football

This is a book definitely worth reading, although it doesn't quite deliver all it promises, and though I do find some points of disagreement with the author. In "Beer and Circus," Murray Sperber has three main themes: 1) What is wrong with what he calls "big-time college sports," essentially meaning NCAA Division I athletics, 2) how and why these Division I schools offer undergraduates subpar educations, and 3) the various facets of the problem of excessive student drinking.

Sperber provides ample evidence on all three of these points. He compellingly describes, for example, the ways in which Division I schools short-change their undergraduates--cramming them into massive lecture courses, and relying heavily on poorly paid adjunct faculty and teaching assistants to teach them. He also dispels numerous myths, such as the claim that top researchers are the best teachers, or the legend that Division I athletes are "student-athletes;" on the latter point, he notes that the long hours athletes must commit to competition and training preclude all but a few from compiling strong academic records.

Much of Sperber's book rings very true to me--I was a graduate student at a large, Division I university, and I observed examples of many of the ills Sperber describes. However, I have three points of disagreement with him. First, Sperber doesn't quite deliver the explanation--of "how big-time college sports is crippling undergraduate education"--that he promises. From his own account, it appears that the main culprit is in fact Division I schools' excessive emphasis on research. For every Division I school, like my alma mater UCLA, that is a legitimately strong research institution, there are probably 10 or 12 UCLA-wannabees that will never reach that status, but will waste uncounted resources in pursuit of the goal. Sperber does not convincingly demonstrate that athletic programs are more than a minor accessory to the crime against undergraduates that these schools are guilty of.

Second, Sperber's discussion of college sports is almost entirely limited to football and men's basketball, but his condemnation appears to extend to all sports. Since football and men's basketball are unusual in being essentially developmental systems for the professional leagues in those sports, Sperber's case would have been stronger had he presented more evidence drawn from other sports.

Third, Sperber ends with a number of prescriptions for improving undergraduate education at Division I universities (many of which would be applicable to other colleges as well). Most of these, such as basing faculty hiring and promotions primarily on teaching, are excellent. However, Sperber's recommendation that the Graduate Record Exam be used as a universal exit exam for undergrads should be deep-sixed right away. One flaw of the US education system, well-documented by Peter Sacks in "Standardized Minds," is the overuse of standardized tests. We do not need to make the problem worse.

While I don't agree with everyting Sperber writes, I think his book is very good. It would be especially valuable for any prospective student, or parent of a student, at a large Division I university.

First, the premise - Prof. Sperber argues that many Division I schools are shortchanging undergraduate students. He cites:

* Chasing research dollars and "publish or perish", so that * Professors don't teach undergraduates - they get lectures.. * Unless they are honors students, who do get quality education. * To make up for this, universities promote fraternities.... * And big-time athletics, with beer companies paying part of... * the freight, with resources sunk into athletic facilities.

I went to a Division III school (Pace University in NY) so I never encountered this. But, I can see how this works - the University of New Hampshire has invested its money recently into athletics facilities (after reviewing market research). And, more than a few people in the state have noticed - so they may find this book providing an explanation for these actions.

The book does get quite repetitious with its premise, and it also ignores Division II schools completely (focusing on the differences between Div I-A and Div III (which do not award athletic scholarships). That would have provided a more complete test of this theory. Finally, one might ask why he chooses to teach at a large university, if it is really that bad.

Professor Sperber was the biggest critic of the recently deposed Bob Knight - but he is only mentioned in passing here, which another respondent lamented. My guess is that he didn't want that to be the raison d'etre of the book, and have it overshadow the book's message. Besides, he already received enough death threats.

All in all - a compelling read. Even if you don't accept the book's premise, you may find at least some parts resonating. Or, at least challenging.

There is not much doubt that undergraduate education for the typical student at large universities is most unsatisfactory: one is, with few exceptions, a nonentity with no opportunity to shape the educational experience. The only option is to follow the rules; then it is swim or sink. Furthermore, there is no doubt that forming farm teams for professional leagues with substandard students has no place in a university.

The author shows through his survey data that major sports teams in Division 1-A of the NCAA give a focal point to the incessant partying that occurs at most major, large universities. It is the essential point of the book that college administrators are more than willing to give undergraduates "beer and the circus" of big-time sports in lieu of drastically overhauling undergraduate programs. The need for tuition dollars leads large colleges to pack freshman courses, virtually precluding a chance to learn. Sports and partying is the cynical substitute.

Clearly, the prestige focus of top college officials precludes quality education for most students. It is all about image and reputations. Good sports teams increase recognition. So do adding prestigious faculty, engaging in research for corporate America, and having special, honors education for a select minority of undergraduates. The author makes abundantly clear that well-known faculty and elaborate research do not benefit the typical student. Furthermore, athletic programs are invariably a drain on the finances of the university. Even with Fat TV contracts, athletic programs are net losers.

The author breaks down the main student subcultures into "collegiate, vocational, rebel, and academic." They have different goals and different problems interacting with the substandard educational regime. The fact that the party element, the collegiate group, is content, or resigned to, with the current educational situation hardly justifies the de-emphasis on education.

The author does briefly touch on the purposes of college education. Is college mostly a social experience; is it to obtain job skills; or is it to be liberally educated. And do colleges actually support all of those goals for all students.

There is much wrong with universities and the author makes some effort to shed light on the problems. But much more can be said. Should universities perform a special social role, or are they simply big corporations looking out for the bottom line, cutting costs where they can, while paying lip service to a grand mission? It is clear that universities will not perform that mission with the distorting impact of big time sports.