I have to say I am not that sympathetic. After decades of suppressing male sports under the claims of 'fairness' and 'inclusivity' my response is 'welcome to the party'.

After decades of suppressing male sports under the claims of 'fairness' and 'inclusivity' my response is 'welcome to the party'. ~ Ben at May 24, 2021 5:09 AM

Title IX, while a welcome leap forward for women's sports, was a setback for men's. It mandated equal scholarships for all sports between men and women. For most sports, that makes sense. After all, there are women's versions of that sport or an equivalent for almost every sport - softball/baseball, gymnastics, track and field, etc. However, the exception is football, an exclusively male sport that eats up over 100 scholarships every year.

To meet the equal scholarship requirement, men's sports had to be dropped. And since fewer women wanted to compete in sports at the collegiate level, college could not simply drop a few men's sports, but had to make major cuts to men's athletics.

College football brings colleges far too much publicity and alumni attention -- thus making the college far too much money -- for it to be dropped or the scholarships in it to be eliminated. Unfair perhaps, but reality. And there is no women's equivalent/alternative.

The only other choice is to field a major women's sport along the lines of football. With no feeder leagues at the high school level and the high overall cost of fielding a football team, such a team would have to generate revenue far in excess of what women's football currently generates at any level.

I can't help but wonder if the advocates of Title IX knew what the impact would be when they insisted on an overall flat equal number of scholarships by gender.

If this destroys the hyper woke NCAA, it might all be worth it.

"I can't help but wonder if the advocates of Title IX knew what the impact would be when they insisted on an overall flat equal number of scholarships by gender."

In my mind of course, in looking at the world today the motto of the left is burn it down, and afterwards maybe we will talk about re building. But the more destruction now the better.

Title 9 supposedly also applies to non-sports areas where women excel, (like theatre) but is never applied

"It mandated equal scholarships for all sports between men and women. For most sports, that makes sense." ~Conan

False.

While most sports are open to both men and women there is not equal interest in them for both sexes. There are roughly 5x to 10x the interest from men as compared to women. By mandating equal spending without being able to generate equal interest the chosen solution has been to shut down men's sports and limit participation until it matches women's interest. Football is hardly the issue. Baseball, soccer, and swimming were all harmed by Title IX among others.

"I can't help but wonder if the advocates of Title IX knew what the impact would be when they insisted on an overall flat equal number of scholarships by gender." ~Conan

Many did. This outcome is intentional. As Joe mentions Title IX as written should apply to theatre and other female dominated areas, but is not enforced. Hence my lack of sympathy. If you only care when women are suffering you are a sexist.

At this point I fall back on a simpler principal. If we cannot discriminate based on gender then we shouldn't discriminate based on gender. One league for any and all genders. If women cannot perform due to biology or preference then so be it.

Football is hardly the issue. Baseball, soccer, and swimming were all harmed by Title IX among others. ~ Ben at May 24, 2021 8:17 AM

Oh, but it is.

In a paper on Title IX for Athnet, Michael Lancaster concludes, "During this time frame in which strides have been made in women’s athletics, men’s athletic programs have generally suffered. More than 400 men’s athletic teams have been eliminated as a result of Universities needing to become NCAA compliant. The sports worst hit have been low revenue Olympic sports such as wrestling, swimming and track and field."

He also concludes, "It is very clear that any program with a football team struggles to meet Title IX compliancy. An NCAA football program must have at minimum of 65 full athletic scholarships and no women’s sport comes close to that number. ... The highest number of athletic scholarships that can be offered for a women’s team is 18 for women’s crew. This is not comparable to a men’s football program that has to offer more than three times the amount of athletic scholarships."

Lancaster's suggested solution would be to take into account the number of men and women who want to participate in collegiate sports and proportion the funding that way. That kind of echoes what I posted, "...since fewer women wanted to compete in sports at the collegiate level...."

ESPN puts it, "Gender equity and complying with Title IX aren't just about the number of sports. They're also about the number of scholarships, and most schools often have a tough time keeping the balance."

Part of the difficulty in "keeping up the balance" is in finding women who want to compete at that level. With fewer lucrative professional opportunities available for them after participation on college teams, it makes more sense for women to put their focus on the classroom and not on collegiate athletic endeavors.

