NCAA: Get pregnant, lose scholarship? (Now with more P&R!)

[Stroker Ace]

http://media.www.cw.ua.edu/media/storage/paper959/news/2007/10/29/Sports/Female.Athletes.Sometimes.Forced.Into.Heartbreakin g.Decisions-3061182.shtml


While some NCAA schools allow the athlete to keep her athletic scholarship if she becomes pregnant, other schools revoke all scholarship privileges, forcing athletes into painful situations. Such instances have led NCAA officials to review their guidelines amid reports of scholarship loss.

In April, Cassandra Harding, a member of the University of Memphis track team, told The Associated Press she lost her scholarship after becoming pregnant. In May, a Clemson athlete told ESPN she had an abortion to stay in school.

...

Harding and other female students at the University of Memphis and Clemson contend they had to sign documents acknowledging scholarships could be lost because of pregnancy.

But the Clemson athlete who aborted her pregnancy is not alone, and pregnancy among athletes occurs more often than people may realize. Riggins said she has met several other athletes who aborted their pregnancies for fear of losing their scholarships.Wow. This is an issue I'd never thought about. Apparently 17-8 year old girls are signing "releases" saying they are OK with losing scholarships if they ever get pregnant.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Nah, it should go in Everything Else. Go start a new thread there.

[Stroker Ace]

Uh I don't see the problem here.

How about don't get pregnant. I wouldn't expect the girls that had this happen to them were trying to get pregnant.The idea that people are electing to have abortions to satisfy these contracts is pretty messy. Can we accuse the NCAA of pushing abortion on hapless teens?

[Dirt]

Well, they're getting scholarships to play. If they can't play, they shouldn't get the scholarship.

[Raife]

Nah, it should go in Everything Else. Go start a new thread there.

It's really more a hardware issue.

[Morkilus]

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=39574

Can we get an abortion forum?

[tromik]

Uh I don't see the problem here.

How about don't get pregnant. I wouldn't expect the girls that had this happen to them were trying to get pregnant.
How do you find out if they were trying to get pregnant or not? Go around lifting skirts asking if they're ovulating?

[Marcus]

What are you talking about?

I am talking about accidential pregnancies not planned ones.

[tromik]

What are you talking about?

I am talking about accidential pregnancies not planned ones.
How can you tell the difference?

"Ma'am, was your son an accident?"

[Greatatlantic]

How do you find out if they were trying to get pregnant or not? Go around lifting skirts asking if they're ovulating?

Somebody needs a biology lesson.

A human pregnancy lasts for about nine months. This is accompianed with a huge stomach bulge on the part of the women. Furthermore, playing sports while pregnant can endanger the developing fetal tissue (other factors considered).

I suppose if the girls got pregnant at the tail end of the season, she'd be able to pull it off.

[Hetzer]

What are you talking about?

I am talking about accidential pregnancies not planned ones.


You do know that there are some means out there to avoid pregnancies? It should be even, i dont know, be healthy to use them...

[Nick Walter]

I'm not seeing the issue here. The scholarships are for atheletes who keep themselves ready to play. It's pretty straightforward.

Yeah an accidental pregnancy for a female athlete can torpedo the scholarship but so can a motorcycle accident for a male player. It's not like there's some special gender bias here, both sexes are getting treated equally.

[Stroker Ace]

Human reproduction is not motorcycle accidents. Is "Not Our Problem" an acceptable official policy?

I guess my underlying discomfort with this is the way athletic scholarships work in general. People are ostensibly getting a free college education based on non-academic achievements. If they don't play along, the college education disappears. Doesn't sit well with me.

[Aeon221]

Except that one of the genders is being forced to kill a baby if it wants to stay in school.

[Dirt]

Everybody has the ability to prevent a pregnancy.

[Marcus]

You do know that there are some means out there to avoid pregnancies? It should be even, i dont know, be healthy to use them...

Uh yeah you dont have to tell me that. Thats pretty much the point I was making in the first place. If you have a scholorship and want to have sex use birthcontrol. Its pretty simple.

Yes yes its not 100% but combining Condoms and some form of medicaded birth control is the best choice.

Anyways I am changing my stance on the issue. I am now outraged at the NCAA for this!

[Nick Walter]

Human reproduction is not motorcycle accidents. Is "Not Our Problem" an acceptable official policy?


Unplanned pregnancy is an accidental health condition that comes from risky behavior. From the perspective of the school giving the scholarship, it is too just like a motorcycle accident. Both are cases of risky behavior leading to an athlete being physically unable to perform.

Or were you referring to planned pregnancy? I think it's fairly obvious why an athlete who accepts a scholarship and then makes plans that leave them unable to perform shouldn't get a free ride at school.



I guess my underlying discomfort with this is the way athletic scholarships work in general. People are ostensibly getting a free college education based on non-academic achievements. If they don't play along, the college education disappears. Doesn't sit well with me.

Well in a larger sense I can agree with that. It's all part of the tapestry of lies by which colleges try to deny that athletics are big business and one in which the colleges get basically free labor no less.

[AaronSofaer]

Except that one of the genders is being forced to kill a baby if it wants to stay in school.


Wrong. One of the genders is being forced to remain able to play in order to get a scholarship based on playing.

There's more than one way to not be pregnant. The easiest would be, I dunno, using birth control. Which I bet most of the ones who get pregnant don't do.

[Marcus]

Except that one of the genders is being forced to kill a baby if it wants to stay in school.

Uh I don't think that they are being kicked out of school as it may be they are just losing the free ride they had. So there's always that.

[Dirt]

The easiest would be to refrain from sex.

[Raife]

Hawkeye had it in the other thread. It's about maintaining themselves pursuant to the scholarship.

Why would you expect to keep your athletic scholarship if you can't play because of something that wasn't sport or school related? That article is ridiculously sappy:


Sharetta Riggins sat alone on the bathroom floor outside her college coliseum. The only sound was her heart pounding through her chest.

This was the moment of truth. Her future, her hopes, her dreams and everything she had worked her entire life for were on the line.

Once the two blue lines appeared on the white stick, it was over. This was real life now.

Many women wait their entire lives for that instant of utter bliss when they know they are about to bring a life into the world, but this was a mistake. This was the 18-year-old record-setting volleyball star. The only thoughts on her mind throbbed dully over and over, "Why me? Why now?"

Ok Sharetta, it's time to take responsibility for your actions. You got pregnant, deal with it. Don't expect the school to be happy about it when you can't fulfill the reason you are going there for free. Look into student loans... I hear lots of kids are getting them.

[Elton]

I guess my underlying discomfort with this is the way athletic scholarships work in general. People are ostensibly getting a free college education based on non-academic achievements. If they don't play along, the college education disappears. Doesn't sit well with me.
That's also my take on it. Even if they are net revenue generators for the universities, athletic scholarships are a major perversion of what the universities are supposed to be about. College basketball and football are awesome and exciting and it's fun to root for my alma maters, but the right thing to do is to stop giving athletic scholarships and use that money to support people who'll actually benefit from the chance at a degree. Maybe start an under-22 league for the major sports to fill the void. But tying scholarships to the medical ability to play is essentially treating the players as employees who get some nice benefits but no salary and no labor protection, and you end up getting seamy side effects like revoking scholarships from pregnant teenagers.

[tromik]

Somebody needs a biology lesson.

A human pregnancy lasts for about nine months. This is accompianed with a huge stomach bulge on the part of the women. Furthermore, playing sports while pregnant can endanger the developing fetal tissue (other factors considered).

I suppose if the girls got pregnant at the tail end of the season, she'd be able to pull it off.
Which means you can't purposefully get pregnant for most of the year? I know people try to plan pregnancies, but it usually isn't accurate to the month, never mind the day.

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe this is one of those gender oddities where the NCAA should just continue paying for the pregnancy period, and then determine eligibility again for the next season when they can play? The Army doesn't kick you out or take away your money for getting pregnant.

I agree the entire system needs to be blown up, but barring that it seems rather churlish.

[Marcus]

For chrissakes, the Army doesn't kick you out for getting pregnant.

You are right they don't but in most cases you can not continue doing the job that you were doing.

[Machfive]

I don't see what's so unreasonable about expecting a female athelete to take measures to avoid getting pregnant. If it's too much effort to take some Lowestra and make sure the sleazy dude you're banging wears a jimmy hat, then fuck, you shouldn't be having sex. Hell, those are measures most college-attending women SHOULD be doing anyways. Who the hell wants an accidental pregnancy in the fucking dorms?

[Nick Walter]

Maybe this is one of those cases where they should just eat it for the pregnancy period? For chrissakes, the Army doesn't kick you out for getting pregnant.

I think if they could a lot them would, but they can't. And that applies both to pregnancies and other medical incidents that knock an athlete out for multiple seasons.

The NCAA puts hard limits on how many scholarship athletes can be on a team. So if they keep paying for someone who can't play, they can't go hire . . .er . . . recruit someone else who can play.

[Enidigm]

It's worth considering if, for example, they had come stoned or drunk to a game and completely useless at a major athletic event. Getting pregnant because you get trashed at a party and were screwing around is the same issue. For some reason though there seems to be a greater stigma around censoring women for their reckless behavior than men. It's not a good situation but that doesn't mean pregnancy is a random, unexplainable, unavoidable event either.

[Raife]

You are right they don't but in most cases you can not continue doing the job that you were doing.

I hope you meant "can continue", Because I knew several women in the Army who worked fine in their jobs right up until they gave birth. If you aren't going to try, well that's called malingering.

[Anders Hallin]

Pregnancy is perfectly normal. It will happen to a certain extent for a young population engaging in perfectly normal behaviour. So since I believe athletic scholarships shouldn't be cut for injuries resulting from normal behaviour, nor do I believe pregnancy is valid reason to revoke it.

[Enidigm]

Well, see, pregancy is a wierd thing to knowingly allow in a physical sport. What happens if you require a girl to play when pregnant up until the third trimester, and then the fetus aborts through harsh physical contact, or there are complications, or something gets damaged, ect. And then the school is sued for 30m because the scholarship required her to play when pregnant...

[Marcus]

I said most cases. Meaning not all.

I was in the Navy and while there are certain cases that a woman when she became pregnant she could continue doing what she was a lot of the time they had to transfer them to an admin / support posistion.

[Anders Hallin]

It's worth considering if, for example, they had come stoned or drunk to a game and completely useless at a major athletic event. Getting pregnant because you get trashed at a party and were screwing around is the same issue. For some reason though there seems to be a greater stigma around censoring women for their reckless behavior than men. It's not a good situation but that doesn't mean pregnancy is a random, unexplainable, unavoidable event either.
Are you saying that women get less negative comments for reckless behaviour?

[Nick Walter]

Pregnancy is perfectly normal. It will happen to a certain extent for a young population engaging in perfectly normal behaviour. So since I believe athletic scholarships shouldn't be cut for injuries resulting from normal behaviour, nor do I believe pregnancy is valid reason to revoke it.

By your definition of normal, some amount of deaths from automobile accidents or drug overdose are normal for young people as well. Should we not be allowed to penalize people for those behaviors either?

[Anders Hallin]

By your definition of normal, some amount of deaths from automobile accidents or drug overdose are normal for young people as well. Should we not be allowed to penalize people for those behaviors either?
As far as I know, we do not penalize people for dying.

[Enidigm]

Pregnancy is perfectly normal. It will happen to a certain extent for a young population engaging in perfectly normal behaviour. So since I believe athletic scholarships shouldn't be cut for injuries resulting from normal behaviour, nor do I believe pregnancy is valid reason to revoke it.

It's true it's normal but when there are many, many options to prevent it, excuses are harder to justify. It's true student athletes maintain a strange position in the sometimes hypocritical, profit-charged atmosphere of college sports, but just as students are expected to practice and maintain their physical abilities in order to even be an athlete i don't think it's unreasonable to maintain a standard that excludes pregancy.

Getting wasted at parties is "normal" behavior for most college guys. If i get wasted every weekend, never exercise, and fatten up to the point i'm no longer eligble to play on my team, is it wrong for the school to discontinue my athletic scholarship?

[Dirt]

You are right they don't but in most cases you can not continue doing the job that you were doing.
There are desk jobs in the military.

[Enidigm]

Are you saying that women get less negative comments for reckless behaviour?

No, not at all, in fact it's the opposite. Socially. But not institutionally. There is a difference.

[mouselock]

The Army doesn't kick you out or take away your money for getting pregnant.

There are valid contributions one can make in the army while knocked up. There aren't a whole lot of desk jockey jobs which benefit from a 19 year old sprinter who can run the 100m in 6s as their primary skill.

I'm on the "It seems pretty simple" side too: If your way is being paid because of a specific ability you have, you probably should take care to preserve that ability. I wouldn't expect that if the physics department gave me a scholarship because of my science-fair performance in high school, that I should then be able to take that scholarship and use it to major in English. I'm all for getting rid of athletic scholarships and the bleed that puts on actual academics, but the reality is many schools would crumble without the substantial amount of money academics brings in. (Not to mention the prestige and interest from students deciding where to go; even non-athletes care about university athletic programs in many cases.)

[Raife]

Well, see, pregancy is a wierd thing to knowingly allow in a physical sport. What happens if you require a girl to play when pregnant up until the third trimester, and then the fetus aborts through harsh physical contact, or there are complications, or something gets damaged, ect. And then the school is sued for 30m because the scholarship required her to play when pregnant...

That's one problem, the school has exposure if the fetus gets injured.


I said most cases. Meaning not all.

I was in the Navy and while there are certain cases that a woman when she became pregnant she could continue doing what she was a lot of the time they had to transfer them to an admin / support posistion.

But they're still working A job, even if it wasn't her primary MOS (or whatever the fuck the Navy calls it). The college sports comparison is ridiculous. What are they going to do, transfer to the competitive basketweaving team? They're not getting kicked out of school, they're losing their ride.

[Anders Hallin]

It's true student athletes maintain a strange position in the sometimes hypocritical, profit-charged atmosphere in college sports, but just as students are expected to practice and maintain their physical abilities in order to even be an athlete i don't think it's unreasonable to maintain a standard that excludes pregancy.

Getting wasted at parties is "normal" behavior for most college guys. If i get wasted every weekend, never exercise, and fatten up to the point i'm no longer eligble to play on my team, is it wrong for the school to discontinue my athletic scholarship?
That behaviour is most of all stupid, which sadly is regarded as normal. The thing is, that pregnancy is sometimes an unexpected consequence of perfectly normal behaviour related to love. As we do not expect our athletes to be robots who when they graduate can ask (stilted robot voice here) "What is this thing called... love?"
Yes, there are measures that can be taken to decrease the risk of pregnancy, and I really hope everyone takes them when they don't want to get pregnant, but since it can happen accidentally, that's enough for me to say that it's a risk the college will have to take.

[Tankero]

This is a strange intersection between personal responsibility and institutional tyranny. Hot young athletes having sex shouldn't surprise anyone, along with the occasional accidental pregnancy. So, on one side of the issue we've got the inscrutability of Life and such. On the other, we've got a college simply protecting its investment by encouraging the beneficiaries of their scholarships to, if not practice good ol' abstinence like they were taught in high school, to at least use some kind of protection. Are they pushing towards abortion? That's debatable. Maybe if the kids had a proper sexual education, they'd be able to avoid this mess...

Indeed, the athletes shouldn't lose the scholarship because they got knocked up. But to what extent was it the consequence of their own irresponsibility, and how many of them would've kept the kid even if they had been assured they wouldn't lose their scholarship?

[Nick Walter]

That behaviour is most of all stupid, which sadly is regarded as normal. The thing is, that pregnancy is sometimes an unexpected consequence of perfectly normal behaviour related to love. As we do not expect our athletes to be robots who when they graduate can ask (stilted robot voice here) "What is this thing called... love?"


We don't expect anyone to be robots, but there's also accountability for one's actions to be considered.



Yes, there are measures that can be taken to decrease the risk of pregnancy, and I really hope everyone takes them when they don't want to get pregnant, but since it can happen accidentally, that's enough for me to say that it's a risk the college will have to take.

