Let's give education a sporting chance

Tag : college education
Let's give education a sporting chance
Big bucks pour into athletics, short-changing schools' primarymission.

By Frederic J. Fransen
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/28/08
Perhaps it's time for college fund-raisers to come clean about thedifferences between giving to colleges and universities and givingto their athletic programs. When donors give to athletics, theirgifts may produce visible results (a winning season, perhaps, or anNCAA tournament spot), but such gifts do not help colleges achievetheir primary mission: the education of tomorrow's leaders. Notthat there is anything wrong with giving to athletic programs, buta spade needs to be called a spade.
We've all heard the rationalizations. College athletic programs—- especially big-time football and basketball —- boostschool spirit and spur alumni giving. College athletic programsgive some students a shot at a college education they wouldn't getotherwise. And sports competition helps us become well-roundedindividuals. None of these points is inherently untrue. Justirrelevant.
Americans, through tax dollars, tuition and philanthropy, supportsome 2,500 public and private four-year colleges and universitiesfor a reason: to educate the scientists, teachers, entrepreneurs,managers, engineers, inventors, diplomats, journalists, healthprofessionals, military officers, public officials and others whowill lead and sustain us in the future. As much as I might enjoythe Indiana Pacers and Indianapolis Colts, their services arefundamentally unnecessary for the survival, prosperity, well-beingand enlightenment of the country.
Spending on sports rises
Yet, 26 percent of all dollars donated to Division I-A colleges anduniversities now go to athletics, according to an analysispublished in the April 2007 issue of the Journal of SportManagement. In 1998, the comparable figure was 14.7 percent.
In fact, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported late last yearthat overall spending on sports has been growing "at a rate threetimes faster than that for spending on the rest of the campus." Andfor most schools, according to recently released NCAA research,sports program costs exceed revenues. Only the top athleticpowerhouses make money —- and, frequently, only when theywin.
Where's the money going? Mostly, it goes to build new stadiums,arenas and practice facilities to showcase the schools' gladiators.George Washington University, for example, in the nation's capital,recently announced "the largest single donation in theinstitution's history." The $10 million gift was not for anacademic program, but for the renovation of the Charles E. SmithCenter, where the Colonials' basketball teams play.
Ten million dollars is just the tip of the iceberg. Schools in thesix top college athletic conferences, which include the AtlanticCoast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac 10, received more than$3.9 billion in donations for athletic facilities from 2002 to 2007alone, the Chronicle of Higher Education says. What's more, "Overthe next few years, [these] big-time athletic programs hope toraise an additional $2.5 billion for new buildings."
The question that needs to be asked is why are schools spending bigbucks on athletic facilities for a relative handful of semiproathletes when academics should be their focus?
Results you can see
As Murray Sperber noted in his wonderful book, "Beer and Circus:How Big-Time College Sports is Crippling Undergraduate Education,"college athletics —- the cheering, cheerleaders, drama,parties, money, big game, Sweet 16, Final Four —- may be partof the college experience, but it doesn't improve education. Itsiphons needed resources away from education.
One reason many philanthropists choose to give to college athleticsis because they know what they are getting. Who can blame them?When you donate a large sum of money to support Georgia Tech andUniversity of Georgia athletic programs, you do so because theYellow Jackets and Bulldogs have a winning tradition and you hopeyour gift will help produce additional championships. When youwrite the same check to the English or History department, you maynever know where the money went.
If education is to be the primary focus of our colleges anduniversities, officials involved in the "rainmaking" process,whether development officers, trustees or college presidents, needto do a better job of demonstrating to donors what theireducational gifts accomplish in an equally transparent and powerfulway.
They do higher education a disservice when they spend moneyexcessively on the game, while shortchanging the end game: a highlyeducated workforce to face the competitive challenges of the 21stcentury —- and a tolerant and enlightened public capable ofmaking intelligent personal and political choices.
That's what we need. And that's what a new field house doesn't buy.
> Frederic J. Fransen is executive director of theIndianapolis-based Center for Excellence in Higher Education(www.cehe.org), a nonprofit organization helping philanthropistsimprove higher education through their donations.