Football and basketball eat up a huge chunk (≈80%) of the budget for men's sports. Women's basketball eats up about half of the funding for women's sports. Beyond that, both genders have suffered cuts to athletic funding as spending on those programs has risen exponentially.

Donna Lopiano, president of Sports Management Resources and a strong advocate of gender equality, defends Title IX be laying the blame on football and basketball spending, "It's fair to say over the last 10 years, men's minor sports have taken it on the chin because more and more money is going to football and men's basketball."

What Lopiano and other fail to acknowledge is that men's football and basketball bring in millions of dollars in revenue every year to the university.

ESPN points out in a 2009 article, "According to Dan Fulks, an accounting professor at Transylvania University in Lexington, Ky., who has been an NCAA consultant for 20 years, the median NCAA Division I men's program accounted for $22.2 million in revenue, while the women's median is $865,000 in the 2007-08 academic year. Of the men's revenue, football and men's basketball account for $19.6 million. For the women, basketball makes up $490,000, or more than half the total revenue."

Given the revenue differential, it makes sense for colleges to put the bulk of their spending on men's football and basketball, even at the expense of less popular mens's, or even women's, sports.

By including football in the scholarship mix, Title IX advocates are sabotaging men's college sports in the name of equality across the board. Perhaps the lack of men's scholarship opportunities in lesser sports helps, in some way, to explain the gender discrepancy in the classroom.

Couldn't this have been resolved by declaring dance a sport?

There can no longer be any doubt; in the quest for "equality", feminism strives more to bring men down than to raise women up.

Couldn't this have been resolved by declaring dance a sport?

NicoleK at May 24, 2021 9:13 AM

Not without the imprimatur of the NCAA

https://www.liveabout.com/sports-and-seasons-of-the-ncaa-3570382

I mean if it's about fitness and competitions and things, frankly, they should be declaring cheerleading a sport.

I moved around a lot, so I went to seven schools before college.

And all I can say is, thank goodness I never went to a school where sports were treated as being equal in importance to academics. (Or even NEAR equal.) I think everyone benefitted, both academically and socially.

Which reminds me of some PBS documentary I saw years ago. I think it was about exchange students. Some Asian students (from Hong Kong, maybe) were shocked at how much time and money got spent on sports in American schools. Why shouldn't they be?

Some Asian students (from Hong Kong, maybe) were shocked at how much time and money got spent on sports in American schools. Why shouldn't they be? ~ Lenona at May 24, 2021 10:20 AM

I wonder, if those Asian students stood to potentially make as much money as professional athletes in the US, if they'd look down upon schools putting an emphasis on sports.

Don't get me wrong, I agree we over-emphasize sports here. However, sports can pay a good salary here, whether as an athlete, coach, trainer, or analyst/commentator.

One reason is that there is money to be made, even in low-revenue sports. While a job in a reasonably demanding field will pay you a decent salary and be doable into your dotage, a job in a professional sport can pay a good salary - i.e., professional track and field runners can make up to $400K per year in winnings and endorsements.

However, that money comes with an expiration date, necessitating putting a lot of work into the field in order to rise high enough to be able to cash in with an ancillary position after one's competitive days are over.

Thank you for your always-civilized comments, Conan.

To your last paragraph, I'd add that just because it IS possible - sometimes - to make a good living in the sports industry without risking your health (e.g., in football, you're better off not actually playing it), that doesn't change the fact that sports are about entertainment, and so, the idolization of sports (and video games) contributes more and more, every year, to the perception by others that American culture and Americans are shallow.

(I feel the same sense of dismay when it comes to the music and film industries; I also heard, somewhere, that literary references are no longer used in puzzles on "Wheel of Fortune" because too many modern contestants would never solve them, even if the book in question was only 20 years old.)

Conan, that didn't contradict me. Yes football is popular. But no that does not make football the issue. Even when football is not available men's teams had to be cut due to lack of female interest in sports. The cuts were just smaller when football (a sport we both agree there is near zero female interest in participation in) was not available.

End of the day, is Chelsea Mitchell willing to repeal title ix? If she isn't willing then she just wants discrimination in her favor. Thus we have no common ground.

"Some Asian students (from Hong Kong, maybe) were shocked at how much time and money got spent on sports in American schools. Why shouldn't they be?" ~Lenona

They should be more appalled by how much gets spent on administration. At roughly 50% of public school education spending there is no comparison between that and sports.