Why should the college take the risk when it's the negligence of the individual athlete that is the source of the problem? Are you making an argument that an athletic scholarship sould be some irrevocable commitment to free education on the part of the college? Do you believe an athlete who loses both legs while trying to wheelies on a motorcycle in an ice storm at night while drunk and blindfolded should also continue to get the scholarship because stupid behavior on the part of the young is normal and just a risk the college has to take?

[tromik]

By your definition of normal, some amount of deaths from automobile accidents or drug overdose are normal for young people as well. Should we not be allowed to penalize people for those behaviors either?
Sex between consenting adults is not illegal. Using illegals drugs, well, is illegals. Makin' a baby in NCAA: bad. Using illegals drugs in the NFL: Okay.

Driving a car also isn't illegal, but driving under the influence or dangerously is.

[Raife]

That behaviour is most of all stupid, which sadly is regarded as normal. The thing is, that pregnancy is sometimes an unexpected consequence of perfectly normal behaviour related to love. As we do not expect our athletes to be robots who when they graduate can ask (stilted robot voice here) "What is this thing called... love?"

Be robots, no. Maintain themselves so they can earn their athletic scholarship, yes. They're not entitled to a scholarship, they earned it and they need to continue to earn it.


Indeed, the athletes shouldn't lose the scholarship because they got knocked up.

Fuck that if they can't play. These women aren't china dolls, they can take responsibility for their actions.

[Enidigm]

Well ideally, we have perfect information, and can judge the situation in every detail flawlessly. We know their intentions, their actions, their intents, to what extent students actually acted responsibly or not. Perhaps instead of a blanket rule there should be some kind of inquiry.

I guess, Anders, my point is that you say pregancy is a natural part of life, and i agree. But, in our hypothetical investigation, you discover that our student-athlete, instead of acting responsibly was simply a drunken party girl, what would you do?

I guess there is a big cultural gap here in America - there is a presumtion here that everyone "games the system" and if it's possible to manipulate the system unfairly, and how to do this is clear and obvious, everyone will manipulate the system. And to a certain extent i think this is true. But again, we here tend to mechanically prescribe authoritarian solutions because we're innured to thinking about the rare innocent individuals that might suffer because we must prevent the results of keeping the doors unlocked as i related above from occuring. Things are easier, and maybe more just and fair, with smaller populations and less money, but that can't be helped.

[Anders Hallin]

Why should the college take the risk when it's the negligence of the individual athlete that is the source of the problem? Are you making an argument that an athletic scholarship sould be some irrevocable commitment to free education on the part of the college? Do you believe an athlete who loses both legs while trying to wheelies on a motorcycle in an ice storm at night while drunk and blindfolded should also continue to get the scholarship because stupid behavior on the part of the young is normal and just a risk the college has to take?
Since pregnancy can happen by what would, by most people, be considered an accident, there is no remarkable negligence going on.
I can see at least three parts of your example that includes illegal activity, so that's no valid comparison.

[Anders Hallin]

Well ideally, we have perfect information, and can judge the situation in every detail flawlessly. We know their intentions, their actions, their intents, to what extent students actually acted responsibly or not. Perhaps instead of a blanket rule there should be some kind of inquiry.

I guess, Anders, my point is that you say pregancy is a natural part of life, and i agree. But, in our hypothetical investigation, you discover that our student-athlete, instead of acting responsibly was simply a drunken party girl, what would you do?
The thing is, then they'd have to emulate rape trials, and the college would take the position of the defense attorney, since they don't want to pay an athletic scholarship to anyone who's pregnant, and that's not a solution that I find feasible.

[Tankero]

Fuck that if they can't play. These women aren't china dolls, they can take responsibility for their actions.

Maybe, but once they've had the child they certainly won't be able to further their athletic career unless their fan-fucking-tastic at whatever they do. If you put these women in a position where they've suddenly got a dependent, no education and no job, what sort of human being are you? What sort of institution are you?

The consequence of their actions will be this: they've brought a child into the world, with all the burdens and joys that it entails, and most probably without a responsible father in the picture. That in itself is hard enough, without a disproportionate sense of justice to come down on them again.

[Raife]

Maybe, but once they've had the child they certainly won't be able to further their athletic career unless their fan-fucking-tastic at whatever they do. If you put these women in a position where they've suddenly got a dependent, no education and no job, what sort of human being are you? What sort of institution are you?

The consequence of their actions will be this: they've brought a child into the world, with all the burdens and joys that it entails, and most probably without a responsible father in the picture. That in itself is hard enough, without a disproportionate sense of justice to come down on them again.

Cry me a river, that's not the school's responsibility. They can get student loans or they can get jobs like the non-scholarship women out there. Welcome to real life.

[Tankero]

You don't believe in disability benefits either, do you? Welfare is money better spent, I don't know, bridges in Alaska or a tax cut?

What does the school have at stake here? They're basically paying these people for the sake of school pride, aren't they? What is the return to their investment in these people? They can sell the fact that they're humanitarian and compassionate as much as their athletic performance; there are plenty of people interested in both.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

If you put these women in a position where they've suddenly got a dependent, no education and no job, what sort of human being are you? What sort of institution are you?
But women who get pregnant in college without having athletic scholarships are in the same boat. Should the scholarship girls get extra support?

Having a child before you're ready for it can be catastrophic to one's plans in life, no doubt about it. But that's true for everyone, not just women on athletic scholarships. It is something that can be avoided, and in those instances where even proper preparation fails, well, abortions are still legal in this country. On the flipside, continuing one's education while pregnant and/or raising a child is hardly unprecedented.

Also, keep in mind that losing an athletic scholarship doesn't mean you get kicked out of school, barring losing the scholarship for gross misconduct or something. Sometimes it doesn't even mean that you get kicked off the team, though if the reason is medical obviously you won't play during that time. Loans are readily available to cover the tuition. Life gets harder, sure, but it's not the end of the world.

I really think the only cause for outrage here is if schools are specifically singling out pregnancy as a forfeiture condition, rather than it just being covered under a generic medically-unable-to-compete clause. It's not clear from the original article whether that's happening or not, but even if it is, it's not pitchforks and torches time.

[Nick Walter]

Since pregnancy can happen by what would, by most people, be considered an accident, there is no remarkable negligence going on.


I think negligence is a much bigger factor than accident myself. But it's true that even the best birth control is only 99.99% effective, so let's consider the highly-improbable accident scenario.

Do you think an athletic scholarship should be an irrevocable commitment to a free education? How about specifically for a male athlete who gets his leg broken when he's struck by a drunk driver in a situation that completely isn't foreseeable? My answer would be no, but let's hear yours.

[Raife]

You don't believe in disability benefits either, do you? Welfare is money better spent, I don't know, bridges in Alaska or a tax cut?

Nice try, but I didn't say society might not be responsible, just that the school wasn't. This discussion is about athletic scholarships and pregnancy. If you want to take it into the realm of all people or all women, then the question of athletic scholarships is pretty much out of the picture.

[Nick Walter]

Maybe, but once they've had the child they certainly won't be able to further their athletic career unless their fan-fucking-tastic at whatever they do. If you put these women in a position where they've suddenly got a dependent, no education and no job, what sort of human being are you? What sort of institution are you?


Huh? We are talking about a free education, something above and beyond what's available to 99% of the population. Nobody is saying that college girls who get pregnant should be fired from the jobs and kicked out of college.

On an unrelated note, I must say I find it humorous that I'm arguing the personal responsibility side of a thread in P&R. That's a first, normally it's me accusing someone of being heartless when they poo poo assistance to those in need :)

[tromik]

I know very little about sports that don't involve a puck, and even less about the non-professional leagues. Is the NCAA the schools or a seperate body, or a combination of the two?

I'm sure the schools are supporting these women. You can bet there are family planning and health centres and counsellors and all sorts of good stuff.

Edit: Wait. If they lose their scholarship they wouldn't have access to that stuff, would they? Whereas any other girl would have access to that stuff. That kinda seems crappy of them.

[Raife]

I really think the only cause for outrage here is if schools are specifically singling out pregnancy as a forfeiture condition, rather than it just being covered under a generic medically-unable-to-compete clause. It's not clear from the original article whether that's happening or not, but even if it is, it's not pitchforks and torches time.

On that point I completely agree.

[Nick Walter]

I know very little about sports that don't involve a puck, and even less about the non-professional leagues. Is the NCAA the schools or a seperate body, or a combination of the two?


It's a separate body created and funded by the schools. The various officers of the NCAA are elected by representatives from the schools if I recall correctly. That makes the NCAA sound like a puppet beholden to the schools though and it isn't the case. The NCAA wields a very big stick since the schools are so insanely competitive and the NCAA has to be very harsh with schools that get out of line or break even small rules. They can get away with it too since the schools, again because of insane competition, don't have a lot of sympathy for big sanctions thrown on other schools.

In high level matters of policy like this one, I imagine the schools could collectively exert their will on the NCAA if desired, but honestly the schools like the status quo.

[Tankero]

Perhaps my perspective is skewed, since I tend to equate an education based on a sports scholarship for women to that of a useful life of a racehorse, where the focus of their entire lives is on the sport itself, and an event such as pregnancy ending those prospects outright.

The difficulty to earn such a scholarship is already quite pronounced, so whoever earns one of those had to devote themselves to that one activity. Then, through either personal neglect or an honest accident, that comes to an end. But, in truth, this person is still in college; the challenges they face shift, perhaps aligning themselves more closely to their fellow students than they were before.

Such scholarships are most often awarded to people who wouldn't be able to afford college otherwise, right?

[Raife]

Such scholarships are most often awarded to people who wouldn't be able to afford college otherwise, right?

Wrong.

[Edit]: I'm not even touching that other stuff.

[Sidd_Budd]

It seems as though people are complicating these situations with subjective determination of responsible behavior. Considering the simplest case seems worthwhile to me.

An unintended pregnancy, although rare with consistent use of birth control, is an accidental biological condition that results in a female athlete being unable to engage in many competitive athletic activities for six months or so (I would assume she could engage in most sports in the first trimester).

A severely broken leg or torn kneecap resulting from an accidental fall down a flight of icy stairs, although rare among young athletes with no neurological impairment, is an accidental biological condition that results in an athlete of any gender being unable to engage in many competitive athletic activities for six months or so.

If it's standard practice to revoke athletic scholarships for an accidental non-game-related event that makes a recipient ineligible to play, it seems you'd have to treat both cases similarly. Whether it should be standard practice to revoke scholarships in both these cases is another discussion, but I think the same answer has to apply to both scenarios.

The fact that medical procedures are available to terminate the pregnancy certainly complicates the psychological weight of the decision in the case of pregnancy versus a broken leg, but IMO, the underlying principle is similar in both cases.

[Tankero]

Wrong.

Nuh uh.

[TheTrunkDr]

Edit: Wait. If they lose their scholarship they wouldn't have access to that stuff, would they? Whereas any other girl would have access to that stuff. That kinda seems crappy of them.
No, they're not kicked out of school for losing their scholarship they simply have to pay for their own tuition, like any other girl at the school.

This all comes down to responsibility. If something happens to a student who's on a scholarship (note: athletic or academic) rendering them unable to maintain that scholarship and that event transpired outside the context of maintaining it (eg, they weren't injured in a game/practice), they lose the scholarship. The school shouldn't be taking responsibility for the actions, inactions or life altering events of the students. Everyone should be responsible for themselves.

My mother was cancer ridden and dying in a hospital bed my last semester of college. I was living at home and had to assume all the household responsibilities, like paying bills and rent along with my tuition I was already paying. I had a really good part time job and my last semester was light fortunately. I told my teachers what was up so they'd know why I wasn't in class some days but I didn't get any special treatment. I did my assignments, incurred penalties when they were late and was graded equally on all my exams. Sorry people, shit happens in life it's up to you to deal with it.

[Nick Walter]

Nuh uh.

You are correct, but it's not germane. The income level of the recipient of an athletic scholarship is irrelevant to the consideration process that awards them.

[tromik]

No, they're not kicked out of school for losing their scholarship they simply have to pay for their own tuition, like any other girl at the school.
True enough.


Sorry people, shit happens in life it's up to you to deal with it.
That's the second time someone has said this. Your story is a sad one, but didn't you feel at the time that maybe you did deserve some leeway? That it would have made life a bit easier?

Sure, life is shitty. It doesn't have to be, especially when it's so easy to make it better.

I know that's not the point of this thread, but c'mon people. Have a heart.

[Tankero]

You are correct, but it's not germane. The income level of the recipient of an athletic scholarship is irrelevant to the consideration process that awards them.

But that still means that it's not a mere matter of getting a loan, correct?

[Nick Walter]

But that still means that it's not a mere matter of getting a loan, correct?

It's a matter of being moved back down to whatever your prospects were before an athletic scholarship was awarded. If you find those prospects unjust , that's a complaint about society and not athletic scholarships.

[Tankero]

I'll accept that.

[Marcus]

The college sports comparison is ridiculous. What are they going to do, transfer to the competitive basketweaving team? They're not getting kicked out of school, they're losing their ride.

I wasn't the one making the comparison. Jason was and I agree it is rediculous.

[Jason McCullough]

There are valid contributions one can make in the army while knocked up. There aren't a whole lot of desk jockey jobs which benefit from a 19 year old sprinter who can run the 100m in 6s as their primary skill.

My point was that even the army, which is supposedly one of the highest demanding roles around, doesn't get all up on its high horse about pregnancy like people apparently think the NCAA should. I'm sure they could find something useful for her to do instead, sports related or not.

As a big liberal and all, I'm of the opinion that society should make reasonable efforts to handle predictable biological differences in capabilities.


This all comes down to responsibility.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the net effect of "responsibility" in this case is treating an athletic scholarship like an employment contract that would be probably be illegal on discriminatory grounds, if not at least highly unsettling. It is actually illegal for your employer to fire you for getting pregnant. Just like the employment law - which is what this is, whatever ho-ha around academic bullshit they put on it - they should find something else for her to do.

[Marcus]

Dude being in the Army or even working a full time job is not even the same thing as being on an NCAA team.

[Nick Walter]

As a big liberal and all, I'm of the opinion that society should make reasonable efforts to handle predictable biological differences in capabilities.


I agree, I just don't see how that statement is applicable to this case.




Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the net effect of "responsibility" in this case is treating an athletic scholarship like an employment contract that would be probably be illegal on discriminatory grounds, if not at least highly unsettling.


No actually, it would be perfectly legal. If someone says they can't work because they are pregnant then they don't get paid. No law says women must continue to receive salary during an absence due to pregnancy.



It is actually illegal for your employer to fire you for getting pregnant. Just like the employment law - which is what this is, whatever ho-ha around academic bullshit they put on it - they should find something else for her to do.

Nobody is getting fired though. Injured players who can't compete for an extended period and get yanked from scholarship status aren't kicked off the teams. Heck, if they can get themselves back in shape and back in the game after a medical absence the teams will undoubtedly welcome them back.

[StGabe]

Is it really the money that's at stake? Or is it just the scholarship slot? NCAA div. 1 schools can only offer a certain number of full-rides per sport (I think for track, where I considered some scholarships, it was like 4 men and 4 women per track team). I'm guessing that a pregnant girl is still taking up one of those slots even if she can't play and that's the real issue. If that is the case then what really needs to happen is simply a system by which a school can get credited for offering a continuing to scholarship to someone who can't compete for a year and allowed to offer that scholarship to someone else in addition. Of course it gets pretty complicated if the player can play for half the year but I'm sure that could be worked out (presumably scholarships wouldn't make a difference midseason if a girl gets pregant then).

In general I gree with Sidd_Budd. An accidental pregnancy has to be dealt with in the same way as an accidental automobile accident. That said, I'm not sure whether someone should be able to keep their scholarship or not given that they've had an automobile accident. I guess ultimately I feel like the scholarship was a contract that included risk for the school and offered a specific package for the student and it should be honored. If a student commits to 4 years they should get to finish that out even if something bad happens to them. It seems pretty criminal to make them stop halfway through because of something that wasn't their fault. Of course that's all null and void if the student does something unreasonable which causes their inability to play.

