignore that Marquette's test scores are rising at faster rates during this time period than SLU's. One would also have to ignore that SLU's applications this year are down "significantly."...while Marquette continues their same upward trend. Nobody is saying SLU and Marquette don't have generally similar scademics. But to say that athletic success hasn't increased the overall quality of student at Marquette and their profile would be at best uninformed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 or to read books about the college sports industry, that are highly critical of the impact of sports on higher ed. I am thinking of Murray Sperber's work, like BEER AND CIRCUS or COLLEGE SPORTS INC. But there are many other critics. I am not saying this to be negative--i do love my sports--but just to inject some realism into an "industry" that may supply much more problems than solutions for contemporary higher ed. Indeed, to be blunt, sports in America has become so idolatrous and overpriced that sometimes I feel a tinge of moral outrage at myself, just for watching it on TV. Just sometimes. It is obviously outrageous and morally bankrupt for college coaches to get the kind of $$ they get; or for backup infielders to pull down $3-4 million a year. but very little protest emerges from our so-called democratic society. I am not choosing the word idoloatrous lightly; I do often think it borders on that sort of worship. We sure throw a lot of monay at it. I believe a wise man once said "a man's heart is revealed by where he spends his money." Now we are wading into deeper waters. But does anyone else worry aobut the money-worshipping engine that American sports has become in our lifetimes?? or is it just me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Your thinking is at best black and white. > One would have to assume that academic success is based only on test scores to believe your premise Joe. Never said that. Test scores were the only solid data I could cite. I can also post rank-in-class after I get home; it also might be interesting to see relative placements in graduate and professional schools. > One would also have to believe that increased applications has zero relevance to the overall quality of incoming applications and competition of incoming applicants. Nope. One could remain neutral on the subject. You're assuming that increased applications do have relevance; I want to see some data proving that point. It's very possible (but unproven) that Marquette merely has a lot more students applying, but exactly the same academic profile (adjusted over time -- e.g., if SLU got, say a 70 grade five years ago for the overall quality of its entering class and gets a 74 grade now, and if Marquette got a 70 five years ago and gets a 74 now, then the incremental increase in applicants washes out.) >One would have to ignore 25% advantage Marquette holds over SLU in the past few years given your numbers. Nope. One would have to hold it neutral when testing against other variables. >One would also have to ignore the thoughts and comments of many scholars across the country. Let's hear 'em. >One would also have to ignore that Marquette's test scores are rising at faster rates during this time period than SLU's. As I said a few posts up -- I haven't been able to find the data on SLU's scores from five years ago. If you can prove this, post the data. >One would also have to ignore that SLU's applications this year are down "significantly."...while Marquette continues their same upward trend. First of all, one data point does not a trend make. Second, can someone cite the source documenting this "significant" drop in applications? >Nobody is saying SLU and Marquette don't have generally similar scademics. Wow! If you concede that, then you may have just conceded the argument -- if you also concede that, five years ago, SLU and Marquette had generally similar academics. >But to say that athletic success hasn't increased the overall quality of student at Marquette and their profile would be at best uninformed. Naw. Given the factual information posted thus far in this thread, it would be at worst skeptical. Show me the numbers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 >Your thinking is at best black and white. > >> One would have to assume that academic success is based only on test scores to believe your premise Joe. > >Never said that. Test scores were the only solid data I >could cite. I can also post rank-in-class after I get home; >it also might be interesting to see relative placements in >graduate and professional schools. > >> One would also have to believe that increased applications has zero relevance to the overall quality of incoming applications and competition of incoming applicants. > >Nope. One could remain neutral on the subject. You're >assuming that increased applications do have >relevance; I want to see some data proving that point. It's >very possible (but unproven) that Marquette merely has a lot >more students applying, but exactly the same academic >profile (adjusted over time -- e.g., if SLU got, say a 70 >grade five years ago for the overall quality of its entering >class and gets a 74 grade now, and if Marquette got a 70 >five years ago and gets a 74 now, then the incremental >increase in applicants washes out.) > >>One would have to ignore 25% advantage Marquette holds over SLU in the past few years given your numbers. >Nope. One would have to hold it neutral when testing against >other variables. > >>One would also have to ignore the thoughts and comments of many scholars across the country. >Let's hear 'em. > >>One would also have to ignore that Marquette's test scores are rising at faster rates during this time period than SLU's. >As I said a few posts up -- I haven't been able to find the >data on SLU's scores from five years ago. If you can prove >this, post the data. > >>One would also have to ignore that SLU's applications this year are down "significantly."