I remember the first stanza of this song - that was when my friends on the boys' side of the dorm who were in rowing and fencing and wrestling all lost their scholarships and were forced to abandon their plans for getting a science BS from a nice state school.

I think they got a lot, psychologically, out of competing in those sports.

It was a devastating experience for them to have their academic career ended because of a decision to base Title IX on population not an interest survey. It said they weren't good enough.

I remember the president of the college laughing in their face when they proposed raising money to keep the programs going and offering the scholarships, then telling them to "go man up" about being sent home for inability to pay.

From elsewhere (seven months ago):

"...who is giving out sports scholarships like candy? D1 schools? Do you know how damn GOOD you have to be for that? And what the kid’s life would end up being?

"Sports scholarships aren’t rewards for doing well. They, like academic scholarships, are an investment. Drop out or fail out, lose the academic scholarship. Quit the sport, lose the scholarship. If sports gets you a scholarship to a school you otherwise couldn’t afford, that’s your life. And you’re probably picking a major not based off what you want in your career, but based off what gives you the most free time for practice.

"I honestly do not know why this is a goal for some parents, unless they don’t just want the scholarship, but the chance for the kid to go pro."

And:

"My youngest, (28), has a good friend who played college football. He got a back injury and was dropped from the team. He then dropped out of college and now is on permanent disability because of his back injury. It's really depressing."

Ben, leaving aside the question of whether or not those students knew about American administration costs, how do you know what administration costs are in Hong Kong?

Not to mention that in SOME communities, even poor kids can play football and baseball, away from school. They can't do the work of administrators.

Wait a minute? Are you serious Lenona? This is the hill you want to die on? Poor kids can't push paper? You are concerned with public schools spending a few percent of their budget on sports but spending half of it on non-educational administrative overhead is cool?

I just want to be clear what you are trying to say. Because what it looks like you've said is completely nuts.

"And all I can say is, thank goodness I never went to a school where sports were treated as being equal in importance to academics."

Wonder what country you're from. This arena is much larger than a single school. In the USA, all but a couple of states feature an athletic coach as their highest-paid state employee.
-----

Not surprised at NCAA gross stupidity. So much scholarship $$ comes from state coffers no part of the school operates responsibly. You can get a degree in a totally useless activity at the same time your athletic endeavor is neglected as to its employment potential.

Ben, I thought it was clear enough that what I was saying was that KIDS cannot be hired to do the work of ADULTS. Most aren't qualified anyway, if only in terms of their work ethic and self-discipline. (Obviously, if there's a lot of waste going on in administration, that needs to be addressed, but we still will always need adult administrators.)

Yes, of course sports should have a share of every school's budget, if only for the sake of students' health - and to help kids who would otherwise drop out of school. No one's saying otherwise.

But, given that learning basic sports skills isn't as difficult as learning to play musical instruments - or as hazardous as working with power tools - I'd say that kids who want more than a casual school sports program ought to be willing and able to convince their peers to put away their video games, get their homework done, and play games on their OWN time. If they're so determined to pursue a career that's not only precarious but short-lived, let it be THEIR choice and responsibility - not something pushed by adults, who should know better. (I can't believe some of the stories I hear about the parents of Olympic athletes...)

As the other people implied, above, being the best athlete in your high school isn't necessarily enough to get you a scholarship, and even if it is,
it can become a trap in multiple ways. Besides, too many believe the myth that becoming famous is just as important - or fulfilling - as becoming a firefighter or a nurse. I.e., someone who really makes an important contribution to society.

Btw, here's something on that, by...guess who?

https://books.google.com/books?id=cgwMKoS_XSUC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=%22of+no+ultimate+importance%22+rosemond&source=bl&ots=xIRvf7PJbP&sig=ACfU3U0v6LtwRRv0wDbBoOJRdHlVLQtv5g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4jreQn-TwAhWUWM0KHQfVBwAQ6AEwAHoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=%22of%20no%20ultimate%20importance%22%20rosemond&f=false

The relevant pages are 16-21. (It's a quick read. He talks about his own son's sports experience as well. The book edition is from 2009, but the column those pages are based on is from 2000.)

Wonder what country you're from.
_____________________________________

I'm from the U.S.

Maybe I should also explain that the schools didn't encourage kids to believe that getting rich was the most (or only) worthwhile goal in life. Given that schools are about the value of academics, why is that surprising?