Given all that I think the students should sign the following contract: they are responsible for any pregnancy they incur (under penalty of losing their scholarship) unless they follow an accepted/regulated course of birth control throughout their career at the school.

[TheTrunkDr]

That's the second time someone has said this. Your story is a sad one, but didn't you feel at the time that maybe you did deserve some leeway? That it would have made life a bit easier?
No, I didn't feel as though I deserved any leeway, I may have gotten some that I was unaware of and I sure as hell would have accepted it had it been offered but I never once thought that anyone was required to give it to me. That's sort of what personal responsibility is about, things you do or that happen to you are up to you to deal with. I got support from friends and family of course, I'm not saying every person should be an island but you can't expect everyone and everything in your life to start bending over backwards just because you've hit a rough spot.


Sure, life is shitty. It doesn't have to be, especially when it's so easy to make it better.

I know that's not the point of this thread, but c'mon people. Have a heart.
A heart is entirely different from being able to honour your responsibilities.

[ElGuapo]

I've noticed it's mostly latinas who get pregnant after getting athletic scholarships.

.


.


.



Bwahahahahahahahahahahah.

[Machfive]

People are making this sound like accidental pregnancies are a dime a dozen. This is an illusion caused by the fact that a large majority of "accidental" pregnancies only appear to be so because one of the parties involved in the pregnancy is being dishonest with the facts.

99.99% is a ridiculously safe percentage of safety, and that's what a simple condom will afford you. Throw in some mild birth control for an additional 98% efficacy, and you've a greater chance of being hit by lightning than being pregnant.

If you are in college, FULLSTOP, you should be doing this already, because nobody in their right fucking mind wants to get pregnant in college. Anyone not doing this must not be serious about their health, their education, or their future, regardless of whether or not they are on some stupid fucking sports team.

Now, some would then say, "But what about those with a religious objection to contraceptives?"

Well those fucking people shouldn't be having premarital sex according to their very own beliefs, so who gives a shit about them? They should be donning the chastity belts and enjoying the joys of heavy petting and oral or something. If you're too religious to use contraceptives, why the fuck aren't you too religious to have sex? You want to have your cake and go to heaven too? Fuck off.

"But but what about the people who can't use birth control pills?"

Oh yeah, there's a few people out there that the pill gives some nasty reactions to. If they're practicing for 20 hours a week and doing what crazy sports people do, I don't think it's too crazy for them to break out the spermicidal lube and ask their partners to suit up.

I mean jesus folks, is asking people to be responsible about sex so fucking oppressive?

Anders makes it sound like it's normal behavior to run around and have unprotected sex willy nilly. I'm sorry, but where I come from, people who do that get the fucking clap and DESERVE it for being so fucking stupid.

[StGabe]

No actually, it would be perfectly legal. If someone says they can't work because they are pregnant then they don't get paid. No law says women must continue to receive salary during an absence due to pregnancy.

Depends on where you live. California and most western countries require paid maternity leave (and some other states may be instituting it soon). In fact, a lot of places also offer paid paternity leave.

[TheTrunkDr]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the net effect of "responsibility" in this case is treating an athletic scholarship like an employment contract that would be probably be illegal on discriminatory grounds, if not at least highly unsettling. It is actually illegal for your employer to fire you for getting pregnant. Just like the employment law - which is what this is, whatever ho-ha around academic bullshit they put on it - they should find something else for her to do.
Except that it's not an employment contract. It's a contract for athletic performance in return for a free education. If one party can't hold up their end of the agreement termination is the likely consequence. This isn't a job, people need to stop making such comparisons. Academic scholarships require students to maintain a certain GPA, if they can't they lose it, it's same issue.

[Machfive]

This isn't a job, people need to stop making such comparisons. Academic scholarships require students to maintain a certain GPA, if they can't they lose it, it's same issue.

Getting pregnant in college is like getting an F in life.

Bahahaahahaha.

[StGabe]

99.99% is a ridiculously safe percentage of safety, and that's what a simple condom will afford you. Throw in some mild birth control for an additional 98% efficacy, and you've a greater chance of being hit by lightning than being pregnant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Effectiveness_ of_various_methods

A 2% failure rate over 12 months for condoms. That's nearly an 8% chance of failure over 4 years (given perfect use -- ha, right!). Yes, using a pill in conjunction helps a lot but no form of protection is 99.99% and you're still way out of lightning strike probability range. Given that you will occasionally miss a pill due to circumstance and/or that you may not always put the condom on right or notice if it comes off, accidental pregnancies do happen relatively frequently.

[Anders Hallin]

Anders makes it sound like it's normal behavior to run around and have unprotected sex willy nilly. I'm sorry, but where I come from, people who do that get the fucking clap and DESERVE it for being so fucking stupid.
I fully expect everyone to do their best to use birth control, but in a world where boyfriends sometimes sabotage their girlfriend's birth control (http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/09/26/pregnancy_and_abuse/index.html), I don't think it's unreasonable to be prepared for accidents or something more insidious. It should perhaps not be counted as an athletic scholarship after that point, but I think pulling the ground out from under someone because "shit happens" is stupid.

[Raife]

My point was that even the army, which is supposedly one of the highest demanding roles around, doesn't get all up on its high horse about pregnancy like people apparently think the NCAA should. I'm sure they could find something useful for her to do instead, sports related or not.

You need to stop making that comparison because it's not sounding any less stupid. Women who get pregnant in the military can usually keep doing the same job they were doing until they give birth. Even if they can't work their MOS, they can be temporarily reassigned at pretty much no cost to the military because there is always work to be done and people will be shifted around to pick up any slack.

College girls on athletic scholarships who get pregnant can't at all do what they were recruited to do, at least not for close to a year. Even then, they'd have to work their way back up to their old performance level. Why should it be the college's responsibility to suck up that time and cost? Is that fair to all of the students who are paying their own way?


You are correct, but it's not germane. The income level of the recipient of an athletic scholarship is irrelevant to the consideration process that awards them.

Yeah, I should have said it wasn't relevant to the recruiting and award process. I think it was the female athletes/useful life of a racehorse comment.


I wasn't the one making the comparison. Jason was and I agree it is rediculous.

I know, that was a tangential comment.

[Machfive]

I fully expect everyone to do their best to use birth control, but in a world where boyfriends sometimes sabotage their girlfriend's birth control (http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/09/26/pregnancy_and_abuse/index.html), I don't think it's unreasonable to be prepared for accidents or something more insidious. It should perhaps not be counted as an athletic scholarship after that point, but I think pulling the ground out from under someone because "shit happens" is stupid.

Actually, I've heard of more instances of women sabotaging their own birth control, but that's neither here nor their.

Try sabotaging depo, that should be interesting.

[Mark Crump]

We can even use the academic scholarship example. Lets say someone has a requirement to maintain a 3.0 for a scholarship. He or she has a kid (and by he, I mean he knocks someone up and does the responsible thing and cares for the kid after birth), and his or her GPA drops to a 2.6, and aid gets cut off?

Scholarships are competitive and based on fulfilling requirements, be they academic or physical. If you default on those requirements you run the risk of becoming losing those benefits.

[Sarkus]

Receiving a sports scholarship is not a right, so it doesn't have any inherent rights attached to it. Getting pregnant is not an "accidental event" event since it can be completely avoided through abstinence. Lot's of people do manage abstinence for long periods of time, even in their late teens/early twenties, so let's not act like it's a unstoppable biological imperative.

A pregnant college athelete does have options. Loans, other scholarships, family help, a job, welfare, etc. They may have to put their sports dreams on hold, but there's no reason why a woman couldn't take a year off to have the kid while still remaining in school, and then requalify for a scholarship later. If they are choosing to have an abortion, then that is not the NCAA or school's fault, that is the athelete's fault for not finding out about other options or rejecting them for whatever reason.

[Tankero]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahah.

That ass is in really high demand, after all. Athletic latinas? GodDamn~!

[Raife]

I fully expect everyone to do their best to use birth control, but in a world where boyfriends sometimes sabotage their girlfriend's birth control (http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/09/26/pregnancy_and_abuse/index.html), I don't think it's unreasonable to be prepared for accidents or something more insidious. It should perhaps not be counted as an athletic scholarship after that point, but I think pulling the ground out from under someone because "shit happens" is stupid.

Losing their scholarship is hardly having the ground pulled out from under them. Maybe pulling them back to the ground.

And sabotaged birth control? That's seriously where you're going now? Do you really want to argue that college-aged guys messing around with college girls WANT to get them pregnant? That's like worst nightmare territory.

[StGabe]

So what's wrong with this:

Given all that I think the students should sign the following contract: they are responsible for any pregnancy they incur (under penalty of losing their scholarship) unless they follow an accepted/regulated course of birth control throughout their career at the school.
Regulate to whatever extent you feel is fit (from just doctor's notes to making them take the pill in front of a trainer each day).

[Hawkeye Fierce]

So what's wrong with this:

"Given all that I think the students should sign the following contract: they are responsible for any pregnancy they incur (under penalty of losing their scholarship) unless they follow an accepted/regulated course of birth control throughout their career at the school."

Regulate to whatever extent you feel is fit (from just doctor's notes to making them take the pill in front of a trainer each day).

Uh, that's exactly what they shouldn't be doing. Lump pregnancy in with general medical inability to compete, fine. Single it out (and especially mandate birth control - yikes!) very much not ok.

[Flowers]

On the one side, I find forced abortions to be hi-larious. Yet on the other, I hate college athletes in general and I love it when bad things happen to jeopardize their ability to spend the next four years in sweatpants, pretending that they are actually getting an education.*

I guess that my position is this; Thank God the NCAA is preventing these girls from ruining their own lives as well as the lives of the dunderheads who knocked them up.

And for fucks sake, scholarships are worth like, what, a hundred grand? All I'm saying is, if someone offered me a hundred grand to stop a pregnancy, every staircase in Wisconsin would be greased slicker than Ted Stevens' palm.


*I lived in a building that was half college athletes on full-rides and half Sorority/Frat. So don't try to give me any shit about hardworking student athletes. I watched them work hard and sports, travel for sports, and party after sporting events. They weren't even able to attend classes with their athletic schedules, let alone study. For football, it's morning and evening practices Monday through thursday, and then morning on Friday, then they travel Friday Night, play an away game on Saturday, travel back Saturday evening and Night, have a meeting on Sunday. The basketball schedule is even worse, because those "students" are travelling across the country throughout the week. March Madness? Howsabout March Mid-terms? They were basically ringers for the University of Wisconsin - Madison.

[ElGuapo]

I think Sarkus has explained all that needs to be explained here and QFT.

[Jason McCullough]

I agree, I just don't see how that statement is applicable to this case.

On practical terms, I think the NCAA's scholarship system is basically straight up employment, which makes how to handle it pretty damn easy. It's a billion dollar business hiding behind fan loyalty and some bullshit about academics. I guess I'm in the minority on this though; what's important is screwing people who have something bad happen to them. Or at the very least, creating a set of creepy up-front requirements about behavior. Contracts requiring you to take birth control? What are you people smoking?

[ElGuapo]

So getting pregnant his having something bad happen to them? I'm not sure a lot of people agree with that. And if it is, how is it not 100% their choice again?

Aside from, you know, if they were raped.

Again, getting pregnant is not an accident, like falling down some stairs or getting hit by a car coming around a blind bend or breaking your ankle running or something. There is, you know an actual consensual act with specific deliberativeness that is even, shocker, somewhat hard to arrange and much, much effort is even applied by some people arranging it.

Oh noes his penis fell in my vagina and ejaculated! Accidentally!

[Anders Hallin]

Losing their scholarship is hardly having the ground pulled out from under them. Maybe pulling them back to the ground.
Losing their financial basis in the middle of the semester I would say is to have the groud pulled out from under them, especially in conjunction with becoming pregnant.


And sabotaged birth control? That's seriously where you're going now? Do you really want to argue that college-aged guys messing around with college girls WANT to get them pregnant? That's like worst nightmare territory.
The sabotaged birth control is only to point out that pregnancies can and do happen even when people use birth control, and unless you want to have witch/slut-hunt for every case, I'd say it should be treated accidental. Now, if you believe the "scholarship lost if athletic ability is lost for any reason"-line of thinking, then that doesn't matter, of course.

[Nick Walter]

On practical terms, I think the NCAA's scholarship system is basically straight up employment, which is why I don't see it as being ambiguous at all. It's a billion dollar business hiding behind fan loyalty and some bullshit about academics. I guess I'm in the minority on this though; what's important is screwing people who have something bad happen to them and creating a creepy set of up-front requirements. Contracts requiring you to take birth control? What are you people smoking?

I think you are conflating two wrongs which is why we disagree. I agree that it's shameful how in some cases the college athletes have become de facto employees of a huge business that masquerades as a student activity. I just think that wrong needs to be addressed separately and not accepted as status quo and then used as a basic assumption for discussion of this issue of how athletic scholarships for pregnant women should be handled.

Scholarships aren't a right, they are a special reward for extra excellence in some area or another. If the person can't achieve that excellence for whatever other reasons in their life, they shouldn't get the reward anymore.

[Raife]

Or at the very least, creating a set of creepy up-front requirements about behavior.

We've kind of established that any agreement should be for maintaining general fitness and performance levels rather than singling out pregnancy.


Contracts requiring you to take birth control? What are you people smoking?

You people? It was one guy having a DeepT moment.

[Anders Hallin]

Again, getting pregnant is not an accident, like falling down some stairs or getting hit by a car coming around a blind bend or breaking your ankle running or something. There is, you know an actual consensual act with specific deliberativeness that is even, shocker, somewhat hard to arrange and much, much effort is even applied by some people arranging it.

Oh noes his penis fell in my vagina and ejaculated! Accidentally!
No one needs to have sex. That is agreed. Is it fucking retarded to try to deny people the right to have sex? I would say so.

[Jason McCullough]

Some percentage of women are going to get pregnant by accident, the same way some percentage of people are going to have unexpected financial or medical calamities, as a couple of people have described in this thread regarding their college years.

The part I can't figure out is how your ethical assessment of this, especially if it happened to you, is telling everyone else sucks to be you. Have unexpected medical expenses? Tough shit, go bankrupt. Parents get sick? Tough shit, drop out of college. Get accidentally pregnant? It's your own fault, you should have lived like an asexual space alien rather than have sex like normal people.

Christ, what next? Eliminating car insurance because hey, you made the decision to drive in the first place?

Is there some reason I'm missing that society should insist that for success, you have to live like a monk and be lucky enough to have nothing bad happen to you?

Oh, and I think part of the reason the NCAA gets away with its "we're not really an employer" crap is that they wrap it up in the whole "Get lucky! Escape the barrio!" thing everyone loves so much for some reason, rather than trying to eliminate that as a problem in the first plcae.

[TheTrunkDr]

No one needs to have sex. That is agreed. Is it fucking retarded to try to deny people the right to have sex? I would say so.
Nobody's being denied anything. Here's the shocker, there are consequences to the choices people make. If you don't want to deal with those consequences, make the appropriate choice!

[Nick Walter]

The part I can't figure out is how you ethnically react to all this, especially if it happened to you, by telling everyone else sucks to be you. Have unexpected medical expenses? Tough shit, go bankrupt. Parents get sick? Tough shit, drop out of college. Get accidentally pregnant? It's your own fault, you should have lived like an asexual space alien rather than have sex like normal people.


Dude, what are you going on about? You've completely lost me. You seem to be trying to equate loss of scholarship with some real problems. Do you consider a scholarship a basic right that everybody should have? I consider it akin to delicious cake, a reward to be enjoyed by few but not a loss for those who don't have it. Thus the revocation of the delicious cake is in fact no hardship or burden and there's no ethical problems whatsoever.



Christ, what next? Eliminating car insurance because hey, you made the decision to drive in the first place?

Is there some reason I'm missing that society should insist that for success, you have to live like a monk and be lucky enough to have nothing bad happen to you?

Is there some reason you are insisting that rewards for excellence should be handed out like candy to those who haven't earned it? I'm all for helping out those who are down and out, but loss of a scholarship hardly qualifies as down and out.

