The Way Forward
![schlisselatsacua[1]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/images/Schlissel_D69/schlisselatsacua1.jpg "schlisselatsacua[1]")
unguarded remarks
Our latest thing/apology cycle comes courtesy of the president, who told a large faculty meeting that he didn't really get it when it came to sports.
"We admit students who aren’t as qualified, and it’s probably the kids that we admit that can’t honestly, even with lots of help, do the amount of work and the quality of work it takes to make progression from year to year,” he said. “These past two years have gotten better, but before that, the graduation rates were terrible, with football somewhere in the 50s and 60s when our total six-year rate at the University is somewhere near 90 percent, so that’s a challenge.”
Schlissel said an individual’s academic deficiencies are often overlooked to fill competitive rosters.
And that's fine. It's fine that he said it, fine that people reacted to it, and fine that the next day the university issued the lawyered-up CYA statements that large organizations always do when someone does something remotely controversial.
The main disconnect here is the opposite of the "muggles" thing. Muggles supposes that student-athletes are a breed apart when I guarantee 99% of them would self-destruct in EECS 100, let alone that f-ing networks class. That's fine. Guys like that one hockey player in my EECS 380 are true marvels. That kind of dude is not nor should be required for universities to feel good about their big ol' sports programs.
Sports are a valid pursuit for someone in college. They are hard as hell.
College sport is a weird enterprise where people are admitted to a University because they have a particular skill, are expected to hone that skill upwards of 40 hours a week, and also get a meaningful degree in something totally unrelated. I do not think I would have done well at football practice after yet another f-ing night spent trying to convince the automated grader that I had in fact replicated TCP/IP precisely.
We have a model for this: music. Applicants to Michigan's School of Music have to submit a headshot, a resume, a "repertoire list", and submit to an audition. Also this:
Pre-screening recordings, portfolio, video interview, studio teacher preference, and/or writing samples required by your Department
SAT scores are not really that important. Music gets lumped in as an acceptable academic pursuit; sports do not. Music people get to go music and then get a liberal arts degree around it; sports for credit is ludicrous.
Why? Tradition and momentum. Sports started out as an extracurricular thing and the history of the NCAA has been a futile attempt to keep it from moving to its rightful place. I mean, scholarships used to be controversial.
The unfortunate thing is that football's towering media profile blots out the various other extracurricular-type activities that fulfill the same purpose. Poke a newspaper sports section in this country and you will find Daily grads crawling all over its staff. When I was in school some friends and I started the Every Three Weekly, and contemporary alums from that include this guy who writes movies and this lady who writes for Modern Family. They did not get their jobs by having a shiny GPA.
There are a number of professions out there in which chops are everything. These often follow models that boil down to "show me." Football is one of these things, along with any creative pursuit you care to name. A degree in it is a valid idea, and erases a bunch of the supposed hypocrisy that comes along with the model. You know, the stuff that causes some yob at the WSJ to lead off with this:
Who believes in the myth of big-time college sports anymore? The polite fantasy of the student-athlete playing gratefully for pride and tuition has been stripped away by an overwhelming financial reality that became too big and rich to ignore. The hypocrisies can be seen from outer space, and public opinion—not to mention the courts—are catching up.
The force of my eye-rolling threatens to detach my optic nerves. Over the past few years I have met many former players, and they are universally impressive. From Vincent Smith to Marlin Jackson to Brandon Williams to Todd Howard, all of these guys got out of the University of Michigan what they put into it: a ton. I bet some of them didn't pay too much attention to their grades because that is a reasonable thing to do when you are doing something as demanding as football. People do not have infinite reserves of energy, and their grades won't matter—even if they end up in something else. For history majors, GPA is a demonstration of effort. For athletes, that's assumed.
Universities would be better off saying "yes, this is weird but it is valid" instead of clutching their pearls. Michigan needs to take kids and prepare them for existence outside the university; in my experience they are terrific at this.
Let them graduate in their field, with a liberal arts distribution attached. Test them when they arrive and when they leave to make sure you're doing a good job of educating them. I'd much rather be affiliated with a university that takes kids with some academic questions and turns them into the guys I've met than one that snootily says "not you" because of things outside that kid's control.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:00 PM ^
In Schlissel's defense, if the information that got him riled up was seeing 50-60% graduation rates for the football program, then I'm glad he's riled up about that. That shouldn't happen and it's evidence of a problem. With the way we're graduating football players now - and football players with more than enough talent to win games - there's no reason that our football program's grad rate should ever be that low.
