5/6/2012: Also see the links, quotes, and discussion on this UC-Berkeley page:
“Sacred cows such as intercollegiate athletics continue to graze on the core academic programs of the institution.” – – Former President of University of Michigan James J. Duderstadt, The Future of the Public University in America.
“More than a few college presidents seem to think that a successful athletic program will at least inspire the alumni to give more money to their alma matter. Yet even this hope appears to be groundless. . .” “There is no reliable evidence that successful athletic teams raise … alumni giving to any appreciable extent”. – – Former President of Harvard Derek Bok, Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education.
5/1/2012 Updates: The discussion in the comments is getting interesting. People might also read the Orzag and Israel reports – commissioned by the NCAA. Original here, 2009 update here:
Hypothesis #8: Increased operating expenditures on sports are associated with changes in
measurable academic quality.
• In our previous reports we found no evidence to establish a pattern, positive or negative
between athletic expenditures and academic quality.
• Looking at SAT and ACT scores, our updated results continue to show no consistent
support for such a relationship between athletic expenditures and academic quality.
Update: UO Administrators also often claim that football success increases enrollment or student quality. If not another outright lie, this is an anecdote that does not hold up to scrutiny. From an NCAA commissioned report:
NCAA data from a February 2009 study authored by economists Jonathan Orszag and Mark Israel shows athletics budgets amount to 6 percent of most universities’ total institutional spending (Orszag & Israel, 2009). Despite that relatively thin slice of a campus’ budget, athletics events where thousands of students, faculty, administrators and alums gather are often the visible “front porch” for a university. Contests can be community builders. Logos, nicknames, and television appearances brand institutions locally and nationally. Even if athletics programs do not generate net revenue, they surely stimulate alumni giving and increase prospective student applications. This is known as the “Flutie effect,” on the exaggerated notion that Doug Flutie put Boston College on the map with his Hail Mary pass in a 1984 football game against the University of Miami.
Rigorous studies of the subject, however, suggest that there is no significant institutional benefit to athletic success. In a 2004 report for the Knight Commission, Cornell University economist Robert H. Frank, after reviewing the extant scholarly literature, concluded any links to football and men’s basketball victories and increased applications and the SAT scores of the applicants “is small and not significantly different from zero” (Frank, 2004). A 2009 study by Devin G. Pope of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and Jaren C. Pope of Virginia Tech finds applications do rise from two to eight percent after football and men’s basketball success, but “the impact is often short-lived” (Pope & Pope, 2008).
4/30/2012: We’ve written before about the repeated claims by UO administrators that sports success means increased donations to the academic side. These are lies.
There’s a new study out, using national data, reviewed by former UO journalism student and current InsideHigherEd reporter Allie Grasgreen:
All athletics-related variables that Koo and Dittmore looked at (football and basketball winning percentages, and athletic giving) were negatively associated with academic giving, while the opposite was true for non-athletic variables such as school ranking and personal income.
A rise in athletic giving equals a decrease in academic operating dollars (academic giving minus deferred gifts), the researchers say, indicating that athletic giving crowds out academic giving. For every $1 increase in athletic giving, the current operating dollars restricted to academic purposes decreased by $1.40.
One classic paper on this is by UO business school professor, dean, and Knight chair holder Professor Dennis Howard. Not exactly a radical. He used UO Foundation data on donations to UO sports and to UO academics, for 1994 to 2002. His conclusion:
Both alumni and non-alumni show an increasing preference toward directing their gifts to the intercollegiate athletics department-at the expense of the donations to academic programs. Sperber’s (2000) assertion that giving to athletics undermines academic giving is strongly supported.
Or just look at this picture, showing donations to the UO Foundation for current expenses. (The Foundation won’t release the endowment or capital contributions data, even with a public records request.)
(Data source here.) And it gets worse: last fall the UO Foundation made a $1.4 million cut in the amount it provides for academic scholarships. But wait, that’s not all. A few month ago UO got a $5 million gift. And now Rob Mullens has admitted that he is going to use all the proceeds to cover the small part of the maintenance and utilities that the athletic department must pay for the Jock Box. Not a cent will go to help the academic side pay for the $1.83 million cost of running the athlete-only tutoring operations. Greg Bolt explains the basics. Duck press release here. Where was UO’s VP for Development Mike Andreasen while this gift was being negotiated? Not doing his job for the academic side. Where was UO Foundation President Paul Weinhold? Cashing his paycheck. What is the probability that the widowed 91-year-old donor, the generous and rather interesting Robin Jaqua, understood how UO’s athletic department would use her gift? ____%.
Go Ducks!
yes but the Ducks’ football hype and other high profie atheltics raise our national profile and most liked does help attract those very cost-effective out of state and international students who can dramatically boost tuition revenue.