[Raife]

No one needs to have sex. That is agreed. Is it fucking retarded to try to deny people the right to have sex? I would say so.

The part I can't figure out is how your ethical assessment of this, especially if it happened to you, is telling everyone else sucks to be you. Have unexpected medical expenses? Tough shit, go bankrupt. Parents get sick? Tough shit, drop out of college. Get accidentally pregnant? It's your own fault, you should have lived like an asexual space alien rather than have sex like normal people.

It's not about having sex, it's about taking responsibility for having sex. If you can't handle that responsibility, then no, you should not be having sex. The rest of the students shouldn't be subsidizing your sexcapades.

[magnet]

It's not about having sex, it's about taking responsibility for having sex.
Yeah, they need to quit their crying and take their abortion like a man!

[Sarkus]

Some percentage of women are going to get pregnant by accident, the same way some percentage of people are going to have unexpected financial or medical calamities, as a couple of people have described in this thread regarding their college years.

The part I can't figure out is how your ethical assessment of this, especially if it happened to you, is telling everyone else sucks to be you. Have unexpected medical expenses? Tough shit, go bankrupt. Parents get sick? Tough shit, drop out of college. Get accidentally pregnant? It's your own fault, you should have lived like an asexual space alien rather than have sex like normal people.


I don't think anyone is saying "sucks to be you." We're saying there are alternatives other than the person keeping their scholarship. Do you really think that someone offered a full-ride scholarship for sports should have that honored irregardless of what happens? College is not a contract, it's not a job, it's not a right. I went through college based on a lot of scholarships and loans, many of which I would have lost had my academic performance not been of a certain level. I accepted those conditions just like the athelete accepts conditions to a sports scholarship.

[Sidd_Budd]

What I find most interesting about this discussion is that I agree with the folks who say it's reasonable to take away the scholarship due to pregnancy, but I disagree strongly with the reasoning of most you who come to that decision.

To me, many of you folks are projecting a morally superior attitude where you feel it's perfectly appropriate for a college to withdraw a scholarship, because it gives people what they deserve. What's more, most examples are about how a woman is showing a failure of responsibility for a pregnancy. Where are the examples about athletes who get injured because they didn't wear a seat belt, or because they didn't use a stairwell's handhold when coming down a flight of stairs? I mean, we all know how many students run down stairs, but once they trip and fall they are all like, "Oh no, I was using the handhold." If you can't handle the responsibility of stairs, you should take the elevator -- many people do.

It seems the existing system has flaws, but I think the best solution would be one where there's a clearly articulated set of conditions for withdrawal of the scholarship, and a failure to meet those conditions is dealt with in a consistent, fair manner. I can't get on board with the desire of some posters to withdraw the scholarship for the purpose of punishing "irresponsible" behavior. I don't believe college scholarship committees should make those kinds of moral judgments. Incidentally, my experience as a psychologist is that those kinds of punishments rarely result in achieving the type of behavior change desired.

Apologies if I'm misinterpreting the intent behind some of the posts.

[Tankero]

*I lived in a building that was half college athletes on full-rides and half Sorority/Frat. So don't try to give me any shit about hardworking student athletes. I watched them work hard and sports, travel for sports, and party after sporting events. They weren't even able to attend classes with their athletic schedules, let alone study. For football, it's morning and evening practices Monday through thursday, and then morning on Friday, then they travel Friday Night, play an away game on Saturday, travel back Saturday evening and Night, have a meeting on Sunday. The basketball schedule is even worse, because those "students" are travelling across the country throughout the week. March Madness? Howsabout March Mid-terms? They were basically ringers for the University of Wisconsin - Madison.

That schedule is pretty much mandated by the college, isn't it? So the scholarship isn't granting the recipient an education, is it? This results in a racehorse type of lifestyle; focused on one thing by force of circumstance. Whatever jeopardizes that ONE aspect of your life ends up ruining everything else. This is tangential to the whole pregnancy/irresponsile sex thing, mind you.

[Raife]

I can't get on board with the desire of some posters to withdraw the scholarship for the purpose of punishing "irresponsible" behavior.

Who? Flowers? You're familiar with Flowers, right?

The rest of us aren't talking about punitive action for irresponsible behavior, we're talking about people maintaining themselves at a level where they can do what they were recruited to do for the school and earning the scholarship they were awarded.


Yeah, they need to quit their crying and take their abortion like a man!

Fuck off.

[Crispus]

So, after skimming the day's posts, it seems to me that the crux of the disagreement comes down to one basic question: is it reasonable to expect a female student athlete to abstain from sex while on scholarship?

One group of people says no (because sex is a normal, uncontrollable behavior), the other says yes (because it's voluntary, controllable behavior)). So, is sex controllable? I say yes, even for years, so I side with the latter group.

[Anders Hallin]

The rest of us aren't talking about punitive action for irresponsible behavior, we're talking about people maintaining themselves at a level where they can do what they were recruited to do for the school and earning the scholarship they were awarded.
By having slave-contracts by which young people are not allowed to love, and if they do, hey, slut deserved it, right?
Because really, if people were really saying "any reason you lose your ability to perform athletically, and you're out", then fine (though of course that's completely horrible, I would expect at the very least some basic insurance for at least the remainder of that semester or school year), but really, at least half the comment are about how they should have kept their legs shut. As usual.

[jfletch]

Except that one of the genders is being forced to kill a baby if it wants to stay in school.

Not true, they would just have to pay for it.

You know, like everyone else.

Colleges do rescind scholarships for many reasons, but they really don't with career ending injuries (though they did with my girlfriend's dad, that was like 30 or 40 years ago though).


By having slave-contracts by which young people are not allowed to love, and if they do, hey, slut deserved it, right?

Give me a break. Nobody is saying they can't have sex. They are just saying, don't get pregnant.

If they want to keep the kid, they have to deal with the consequences. Consequences pretty much ANYONE would have to deal with. That's just a fact, you know? Honestly... if I would've knocked up somebody in college my life would've gotten pretty fucked up. I definitely wouldn't have been able to stay in school.

It's not a punishment, it's just the way shit goes. Like it or not, they got a chance to go to a world-class educational institution not because they were smart or anything but because they could put a ball in a hoop. I can accept that (I cheered on my team all the same), but I have no problem with the college making the scholarships contingent on the continuing ability to put the ball in the hoop.

[magnet]

The rest of us aren't talking about punitive action for irresponsible behavior, we're talking about people maintaining themselves at a level where they can do what they were recruited to do for the school and earning the scholarship they were awarded.

Most employers in Western countries provide maternity leave to women for whom pregnancy interferes with job duties. Knowing that your job will still be there after pregnancy reduces the economic incentives that generally favor abortion.

Unfortunately, the NCAA is still suffering from the delusion that their players are students, rather than de facto employees who earn educational benefits instead of a salary. The main reason universities don't hire athletes like they hire the rest of their staff is that eager young athletes are much easier to exploit than cranky old professors. And the discrepancy in maternity policy is a perfect example.


Fuck off.
So irresponsible.

[Enidigm]

It seems the existing system has flaws, but I think the best solution would be one where there's a clearly articulated set of conditions for withdrawal of the scholarship, and a failure to meet those conditions is dealt with in a consistent, fair manner. I can't get on board with the desire of some posters to withdraw the scholarship for the purpose of punishing "irresponsible" behavior. I don't believe college scholarship committees should make those kinds of moral judgments. Incidentally, my experience as a psychologist is that those kinds of punishments rarely result in achieving the type of behavior change desired.


I'm not certain morality is the intent, but i think equality is. I think it is different sort of perspective, not so much punishing students for irresponsibility but rewarding those students that do not fail their obligations. I see this as from the perspective of obligation.

But I bring up morality because i think trangressing that obligation requires a reflection upon the circumstances that caused the student-athletes failure to fufill those obligations, and that does require an aspect of judgement. There are differences in behavior, and differences in outcomes. Ideally, each student would be judged on their actual behavior and not a set-in-stone, inflexible policy. But personally i do think that there is a difference between a young woman that fell in love, acted accordingly, and got pregnant accidentally, and a young woman that likes to get black-out plastered, giving body shots during wild parties, and gets accidentally pregnant. Ideally, the outcomes of these situations would be different. Acting responsibly and having an accident is different than acting irresponsibly and having an accident, imo.

I understand this is hard, but i don't see an alternative when rewards are based on performance. You can't say "Oh, good job Sally, you've worked dilligently and hard every day for months, hours every day, you've earned that scholarship.", and then say "oh, Sue, you got pregnant, how wonderful! Of course you don't need to participate anymore in athletics, here's your scholarship check! Don't worry about it". That's why i said, previously, there is some institutional gender bias here. Switch Sally and Sue with John and Joe, and make it a competitive law school program, and pregnancy with something else (like an athletic achievement for a student in an academic department!), and few would defend the offhand guy. It's ok, for ex., if my grades slip as an academic scholar just because i got on the basketball team and they went to the semi-finals? (Not that such a scenario ever happens :) )

I've known college students lose their scholarships because of their behavior off-campus, because it reflected poorly on their organization. If you catch a student insulting her coach in facebook (on the presumption that this remark is meant as casual and for her peers consumption alone) does that give the school the right to annul her scholarship? Whatever the answer, i know personally that it has already happened, as i related a some time before.

Now all my assumptions are predicated on the belief that the college would either want or feel compelled to disqualify a student-athlete for pregancy, but does not have a clear policy in place. I think you illustrated a fair policy above regarding a student-athletes ability in any event.

[Raife]

So, after skimming the day's posts, it seems to me that the crux of the disagreement comes down to one basic question: is it reasonable to expect a female student athlete to abstain from sex while on scholarship?

Where do people keep getting this? They can have all the sex they want, they just have to accept the responsibility for it.


By having slave-contracts by which young people are not allowed to love...

Oh for crying out loud. Life is not a romance novel.

[Jason McCullough]

.....is it reasonable to expect a female student athlete to abstain from sex while on scholarship?

I have a hard time saying that sentence without laughing.

So:

There's the "legal contract" angle which Nick and Sidd are using, which I can understand, but I think is immoral because the NCAA sure sounds like employment to me, and firing underpaid toilers because they get pregnant is wrong.

Then there's the the "it's your own fault if you get pregnant, responsibility something something, transgressing obligation, it's perfectly fine to expect someone to not have sex for years, etc." This sounds a lot like the rhetoric I find incomprehensible when applied to abortion, so whatever, I guess.

[magnet]

Where do people keep getting this? They can have all the sex they want, they just have to accept the responsibility for it.
Yet a pregnant athlete at Clemson has fewer options (http://www.clemson.edu/humanres/PandP/view_document.php?id=62) than the woman who is paid to throw her a towel.

[Crispus]

Then there's the the "it's your own fault if you get pregnant, responsibility something something, transgressing obligation, it's perfectly fine to expect someone to not have sex for years, etc." This sounds a lot like the rhetoric I find incomprehensible when applied to abortion, so whatever, I guess.

Well, as someone who's never found it difficult to abstain from sex in my life, even while in long-term relationships, I guess I fail to sympathize with people who lack that self-control.

[Wholly Schmidt]

By having slave-contracts by which young people are not allowed to love, and if they do, hey, slut deserved it, right?
Because really, if people were really saying "any reason you lose your ability to perform athletically, and you're out", then fine (though of course that's completely horrible, I would expect at the very least some basic insurance for at least the remainder of that semester or school year), but really, at least half the comment are about how they should have kept their legs shut. As usual.
Most of the comments about keeping their legs shut are in response to people pointing out birth control isn't fool proof.

There is a largely successful way to "be allowed to love" that students can engage in (sex with birth control), but there is risk involved. The student knows that (or should, it's their responsibility to), and because they know that they should weigh the reduced-but-ever-present possibility of a pregnancy against the constraints on their expression of love, make a decision, and deal with the consequences.

This would apply just as much to a married student*, it's not a morality thing at all.

*unless there are relevant differences in NCAA scholarships/contracts/regulations/whatever, I really don't know.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, as someone who's never found it difficult to abstain from sex in my life, even while in long-term relationships, I guess I fail to sympathize with people who lack that self-control.

Have you considered maybe that's a strange standard to expect for society in general? We're not talking about catholic priests here.

[Crispus]

Most of the comments about keeping their legs shut are in response to people pointing out birth control isn't fool proof.

Exactly. Sex is always a risk, and it seems a foolhardy risk to take when one's scholarship is at stake. Stupidity earns few rewards.

Using protection is the least that people in that position should do, and I applaud them for using it if they do, but it's still a bad idea.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Have you considered maybe that's a strange standard to expect for society in general? We're not talking about catholic priests here.
Strange or not being beside the point, it's not a standard we're expecting for society in general, it's a possible choice for mitigating risk we're expecting a gifted athelete to consider if they want to continue recieving payment they are entitled to only because they maintain athletic ability, through whatever sacrifices that may involve.

You don't get an athletic scholarship by living your life exactly like the next student and then just deciding to be good at sports. A difficult decision about nookie will not be the first time they've had to choose pursuing their athletic career at the expense of other options in life.

edit: Some snark in presentation removed.

[StGabe]

Strange or not being beside the point, it's not a standard we're expecting for society in general, it's a possible choice for mitigating risk we're expecting a gifted athelete to consider if they want to continue recieving payment they are entitled to only because they maintain athletic ability

Again, I think it's reasonable that the university takes on an accepted risk when they offer the scholoarship. Agreeing to dediate 4 years of your life to a program is quite a comittment. To come out of that after 2 years with nothing because your birth control failed is ridiculous. You already agreed to invest that portion of your life and did 2 years of it. I think the university should accept the risk.

And no, it's not obvious that someone can just pick up the pieces after losing a scholarship. Some schools are affordable enough that taking loans yourself would allow you to continue. Some are not. My wife maxed out the loans her school was willing to give her before she graduated and had to ask family to accept enough loans for her to continue. Fortunately they were willing.

That's why I proposed that female athletes, if pregancy is such a concern, merely be required to make a reasonable effort to prevent pregnancy. But then I don't think that someone who was in an auto accident should get their scholarship yanked either unless it was their fault. And like I alluded to earlier, I think all the school really needs to make this happen is a way out of that person taking up a scholarship slot for the team.

...

P.S. what's really ridiculous is that American Universities are so tough to pay for in the first place. Fix the bigger problem of unrealistic tuition fees and this wouldn't be an issue.

[Jason McCullough]

Wholly, I'm not seeing the logic in there that goes from the premises of "athletes obviously have to focus on different things than most people to succeed" and "not having sex makes it less likely that you'll get pregnant" to the conclusion "it's morally right for schools to take away your athletic scholarship for getting pregnant."

Crispus was discussing how reasonable it is to expect people not to have sex in general, then moving on to it then being stupid because he assumed that it's ok for schools to do this, which basically assumes the answer from the get-go.

[Sarkus]

There's the "legal contract" angle which Nick and Sidd are using, which I can understand, but I think is immoral because the NCAA sure sounds like employment to me, and firing underpaid toilers because they get pregnant is wrong.

I'm entirely in agreement with you that the system is a bunch of crap, but since they are classifying the players as students, they should have to abide by the same rules. If I get an academic scholarship, I have to abide by certain rules, mainly that I perform at a certain academic level. If I get a sports scholarship, I have to abide by certain rules, one of which is that I maintain a certain physical capability.

You still haven't answered the question of whether someone who accepts a full ride scholarship should keep that scholarship no matter what.


Then there's the the "it's your own fault if you get pregnant, responsibility something something, transgressing obligation, it's perfectly fine to expect someone to not have sex for years, etc." This sounds a lot like the rhetoric I find incomprehensible when applied to abortion, so whatever, I guess.

So who's fault is it if you get pregnant? Even if you are using all reasonable protection, you are still responsible for getting pregnant, aren't you? So, you are accepting a risk by having sex and if you get unlucky and get pregnant, you deal with the consequences. All anyone is saying is that absitnance is an option.

