Open Thread (7/16/2009)

This is old news but an interesting read which I do not believe was posted previously.  Its reflects somewhat on the character of a young up-and-coming Chicago Democrat, his staff, a the U of I connection and his goal of being an Illinois Senator.  As usual, the Trib beats on the U of I.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-u-of-i-clout-04-jul03,0,6618041.story

It appears you missed the Illinois political aspects of this story Ralph.

[T]here is no need to worry about our administrators; if they get fired they will just move on to another cushy administrative job---just like failed athletic coaches.

Well, Ralph, you brought up a point that gives us another perspective on the Category I scandal. Every year the U of I admits people to school who do not meet the minimum standards applied to the average applicant for admission. Those "students" don't rely on political clout but they are sought after, pursued avidly, and provided with benefits and resources not available to most high school graduates who apply to attend the University of Illinois. Nor only are we not scandalized that they do not have the minimum academic skills to compete for admission. Rather we read avidly the News-Gazette articles trying to divine whether this or that prospect will accept the offers made by the U of I and play for Illinois.

These high school seniors don't have political sponsors. What they do have is an ability to run, pass, kick, or tackle; a dead eye from 3-point range or elbows trained to clear a path to a rebound. They don't have to meet a sacrosanct academic standard and once admitted they get all the special academic help necessary to help them succeed as undergraduates - at least until they sign with an agent and go pro.

Few recognize that the recruitment of unqualified applicants as "Student-Athletes" degrades the academic standards of the institution. Few acknowledge that degradation is reflected in the existence of Category I - but after all the Student-Athletes and the Category I student share one important characteristic - both bring in MONEY!

3 Score + 10

Keith Hays

I am not so sure there is any sharing here, Keith.  I have yet to see any documentation on $'s Cat I students are responsible for.  However, it is very clear to me the economic benefit to not only the U of I but the cities of Champaign and Urbana brought by U of I Athletics. 

I have yet to see any documentation on $'s Cat I students are responsible for. However, it is very clear to me the economic benefit to not only the U of I but the cities of Champaign and Urbana brought by U of I Athletics.

Are you not disturbed that an academically unqualified wide receiver or point guard is taking up the classroom space and instructional resources that might have been available to serve an academically qualified applicant? Is it the mission of a land grant University to provide a farm club for the NFL or NBA?

3 Score + 10

Keith Hays

To Michael Fuerst @ 1:55 P--well the history of the stadium could follow the tradition set at the U of Chicago--in that ch the splitting of the atom was discovered in a lab under the stadium. Then the venue could be raised and a fabulous Henry Moore sculpture, titled the Atom, could be put in the location as a celebration.  :-)

Pattsi Petrie

You are absolutely right. The athletic enterprise is a total disgrace, but, again, I had a specific message for the blog and tried to 'stick to it.'

It is on point. Once you justify the relaxation of academic standards to accommodate one class of non-qualifiers you set your path on that slippery slope that leads the rationalization of relaxation of those same standards for another group of non-qualifiers. I suggest that the academic credentials of those applicants on the Category I list far exceeded those of the recruitees on the Athletic Department's A-list many of whom are sent to cooperating 2 year institutions because they do not meet even the NCAA minimum academic standards. I also suspect that the number athletic non-qualifiers far exceeds the politically connected non-qualifiers admitted to the University of Illinois.

Dee Brown is the notable exception that proves the rule, of course. Or is he?

3 Score + 10

Keith Hays

While I understand the similarities between Category I students and student athletes there is one pretty important distinction. All the athletic admits are done in the public eye and subject to extraordinary scrutiny . This is quite unlike the backroom skulldoggery we see with the Category I students. The NCAA has watchdogs in place for the admit process as well as all aspects of their ensuing education. One could make the argument that the Board of Trustees should function as a watchdog for abuse of the admittance system. But then they are appointees selected for reasons other than watchdogging