Right?
Not to say that a stellar academic program and exciting innovative research, if well published would not ALSO boost UO’s national appeal.
It is hard for me to see how the football or basketball programs attract international students. Universities elsewhere do well with teaching a research without such massive sports programs, and indeed might even be better for it.
I can imagine that some undergrads might be encouraged to study at UO BECAUSE there is a good football team. But does that effect kick in only when one plays among the top ten? or does one merely have to be credible? If the former, then we are really in trouble.
Yes, and the Ducks’ football hype attracts fans of football hype. Who will graduate and continue to be fans of football hype. As donors, they will support–surprise!—football!
By using football hype as a primary way to attract students, it should be no surprise we are creating a pool of future donors who will be more likely to support athletics than academics. Wonder if this loss of donations to the academic side has been taken into account in the above studies…
It’s a big mistake to be so dismissive of “fans of football hype” as their tuition dollars are the only thing saving our bacon right now.
That’s quite a big claim to be making. Where is your proof? Or is this yet more hype.
Well there’s certainly a correlation. And as pointed in the links provided by UOMatters, “applications do rise from two to eight percent after football and men’s basketball success”. What sort of proof would you like?
but “the impact is often short-lived” (Pope & Pope, 2008).
Anon@3:42 below has an explanation for what “the impact is often short-lived” means, along with a link to the entire Pope paper. It’s not hype to think that the enrollment increase could be at least in part due to football – there is actual evidence to support this assertion. Whether football’s “the only thing saving our bacon”, I don’t know, but those who discount the effect of football out of hand are on shaky ground.
There seems to be a presumption in some circles that UO out of state enrollment is up because of the success of football. But is there anything to back that up? Is it not entirely possible that it’s due to California’s troubles, plus successful marketing by UO student recruiters?
Yes, see link added to top of post.
“finds applications do rise from two to eight percent after football and men’s basketball success”
So there IS evidence to suggest that enrollment is up because of football success.
but “the impact is often short-lived” (Pope & Pope, 2008).
The Pope & Pope paper is here: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/devin.pope/research/pdf/Final_SEJ_Paper.pdf
What does, “the impact is often short-lived” mean? My understanding after a quick read is that the “boost” in applications that occurs after a good year are gone by the third year following. I don’t find that surprising at all. It doesn’t mean, as far as I can tell, that continued years of success will not have sustained impact. Of course, there’s also the “often” in there – perhaps there are ways to make the boost last longer – certainly having Nike’s marketing prowess could help with that.
Football is not the issue. Football makes money – not a lot after we pay the coaches, but some. It’s the millions the athletic department then dumps on sports like baseball and golf that are the low hanging fruit here.
Are you “shifting the goalposts”? The question was whether “UO out of state enrollment is up because of the success of football.” And, “is there anything to back that up?” The answer is YES, there is evidence that success in football could give rise to an increase in enrollment.
Out of state enrollment is up at UC Boulder (all from CA like us), and their football has been terrible and stuck in many scandals (rape, etc.).
Our best twin to compare is UC Boulder on nearly every single dimension, and they have had similar enrollment patterns compared to ours.
But would their enrollment be up even more if football was doing well? Pope & Pope would say YES.
I depends on where those applications come from. Are they from “desirable” foreign and out-of-state students, or are they from Oregonians?
Out of state applications are up, as far as I know. Interpret it how you’d like.
They sure as hell aren’t coming from baseball fans. If Berdahl told Mullens to end that program the athletic department would almost have a balanced budget.
Enrollment is up all over the country due to tough economic times and the difficulty finding jobs. Attributing the increased enrollment to football wins is a stretch of yogic proportions. And then there is the NCAA commissioned report cited at the top of this post:
“Rigorous studies of the subject, however, suggest that there is no significant institutional benefit to athletic success. In a 2004 report for the Knight Commission, Cornell University economist Robert H. Frank, after reviewing the extant scholarly literature, concluded any links to football and men’s basketball victories and increased applications and the SAT scores of the applicants “is small and not significantly different from zero” (Frank, 2004). A 2009 study by Devin G. Pope of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and Jaren C. Pope of Virginia Tech finds applications do rise from two to eight percent after football and men’s basketball success, but “the impact is often short-lived” (Pope & Pope, 2008).”
“Attributing the increased enrollment to football wins is a stretch of yogic proportions.” is supported by, “applications do rise from two to eight percent after football and men’s basketball success”. Logic FAIL.
… but is there any evidence that the rise in applications is actually somehow directly attributable to that success? I’ve yet to see it. There’s no question that the marketing (particularly for our institution) following a successful football program is a powerful branding tool, but the question that needs to be answered is “would our numbers be up anyway to begin with?”