Edit: Besides, if you are ok with abortion none of this is an issue, per the OP's original comment. If you are opposed to abortion, then you should be more concerned with the risk of pregnancy.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Wholly, I'm not seeing the logic in there that goes from the premises of "athletes obviously have to focus on different things than most people to succeed" and "not having sex makes it less likely that you'll get pregnant" to the conclusion "it's morally right for schools to take away your athletic scholarship for getting pregnant."

Crispus was discussing how reasonable it is to expect people not to have sex in general, then moving on to it then being stupid because he assumed that it's ok for schools to do this, which basically assumes the answer from the get-go. Sorry, I probably shouldn't have jumped in between you and Crispus. Now I'm having a hard time parsing your first sentence so I'll bow out and stick to my earlier posts as far as my position in the argument goes unless you're asking specifically for a clarification of my remarks, in which case I need clarification on your request for clarification :)

[magnet]

Although not supported by good evidence, there at least exists a meme that a carefully timed pregnancy and abortion (http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/doping.asp) can improve athletic performance.

Just something to think about, if you find yourself advancing the argument that athletic ability takes priority over reproductive imperatives.

[Raife]

Yet a pregnant athlete at Clemson has fewer options (http://www.clemson.edu/humanres/PandP/view_document.php?id=62) than the woman who is paid to throw her a towel.

She has plenty of options, she'll just lose her free ride. I'll ask again, why should students paying tuition subsidize her if she's not doing what she's going to school for free for? Why should they for any athlete who can't perform? A scholarship isn't a support service, it's both a reward and an obligation.


Again, I think it's reasonable that the university takes on an accepted risk when they offer the scholoarship. Agreeing to dediate 4 years of your life to a program is quite a comittment. To come out of that after 2 years with nothing because your birth control failed is ridiculous. You already agreed to invest that portion of your life and did 2 years of it. I think the university should accept the risk.

Athletic scholarships aren't renewed because a student is no longer fit to compete all the time. It's pretty jarring for them, too.

[StGabe]

Athletic scholarships aren't renewed because a student is no longer fit to compete all the time. It's pretty jarring for them, too.

And I would say the same thing. If it's the athlete's fault, i.e. it is clear that they did not make a reasonable effort to remain competitive, then that's their fault and I'm fine with them losing the scholarship. Otherwise, it's part of the risk the University took when they signed them on and it seems absurd that they should lose their scholarship. The university shouldn't have to lose a scholarship if the person opts out of competing but they should still pay. There's more than enough money in NCAA div. 1 sports that it's really not that big of an expense.

[JeffL]

I'm kind of baffled here. For many people, going to college is about trying to find the cash or scholarships. If you don't make enough money, there are a scholarships, and if you don't make enough money AND you have worked hard and have high grades, there's a ton of money. I work with a lot of universities, and there are all manner of scholarships (fortunately, I got academic scholarships; unfortunately, I make too much for my kids to get any scholarships, but too little to be able to write the checks without a lot of scrambling and pain.)

When I was in school, I had an academic scholarship. But it was clear - if my grade point dropped below a certain level, I was back to paying for my own education. A couple of my best friends played on football scholarships. Don would do all kinds of risky things, played pickup basketball, rode a motorcycle, etc. Brett would avoid doing anything that raised his risk of getting hurt. And yeah, Don blew his knee out playing basketball on the weekend, and being a wide receiver, he lost his scholarship because he couldn't sprint. Brett went the whole way through on the scholarship.

This isn't, in my mind, any moral judgment. Have all the sex you like, with men, women, multiples thereof. But if you got a scholarship, and you got it over a lot of other women who were also great basketball players but you were judged to be better, and you can't play anymore, be it from a blown out knee, going blind due to diabetes, a mental problem, being thrown in jail, or being pregnant, you can't fulfill your end of the contract. So now you pay for your own school just like the women who didn't get the scholarship.

And for a weird/different take on all of this, my room-mate's girlfriend was on a full academic scholarship, got pregnant (not his, whole 'nuther story,) and was unable to take care of a baby full time and keep her physics grades up, and lost her scholarship. She stayed in school, it was just tough. Today (well, when I last talked to her about 3 years ago) she is the V.P. of R&D at a large company. FWIW.

[StGabe]

If I get an academic scholarship, I have to abide by certain rules, mainly that I perform at a certain academic level. If I get a sports scholarship, I have to abide by certain rules, one of which is that I maintain a certain physical capability.

There's a difference. It is implicit in the academic case that if you don't meet certain academic requirements that you literally are not putting forward much effort to perform at anywhere near your ability (cutoffs for scholarships really aren't that hard to hit for the people that qualify for them). I.e. there is a problem and you are directly responsible for it. In the latter case of having an accident that prevents you from performing sports you have done nothing wrong. If you are still able to perform your academic duties then I don't see why you should lose your scholarship (although it should be reclassified as non-athletic for the purposes of college athletic scholoarship requirements).

[Jason McCullough]

Jeff, I note you simultaneously referred to it as a "contract" and a "scholarship." :)

[Raife]

This isn't, in my mind, any moral judgment. Have all the sex you like, with men, women, multiples thereof. But if you got a scholarship, and you got it over a lot of other women who were also great basketball players but you were judged to be better, and you can't play anymore, be it from a blown out knee, going blind due to diabetes, a mental problem, being thrown in jail, or being pregnant, you can't fulfill your end of the contract. So now you pay for your own school just like the women who didn't get the scholarship.

You would deny them love, Jeff? You support the slave contracts that so harshly chain them?

You monster.

[StGabe]

My sister-in-law works in the sports department at a Pac-10 school. Even the crap teams there get millions of dollars. Putting in place a rule that says that you will get your scholarship money even if an accident (that is not your fault) occurs is just a no-brainer when it comes to common-decency.

[magnet]

I'll ask again, why should students paying tuition subsidize her if she's not doing what she's going to school for free for? Why should they for any athlete who can't perform? A scholarship isn't a support service, it's both a reward and an obligation.
I guess I find it ironic that students routinely subsidize pregnant faculty and staff, who also do not contribute to the university while they are on leave.

Your description of an athletic scholarship - as "a reward and an obligation" rather than a "support service" - sounds awfully close to what many of us would call "a job". As I can attest, many university faculty receive admission/tuition benefits if they want to enroll in courses or even earn another degree on campus. How would you objectively distinguish a student-athlete from a poorly compensated employee?

[Raife]

How would you objectively distinguish a student-athlete from a poorly compensated employee?

The poorly compensated employee wasn't recruited specifically to compete in athletics.

[Sidd_Budd]

There are differences in behavior, and differences in outcomes. Ideally, each student would be judged on their actual behavior and not a set-in-stone, inflexible policy. But personally i do think that there is a difference between a young woman that fell in love, acted accordingly, and got pregnant accidentally, and a young woman that likes to get black-out plastered, giving body shots during wild parties, and gets accidentally pregnant. Ideally, the outcomes of these situations would be different. Acting responsibly and having an accident is different than acting irresponsibly and having an accident, imo.
This is the crux of our disagreement; I believe that a well-crafted set of institutional guidelines should be fairly set-in-stone. A range of options can be stated to provide flexibility, but the whole range would be clearly outlined.

I also disagree that the two hypothetical pregnancy scenarios you outline should have a different institutional response. In my opinion, all a college athlete should be required to do is to say she's pregnant and will be unable to compete this season. The college should respond to that information the same way each time. If a college representative said, "We need to know more about the circumstances of your pregnancy before we make our decision," I'd encourage both women to respectfully say "Stay the fuck out of my personal life, and should you wish to pursue this line further, my attorney will be in contact with you."

Should the friends and families of these two women respond differently? You bet. I hope the party girl has people close to her who let her know that she's making poor decisions. IMO, decisions about many morals and personal choices are appropriately handled within one's close interpersonal circle. However, I want to limit powerful social institutions' (e.g., universities, corporations, churches, or political bureaus) ability to know about or limit people's private lives. The school expected these two women to compete, and both of them are no longer able to because of pregnancy. The university doesn't need to know any more.

If we have to choose between a clear policy that's somewhat inflexible, versus case-by-case decisions made by the subjective judgment of whoever's head coach at the time, I'd rather we erred on the side of inflexibility. Because I get chills when I read this snippet from the article in the original post:


University of Alabama women's head basketball coach Stephany Smith said Alabama does not currently have a written policy on pregnancy, but she doesn't necessarily see it as a negative thing.

"Having a policy in place does not mean it will be abided by," she said. "I don't need someone to tell me what's right and wrong in that kind of situation because I'm going to choose what's right."
Somewhat off topic: Could you imagine if someone like this -- who feels she doesn't need written policies because she's certain her judgment's always right -- were in a powerful government position? Like Governor, or a Senator, or who knows what?

Just think of the problems that could cause...

[Tankero]

Keep in mind that sports scholarships, if they don't lead to a professional career, leave very little for the athlete to fall back on. It's the nature of the beast, sure, but it is what it is.

[JeffL]

Jeff, I note you simultaneously referred to it as a "contract" and a "scholarship." :)

I think of it as both. For me, my scholarship was a contract - they agreed to pay my tuition and board due to the grades and ACT and SAT scores that I had. In return, I had to maintain a certain GPA. It didn't matter if I was sick or my dog died or whatever, if my GPA dropped below that level, I lost my scholarship.

I'm just not sure why a school should be obligated to continue an atheletic scholarship when the person getting it, for whatever reason, can no longer perform the sport on which the scholarship was based. If you got two years of free school you're two years ahead of most people who had to work at Dennys in their spare time to pay for their school.

[JeffL]

Keep in mind that sports scholarships, if they don't lead to a professional career, leave very little for the athlete to fall back on. It's the nature of the beast, sure, but it is what it is.

That's up to the athlete. Most athletes, by far the majority, are not successful professional athletes when they get out. I've known a lot of people who used their atheletic scholarship to fund a good education with a meaningful major and then got a good job when they graduated.

[magnet]

The poorly compensated employee wasn't recruited specifically to compete in athletics.
Are you implying that a competitive athletic program does not profit the university? Even after accounting for the obvious differences, I think that comparing the ticketing/advertising proceeds of the NCAA and the respective professional leagues would indicate that student-athletes are highly valuable to their university (additionally earning them the financial support of alumni).

But student-athlete compensation relative to their professional counterparts does not reflect this, which suggests they are being exploited.

[magnet]

And yeah, Don blew his knee out playing basketball on the weekend, and being a wide receiver, he lost his scholarship because he couldn't sprint.
Correct me if I am wrong, but most sports injuries are not career-ending. Do students routinely lose their scholarships if they are out for the season (e.g. with a stress fracture or broken toe)?

Is it reasonable to consider pregnancy a career-ending medical event?

[Wholly Schmidt]

Again, I think it's reasonable that the university takes on an accepted risk when they offer the scholoarship. And they certainly are. They're risking your health just by putting you into the game that you're being paid to play (sort of) in the first place.

Agreeing to dediate 4 years of your life to a program is quite a comittment. And I agree it is, but life's just not fair. Bad Things Happen. There are no guarantees. It would be nice if the NCAA said "You know what? We'd like to be more altruistic. We'll honor those scholarships even if Bad Things Happen." But that's what it would be, nice of them. Not expected of them, certainly not required of them. I don't disagree with your sentiment that it would be nice if things were other than they are, but where does that get us?

To come out of that after 2 years with nothing because your birth control failed is ridiculous.Depressing, unexpected, and devastating, sure. I'm not sure I buy "ridiculous." Here again, it would be nice if the NCAA decided to foot your bill anyway, but that would actually be ridiculous by most standards, certainly not expected or required of them.

You already agreed to invest that portion of your life and did 2 years of it. I think the university should accept the risk. Why? Because it is sad? A for effort?

And no, it's not obvious that someone can just pick up the pieces after losing a scholarship. Some schools are affordable enough that taking loans yourself would allow you to continue. Some are not. My wife maxed out the loans her school was willing to give her before she graduated and had to ask family to accept enough loans for her to continue. Fortunately they were willing. I don't disagree that it can be devastating. There are people who can switch gears, take out loans, and turn things around, and there are people who are going to be out of college with nothing to show for it but two years of credit in courses for a degree they weren't planning on seriously using. But to be quite cold about it, that's just not the NCAA's problem. Maybe the school itself wants to start up a scholarship fund for just such ex-atheletes, I'm sure that would applauded, but it's not even the school's problem. If you can't pay for school, it's not the school's fault. And if you can't play for the scholarship any more, it's not the NCAA's fault (in any example we're talking about here), so even if it's not your fault, even if it's no one's fault, that certainly doesn't leave the NCAA with some obligation.

That's why I proposed that female athletes, if pregancy is such a concern, merely be required to make a reasonable effort to prevent pregnancy. But then I don't think that someone who was in an auto accident should get their scholarship yanked either unless it was their fault. And like I alluded to earlier, I think all the school really needs to make this happen is a way out of that person taking up a scholarship slot for the team. If you can come up with a way for this to work, super. I mean, getting out of the scholarship slot for the team is probably no problem, but I just can't imagine where this new scholarship money is going to come from without someone else footing the bill. If someone wants to foot that bill, great. If tuition goes up to foot that bill, we've just contributed to the bigger issue you're about to mention:

P.S. what's really ridiculous is that American Universities are so tough to pay for in the first place. Fix the bigger problem of unrealistic tuition fees and this wouldn't be an issue.

[JeffL]

Correct me if I am wrong, but most sports injuries are not career-ending. Do students routinely lose their scholarships if they are out for the season (e.g. with a stress fracture or broken toe)?

Is it reasonable to consider pregnancy a career-ending medical event?

No, that is why I used the blown knee - that was debilitating enough that he was very unlikely to come back.

Where I will agree is if there is a difference in how a pregnancy is treated and an injury. If a school routinely allows an athlete to miss a season due to an injury and keep their scholarship as long as they are able to perform the next season, and they don't provide a woman the same opportunity, I'll jump into the "not fair" camp.

[Raife]

But student-athlete compensation relative to their professional counterparts does not reflect this, which suggests they are being exploited.

Let us know how that collegiate athlete exploitation exposure website goes. Be sure to use a lot a Flash and spinning icons.

[Jason McCullough]

I think of it as both. For me, my scholarship was a contract - they agreed to pay my tuition and board due to the grades and ACT and SAT scores that I had. In return, I had to maintain a certain GPA. It didn't matter if I was sick or my dog died or whatever, if my GPA dropped below that level, I lost my scholarship.

I'm just not sure why a school should be obligated to continue an atheletic scholarship when the person getting it, for whatever reason, can no longer perform the sport on which the scholarship was based. If you got two years of free school you're two years ahead of most people who had to work at Dennys in their spare time to pay for their school.

If it's a contract to perform a service, then it's employment, right? f it's employment, then it's covered by employment law, and at the very least you're going to have a pitched legal battle trying to fire someone solely for being pregnant and unable to perform X duties because of it. See here (http://www.eeoc.gov/types/pregnancy.html): you're supposed to treat them as any other "temporarily disabled" employee, looks like. In my opinion that doesn't go far enough, unlike European and Canadian law, but whatever.

The reason it's illegal is that pregnancy is a special condition in tons of ways. If you think that's reasonable, I think it's a trivial case to expand it out to NCAA sports - unlike all other scholarships, the college is pretty transparently in a business of making piles of money off these people.

[Mark Crump]

If it's a contract to perform a service, then it's employment, right? f it's employment, then it's covered by employment law, and at the very least you're going to have a pitched legal battle trying to fire someone solely for being pregnant and unable to perform X duties because of it.


False. I'm under contract for some stuff @ AOL and it specifies I'm not an employee. I contracted a guy to change my garage doors, and he doesn't work for me and I have no control over him as an "employer."

[Jason McCullough]

That's because you're an independent contracter, which has a somewhat different set of laws. Student athletes sure look like employees to me.

[Wholly Schmidt]

My sister-in-law works in the sports department at a Pac-10 school. Even the crap teams there get millions of dollars. Putting in place a rule that says that you will get your scholarship money even if an accident (that is not your fault) occurs is just a no-brainer when it comes to common-decency.
It's not a no-brainer. If you take up skydiving and you're a very safe skydiver, you're still jumping out of airplanes, and I imagine the athletic department would frown on that. Are their hands tied, as long as the athlete wasn't jumping out of airplanes drunk or something? Is there no point at which you can say "You're in this situation because you knowingly engaged in risky (and I'm not saying illegal or immoral or anything) behavior, and the consequences are therefore yours to live with"?