If he believes that the solution to 50-60% graduation rates is holding athletes to essentially the same admissions standards as non-athletes, I think he's wrong. I'm sure that our last couple of senior classes didn't have those kinds of credentials. All signs suggest that our current coaching staff has done very well in this area, which is probably both about screening kids carefully up front to be sure you think they can succeed at Michigan and then caring for them and staying on top of them once they get here.
November 13th, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^
I really hope you're serious about running for Regent. I will be the first to donate to your campaign.
November 13th, 2014 at 3:38 PM ^
I totally agree with you Brian. First off, as an EE/CE grad I totally empathize with the Networks comments. That class drove me insane and yet I remember the professor fondly and had the utmost respect for him.
Regardless, I've often wondered why they don't have a major in "Professional Athletics". Let them do what they need to do on the field and then supplement it with things like basic accounting & finance type courses, a marketing/PR type course, etc...
As you've so deftly pointed out, there is a way to do this which leaves everyone better off.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:20 PM ^
that dude was the man. he also invented the autograder, so there's that.
November 13th, 2014 at 5:32 PM ^
I had him for EECS380... nice guy, nice autograder... but he was no Yale Patt.
November 13th, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^
Echoing sentiment here, but yeah, you don't have to just be good at math or writting or something to be able to get a great education. At least you shouldn't. A university should embrace this actually to making the student body and educations offered even more diverse.
That said, I imagine the process of actually turning football into the School of Football Education, and all the other ramifications I probably haven't even thought about might be more difficult than just saying 'we should do that'. But if it's a worthy pursuit, then the university should undertake it. With sports being the huge buisness it is, it certainly seems like it would prepare those who are educated in it for jobs in the future. Also, if sports became an actual degree, wouldn't student-athletes become just 'students'? Would that kill a lot of the controversy about athletes being paid? Should the NCAA actually be trying to make this happen?
November 13th, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^
they'd still be student athletes. the games wouldn't be "exams" or "quizzes".
but football classes could have teachers, classrooms, and exams. michigan would have to be very very transparent about the grades and credits, else people would suspect that we were trying to keep athletes eligible by giving them easy As.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:33 PM ^
There are huge, huge administrative issues in establishing such a department.
What qualifies someone to teach in such a department? In a moment when rankings hold so much importance and % of faculty with PhD and % of tenure-line faculty are key determinates of ranking, what degrees do faculty hold? What do their appointments look like? What unit or school does the hiring? What disciplines do they publish in? What qualifies someone for promotion? What are the research-teaching-service balance expectations? What does tenure mean in such a department? How do the people appointed in such a school fit into the faculty's broader role of the shared governance of the university? What does the university's accreditor think of such a department? Etc, etc.
November 13th, 2014 at 3:40 PM ^
I really hope Schlissel doesn't try to transform Michigan into some sort of half assed Ivy League school. Michigan is so much better than that.
PS. Fire Hoke Now!
November 13th, 2014 at 3:44 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 13th, 2014 at 3:47 PM ^
Well-played...
Two other elements to consider are a) the boost to diversity and opportunity and 2) the need to educate mind and body. As has been hinted at in some of the comments - and Larry Foote referred to it directly - sports often diversify an another privileged student base. As a full-fledged idealist, these sorts of interactions are full of benefit for everyone involved and help us live up to the American ideal that says that we all have equal opportunities to succeed.
Educating the body is nothing to sneeze at either. Listening to athletes talk about the sort of expertise that they have to gain to play at a D-1, B1G level can be eye-opening...as other posters have noted, that sort of knowledge don't come cheap...
</rose colored glasses>
November 13th, 2014 at 4:01 PM ^
Haha, I have a PhD (not in comp sci or anything engineering related), and I self destructed in that EECS 100 class. Only class I ever withdrew from, and only class I got less than a B- in (somehow got a C+ the second time around). The year after I took it they added an asterisk next to it in the course guide along the lines of "warning...this is not an 'intro to computer science' course."
My mom (a systems analyst) and friends who were upper level CS majors couldn't believe they started by trying to teach us C++ through assembly language.