Btw, it may be true that rich scientists are very rare, if they exist at all, because scientists are supposed to share all their discoveries with the world. However, there have been many famous scientists, at least, and they tend to make a decent living, plus the joy of knowing they're (usually) helping the world to become a better place.

If they're so determined to pursue a career that's not only precarious but short-lived, let it be THEIR choice and responsibility - not something pushed by adults, who should know better.
____________________________________

And in the same vein, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most parents have a little more sense when it comes to the idea that "anyone" can become a rock star? (That is, while awful "stage mothers" may unfortunately still exist, I get the impression they're not as common as they once were, if only because film and music audiences are a lot more fickle than sports fans. In sports, all you have to do is win consistently.)

Ok Lenona. I don't have a response to that. But congrats on expressing the opinion that the purpose of a public school is to employ people and not to provide education services. While I disagree with you I will respect that this is your view.

That's not what I meant and you know it.

Would you please explain why you think administrators don't need to exist - IF that's what you mean? Or where to find the big news stories on waste in administration? It's all new to me. I hear all the time about teachers' unions and how they protect bad teachers too much, plus, occasionally, about the subjects that teachers are forced to teach against their will - but nothing about what you said.

(I ALSO hear a good deal about all the abuse, verbal and physical, that teachers are expected to take from their students. There was a thread here about "wimpy" teachers, years ago. In it, I pointed out that even if the teacher disciplines the students in a way that follows the rules, if the PARENTS don't like it, the teacher is the one who's likely to get into trouble. With that in mind, it's kind of hard to argue that teachers get paid enough.)

Why I think administrators don't need to exist? Of course you need administration. Around 10% of your budget is sufficient, but given this is a government job I won't complain about 20%. Government is famed for it's waste and inefficiency. But 50%? Bullshit. That is just garbage. Unless you think the purpose of public schools isn't providing education services there is no excuse for wasting that much money on that kind of overhead.

As for news stories about this, I don't know of any. And guess what, I don't care. How you chose to be misinformed is your own business. Just about every US public school provides their budget to the public and online. It is all freely available. No news company needed. Go to the raw data and think for yourself.

Based on that raw data and assuming schools exist to teach there is no valid budgetary argument that sports are a financial drain in US public schools. Rad is correct that on the state level (college actually) athletic coaches are some of the highest paid. But when you look at the budget as a whole non-educational administration dwarfs any other expense. An army of ants can eat an elephant and the army of administrators who get paid 75% of a teacher's salary on average is what is consuming US public education budgets.

And here is the kicker Lenona. I'm not a sports fan. Not at all. I would actually like to see sports and other pursuits separated from current schools and focus those schools on purely academic lessons. But I am also honest and I can do basic math. And the data is clear that sports are not causing a funding problem.

And mind that 50% of spending I am talking about is non-educational overhead. It does not cover school buildings. It does not cover principals. It definitely does not cover teacher salaries. Or busses. Or anything to do with learning.

It is purely non-educational spending.

Related to this in a very real sense the teacher's unions are actually administrators unions. They are quite open about not caring for students. And less open about not caring about teachers. As an organization they get paid per employee, and with 1.5-2 administrators per teacher the teachers are a minority group. One that is easily sacrificed and ignored by the unions. While it is good advertising to call themselves a 'teacher's' union the reality is they represent and advance the goals of office workers who never set foot in or even come close to a classroom. Or even a school.

There is no excuse for wasting that much money on that kind of overhead.
________________________________________

Which is why I said "obviously, if there's a lot of waste going on in administration, that needs to be addressed."
______________________________________

And the data is clear that sports are not causing a funding problem.
____________________________________

Maybe not, but the majority seem to agree that they're far too TIME-consuming. I think we can agree that's even more important than money. After all, kids who are under a ton of adult pressure to do sports they often don't even care about, have that much less time to do other activities - or even to sleep, if they're determined to do things other than sports and studying.

It occurred to me. Maybe it's just flabbergasting to parents that not everyone KNOWS - or does research - about the details of school budgets in the first place?

After all, if you don't have kids, you tend to assume that parents are already doing the job of policing wasteful school budgeting - and that you shouldn't have to.