This isn't even about pregnancy at this point, it's about the problem of trying to draw lines through the range of circumstances that could land you unfit to play, deciding when, in light of all that's riding on your scholarship, you should've decided to avoid certain activities, and when it is not reasonable for you to be expected to avoid certain activities, and determining from that whether you remain on some kind of scholarship.

So you either remove absolutely all responsibility from the student for remaining fit to play, or you've got a complete mess of trying to assign blame.

Or, we go with a third option: Can you still play? Excellent, here's your scholarship.

[Jason McCullough]

Can they ban you from riding in cars? Lots of people get in wrecks that cause physical injury.

If you're actually discussing this line of reasoning seriously, it sure sounds like employment.

[Wholly Schmidt]

That's because you're an independent contracter, which has a somewhat different set of laws. Student athletes sure look like employees to me.
Can you elaborate on the criteria that make student athletes more like employees than contract workers, or wherever we are in this analogy? Honestly curious. If, as Mark points out, there is a difference between a contracted worker and a regular employee, what are those differences and how do the student athletes compare. I'm honestly pretty ignorant on contract workers, so Mark could likely answer that part of my question just as well.

[magnet]

Where I will agree is if there is a difference in how a pregnancy is treated and an injury. If a school routinely allows an athlete to miss a season due to an injury and keep their scholarship as long as they are able to perform the next season, and they don't provide a woman the same opportunity, I'll jump into the "not fair" camp.

Well, for what it's worth several men on the basketball team at the University of Memphis (from the OP) have missed a season due to injury but remained on the team.



See here: you're supposed to treat them as any other "temporarily disabled" employee, looks like. In my opinion that doesn't go far enough, unlike European and Canadian law, but whatever.

Also, from the OP:


NCAA member colleges renew athletic scholarships annually and have wide latitude in deciding which ones not to renew, but they also must abide by Title IX.

Title IX states that institutions receiving federal funds cannot discriminate against any person on the basis of sex, and the law also mandates that those institutions "shall not exclude any student from its education program or activity ... on the basis of such student's pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy or recovery therefrom."


Let us know how that collegiate athlete exploitation exposure website goes.

Looks like things are moving forward:


No final decision has been reported, but officials could actually be working toward a possible amendment to the NCAA bylaws that would likely prevent an athlete from losing her scholarship if she became pregnant, according to reports after the conference.

[Jason McCullough]

Can you elaborate on the criteria that make student athletes more like employees than contract workers, or wherever we are in this analogy? Honestly curious. If, as Mark points out, there is a difference between a contracted worker and a regular employee, what are those differences and how do the student athletes compare. I'm honestly pretty ignorant on contract workers, so Mark could likely answer that part of my question just as well.

I'm not an expert in the field, but there's a lot of info online (http://jobsearchtech.about.com/od/laborlaws/l/aa121800.htm). I'd summarize it as "is the company your client that you produce stuff for, without being told when, where, or how? If not, you're an employee." Poking around online the varying sports leagues seem to be all over the place on the legal treatment, but the level of "teamness" and whether they're directly working for just one org seems important; see CA (http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/ut4154.htm) labor law here for example.


To differentiate between athletes who are employees and those considered to be independent contractors, the Board, in Tax Decision 2363, said:

"Among the sports in which the participating athletes have been considered to be employees are football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. Among those in which they have been considered not to be employees are golf, boxing, wrestling, skating, and midget auto racing.

In the first group of cases above, there was generally an owner, manager, trainer, coach, or captain who had the right to direct and control the details of the player's activity. In contrast, in the second group of cases, the sport was generally one that involved athletic competition between individuals rather than teams."

[Sarkus]

As far as I know, atheletes only retain their scholarships if injured when the injury is related to the sport. Getting in a car accident and breaking your leg means you lose your scholarship. If that is not the case, then I withdraw any objections as well. Pregnancy should be considered the equivalent to an off the field/court injury.

The best analogy on this issue is the story provided by Jeff Lackey about the girl who got pregnant and lost her academic scholarships due to an inability to maintain her grades. Just like an athelete who loses her scholarship due to an inability to actually play the sport.

[Mark Crump]

Can you elaborate on the criteria that make student athletes more like employees than contract workers, or wherever we are in this analogy? Honestly curious. If, as Mark points out, there is a difference between a contracted worker and a regular employee, what are those differences and how do the student athletes compare. I'm honestly pretty ignorant on contract workers, so Mark could likely answer that part of my question just as well.


The easiest way to sort it is by taxes. If you get a w-2, you're an employee. If you get a 1099, you're a contractor. If you get neither, you're neither.

I'm an employee of my day job. I get a w-2 from them every year and I can say, "I work at suchandsuch company."

I'm an independent contractor for Future Networks and AOL. I get a 1099 from them every year. I can say "I've written for PC Gamer," but I cannot say "I'm from PC Gamer*"

I don't know how taxes on scholarships work, but I don't see how they would be at all considered employees or contractors. They are told if they make the team, they get a "x" amount of scholarship money. I also think if the school is floating the scholarship as opposed to a 3rd party, the money is in a murky gray area where it might not be "money" that's on the books.


* the obvious exception being when PCG has asked me to represent them.

[mouselock]

In the latter case of having an accident that prevents you from performing sports you have done nothing wrong.


I swear, I had no idea that rock-climbing while drunk was risky behavior!

So I can only assume that you're all in favor of someone getting, say, a physics scholarship and maintaining that scholarship if they fail General Physics 3 (Quantum in most places)? I mean, they tried as hard as they could, they did nothing wrong, why should they be punished.

You're completely cracked. The last fucking thing we need is more outs for athletes in an environment that's ostensibly about academics in the first place.

[Lizard_King]

...to each according to their need.

[mouselock]

I guess I find it ironic that students routinely subsidize pregnant faculty and staff, who also do not contribute to the university while they are on leave.

Haven't known much pregnant faculty or staff, have you? Faculty specifically can still be highly productive in terms of research while on leave.

Also, standard maternity leave is roughly 6-8 weeks paid time. You'll note this amount of leave would still leave a student athlete with zero complications approximately 6 months of non-performance time. (Figure she could maybe keep up without undue risk to herself or the baby for 3 months, there's another 6 months of term and a month to two after term before she'd be back in full athletic trim and able to perform as previously.)



As I can attest, many university faculty receive admission/tuition benefits if they want to enroll in courses or even earn another degree on campus. How would you objectively distinguish a student-athlete from a poorly compensated employee?

Primary purpose? The primary purpose of a student athlete is to be a student. It may be completely twisted around de facto, but prima facie a student athlete must maintain a viable GPA to compete. They can rescind themselves from being an athlete while retaining student status, but not vice versa. Compare that to your faculty/staff example, where the two are mutually exclusive: The faculty may remain faculty without ever being a student (and in fact in almost all cases is never actually considered a student for reporting purposes). The faculty could, I suppose, become a student without being faculty as well. One is not dependant upon another.

Also, most schools I know (including the one I work at) don't provide nearly the level of price reduction for faculty as they do for full scholarship students.

[Wholly Schmidt]

...to each according to their need.
What?

[mouselock]

If it's a contract to perform a service, then it's employment, right?

Not necessarily, as the uncertain state of TA's across the country trying to unionize will reflect. (When I was in grad school, on an RA, I could not join the union when it finally came to the TA's. I don't really recall whether the TA's successfully got the court to declare themselves as laborers instead of students or not. I believe the school simply acquiesced instead. But either way, it's still murky water as to what does/does not constitute employment in a school environment. I suspect if TA's are ever universally declared employees above students that athletes should follow suit, however.)

[StGabe]

So I can only assume that you're all in favor of someone getting, say, a physics scholarship and maintaining that scholarship if they fail General Physics 3 (Quantum in most places)? I mean, they tried as hard as they could, they did nothing wrong, why should they be punished.

It's not an out. It's a "yes, you can continue studying if you want". If they're there just for sports they won't stay anyway. If they're the morons you seem to be implying, they won't be passing their classes anyway.

People don't get physics scholarships who can't pass physics courses. In fact people don't get really get physics scholarships for undergrad at all, so it's pretty stupid example. If the student or athlete fucks things up and doesn't study or practice enough to fulfill their potential then I'm fine with kicking them. If an athlete is engaging in reckless activity I think it's within reason for the school to let them know that they'll lose their scholarship in the event of an accident. If the student gets hit by a drunk driver I think it's ridiculously shitty for the school, who probably has millions pouring into their sports program, not to cut the kid a break and let them finish the program that they've already comitted a bit chunk of their life to.

[magnet]

Faculty specifically can still be highly productive in terms of research while on leave.
They can be, but it's not required. If they are unproductive by choice or circumstance of their research, that does not preclude their leave. And non-faculty staff, who generally outnumber faculty, are typically not productive either.


Also, standard maternity leave is roughly 6-8 weeks paid time.
Actually, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 requires large employers to provide 12 weeks of (unpaid) leave.

And injured athletes who expect to recover can remain on indefinite leave (http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/colleges/um/story/258592.html) (No, Sarkus, they do not necessarily lose their scholarship when an injury occurs off the field.)


Primary purpose? The primary purpose of a student athlete is to be a student.
Ironically, that means the NCAA may not be in compliance with title IX, which forbids discrimination against pregnant students (see above). Which means they will likely enact a new policy in which the university will be stuck with the tuition bill if cases like the OP arise again. How deliciously unfair.


Also, most schools I know (including the one I work at) don't provide nearly the level of price reduction for faculty as they do for full scholarship students.
Both of the last two universities I've worked at provide full in-house tuition for faculty. Which I suppose proves the value of anecdotal evidence.


So I can only assume that you're all in favor of someone getting, say, a physics scholarship and maintaining that scholarship if they fail General Physics 3 (Quantum in most places)? I mean, they tried as hard as they could, they did nothing wrong, why should they be punished.
For the most part, universities will provide for academic leave when students are temporarily unable to meet academic demands (e.g. death in the family, illness, and yes even pregnancy). And financial aid and scholarships generally are not revoked if a student takes temporary leave of absence.

[StGabe]

By the way, has anyone stopped to think about how stupid this scenario is to begin with? We're basically saying that some of the best college athletes in the country (because really only top-tier programs even give out lots of full-rides for athletics, and even they are limited to giving only a few per team) are that interested in cheating the system out of something they've already earned? I'm sure there is someone out there stupid enough to do that but it's hardly the epidemic you guys seem to be making it out to be. Maybe, just maybe, a girl or two would get a free tuition out of this (although I mean come on, they're that stupid and yet they care about going to college?) but is that really such a travesty that it requires getting girls to sign these ultimately quite scuzzy contracts?


This isn't even about pregnancy at this point, it's about the problem of trying to draw lines through the range of circumstances that could land you unfit to play, deciding when, in light of all that's riding on your scholarship, you should've decided to avoid certain activities, and when it is not reasonable for you to be expected to avoid certain activities, and determining from that whether you remain on some kind of scholarship.
Except that you can make it more clearcut than that. If you insist on having a policy like this you can at least give an out to any athlete that's willing to go through all the crap required to provably take regular birth control. I know I'd rather have to go take a pill in front of a nurse at the health clinic every day than have to worry in the back of my mind that I'd get stupidly unlucky and lose the biggest opportunity in my life.

Similarly you can outline to your athletes the sorts of activities that can cost them their scholarship if they result in an injury that renders them unable to play. Compared to prosecuting quite a number of rape cases per year this really isn't that tricky.

[StGabe]

The best analogy on this issue is the story provided by Jeff Lackey about the girl who got pregnant and lost her academic scholarships due to an inability to maintain her grades. Just like an athelete who loses her scholarship due to an inability to actually play the sport.

In such a case it is in fact pretty likely that the school would work something out with the student anyway. Schools don't like to lose students, especially good ones. They've already invested money in her and it's bad for their stats if she doesn't graduate. I've actually known a number of students with scholarships got pregnant. They either trucked on or they took a reduced course load while they got things in gear.

It's not like if your GPA dips below the minimum they just instantly kick you out. Schools are neither that stupid nor that heartless. If her grades dipped she'd be put on probation and she'd get to talk to her advisor, the school, etc., to sort out how best to get herself back on track.

If the school tried to be accomodating to all this and she still couldn't make it then really it's clear that she doesn't need to be at school anyway.

[Bill Dungsroman]

http://media.www.cw.ua.edu/media/storage/paper959/news/2007/10/29/Sports/Female.Athletes.Sometimes.Forced.Into.Heartbreakin g.Decisions-3061182.shtml

Wow. This is an issue I'd never thought about. Apparently 17-8 year old girls are signing "releases" saying they are OK with losing scholarships if they ever get pregnant.
Why not? If a guy - or girl - athlete doesn't work to stay in playable physical condition through diet and exercise (other demanding, restrictive off-field behaviors) the same thing can happen. Is it sexist? As long as only women can get pregnant, sure it is. College sports can be big money and the success of a given team can decide a coach's job.

[Aeon221]

Not true, they would just have to pay for it.

You know, like everyone else.

Colleges do rescind scholarships for many reasons, but they really don't with career ending injuries (though they did with my girlfriend's dad, that was like 30 or 40 years ago though).


Because everyone can afford forty grand a year at the drop of a hat. And loans are real easy to get as a college student with no income and a new kid. Yeah, they just pop those loans out like crack babies!

Here's a thought. Just a wee one. Maybe, just maybe, rather than being kicked to the curb by her school, the girl should get some assistance for her lil' accident.

And now for a legitimate question: Mawwige. What happenes to a female athlete at the professional level when she gets married and starts haulin' some extra human?

[JeffL]

That's because you're an independent contracter, which has a somewhat different set of laws. Student athletes sure look like employees to me.

I know where you're trying to go with this: they provide a free education in return for your playing for their team, thus you are an employee. That has actually been argued in court, though I cannot find the case, and the argument was thrown out in a very clean and logical manner (I'll try to find it.)

Basically, just because someone gives you something in return for something does not make you an employee. I was audited by the IRS (a HORRIBLE experience that soured me on the IRS forever) when I was a grad student, them saying I owed taxes on the money the school was giving me, that it was remuneration for services rendered. For various legal reasons, they were wrong - you don't automatically qualify as an employee just because someone gives you something for something. (By the way, by your definition everyone with a scholarship would owe taxes on the value of that scholarship.)

[JeffL]

Because everyone can afford forty grand a year at the drop of a hat. And loans are real easy to get as a college student with no income and a new kid. Yeah, they just pop those loans out like crack babies!

Here's a thought. Just a wee one. Maybe, just maybe, rather than being kicked to the curb by her school, the girl should get some assistance for her lil' accident.

And now for a legitimate question: Mawwige. What happenes to a female athlete at the professional level when she gets married and starts haulin' some extra human?

Actually, student loans are incredibly easy to get. Almost too easy - you don't have to pay anything until you get out, then you get a long time to pay them back. Just about any kid can go to Sallie Mae, as one example, and there are many, and sign up and get a loan for the full amount of room, board, tuition, etc. and get it in about 2 -3 weeks. One of my kids in college (I have two) did that for one year when we were really tight and between jobs. I was amazed at how simple it was (and it is in his name, not mine.)

Like I said, it is almost too easy. I had a guy working for me in my previous job who owed over $100K in student loans. I asked him why in the hell he took out so much, rather than get a part time job, etc. like most students do, and he said he didnt' want to lose his free time in college (he liked to have fun.)

[shift6]

P.S. what's really ridiculous is that American Universities are so tough to pay for in the first place. Fix the bigger problem of unrealistic tuition fees and this wouldn't be an issue.
and

Because everyone can afford forty grand a year at the drop of a hat.
I agree they can't pay $40,000 at the drop of a hat. Fortunately, they don't need to. According to this (http://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/thinkcollege/early/students/edlite-college-costs.html) (Dept of Ed., 2002), the average tuition for a state resident to attend an in-state college is $10,000 if you include room and board. I don't know anyone who can't get a school loan for $10K, especially a single mother.