It may have had something to do with me being a total stoner back then and often leaving class early to catch thundercats/voltron hour at 4PM, but man, that class was hard.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:02 PM ^
The thing about EECS 100 is that they weren't trying to teach you C++. They were trying to teach you how a computer works, and the best way to do that is to start by programming the 1s and 0s (don't miss you, LC2) and then show how that evolved into C++.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:41 PM ^
That class doesn't even exist anymore...
I imagine it's been replaced by ENGR 101 which is one of the required engineering first year courses. While it does teach programming, the main intent is actually to teach students how to think algorithmically and how to problem solve more broadly. C++ (and also Matlab) is a tool more than anything.
November 13th, 2014 at 5:35 PM ^
Ah... the Yale Patt ENG100 class... I was around when he was designing that thing.
It was basically the simplified for freshmen version of the class I was taking from him - EECS470.
November 13th, 2014 at 3:48 PM ^
There was an article a few years back that went over where all of the 1997 national championship team was. Yes, there were quite a few that ended up in the NFL, but the majority were successful in somehting else.
Most players have to work very hard to get onto a Div I football team and also have to work hard to stay there. They also have to show a lot of time management skills, accountability (making team practices, working hard for team goals), leadership, as well as community action in giving back.
Yes, there are going to be some losers. This is inevitable when you take any large group of people, but I am guessing the success rate of Michigan football players is just as high as any group of graduating Michigan alumn. Especially when that success is measured as positive contributions to their communities.
November 13th, 2014 at 8:02 PM ^
fisking the Jim Harbaugh academics comments of all things. His (IMO) more candid personal reflections back then do a good job framing what he's trying to get across here.
November 13th, 2014 at 11:14 PM ^
November 13th, 2014 at 3:49 PM ^
A degree in Athletics should be legit.
As long as the core cirriculum includes statistics, probability, and game theory so that the players could tell their coaches not to punt deep in opponent territory.
November 13th, 2014 at 3:51 PM ^
Hallelujah Brian. I have made this point over the years to anyone who will listen. Music School is a perfectly apt comparison. I saw it first hand with my roommate at Michigan who, as the winner of a national viola competition, was recruited from the State of Washington come to "play" at Michigan. You can get a B+ for playing the viola, bassoon or oboe and get college credit to boot...and you know what my roommate the violaist did when he was done practicing? He played in games....errrr concerts.... in front of appluading crowds. How is playing high level sports any different? If anything, football in particular is arguably MORE difficult than music school when you consider the constellation of disciplines which it incorporates: nutrition, physical training, physical therapy, etc. The film study sessions and the intricacies of learning offensive playbooks are extremely taxing. I see little to no difference. Have them get 1/2 of their college credits in sports and the other half in other academic disciplines.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:06 PM ^
Yeah, I never thought of that comparison until I read this piece. I don't really see a difference between studying music vs. studying football as an academic enterprise, especially with a sport as intricate and complex as football. And there's a great deal of psychology and physiology involved. Some schools have coaching degrees (I tought a sport psych class at JMU for their coaching minor), and I don't see why that couldn't be integrated with the "playing" aspect.
Though most college athletes won't go on to play professionally, such a major could lead to careers in coaching, sports medicine, physical therapy, exercise science, sport psychology, etc.
November 13th, 2014 at 8:10 PM ^
You see little to no difference because you don't understand the academic requirements for a music major.
November 13th, 2014 at 8:35 PM ^
I'm not sure football is more difficult--beyond lessons, practice & performance on your prinicple instrument, the music school requires music theory, music history, piano performance (for everyone), composition, orchestration, etc. Adding to that, very few music students 'make the pros,' i.e., getting a job with an orchestra or equivalent, so most will be taking education classes so they can teach. Come to think of it, making the pros may be as hard in music as in sports, as there are more orchestras nationally but the performers retire at 65 instead of mid-30's.
At any rate, it is a great parallel. Except you'll never have the NCAA investigating music students for practicing too many hours in a week.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:01 PM ^
So Schlissel is identifying a problem that he feels needs resolution, namely the low graduation rate. His proposal for how to deal with it is to stop "overlooking" an individual's "academic deficiencies... to fill competitive rosters." And Brian critiques what Schlissel says, which we all pretty much agree is spot on. So what should be done, if anything? Is a degree in "athletics" or whatever wordsmithed name we give it just compensation (and by "just" I mean equitable and fair)?
