The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 26, Ed. 1 Friday, April 3, 1992 Page: 10 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
10 FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1992 THE RICE THRESHER
NEWS
by Mark David Schoenhals
The Faculty Council Committee
onAthletics (FCCA) issued this week
a "preliminary statement that "briefly
summarizes" the findings of the
Athletic Review Committee, "defines
the issues" from a faculty perspec-
tive, and outlines the future course of
FCCA's investigation.
The Board of Trustees received
an earlier version of this statement
before
News Analysis t s
March
17 meeting, where it discussed the
future of athletics at Rice.
FCCA plans to hold "an open
meeting of the faculty," after which it
will conduct "a poll of the tenured
and tenure-track faculty." Only after
gauging faculty opinion in these ways
will the FCCA prepare its final report,
which will include policy recom-
mendations.
The open meeting will be held
April 6 at 4 p.m. in Herring 124.
FCCA has clearly done more than
summarize the ARC report. As the
preliminary statement acknowl-
edges, the committee "question[s]
and supplement! s]" the ARC report,
but does so "only insofar as neces-
sary to clarify the issues that now
confront the university." The FCCA
has obviously made some decisions
regarding which issues need to be
clarified.
The Central Problem: Aca-
demics
These issues include what the
committee labels THE CENTRAL
PROBLEM," namely, the "inescap-
able trade-off between high academic-
standards and high athletic perfor-
mance," which FCCA calls "the one
fact on which both sides of the de-
bate can agree, no matter how much
they differ about the conclusions to
be drawn from it."
FCCA does not blame the indi-
viduals associated with the athletic
FCCA has clearly done
more than summarize
the ARC report.
department for the problems con-
fronting the program. Critics, it
claims, simply question "the mission
the university has assigned them in
committing itself to Division IA
competition." Furthermore, while
FCCA recognizes that "Rice treats its
athletes comparatively well," it
questions the utility of these com-
parisons with other SWC schools in
providing "an adequate yardstick for
an institution of the size and charac-
ter of Rice."
FCCA describes the unique di-
lemma facing Rice, since Division LA
participation requires that "more than
one out of every ten Rice students
must be a scholarship athlete" and
"high intellectual ability and great
athletic prowess are so seldom found
in the same person."The report notes
that many Rice athletes are aca-
demically adept, and the university
does not simply leave its athletes to
"sink or swim" in the classroom.
However, FCCA argues that many
other Rice athletes have "little more
chance of success in most Rice class-
rooms than would non-athletes if
plopped down in front of the A&M
line... To accommodate these ath-
letes, some sort of shelter program
has always been necessary, whether
acknowledged or not. "These de facto
shelter programs, however, have re-
quired faculty willing to cooperate
and "that cooperation," as FCCA de-
scribes in detail, "has diminished with
every passing decade."
In a separate section on gradua-
tion rates, FCCA notes that—al-
though Rice athletes'graduation look
appear impressive—they are decep-
tive in three ways. First, they employ
questionable calculation methods.
For instance, 31 percent of "male
basketball and football players who
entered in 1985 have yet to graduate,
six years after admission." Second,
the academic advising program
headed by Mark Scheid and Julie
Griswold has, with "ever-greater ef-
ficiency," steered athletes "away from
high-risk courses... and
concentrate [d] them in a
small...number of courses in which
athletes have a favorable track
record." This situation is worsened
by the fact that "this concentration
factor is enough in itself to lower the
curve, elevate athletes' CPA's, and
insure" an impressive graduation
rate. Third, "getting a Rice degree is
not the same thing as getting a Rice
education." According to FCCA,
"welcoming people to the Rice cam-
FCCA argues that
Athletic Department
estimates are bsed on
"amazingly optimistic
projections," such as a
quintupling of football
gate receipts over the
next four years.
pus because they can perform for us,
and entertain us, is not the same
thing as paying them the respect they
are due as young, educable persons,
who, with few exceptions, are not
destined for careers in professional
sports."