Will the out-of-state student who got into Harvard on a full-ride for track and field be able to get enough loans if her scholarship is revoked? Probably not. Should she have considered this when engaging in risy behavior? Probably.

Interestingly, that table shows that even private schools average under $24,000 per year nationwide (the highest state was Massachusetts with an average of $32,000 per year), which is just over half of your $40K example.

Interestingly part deux, the table shows that the average 2-year college only costs about $1,500 per year in tuition. It seems to me if someone throws away their scholarship through a decision made in their own free will (be it pregnancy, poor grades, embarassing the school with a spread in Playboy, etc), there are plenty of other affordable options if they really do want to go.

[Elton]

Will the out-of-state student who got into Harvard on a full-ride for track and field be able to get enough loans if her scholarship is revoked?

Exceedingly minor nitpick: The Ivy League schools don't give out athletic scholarships. I agree with the point of your post though.

[shift6]

You're just being contrary!

[Aeon221]

Actually, student loans are incredibly easy to get. Almost too easy - you don't have to pay anything until you get out, then you get a long time to pay them back. Just about any kid can go to Sallie Mae, as one example, and there are many, and sign up and get a loan for the full amount of room, board, tuition, etc. and get it in about 2 -3 weeks. One of my kids in college (I have two) did that for one year when we were really tight and between jobs. I was amazed at how simple it was (and it is in his name, not mine.)

Like I said, it is almost too easy. I had a guy working for me in my previous job who owed over $100K in student loans. I asked him why in the hell he took out so much, rather than get a part time job, etc. like most students do, and he said he didnt' want to lose his free time in college (he liked to have fun.)

Funny, when I was applying for them last year it didn't seem so danged straightforward.

[Lizard_King]

Here's a thought. Just a wee one. Maybe, just maybe, rather than being kicked to the curb by her school, the girl should get some assistance for her lil' accident.
Why? Schools already provide a great deal of medical care and the like through student health. The issue is what a scholarship is allowed to screen for, and you seem to think pregnancy is excluded from the list of things that legitimately disqualify a candidate simply because it is an exclusively female condition. Stop being genderist.


And now for a legitimate question: Mawwige. What happenes to a female athlete at the professional level when she gets married and starts haulin' some extra human?
By what definition is that a legitimate question? From your phrasing to the context, what makes you think that question is going to shed any light on this issue?

Funny, when I was applying for them last year it didn't seem so danged straightforward.
Once again, where are you going with this?

[magnet]

Why not? If a guy - or girl - athlete doesn't work to stay in playable physical condition through diet and exercise (other demanding, restrictive off-field behaviors) the same thing can happen.
As noted above, athletes do not generally lose their scholarships when they are temporarily unable to compete (e.g. out-for-season due to injury).

[JeffL]

Funny, when I was applying for them last year it didn't seem so danged straightforward.

Why not? I watched my son fill out the application online, took him about 10 minutes, then fax them some things like his drivers license, and within 4 days he was notified he was approved, at which point he had to fax them proof of being an active student, etc.

[Nick Walter]

Jeff, you are showing your age. You must remember that applying for student loans seems horribly and cruelly onerous to kids who've never had to get a mortgage.

[Mark Crump]

Getting my student loan recently was easy.

1- Fill Out FAFSA
2- Fill out form at school.

The "hard" part was I got selected for verification twice so I had to send a lot of forms over.

A friend of mine who recently declared bankruptcy even got a student loan.

[Jason McCullough]

I know where you're trying to go with this: they provide a free education in return for your playing for their team, thus you are an employee. That has actually been argued in court, though I cannot find the case, and the argument was thrown out in a very clean and logical manner (I'll try to find it.)

Basically, just because someone gives you something in return for something does not make you an employee. I was audited by the IRS (a HORRIBLE experience that soured me on the IRS forever) when I was a grad student, them saying I owed taxes on the money the school was giving me, that it was remuneration for services rendered. For various legal reasons, they were wrong - you don't automatically qualify as an employee just because someone gives you something for something. (By the way, by your definition everyone with a scholarship would owe taxes on the value of that scholarship.)

I know it was legally rejected, but I still think it's bonkers. It's not the exchange of value that convinces me - it's that you have to do X for the school, and doing X makes the school a pile of money. I'm not a lawyer, though, so what do I know. Like teaching assistants, which are also pretty clearly low-wage exploited employees by any reasonable definition.

[Matthew Gallant]

As a side note, you are not allowed to have or father babies while at West Point or any of the lesser service academies.

[TheTrunkDr]

I know it was legally rejected, but I still think it's bonkers. It's not the exchange of value that convinces me - it's that you have to do X for the school, and doing X makes the school a pile of money. I'm not a lawyer, though, so what do I know. Like teaching assistants, which are also pretty clearly low-wage exploited employees by any reasonable definition.
Well doing something that makes someone else money also doesn't make you an employee.

[Sidd_Budd]

Like teaching assistants, which are also pretty clearly low-wage exploited employees by any reasonable definition.
Speaking as a former teaching assistant, I really disagree with this interpretation.

Low-wage -- sure. Exploited? Come on -- most grad students get full tuition waivers, and access to low cost health insurance, if they TA for a certain number of classes each semester. In addition, most report the experience on their curriculum vitae, which serves to enhance future career goals. Some of them even enjoy teaching.

In my experience, TAs are more like business internships or professional apprenticeships than personal exploitation.

Now adjunct instructors who aren't students at the university at which they teach? We're...err, I mean...they're.. exploited. Intellectual migrant workers was the term I heard a few years ago on NPR.

[Lizard_King]

Speaking as a former teaching assistant, I really disagree with this interpretation.
Wrong!

The teaching assistants have nothing but their chains to lose. They have a world to win, and McCullough will lead them to it.

[Jason McCullough]

In my experience, TAs are more like business internships or professional apprenticeships than personal exploitation.

Hmm, ok. I don't know all that much about it, I've just heard a lot of horror stories about nightmarish workloads and a tiny chance of ever converting it to an actual tenure track position.


As a side note, you are not allowed to have or father babies while at West Point or any of the lesser service academies.

Wow. This articles talks like kids (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988454,00.html) don't, but marriage does?

[mouselock]

People don't get physics scholarships who can't pass physics courses. In fact people don't get really get physics scholarships for undergrad at all, so it's pretty stupid example.

People don't get athletics scholarships who can't perform athletically, either. And yes, while specific subject scholarships at the undergraduate level are indeed rare, they're not non-existant. It's a contrived example, because your arguments are rediculously contrived as well.


If the student gets hit by a drunk driver I think it's ridiculously shitty for the school, who probably has millions pouring into their sports program, not to cut the kid a break and let them finish the program that they've already comitted a bit chunk of their life to.

What if they get hit by a drunk driver because they, themselves, were drunk and wandered out into the middle of the street due to their inebriated state? Do they get kicked out if they wander across a busy intersection while drunk and get hit by a sober driver? You're back to Sidd Budd's (generally excellent) point about having to somehow judge justification rather than net outcome, which is a far worse place for schools to be.

[mouselock]

I know it was legally rejected, but I still think it's bonkers. It's not the exchange of value that convinces me - it's that you have to do X for the school, and doing X makes the school a pile of money.

So you're only an employee if it makes the school a pile of money? People on the bizarre athletic scholarships (bowling, etc..) or at schools that never really attain the big leagues (track & field a lot of places) wouldn't be considered employees because the school doesn't make a lot of money off them? (Hell, I'm betting track & field athletes don't make the schools a ton of money, even in the big schools).

I get where you're coming from, but you need a much firmer definition than what you're trying to go by.


Like teaching assistants, which are also pretty clearly low-wage exploited employees by any reasonable definition.

That depends, really. TA's don't make a huge salary, but they get the additional "wage equivalent benefits" of a free ride to school. Depending on the school that can put the TA's way up there in terms of their equivalent earnings. Seems if you're going to consider TA's to be a job (and treated as such) then you'd have to include the value of their tuition in their payment as well. Something tells me that TA's getting a $2k/year raise by being considered employees would be pretty well offset by the additional tax burden on $20k-ish/year in tuition and fees that suddenly become taxable.

(As an out of state RA I believe my tuition/fees compensation was roughly $14k/year. On top of that my salary was another $18k-ish. Would have royally sucked to lose a bigger chunk of that $18k to FICA/Medicare/Income tax if I'd been just considered a regular employee.)

[Mandrel]

So you're only an employee if it makes the school a pile of money? People on the bizarre athletic scholarships (bowling, etc..) or at schools that never really attain the big leagues (track & field a lot of places) wouldn't be considered employees because the school doesn't make a lot of money off them? (Hell, I'm betting track & field athletes don't make the schools a ton of money, even in the big schools).


Many schools, the athletic department is completely independent of the academic departments (are completely self funded from booster donations and conference monetary payouts.). Some of the smaller schools, this isn't possible though. For a large majority of schools the only sports that make money are Football and Men's Basketball (with some exceptions like Hockey at some of the big time Hockey schools), and those fund ALL of the other sports.

[Bill Dungsroman]

As noted above, athletes do not generally lose their scholarships when they are temporarily unable to compete (e.g. out-for-season due to injury).
Due to injuries suffered while training or in competition, most definitely. Injuries incurred outside that realm - like say, from a car crash due to DUI or or the like - not so much. You can most certainly lose your scholarship if you injure yourself through off-field carelessness, and I'm sorry to say, but a college athlete under scholarship getting pregnant qualifies as impairment of ability to perform incurred through off-field carelessness.

[StGabe]

People don't get athletics scholarships who can't perform athletically, either.
Read what I said again (you quoted me out of context). If an athlete with ability cannot practice or invest themselves in the program well enough to perform to their potential then they lose their scholarship and I have NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. It isn't about failing to meet basic standards that are within your potential. It's about having something completely out of your control happen that prevents you from meeting whatever contract you had with the school. IMO, that accident is a risk the school must accept, not the student. The student is making a huge life investment going to school based on a contract they have with the school and IMO the school sure as heck better honor that in the event of a true accident.

And again, if your grades slip the school WILL work with you to try to get you back to where you are meeting your potential. It's not like you just get thrown on the street the moment you fail a class.


What if they get hit by a drunk driver because they, themselves, were drunk and wandered out into the middle of the street due to their inebriated state?
Again. Because I've said it like 5 times this thread:

I have no problem with the school restricting what qualifies as accidental. If it's due to drinking or something unreasonably risky then fine. And no, compared to handling rape cases (which are going to happen more often than drunk driving incidents), it really isn't that hard for the school to figure out. If they get one instance wrong, what? Is it really that big of an issue if it can't be 100% perfectly enforced. These sports programs are bringing in many millions of dollars a year. Being basically decent about those cases which are truly accidents at the cost of maybe one slip-through case every few years isn't that much to ask.

[StGabe]

Actually, student loans are incredibly easy to get.

There is usually a limit to how much loans you can take. My wife hit the wall at about 2 years through school and had to get her parents to take on loans.

[TheTrunkDr]

It's about having something completely out of your control happen that prevents you from meeting whatever contract you had with the school. IMO, that accident is a risk the school must accept, not the student. The student is making a huge life investment going to school based on a contract they have with the school and IMO the school sure as heck better honor that in the event of a true accident.
Why is it something that school has to accept? You say it with no reasoning other than "boohoo I lost my scholarship." Well tough! Shit happens in life that you have to deal with. Sometimes, what happened isn't even your fault but you still have to take the responsibility and deal with the consequences. It's called life. These athletes know going in their scholarship is contingent on their being able to perform. If they can't perform they'll have to pay their own tuition, what a tragedy, something the vast majority of College students have to do already.

I'd also like to point out that getting pregnant isn't something that is out of control. It's the result of a conscious decision.


And again, if your grades slip the school WILL work with you to try to get you back to where you are meeting your potential.
Sure, and if you're not quite doing as well in your sport if you're on an athletics scholarship they'll work with you to improve as well.


It's not like you just get thrown on the street the moment you fail a class.
You're right, but you absolutely would lose your scholarship.


I have no problem with the school restricting what qualifies as accidental. If it's due to drinking or something unreasonably risky then fine. And no, compared to handling rape cases (which are going to happen more often than drunk driving incidents), it really isn't that hard for the school to figure out. If they get one instance wrong, what? Is it really that big of an issue if it can't be 100% perfectly enforced. These sports programs are bringing in many millions of dollars a year. Being basically decent about those cases which are truly accidents at the cost of maybe one slip-through case every few years isn't that much to ask.
This is significantly worse for the school though. They'd have to judge whether something was an accident or not? It's much easier and cleaner for them to be absolute and present the terms up front. Don't like it? Nobody's forcing you to take the scholarship. Otherwise do what you have to and realize you're in a position of great privilege and are not entitled to that scholarship, you're earning it and every semester that goes by is one less semester that you don't have to pay for that everyone else does.

I really don't understand why people think it's some horrible tragedy to suddenly in the same position as the vast majority of your peers.

[Brandon Clements]

There is usually a limit to how much loans you can take. My wife hit the wall at about 2 years through school and had to get her parents to take on loans.

There's a wall with goverment issued (and backed) student loans, Stafford Loans IIRC, at about $100k last I looked (several years back). Privately issued ones aren't capped, but they don't have the low interest rate of the federally backed loans, nor the forberance provisions.

[magnet]

Why is it something that school has to accept?
Because they accept federal funds, and therefore the federal government requires equal treatment of pregnant students in all academic and extracurricular activities?

[Nick Walter]

Because they accept federal funds, and the federal government prohibits discrimination against pregnant students?

There's no discrimination happening here, both male and female students are being held to the same simple standards of performance for their scholarships.

[Nick Walter]

It's about having something completely out of your control happen that prevents you from meeting whatever contract you had with the school. IMO, that accident is a risk the school must accept, not the student. The student is making a huge life investment going to school based on a contract they have with the school and IMO the school sure as heck better honor that in the event of a true accident.


I just don't see it. You make an athletic scholarship sound like a cold calculated business deal and it's simply not supposed to be. I suppose in the case of a few high profile recruits for the moneymaking sports (none of which are womens sports, btw) there probably some sad truth to that assertion, but I'm just not seeing it here.

Free college is not a right. Losing an external source of funding is not a hardship, it's like winning the lottery and then getting disqualified from claiming the prize on a technicality. It may not be pleasant but nobody ever said life was going to be pleasant.

[magnet]

There's no discrimination happening here, both male and female students are being held to the same simple standards of performance for their scholarships.
That's an interesting legal theory. Too bad the NCAA lawyers aren't buying it.


Title IX states that institutions receiving federal funds cannot discriminate against any person on the basis of sex, and the law also mandates that those institutions "shall not exclude any student from its education program or activity ... on the basis of such student's pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy or recovery therefrom."

... As a result, the NCAA could be leaving its member institutions open to Title IX violations.

But NCAA officials were urged to meet this summer to discuss pregnancy concerns at a conference in Clemson. No final decision has been reported, but officials could actually be working toward a possible amendment to the NCAA bylaws that would likely prevent an athlete from losing her scholarship if she became pregnant, according to reports after the conference.

[StGabe]

Why is it something that school has to accept? You say it with no reasoning other than "boohoo I lost my scholarship."
Because it's a risk the school took. Because the student is offering a significant life comittment for the betterment of the school. Because the sports programs we're talking about bring in millions for their schools and can easily afford it.

Because there's not a good reasoning for the college side other than "boohoo, we don't want to pay you now". If I buy a car but don't get insured and then it gets in an accident do I get to stop making payments because the car can no longer perform its duties? By the way, if pressed I'll admit the logic there is stupid but it seems about on target for what I've seen so far in this thread.


I'd also like to point out that getting pregnant isn't something that is out of control. It's the result of a conscious decision.
See endless prior discussion about the fact that accidental pregnancies definitely happen.



Nobody's forcing you to take the scholarship.
Fuck that bullshit. Society is long beyond that kind of reasoning. It's basic fucking decency. And it's really not that hard for a University to setup realistic rules nor really that big of a deal if everyonce in a while they have to pay an extra scholarship (again, they're making millions off of sports to begin with -- they can afford it!).