Administratively, how would it work? Who are the professors/instructors? How are grades determined? Is there a need for accredation? If I am a engineering major, can I take electives in athletics?
November 13th, 2014 at 3:55 PM ^
Is this movie based on Florida State?
November 13th, 2014 at 4:55 PM ^
Not a clue thought it was relevant to this conversation. Quote follows:
You know what? You're a criminal. 'Cause you rob these kids of their creativity and their passion. That's the real crime! Well, what about you parents? Did -did the system really work out for you? Did it teach you to follow your heart, or to just play it safe, roll over? What about you guys? Did you always want to be school administrators? Dr. Alexander, was that your dream? Or maybe no, maybe you wanted to be a poet. Maybe you wanted to be a magician or an artist. Maybe you just wanted to travel the world. Look, I - I lied to you. I lied to all of you, and I'm sorry. Dad, especially to you. But out of that desperation, something happened that was so amazing. Life was full of possibilities, and isn't that what you ultimately want for us? As parents, I mean, is - is that, is possibilities. Well, we came here today to ask for your approval, and something just occurred to me: I don't give a shit. Who cares about your approval? We don't need your approval to tell us that what we did was real. 'Cause there are so few truths in this world, that when you see one, you just know it. And I know that it is a truth that real learning took place at South Harmon. Whether you like it or not, it did. 'Cause you don't need teachers or classrooms or - or fancy highbrow traditions or money to really learn. You just need people with a desire to better themselves, and we got that by the shit-load at South Harmon. So you can go ahead, sign your forms, reject us and shoot us down, and do whatever you gotta do. It doesn't really matter at this point, because we'll never stop learning, and we'll never stop growing, and we'll never forget the ideals what were instilled in us at our place, 'cause we are SHIT heads now, and we'll be SHIT heads forever and nothing you say can do or stamp can take that away from us, so GO!
-IMDB
November 13th, 2014 at 5:59 PM ^
but it does have Blake Lively in it so you can
SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH!
November 13th, 2014 at 3:53 PM ^
Huzzah!
November 13th, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 13th, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^
Brian...Sometimes I strongly disagree with what you say or do...but pieces like this is why I always check this website. A very good, well thought out piece about athletes and their place within the University. Keep it up
November 13th, 2014 at 4:03 PM ^
My kid is in that school now.
Over four years she'll take 90 credits of music and 30 credits of liberal arts stuff. She's working her tail off. All kinds of rehearsals at crazy hours. Lot's of late nights in the practice rooms.
When she's done she'll be a solid musician and also have the other "basics" that well-rounded college grads should have.
Why couldn't this model work for athletics, too?
November 13th, 2014 at 4:27 PM ^
A college degree is not just a piece of parchment, it's a certification of your intellectual bona fides for the sake of others who will encounter you later.
Would professional schools and/or employers look on a BS (or BA) in Football with the same respect as a BA in Music? That's really the key test. If they don't, it's worthless.
My own feeling is that generally they would not, at least not for a long time. There have been universities in the past that have given academic credit for varsity sports participation. It was always dropped soon after due to negative perceptions associated with it.
This seems like the sort of idea that looks great on paper but actually implementing it in the real world would probably not go well. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't think it would actually work.
November 13th, 2014 at 6:00 PM ^
I think an employer in the music industry would look highly on a BA in Music.
An employer in the athletics industry would look highly on the BA Football degree.
An engineering or legal firm would probably not look highly on either. They also wouldn't look highly on a Doctorate in marine biology.
I don't think that that any symphony or coaching staff would hire an engineer or a lawyer either.
All of these a specialized degrees.
A BA in Football would be very employable in the sports industury which is a $485 billion industry.
November 13th, 2014 at 7:19 PM ^
But would having a degree in football open any more doors than simply playing college football does right now?
The current model has its flaws, but ideally it gives athletes something to fall back on if a career in sports doesn't work out. If football is your academic major, then you are putting all your eggs in that basket. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that.
November 13th, 2014 at 11:23 PM ^
November 13th, 2014 at 8:53 PM ^
has a BA in music. She is an excellent musician, sings well and plays multiple instruments. She works as a CPA because there were no jobs for a music major, but it was respected at business schools, so she got a masters in accounting.
If a guy graduates with a BA in Football, would that be accepted to go to law shcool? Medical school? If not and it's only use is in athletics-related fields, how is that any better than a BA in Sports Communications or Kinesiology or whatever? What's the point of it?