FCCAexplains that compromises
must be made in the admission of
athletes as well as in the curriculum.
LSAT
Review Course
for the June 15th test
•5-10 students per class
• 40 hours of live instruction
• Unlimited tutorial time with instructor
• Computer practice software
• Special intensive study clinic
EDUCATIONAL GROUP
Classes Begin
Sunday, April 5th
and
Sunday, April 12 th
Enroll now
to reserve
your spot.
4060 Bissonnet
t
in the Weslayan Plaza
664-7200
Since 75 slots are reserved for ath-
letes in each entering class, these
slots cannot be given to the many
"well qualified non-athlete appli-
cants," resulting in the rejection of
225 such applicants. The yield at Rice,
however, is in fact nearly 50 percent,
meaning that about 150 such appli-
cants are turned down.
FCCA argues that these problems
have been getting worse with the
increasing "professionalization of
college athletics over the last three
decades." In response to the ARC
finding that academic standards have
"improved" since 1984, FCCA notes
that "the athletic department had
deteriorated so far that..from the
nadir the university then reached,
there was nowhere to go but up," and
"the current direction of change is
more nearly down than up."
The committee cites some painful
statistics—in the form of SAT trends
and Admissions Committee esti-
mates regarding "inadmissibles"—
to support this argument For in-
stance, while the proportion of ath-
letes with SAT scores below 1000 has
risen from one-third to one-half since
1986 "the proportion of athletic ad-
mits with verbal SATs at or below
450 increased from 26 percent in
1986... to 55 percent in 1991."
Although thefaculty has brokered
this development for many years, it
remains unclear whether opinion has
changed in recent months. FCCA
describes the events that may have
changed faculty attitudes regarding
athletics:
rumors of the impending break-up
of the S WC; a gro wing athletic deficit;
a cheating scandal last Fall which
raised anew concerns about the the
disproportionate involvement of ath-
letes in Honor Code violations; the
arrest of other scholarship athletes this
Spring on charges of credit card theft;
incidents last year in which two athletes
carried firearms on campus; reports
from faculty committees in each of the
past three years declaring that Mana-
gerial Studies in an intolerably weak
major; a motion now pending before
the faculty to require Managerial
Studies students to supplement that
major with another; plans for the
Faculty Committee on the Under-
graduate Curriculum to reexamine
Managerial Studies in each of the next
two years to monitor progress; and so
forth.
Another Problem: Finances
FCCA examines the athletic defi-
cit, "expected to be $4.6 million in
1991-92," While ARC notes that "the
Departmentof Athletics is vigorously
pursuing a program for enhancing
operating revenues," FCCA argues
that Athletic Department estimates
are based on "amazingly optimistic
projections," such as a quintupling of
football gate receipts over the next
four years. The committee notes that
"realists would be well advised to
expect a continuing enlargement of *
the deficit in the years ahead, rather
than a reduction."
Additionally, FCCA questions
Athletic Department figures used in
arguments against switching to a less
competitive division. FCCA observes
that "average athletic deficits Sit Di-
vision III schools" vary from "about
$125,000 (without football) to
$300,000 (with football)."
The report indicates that Athletic
Department projections "cannot
carry the weight ARC assigned them"
unless the underlying assumptions
are "spelled out and shown to be
plausible." FCCA deems it "prudent
to conclude that the question of
comparative costs at the Division I
level remains unanswered."
In a section regarding alumni
opinion, FCCA presents data from a
1974alumni poll, showing that "other
things being>equal, the alumni would
prefer to be competitive in
intercollegiate athletics. They were
not willing, however, to promote
competitiveness if it meant compro-
mising academic standards." FCCA
recommends a new survey to deter-
mine current alumni opinion.
FCCA's report concluded by list-
ing the alternatives and recommen-
dations presented by ARC.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Kim, Leezie & Carson, Chad. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 26, Ed. 1 Friday, April 3, 1992, newspaper, April 3, 1992; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245811/m1/10/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.