“would our numbers be up anyway to begin with?” It’s impossible to know for sure – we can’t do the control experiment. But we have seen an increase in enrollment that is correlated with football success, and broader examination indicates that this effect can be widespread. That’s the data we have to work with – you can draw your own conclusion.
Not a Scholar Dog
all readers of UOmatters are scholars
here are some more references on this topic to synthesize
they are all worth reading.
http://www.appstate.edu/~mt54813/documents/Trivette_Admissions.pdf
http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/impact-elite-individual-athletic-performance-university-applicants-admission-ncaa-division-i
(this one above is good – has lots of references to the literature)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx?c=jsas;idno=6776111.0002.108
http://www.thesmartjournal.com/admissions.pdf
http://www.cmaxxsports.com/misc/MurphyTrandel.pdf
Dog offers a mostly uninformed opinion.
Having done time at Michigan and Washington, I have some empirical feeling
for this issue in the following sense. The UO experienced a modest enrollment
bump from out of state students when it made 1994/1995 successive appearances
in the Rose Bowl and the Cotton Bowl (both games were lost). So my sense is that
schools that traditionally have not been competitive and then experience some
success at the national level, become a signal
on the national landscape (e.g. the Flutie effect) do get some short term
benefit out there. However, I don’t believe that being a perennial powerhouse in
football (e.g Auburn/Alabama) or basketball (e.g. Kansas/North Carolina) has much
recruiting power. Furthermore, student enrollment did not go down when USC
lost its football prowess in the mid 1990s and neither did UW. I think Pope & Pope has it right, its a short term effect.
The business of education is rapidly shifting, and we should all get on board. Football should be our number one priority since it boosts enrollment and attracts money from rich donors. And why stop at football. We should build a casino in the now vacant Mac Court, and install video poker machines in all the dorms, lobbies, and the EMU. Maybe set up a liquor store and bring back cigarette sales to campus. All great sources of money. Education is a nice mission, but it doesn’t bring home the bacon the way football, gambling, booze and cigarettes do. The business of education is now…business! Wake up, everyone, and get quacking!
And why stop there? Just think of some of the advertisements in the Daily Emerald, and you’ll see that some sort of “gentleman’s club” [sic, or do I mean sick?] is needed on campus as well, and would complement your idea nicely….
Taxes from gambling, booze, and cigarettes already fund education. What’s your point?
The taxes on gambling may support education, but a big percentage of the direct income goes to the merchants. For example, bars with video poker machines keep 23% of the gross income. So we could eliminate the middleman by placing video poker in UO buildings, keep the 23% ourselves, and incidentally encourage our students to spend more time in the library and less in bars.
Bring the idea up at a union organizer meeting… if you can find out where and when they are.
Um, I think you’re a little off-topic. This thread seems to be about athletics, admissions and fundraising. There are plenty of other threads out there devoted to mindless union-bashing, you must have gotten lost.
Peter, could you ask the union to amend the FAQ “2. Who will the United Academics bargaining unit include, and who will the collective bargaining contract cover?
Included in the unit and covered by the contract are all faculty (tenure-related and non-tenure- track), research assistants/associates, and post-doctoral scholars.” so it better reflects the truth?
Sadly, there is deep truth in the sarcasm. Now that higher education is no longer a public good, the incentives get even more whacky. In my area, we apparently care very little about quality teaching given the actions of our admins. Class sizes are creeping up, adjunct hires are on the rise and anything that doesn’t generate credit hours is frowned upon or cut.
There is indeed a disturbing trend. When Measure 5 hit in 1990, public funding for education was decimated. Ironically only the wealthy benefited–regular homeowners were barely if at all impacted. The UO then turned to wealthy donors for help, and created a huge donor-pumping wing of the University. Drumming up private funds became an integral part of the University’s mission.
And what are the strings attached to this money, derived from the very constituents whose economic class precipitated Measure 5 and who can write off their donations and further reduce the taxes they contribute to education? We have inherited the corporate values and money-making mission of these donors. A money making mission is antithetical to the mission of public access to education and to the valuation of education itself.
The question now is, how can educators take back the University?
“We have inherited the corporate values and money-making mission of these donors.” What do you mean by “corporate values”? This phrase is thrown around a lot here but I haven’t heard a concrete explanation of what this codeword is supposed to mean (I’ve assumed it’s akin to the way the right uses “job creators”). Also what do you mean by “money making mission”? I assume the university has always tried to balance its books, whether the money comes from taxpayers or private donors, so what are you saying? Also, who is the “we” you are referring to?
As public funding decreases, tuition and/or donor money must increase. Those “customers” (that term alone is a problem) then have more influence and perpetuate a gradual shift in how we interpret our mission – they have different interests and demands than we (I use “we” to refer to the University) might define for ourselves. But because we are dependent on them to survive, we feel pressure to respond to them.