...while Marquette continues their same upward trend. >First of all, one data point does not a trend make. Second, >can someone cite the source documenting this "significant" >drop in applications? > >>Nobody is saying SLU and Marquette don't have generally similar scademics. >Wow! If you concede that, then you may have just conceded >the argument -- if you also concede that, five years >ago, SLU and Marquette had generally similar academics. > >>But to say that athletic success hasn't increased the overall quality of student at Marquette and their profile would be at best uninformed. >Naw. Given the factual information posted thus far in this >thread, it would be at worst skeptical. Show me the numbers! You are the one that is only black and white Joe. Read your posts again. You repeatedly only mention test scores, but never state that other things can identify increase in quality of applicants besides test scores. Test scores, class rank, are merely two aspects of an application. I just showed you the numbers Joe. It actually has been proven that Marquette during that time period had a 25% increase in applications compared to SLU, and that also this year SLU had a "significant" drop in applicants.....according to information provided by SLU admissions. I also even showed you Marquette's test score numbers in comparison to past numbers in comparison to the rate of increase of SLU's. It is also safe to assume if the test scores are going up, and the applicant numbers are going way up, that there is a good likelihood that the overall competition for admission has increased. Show you the numbers...lol....that's all I have been doing to this point. Sorry Joe, no sale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Doc B had to walk to school 10 miles barefoot in the snow uphill both ways. These young kids today have it SO FRICKIN' EASY........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 >and that also this year SLU had a "significant" drop in applicants Please cite specific post and source, other than you claiming a "significant" drop. >I also even showed you Marquette's test score numbers in comparison to past numbers in comparison to the rate of increase of SLU's. Ditto. Specifically, show me the "rate of increase of SLU's" test scores. Point to the exact post where you posted both of these numbers side by side. I just re-read the whole thread, and mysteriously, my browser shows neither of these posts. Perhaps it's in a different thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 >>and that also this year SLU had a "significant" drop in applicants > >Please cite specific post and source, other than you >claiming a "significant" drop. > > >>I also even showed you Marquette's test score numbers in comparison to past numbers in comparison to the rate of increase of SLU's. > >Ditto. Specifically, show me the "rate of increase of SLU's" >test scores. Point to the exact post where you posted both >of these numbers side by side. > >I just re-read the whole thread, and mysteriously, my >browser shows neither of these posts. Perhaps it's in a >different thread? SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS OFFICE I know you at your age it is tough to read the small print, so I put it in caps for you this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 And I realize at your age it's difficult to respond rationally, but your caps lock only (incompletely) answered one of the two questions, as you have been throughout this alleged debate. I'm still waiting for the side-by-side comparison of the "rate of increase" of test scores at SLU and Marquette. As for the incomplete response: Are you saying that SLU told you that applications were down? Perhaps another source with some insight into the matter, like DocB, could validate this information? Or perhaps you can point to a site that verifies the drop in applications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 >And I realize at your age it's difficult to respond >rationally, but your caps lock only (incompletely) answered >one of the two questions, as you have been throughout this >alleged debate. I'm still waiting for the side-by-side >comparison of the "rate of increase" of test scores at SLU >and Marquette. > >As for the incomplete response: Are you saying that SLU told >you that applications were down? Perhaps another >source with some insight into the matter, like DocB, could >validate this information? Or perhaps you can point to a >site that verifies the drop in applications. Joe you can either speak to someone informed at SLU's admission's office or not, that is up to you. My response couldn't have been more rational. Considering Doc B held similar thoughts to yours, I'd rather obtain my information from SLU's admission's office and I did. If you don't rtust that information call them yourself. 1-800-4-SLU. SLU's average ACT score accoridng to that same source is 26. You already obtained the scores from a few years ago. I would surely hope that if you don't believe my posts, that you have a telephone. I'm still waiting for you to post and acknowledge that quality of applicant has a lot more to do with just test scores(although I happily proved them) and class rank...but maybe it's my browser or in another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.