[magnet]

Losing an external source of funding is not a hardship, it's like winning the lottery and then getting disqualified from claiming the prize on a technicality.
Not really, since winning the lottery takes no effort.

It's more like getting demoted or fired on the basis of a technicality. Or on the basis of getting pregnant. And that's not something most people would put up with.

[StGabe]

I just don't see it. You make an athletic scholarship sound like a cold calculated business deal and it's simply not supposed to be.

I agree! The university is making lots of money here and can afford to simply treat its athletes well. It's not just a cold calculated business deal, it's also a matter of decency and taking an interest in taking care of students and helping them to go on to great success.

When we do get to the financials though we see that big schools make loads of cash off of sports. Taking on the risk of potential accidents to their students really is not a major financial issue. They can afford to offer decent deals to their athletes that don't fuck them over in the event of an unforseeable accident.


Free college is not a right. Losing an external source of funding is not a hardship, it's like winning the lottery and then getting disqualified from claiming the prize on a technicality. It may not be pleasant but nobody ever said life was going to be pleasant.

Nor do universities have a right to default on what is essentially a contract with a student just because it isn't working out for them anymore due to other circumstances outside the students control.

In the zeal to make a point, you're not looking at this problem with respect to anything resembling, well, reality. If a girl in this situation gets pregnant, odds are high that she is completely devastated to begin with because, her career may be essentially over. Now say she's already given 2 years of their life to the program. That's a huge comittment. But to you it's just: oh fuck them, I guess they didn't win the lottery after all. If I thought I had a winning lottery ticket and then found out the next day I didn't, well, no skin off my back. If I spend 2 years at a school, make lots of friends, strive to be an amazing athlete and then suddenly .... wham, my life is upside down and I lose all that ... that's going to really fuck me up. The loans to continue may be $50,000+ grand depending on where I'm at and I'm looking at either just sucking it up and taking that (even though I may not be looking at a life where I'm going to be able to reasonably pay that off -- I'm probably a merely average state school student and now single-mom who's going to have to go work a crappy job just to get by) or basically throwing away 2 years of my life.

Or, the University could just be decent and treat its athletes well in the unfortunate case that something bad happens. It's really not that big of a risk for them to accept.

[extarbags]

Read what I said again (you quoted me out of context). If an athlete with ability cannot practice or invest themselves in the program well enough to perform to their potential then they lose their scholarship and I have NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. It isn't about failing to meet basic standards that are within your potential. It's about having something completely out of your control happen that prevents you from meeting whatever contract you had with the school. IMO, that accident is a risk the school must accept, not the student. The student is making a huge life investment going to school based on a contract they have with the school and IMO the school sure as heck better honor that in the event of a true accident.

Hold on, what? I don't mean to sound cruel, but getting a scholarship for playing sports isn't really that different from getting paid to play sports... what if you get hit by a car and break both of your legs and can't make the track team anymore? Should you keep your scholarship? Because you wouldn't keep your pro sports contract. As far as I'm concerned, NCAA scholarships should be conditional upon one's ability to play the sport they're given for. No need to make a special case for pregnancy; if you're on the team, you keep your scholarship, if you're not, you don't, simple as that.

If that doesn't seem fair because a sports scholarship is the only chance some of these people have of going to college, well, maybe we should fix this glaring flaw in our educational system.


Because it's a risk the school took.

Apparently not; if the contract the student signs when accepting the scholarship states that they lost the scholarship if they get pregnant or otherwise can't or won't continue to play their sport, then the school is very deliberately not taking that risk.


It's more like getting demoted or fired on the basis of a technicality. Or on the basis of getting pregnant. And that's not something most people would put up with.

It's something a stripper would put up with though. Or a professional athlete. You only have the right to keep your job regardless of whether or not you're pregnant (or black, or gay, or whatever) if that status doesn't affect your job. The closest thing to what you're talking about is the FMLA, which entitles workers to unpaid leave in the event of a pregnancy (among other things). While this doesn't apply to students or student athletes, a student athlete who loses their sports scholarship when they get pregnant is certainly allowed to continue in school without that scholarship, and they're also allowed to reapply for a sports scholarship when they can do it again, so I'd say that standard is being met there.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Because it's a risk the school took. Because the student is offering a significant life comittment for the betterment of the school.You're just twisting words around. The student is "offering a significant life commitment" in exchange for the ability to attend. How is that not a risk the student is taking? You say it's a risk the school took, which is why they should be responsible for it. And we say "yeah, but why should they be responsible?" and you say because it's a risk the school took.

The risk to the school is that a scholarshipped (is that a word?) athlete will not live up to expectations, or could very well be injured in the game itself, or something along those lines. That's what the school's considering when they offer the scholarship, those are the risks they're willing to deal with and continue the scholarship (to a point). You sound like you're trying to tell us that because they consider and accept that risk, they should for some reason be responsible for all risk. There's a logical leap there I just can't follow.

Because the sports programs we're talking about bring in millions for their schools and can easily afford it.
Oh, nevermind, it's a communist thing. Why do you hate freedom? Kidding aside, this is just a purely emotional appeal with no place in this really.

Because there's not a good reasoning for the college side other than "boohoo, we don't want to pay you now". If I buy a car but don't get insured and then it gets in an accident do I get to stop making payments because the car can no longer perform its duties? By the way, if pressed I'll admit the logic there is stupid but it seems about on target for what I've seen so far in this thread.
We can barely decide if it's fair to compare scholarshipped athletes to employees, and you want to turn them into cars. There's no use in trying to out-analogy each other.

[magnet]

It's something a stripper would put up with though. Or a professional athlete.
No, a professional athlete would miss a season and then return.


The closest thing to what you're talking about is the FMLA, which entitles workers to unpaid leave in the event of a pregnancy (among other things).
Student-athletes aren't paid.

And FMLA entitles workers to keep all their benefits during leave (such as medical insurance). Tuition waivers (aka scholarships) are a benefit, not a form of direct compensation.

[StGabe]

How is that not a risk the student is taking?

How is it not a risk that the University is taking. It's basically an open question as to who should assume the risk. Looking at the situation realistically it's clear who can afford it.

...

Look, it's simple. Any institution dedicated to the betterment of society (i.e. a University) should have as its first priority the credo: do no harm. Taking away a scholarship based on an accident that was out of the hands of the student is clearly doing harm to someone who is already in pretty damn bad shape.


Kidding aside, this is just a purely emotional appeal with no place in this really.

No fucking way it isn't. School's have a contract with the public to hold sport events which net them many millions of dollars. They don't get it for free or just because. They don't have any particular "rights" except what we give them as a society. Call it communism if you want but it's how our society works. So in return they have a number of responsibilities, first among them to help spit out good human beings that will benefit society. And when you compare the two parties in the agreement undertaken by a scholarship, and the risks they undertake, it's clear that the University has the larger responsible.

Let's go further with an economic analysis. Let's say that we open things up and we say that any accident, even one that was the students fault, does not negate a scholarship once given. What affect would this have? Ok, some students would get free rides that they didn't really deserve. Oh no. We're talking drops in the bucket really. Very little net difference to the school as a whole. Meanwhile what have we done to college sports? We've incentivized Universities to look at athletes more closely and to prioritize not only athletes with good abilities but athletes that seem mature, responsible, and dedicated enough to focus on their sport and keep themselves healthy. Is that a bad thing?

You guys are all just so focused on the fact that somewhere, someone might get something that seems slightly unfair to you that you don't really give a shit. Do you cry yourself to sleep everytime someone wins the lottery?

[extarbags]

No, a professional athlete would miss a season and then return.

Point out to me the clause that states that a student athlete can't take a year off from school and then reapply for another scholarship, and I'll call it unfair.


Student-athletes aren't paid.

What a quaint concept.

[Aeon221]

Why? Schools already provide a great deal of medical care and the like through student health. The issue is what a scholarship is allowed to screen for, and you seem to think pregnancy is excluded from the list of things that legitimately disqualify a candidate simply because it is an exclusively female condition. Stop being genderist.
You are right, my opinion is that there is a fundamental difference between breaking a leg and having a baby, and that people shouldn't be punished for having a kid.




By what definition is that a legitimate question? From your phrasing to the context, what makes you think that question is going to shed any light on this issue?
Actually, I'm just curious on that one. I honestly don't know what happens to pro athletes that get pregnant. Do they lose their job? Or is there maternity leave? What happens?




Once again, where are you going with this?
Answering back to a comment that likewise had little to do with the topic. Admittedly, I started the whole thing, so, uh, my bad.


Jeff, you are showing your age. You must remember that applying for student loans seems horribly and cruelly onerous to kids who've never had to get a mortgage.

That put it in perspective, so, yeah, comment retracted.



I agree they can't pay $40,000 at the drop of a hat. Fortunately, they don't need to. According to this (http://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/thinkcollege/early/students/edlite-college-costs.html) (Dept of Ed., 2002), the average tuition for a state resident to attend an in-state college is $10,000 if you include room and board. I don't know anyone who can't get a school loan for $10K, especially a single mother.

Will the out-of-state student who got into Harvard on a full-ride for track and field be able to get enough loans if her scholarship is revoked? Probably not. Should she have considered this when engaging in risy behavior? Probably.

Interestingly, that table shows that even private schools average under $24,000 per year nationwide (the highest state was Massachusetts with an average of $32,000 per year), which is just over half of your $40K example.

Interestingly part deux, the table shows that the average 2-year college only costs about $1,500 per year in tuition. It seems to me if someone throws away their scholarship through a decision made in their own free will (be it pregnancy, poor grades, embarassing the school with a spread in Playboy, etc), there are plenty of other affordable options if they really do want to go.


My number was based off of what my college (http://www.emory.edu/studentfinancials/Cost_of_Attendance.htm) costs a year, and what other places I looked at charged. I made a bone headed mistake just using it as my one off number, and I'm sorry. If it makes you feel any better, I'm in twice as much debt as the average college student! Go me!


To get back on topic (and out of my life, geezuz stalkers), you could boil my position down to the belief that a person shouldn't be punished for having a kid. Or forced to choose between having an abortion or losing a bunch of money. Yes, I'm sure that all those girls truly regret being less careful than they should have been and getting pregnant, but they can't go back in time and change that. Dealing in the here and now, I can't see it as anything but wrong to include a punitive clause about pregnancy in a contract. Your mileage may vary.
(http://www.emory.edu/studentfinancials/Cost_of_Attendance.htm)

[Wholly Schmidt]

You guys are all just so focused on the fact that somewhere, someone might get something that seems slightly unfair to you that you don't really give a shit. Do you cry yourself to sleep everytime someone wins the lottery?
Do you cry yourself to sleep every time a pregnant woman doesn't?

[Damien Falgoust]

I agree! The university is making lots of money here and can afford to simply treat its athletes well. It's not just a cold calculated business deal, it's also a matter of decency and taking an interest in taking care of students and helping them to go on to great success.

When we do get to the financials though we see that big schools make loads of cash off of sports. Taking on the risk of potential accidents to their students really is not a major financial issue. They can afford to offer decent deals to their athletes that don't fuck them over in the event of an unforseeable accident.(Emphasis added.)

Just to reiterate: outside of football and men's basketball (and the odd hockey squad in the northeast), collegiate athletics are not a cash cow. Football and men's basketball subsidize every other sport. Hell, that's the reason Title IX exists in the first place: to prevent schools from cutting women's sports in favor of the more remunerative men's games.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Actually, I'm just curious on that one. I honestly don't know what happens to pro athletes that get pregnant. Do they lose their job? Or is there maternity leave? What happens?
Men can't get pregnant, duh.

[extarbags]

You guys are all just so focused on the fact that somewhere, someone might get something that seems slightly unfair to you that you don't really give a shit. Do you cry yourself to sleep everytime someone wins the lottery?

Quit projecting. That's not my concern at all.

[Damien Falgoust]

Men can't get pregnant, duh.
There are women professional athletes, y'know. Like Lisa Leslie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Leslie), who sat out the 2007 WNBA season due to pregancy.

[magnet]

Point out to me the clause that states that a student athlete can't take a year off from school and then reapply for another scholarship, and I'll call it unfair.
Most scholarships, athletic and otherwise, are directed at high school students. There's no need to recruit someone who has already enrolled.



Student-athletes aren't paid.What a quaint concept.
Do they get a W-2?

[magnet]

There are women professional athletes, y'know. Like Lisa Leslie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Leslie), who sat out the 2007 WNBA season due to pregancy.
You mean they didn't fire her, and she will likely return next year? Possibly to play the Olympics? What a bizarre concept! I didn't realize athletes were allowed to miss seasons!

[mouselock]

Most scholarships, athletic and otherwise, are directed at high school students. There's no need to recruit someone who has already enrolled.

Yet, oddly, multiple scholarships exist for, say, upperclassmen studying specific fields. And athletes have been known to get scholarships after already attending school for a year or two and trying out for teams.

[StGabe]

Just to reiterate: outside of football and men's basketball (and the odd hockey squad in the northeast), collegiate athletics are not a cash cow. Football and men's basketball subsidize every other sport. Hell, that's the reason Title IX exists in the first place: to prevent schools from cutting women's sports in favor of the more remunerative men's games.
Some sports certainly don't turn much of a profit but this is largely untrue and largely irrelevant. What teams make the most money at any given school is going to depend on what's popular there, what their best team is, etc. At U of Oregon, even the track team makes them a tidy sum of money (and just as importantly to the school, offers quite a bit of prestige).

But anyway, if money wasn't relevant we wouldn't be having this conversation. If it wasn't for business, we'd just let anyone go to school for free. That said, you can either focus on the aspects of money I've brought up (because other people are telling me I'm making an emotional argument) or you can read the other stuff I'm saying too.

[StGabe]

Yet, oddly, multiple scholarships exist for, say, upperclassmen studying specific fields. And athletes have been known to get scholarships after already attending school for a year or two and trying out for teams.

I have no idea what the academic stuff has to do with what he's saying. Other than that I think you are just having problems differentiating been the concept of "possible" and the concept of "probable".

[StGabe]

Quit projecting. That's not my concern at all.

It certainly seems to be. Otherwise, why are you so worried about this? Yes, I'm projecting a bit and as always in such conversations I hope you're not as bad as I make you out to be (I'm just still waiting to be proven wrong). There's just a lot of people in our society who are so concerned about fairness that they could care less about what actually works best for society. Ultimately, it's because they really just can't stand the notion of someone getting something that they didn't.

[magnet]

Yet, oddly, multiple scholarships exist for, say, upperclassmen studying specific fields. And athletes have been known to get scholarships after already attending school for a year or two and trying out for teams.
Show me a school where all players who miss part of a season must lose their scholarship and are then required to reapply for a new one, and I won't complain about their treatment of pregnant women.

[Wholly Schmidt]

There are women professional athletes, y'know. Like Lisa Leslie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Leslie), who sat out the 2007 WNBA season due to pregancy.
I know, it was a cheap joke.

[extarbags]

It certainly seems to be. Otherwise, why are you so worried about this? Yes, I'm projecting a bit and as always in such conversations I hope you're not as bad as I make you out to be (I'm just still waiting to be proven wrong). There's just a lot of people in our society who are so concerned about fairness that they could care less about what actually works best for society. Ultimately, it's because they really just can't stand the notion of someone getting something that they didn't.

Well I'm glad you know intuitively what's driving all of my positions. Thanks for letting me know!

[Lizard_King]

Well I'm glad you know intuitively what's driving all of my positions. Thanks for letting me know!
I just wish I had known that envy of female athletes was driving your actions all along. Your devious machinations have been unveiled.

[mouselock]

I have no idea what the academic stuff has to do with what he's saying. Other than that I think you are just having problems differentiating been the concept of "possible" and the concept of "probable".

Oh for fuck's sake. This entire tedious argument has hinged, for 4+ pages, on the fact that it's possible for a woman taking adequate precautions to still have that one-in-ten-thousand chance that she'll get pregnant. And now you want to dissemble about the difference between possible and probable?