Thus I feel that this doesn't really solve any problems, and would likely create more.
November 13th, 2014 at 9:42 PM ^
Actually the opposite can be true. One of my classmates from the School of Music beat out thousands of applicants for a job at Microsoft (this is back when that was the gold standard employer). They loved that he was computer science/music major and wanted to hear all about the music side. They were sick of all the cookie-cutter applicants.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^
Applause dot GIF.
Very well done Brian. I got my degree in Mechanical Engineering and I can't tell you the last time I did a statics equation. I design car parts for a living and much more critical to my current position is the "engineering mindset" than the ability to do equations. Problem solving wasn't explicitly taught in any one class I took but it's a skill I learned along the way - just like football players learn teamwork, PR/public speaking, etc. I would be so in on an "Athletics" major with one stipulation - requirements outside the degree. When not in-season let's make the athletes take classes that are outside their comfort zone. I'm not saying put them in EECS 314 (which SUCKED) but engineering students had to complete a sequence - reaching a 300 level course - in something that wasn't math, science or engineering. Let's do the same for those measuring in athletics. Broaden the horizons a bit - make it pass/fail if you want - but I think it's a good idea. - EDIT - I like what the guy above me said. If 90 credits in major / 30 out is good for the Music school, let's make it the same.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:43 PM ^
That was the course that made me say, "Eigen-what?" Then I got into a controls theory class where we started to do eigenvectors, eigenvalues, etc. At that point, I was all, "Ohhhhhh...."
November 13th, 2014 at 5:47 PM ^
Intro to Circuits for non majors?
With Dr. G?
November 13th, 2014 at 8:08 PM ^
I don't remember who the professor was. All I know is that it left me befuddled.
My dad, who is a double-E, told me that my circuits classes would kick my ass because - in his words - "You 'Mechanical guys' don't know the first thing about electrical engineering."
Me: "Dad, I'm an aerospace engineering major."
Him: "Yeah, big difference."
November 13th, 2014 at 4:11 PM ^
I am always amazed at how people get on their high horse about academics with football players, but no one blames an engineering major for slacking off in his or her random philosophy class. Most people would be fine with a theater major spending a few extra hours on a production rather than going to Anthropology 101. I'd be willing to bet Mark Zuckerburg skipped some classes to invent Facebook, and I've never heard a university president criticize his priorities.
I don't mean to downplay the importance of academics, but rather I think the emphasis should be on learning in and out of the classroom and developing your character and who you are as a person. The wonderful thing about a school like Michigan is the diversity of students in terms of their backgrounds, their interests, their talents, what they pursue after college, and how they contribute to the university community.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^
Very existential, why do universities exist and what is their purpose?
How does athletics fit and why do we insist to group disparate parts into a single unwieldy box?
Brian makes a persuasive case for having athletics as a significant part of the campus experience while acknowledging the unique circumstances of varsity athletes (like musicians).
Great stuff and thanks for writing
November 13th, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^
just beautiful, both in style and in opinion.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:15 PM ^
Alternatively, this could just as well be a case for why Michigan should abandon the music school.
Sure, different people have different skills. That doesn't mean a University ought to cater to all of them, though.
November 13th, 2014 at 4:59 PM ^
I'm a music major at U of M. Lots of great schools, including Rice, Vanderbilt, and Yale have fully-functioning, conservatory level schools within their respective universities.
The misconceptions seemingly implied in what you're saying are that the music school doesn't consider grades to be an important part of the admission process, and that those who are admitted have less-than-stellar grades. On the contrary, in my class, the average ACT score was 29, the average incoming GPA, unweighted, was 3.7. We are not a bunch of dummies, and in fact many music majors contribute to the university in many excellent ways, via CSG, volunteerism, and other avenues.
Furthermore (and I can't speak to this for athletics), a myriad of research suggests that musicians and music students do better in class than other majors. Music majors are among the top majors accepted into medical school and law school. Graduates such as Derren Criss, Theo Katzman, and several others who all took part in SMTD activities are fine representations of the University at large.
Please reconsider.
November 13th, 2014 at 5:24 PM ^
Sorry, I should clarify. I don't think we should do away with the music school. I think there are important differences between the music school and athletics that make Brian's argument weak, though. He glosses over these differences, and I was trying to illustrate that in a colorful way.
Comments