If the U of I did away with athletics beside the obvious impact on the University.  What would be the impact on CU and the county if Assembly Hall & the Football Stadium are gone?  Think higher taxes for all residents as there will not be any 'fans' spending money, no big name entertainment for the locals like the Broadway Shows or Popular concerts.  I doubt the the fairgrounds could host enough horse and car races to make up the losses.  Certainly Urbana and Champaign wouldn't think of actually building Civic Centers which fit their population. And don't count on Champaign County doing anything as they botched badly their last construction project.  I don't want to imagine what a mess and the price tag for a bigger project.  But then it might not be so bad with new auditor who has time on his hands now that he is not the Dem party chairman

And just how many athletes are we talking about acedemicly subsidizing,  20 or so---certainly less than 50.  A tenth of those on the Cat I list and way less than the legislative scholarship "freebies'.  And are these athletes with learning needs, a minority, really taking up classroom space or are they providing tutoring work for graduate students?

If the U of I did away with athletics beside the obvious impact on the University.

What impact on the University?  The DIA might as well be a separate entity altogether since it doesn't exactly share revenue with the rest of the campus.  Athletics may be popular amongst the local masses who have no chance of ever attending UIUC and some of the alumni, but they're fairly insignificant when compared to what is going on throughout the rest of campus, and a whole lot of the alumni could care less about the athletic programs as a whole.  This is a world-class academic research university, not some SEC school only known for sports.  Some incredibly great things happen here on a regular basis that have nothing to do with sports.  Scoring touchdowns and hitting three-pointers does not bring prestige or money to the campus.

And just how many athletes are we talking about acedemicly subsidizing,  20 or so---certainly less than 50.  A tenth of those on the Cat I list and way less than the legislative scholarship "freebies'.  And are these athletes with learning needs, a minority, really taking up classroom space or are they providing tutoring work for graduate students?

So it's ok to subsidize those who, if it wasn't for the amazingly low standards for these "student" athletes, couldn't get accepted to EIU on their own merits so long as they give a grad student a job and run that pigskin real good?  Yes, they're taking up classroom space, just like the Cat I students are taking up space.  It doesn't matter which route they went, they're still taking up a space from a student who was way more qualified but lacked the connections to get in.  It's disgusting either way.  Anybody who is up in arms about the Cat I list should be just as up in arms about the students who are barely graduating high school, yet are actively recruited by one department.  I guess that doens't make for as entertaining of a Saturday afternoon, though, does it?

If the numbers were available, I'd like to see what the grad rate of the Cat I students vs. that of the "student" athletes who are also below the university standard.  I'd place my bet on the Cat I list being higher than those "student" athletes any day.

-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am

"The DIA might as well be a separate entity altogether since it doesn't exactly share revenue with the rest of the campus."--The DIA is the most revenue sharing department within the U of I.   Unless you see a lot of revenue sharing say between Engineering and LAS.  And the DIA shares across sports which I seriously doublt happens very often within the LAS college.

"Anybody who is up in arms about the Cat I list should be just as up in arms about the students who are barely graduating high school, yet are actively recruited by one department."---So should we also be 'up in arms' about the practice by our 'world class research university' of finding spousal employment for recruted research faculty at times displacing more qualified canidates?  There are a lot of skeletons in the closet of our 'world class research university' far more hidden than in the DIA.

The sadest part of all this mess is the Board of Trustees----where there is little if any 'trust' is this politically driven supposedly oversight body with their influence meddling pressures on the U of I's administration.

This is the funniest thing I have ever read on IP. Do you work for the athletic department in pr?

Jay (not verified), no.

Really? All in the public eye? Then why are there so many recruiting scandals nation-wide? What about Eric Gordon "changing his mind" and going to Indiana? What about the Mendenhall brothers being a package deal? There's just as many backroom dealings with athletes as there are with the Category I students. At least the Cat I issue comes with an easier to follow paper trail than cellphone conversations and nod-and-wink handshake deals.

Arvid, the underlined portion of your ststement is what I intended as a point. The NCAA and the rest of the world realized long ago the huge potential for abuse and has attempted over the years to stay ahead of it. Are they always ahead of those trying to abuse the system? No.Do they morph the rules to at least try and ward off the abuse? Yes. This is quite unlike Category I where the participants have done their work out of the public eye and away from any scrutiny whatsoever. The folks who presumably would be most interested in preventing Category I abuses are the very ones who did it