Ralph Nader: Get rid of scholarships

I don't think this is the case. I think a lot of guys enter college thinking that they'll play in the NBA, NFL, or MLB some day, and many of them get a fast rude awakening. For every John Wall, there is a Ron Powlus. Multiple Ron Powluses, actually.

For the most part, the John Walls and Kyrie Irvings and Allen Iversons of the world realize pretty quickly that they are on the pro fast track. It would be asinine for those guys to eschew millions of dollars of guaranteed money to keep hitting the books (I'm looking at you, Andrew Luck). But they would - at least most of them - if they realized that the pros might not be in the cards, and that does happen to a lot of kids. The world of real estate and financial planning is absolutely saturated with once-upon-a-time can't-miss four- and five-star athletes.

Are there some doofuses who play four years and don't come close to a degree? Absolutely. Are there doofuses in the regular student body who do the same? Absolutely. My brother-in-law is back in school at age 42 after dropping out with less than a year to go 20 years ago because he wanted to "find myself." I know a million people from high school who have bounced from one commuter campus to another in the area, pulling eight hours here, three hours there, working the register at CVS in the meantime. I guess the difference is that guys like that aren't on the public teat. On the other hand, I would say that there is a decent rate of return on college athletic scholarships, i.e. productive citizens are forged where one may not have existed.

 

Overall, Nader has done more in his life than many others and I give him a great amount of respect for that. He fought for the rights of consumers in the 60's and 70's when many would not. I will never forget that. Without his Consumers Union, people may still be driving Pintos.

I agree with his proposal. Why do people still ignore the charade? Either you're all in (pay them) or not (no more subsidized athletes.)

I understand that journalists have a vested interest in this debate and may not agree. That's fine, I have a hard time voting against things that benefit my clients.

 

In a way, this is true. When you look at graduation rates of all athletes, they're pretty high. I just saw an ESPN.com report in which women's basketball players graduate at a very high level.

The problem comes in the two "money" sports. Football and men's basketball. Grad rates aren't as high, especially for black athletes. Part of that, as you said, is because they think they're going pro.

But for those who aren't going pro, they still need that education. And as been showed many times, they end up in basketweaving classes and end up missing a lot of class time because they're jetting around the country for games.

Either scale back things, or give the athletes more control of their lives.

 

I remember Rick Telander writing essentially the same thing in The Hundred Yard Lie 20 years ago. I was just finishing high school when that came out, and I remember reading it and having it change my whole outlook on college athletics. Nader may annoy a lot people, and I do have a hard time ignoring the fact that his "campaign" probably cost Gore a bunch of votes in Florida in 2000 (of course, so did the butterfly ballot). But I think he's speaking common sense here. And so was Rick Telander two decades ago.

 

I am confident that schools would still find a way to give athletic scholarships, even if they weren't called that. Wabash (a Division III school) talked to my brother about running track, and let him know there was "academic" and "need-based" aid available. (He didn't go.)

 

For a well-reasoned and insightful take, look to the always reliable Bylaw Blog.

http://www.ncaa.org/blog/2011/03/headcounts-are-naders-problem-not-scholarships/

 

Would someone who is NOT a racist old Cheney sockpuppet like to weigh in? Because I'll ask the opinion of my two cats before I ever desire one from Fraudy McHalliburton.

Additionally, when the Noid expresses his opinion on anything, would someone please stop pretending like he's a progressive and actually ASK HIM what his feelings on a woman's right to choose are? Him playing kissy-face with Ron Freaking Paul would make one wonder.

 

Someone can't be progressive and pro-life?

Not everyone is a right/left idealogue.

He's an independent for a reason.

 

Oh yes, St. Ralph, the great progressive/independent/whatever makes my fee-fees better. Shame he can't take his stenographers with him when he awaits the judgment of the afterlife.

And no, I don't think the money he made on Halliburton stock will pay off anyone down there.

 

Oh, I'm not arguing with you over the Halliburton thing.

I just have never liked abortion as a litmus test of someone's liberal bona fides. But I'm exiting this conversation before it gets ugly, so no need for anyone to engage with me about it. I've said my piece. That's all folks.

 

Some of you must be incredibly strong to hold that enormous brush.

Yes, there are some "student-athletes" who have no concern for getting a degree, and the huge majority of them are in major football and hoops programs. The rest of those who get athletic scholarships have a pretty tough row to hoe to keep those scholarships and remain eligible.

Gone are the days of basketweaving majors and other time-wasters. APR, anyone? Progress toward degree requirements? 40% after two years, 60% after three and 80% after four to remain eligible. Depending on the school, that can be pretty demanding.

Of the thousands of college "student-athletes" I have worked with over the years, no more than a handful were dismissive of their educational opportunities. Most are/were incredibly grateful that athletics gave them a chance to finance some or all of their degree expenses.

I don't see it as being any different than giving a kid a music or theater scholarship. Go back to your nap, Ralphie.

 

So, is this Nader's nadir?