A majority of these comments blamed athletes for being intellectually inferior to other students at the College, thereby lowering the quality of the average student at Amherst. In their book "Reclaiming the Game," William Bowen and Sarah Levin make the argument that athletes at NESCAC and Ivy League colleges are not held to the same rigorous academic standards as the rest of the student body.
Using a report released by The Special Committee on the Place of Athletics at Amherst, Bowen and Levin give statistical figures to show that athletes at Amherst and other elite academic institutions have GPAs below those of other students similarly situated. The discrepancy is particularly evident for so called "high-profile recruited male athletes," such as football players and ice hockey players, who fall in the 23rd percentile of the class as opposed to their peers who are in the 49th percentile at Amherst.
I am not disputing these figures. I am sure that the report (commissioned by former President Tom Gerety, a notorious opponent of athletics) is thorough and accurate. However, I think the report serves to fuel the stereotype of the dumb athlete, add to on-campus hostility and cannot be explained by mere numbers.
The dumb athlete stereotype hurts every athlete, no matter what his or her intellectual level is. Professors might lower their expectations for athletes, causing them to stop caring about classes. Moreover, other students might exclude athletes from their intellectual discussions if they think that athletes have nothing to contribute to the conversation.
Besides the problem of over-generalizing and trivializing individuals (believe it or not, there are athletes at this college who scored 1600 on their SATs), the question is, "Are athletes significantly underperforming to the point where it hurts their education?" The difference between an athlete and a non-athlete's grades is quite small.
According to the Amherst report, the grade differential is on average between a quarter-of-a point and half-a-point on the Amherst grade scale. It would seem then that athletes' poor academic performance is being exaggerated.
I would also contend that there is more to an education than grades. College prepares you for success in the job market, and athletes pick up skills on and off the playing fields that contribute to their future success. They learn the values of diligence, sacrifice, cooperation and team work. Employers look for these characteristics when making hiring decisions. Most employers would rather hire someone who is dedicated and outgoing and cooperative than a selfish genius. There is also the issue of the cause of this "underperformance" of athletes. In their book, Bowen and Levin fail to take into account why athletes, and high profile recruited male athletes in particular, have lower grades than other students. Although some athletes may be less intellectually gifted or motivated, their grades probably reflect the scant amount of time spent studying due to athletic commitments rather than any intellectual inferiority.
The answer then, would seem obvious: reduce the amount of time spent practicing and playing athletic events. This change would allow athletes to study more and improve their academics. In fact, this is one of the recommendations of the Amherst committee. Unfortunately, the answer is not so simple.
Reducing playing time effectively reduces the quality of the sport being played. The sport becomes less enjoyable for both the athlete as well as the fan. The athlete could become frustrated because he or she is playing below his or her ability, while the fan would be just as frustrated watching a poor performance on the field.
If we can't reduce the intensity of the competition and athletes continue to lag behind academically, why shouldn't we just get rid of athletics altogether? Athletics are important to colleges for a number of reasons. First, athletics are a revenue generator: alumni are more inclined to donate to colleges with sound athletic programs.
Athletics also instill school pride and unity. Who wasn't psyched when we beat Williams at Homecoming last year? The football game against Williams is one of Amherst's longest lasting traditions. The athletic contests against Williams are really the only way our rivalry is maintained year after year.
Additionally, a college's athletic performance can actually help the college get better academic applicants. A perfect example is my home state university. Since winning the men's NCAA basketball tournament and going to the Orange Bowl, the quality of the University of Maryland's applicants have skyrocketed.
Finally, athletes add diversity to the school. Who would want to go to a school where all the students looked exactly alike and studied 24/7? Just as musicians, artists and actors help the culture of the college, so do athletes.
Amherst does an excellent job of maintaining the balance between academics and athletics, and we should not be swayed by a ranking, a report or a book to change our admissions policy.