One case in point, it seems we used to have a mission to serve Oregon residents first. That mission is eroding because out-of-state and international students pay more.
A corporate mentality might view programs/units as “profit centers” or “cost centers”. The general goal is to increase profit centers and decrease cost centers. Except at a University, operating from that mentality ignores what we might think is really important, yet costly.
Our new budget model is an internal example of these screwed up priorities.
Universities, as public goods, used to be allowed more leeway in defining what was important and trusted to do so. That is eroding before our eyes.
Oregon residents don’t have the priority that they once did because the taxpayer’s made their own priorities clear over 30 years ago, as you noted. From my perspective, subsidizing resident education with out-of-state tuition and private donor dollars is a great solution. But it sounds like you have a better one. I’d love to hear it.
As for “profit centers” and “cost centers”, universities have always had to make decisions on how to allocate resources. Ideally this should be done efficiently as possible, especially with limited resources. Of course everyone has a different vision of what that means.
You make my point – if efficiency is the only criteria for allocating resources, then we just get rid of the most costly and keep the most profitable. Nothing in there speaks to our Mission and, as funding sources change, we have different constituencies shaping the mission. A corporation produces what sells. If we only produce what sells, the Mission will become meaningless because the “customers” don’t all believe in the same Mission we do. Business is already the biggest major (across the country – not just here) and football is the biggest moneymaker. Is that who we want to be? Seems to me no one is even asking that question to the faculty.
As to subsidizing resident education, what’s the right balance? Maybe we have it, I don’t know, but it seems to be shifting more and more to out of state and international tuition. As long as its a subsidy, it is a great solution. But when it becomes the end game, it doesn’t fit the mission. I don’t know the right balance but, then again, I don’t get paid the big bucks to figure that out.
Of course we have to manage dwindling resources and make tough decisions to allocate those. But what principles and values are guiding those decisions? One point of this entire blog is to ask tough questions to the administration about the allocation of those resources. That faculty have been dissatisfied with the answers to those questions is probably at least one reason a union had any chance at all here.
“if efficiency is the only criteria for allocating resources”
I never said that – I said, “as efficiently as possible.” If a unit is very costly but it performs a necessary function, then we have to keep it. That doesn’t mean various university functions shouldn’t be subject to some sort of cost/benefit analysis, however. It would be foolish not too.
You mention our “Mission” quite a bit. Here’s the mission statement on the UO website:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/UOmissionstatement.html
Apparently those are the principles and values driving the allocation of resources.
As to the role of this blog in asking tough questions to the administration, I think that’s great, but a taxpayer blog would be much more effective. The faculty are biased as inherently we would like more of the resources directed our way – the union’s motives aren’t completely aligned with the Mission. For example, the union’s desires to increase faculty salaries will undoubtedly influence the affordability of education.
Education would be more affordable if administrators’ escalating salaries, perks and bonuses were reigned in. Education would also be more affordable if the numbers of administrators were capped and even pared down to reasonable levels. The bloat factor here is wasteful and ridiculous. Kudos to this blog for exposing the administrative excesses here.
Is the “bloat factor” here really wasteful and ridiculous? From what I remember, the data provided on this blog suggests that our administrative costs are not out of line with other universities. Some more concrete information would be useful before making a conclusion, however. You’ve made a very strong conclusion so I assume that you have access to the relevant data – would you mind posting it?
Here ya go!
http://oregoncatalyst.com/15241-oregons-bloated-middle-management.html
You should have read the first comment on that page which sums up how ridiculous the data in that paper is:
“When it comes to the Oregon University System, these claims are simply absurd, because they are so misleading. Whatever the extent of “administrative bloat” may or may not be, most of those “administrative” personnel are non-unionized service professionals — not management, middle or otherwise. Likely examples: campus health centers; student advising; career (job-placement) centers. The SEIU knows this very well and is simply making an attack on non-faculty, non-union professional staff. “
These are all great ideas. Another idea to add to the pot: we could attract a lot of students by making sure that all new faculty hires have a football background or celebrity status. Our new motto could be “Learning with the Stars.”
Think of the hordes of students who would flock to our campus to learn from former pro football players and washed out actors hoping for a comeback. Money to be made, people, money to be made! The UO could catalyze a renaissance of sorts, injecting new life into the old undereye bags of higher education.
If UO faculty would make a “hard right” shift politically, we could probably get big bucks from the Koch brothers
to fund research supporting right-wing causes.
football and the distortion of academic mission?
Rocky and Bullwinkle broadcast an exhaustive expose’ on this subjrct decades ago for wassamatta U. look it up!
Coach Rocky Knute – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and available on video for the nostalgic or media scholars
yes, woe is us, our entire campus is so so disproportionately conservative.