It reminds me of a close relative of mine who got all frustrated because I don't have my cell phone number memorized - and so it takes me a long, horrible five seconds to find it (sarc). I keep patiently trying to explain to him that I very seldom use that phone in the first place, and almost no one I know NEEDS to have that number as opposed to my landline number (which I DO have memorized). But he keeps saying, irritably, that it's "weird" as if "weird" were synonymous with "rude." I would never fail to provide a number, immediately, to someone who needed it. THAT would be rude.

(Note: I never claimed that sports are a big PERCENTAGE, per se, of school budgets. But it's hard for exchange students not to notice things like huge stadiums and what they likely cost.)

"Maybe not, but the majority seem to agree that they're far too TIME-consuming." ~Lenona

You are changing your argument here but I'll address it anyway. They are wrong. Any comparative analysis of the US public system and other nation's schools show that if academic achievement is the goal then US public schools are spending too much time in class and inefficiently. I understand the argument feels good, but it is wrong. There is actually some evidence that says men in specific would do better academically with more time spent on organized sports. But that is neither here nor there once you factor in current inefficient classroom time usage.

"It occurred to me. Maybe it's just flabbergasting to parents that not everyone KNOWS - or does research - about the details of school budgets in the first place?" ~Lenona

You are close but not quite right. I am a budget wonk. I care to look into spending and all that jazz. Almost no one else cares. You being ignorantly on this topic is very normal. Just about no one cares to get informed. Not non-parents and also not parents. Just budget guys.

"But it's hard for exchange students not to notice things like huge stadiums and what they likely cost." ~Lenona

I had that conversation with Conan a while ago. My local school district has a professional level football stadium. And I mean one with all the trimmings and nice dodads. Finding out that was the K-12 school's and not the university's is part of what inspired me to become informed on my local school budget. And then I found out a stadium any college or even a small professional sports team would be proud to call home is a rounding number for our budget. Totally doesn't matter. The district is actually building a second one and maybe a third because they are such an insignificant part of our spending.

And you are right, people see the stadiums. They talk about them. Complain and worry about them. It is a big huge opulent display. Very obvious. What people don't talk about is the buildings full of admins who eat up enough money to build a new stadium like that every year. Unless you work there almost no one knows about the admins. Stadiums are loud while admins are quiet. Doesn't change the fact that all the money is going to the admins.

Any comparative analysis of the US public system
_______________________________________

Example?

And, DO you have proof that Asian schools spend far less on administration? Or, if so, why?

For that matter, why don't we hear a lot MORE in the conservative media about the administrative budgets? Such as when someone starts up the debate about schools needing more money? I swear, I don't recall ANY Fox pundit saying what you did.

"Example?"

Here you go. Finland has long been considered to have the best school system on the planet. How do they do it? Fewer hours, little to no homework, and teachers get to control their own classrooms (and are held responsible for their outcomes). That includes spending as well as discipline.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Finland/United-States/Education

"And, DO you have proof that Asian schools spend far less on administration? Or, if so, why?"

I don't speak Japanese or Mandarin, so sorry I couldn't do a budget analysis of random asian schools for you. I didn't find any that published a translated budget. Everything was on a national scale and these kinds of details were left out.

"I swear, I don't recall ANY Fox pundit saying what you did."

So what? This isn't new stuff. It has been this way my entire life. Anyone who cares to be informed is fully aware of it. I knew about it in high school. Nothing is hidden. No secrets. That you aren't aware and that your news sources don't cover things like this are on you.

Did you look at your local public school's budget? It should be freely available online. If not, why not?

Since I speak english, here is Edinburgh Community School's budget.

https://www.ecsc.k12.in.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_18862799/File/Staff/Business%20and%20Finance/BUDGET%20-%202019%20Annual%20Financial%20Report.pdf

Under 10% for general admin. The majority of funding is spend on education (teachers, classrooms, etc). The next largest is plant maintenance (school buildings, grounds keeping, etc).

This is what I consider reasonable. It would be nice if they had less debt, but that is just my personal preference. It isn't a reasonable expectation for a government organization like this.

There's a simple solution to the transgender sports issue: stop calling them "men's" and "women's" sports.

It's a biological fact that possession of a Y chromosome gives an advantage in any competition involving strength and/or speed. So, there should be one division open to anyone, and another division from which anyone with a Y chromosome is barred. Call them "Open" and "X Only", perhaps.