Supporters of big-time intercollegiate athletics on college campuses often claim that there are enormous positive academic spillover effects from success in sports – greater national recognition, greater student applications, more and bigger donations from alumni, et cetera. There are schools like Rutgers and Colorado State universities currently spending fortunes in a bid to move up the athletic totem pole to powerhouse status, arguing this will improve the school’s academic reputation.
Is there any truth to that assertion? The answer is a “qualified yes,” although the qualification means that pursuing a strategy of attempting to move to the next higher level in college sports is highly problematic and risky.
data-param-cid="62cec241-7d09-4462-afc2-f72f8d8ef40a"
data-player-id="44f947fb-a5ce-41f1-a4fc-78dcf31c262a"
data-playlist-id=3e5e03f9-7925-4400-8f37-b4daede06b7f
data-elements-player="true"
layout="responsive"
width="16"
height="9"
>
The research center we work with, the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP), compiles the Forbes Top Colleges list. We rank 660 American colleges and universities. The rankings are very student-oriented, trying to deal with issues of deep concern to students. We look at how students like their classes and university setting, how they fare in the real world after graduation, the debt load the student likely will incur, and a variety of other things. How does the athletic prowess of the school impact on school rankings?
The schools with powerhouse football and men’s basketball teams (the dominant revenue producing sports) are all members of Division I-A of the NCAA. Small liberal arts colleges and some universities with truly amateur sports teams with modest budgets and national aspirations are mostly in Division III. Teams that are in between – taking intercollegiate sports fairly seriously and competing interscholastically in well publicized games – are in either Division I–AA or Division II.
Does the NCAA division status of a school have any relationship to school rankings? Before answering that question, we have to recognize that there are lots of other factors besides sports that impact reputation and, therefore, the Forbes score. For example, the wealth of the school (as measured by the endowment) or spending on academic programs (instructional spending per student) should have some impact on program quality, if for no other reason than that a rich school should be able to provide more personalized instruction, nicer out of class amenities, lower tuition fees, et cetera. Other factors that impact reputation include the size of the student body, whether it is a private or public school, and demographic characteristics of the student such as race, gender, and ethnicity.
So we did a statistical estimation that includes all of these other factors along with NCAA status. We compared schools in the sample with the generally small, non-nationally competitive athletically Division III schools. We found a statistically significant positive relationship between membership in Division I-A (the powerhouse schools athletically) and academic reputation. The relationship was pretty strong. Other things equal, a mid-quality school might rank roughly 350 if it were not in Division I-A, but typically would rank around 300 or a little better if it were in Division I-A. Having pretty bigtime football and basketball is associated with a meaningful improvement in perceived academic reputation, as measured by Forbes and CCAP.
By contrast, schools with lesser athletic prowess (or even non-participation in football) in Division I-AA received no benefit from that status, and those in the lower Division II were actually adversely impacted by their lesser athletic reputation. Seemingly, participation in sports at the highly commercialized and visible upper levels has real payoffs.
But before taking those results and embarking on policies to upgrade the football and basketball programs, schools need to be aware of the adverse consequences. Most Division I-A schools lose money on sports, often large amounts. That is money that could be spent in other ways that might enhance reputation. Using our own university (Ohio University) as an example, we asked the question: what would happen if the money used to subsidize athletics went instead to enhance instruction? Instructional spending is positively associated with academic reputation too. It turns out that roughly half the reputational gains from athletic participation are wiped out from the reduced spending on academics. In the case of some schools, it would likely completely wipe those gains out. And, of course, the statistical estimations are just that, estimates, and are average behavioral responses – some schools will perform better, but others worse, than the average.
There are examples of schools with good to great athletic reputations and great academic reputations as well – Stanford (ranked number one by Forbes/CCAP this year), Notre Dame, Duke, and Northwestern are four good examples. But most of the very top Forbes/CCAP ranked schools are like Harvard or Williams College, with mediocre athletic reputations. Also there are other schools (Alabama comes immediately to mind) that are real athletic powerhouses with just so-so academic reputations. The “spend to enhance athletics” approach is thus not a crazy one, but one with some real costs and risks.
Richard Vedder directs the CCAP, is an Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and teaches at Ohio University.
Justin Strehle is a graduate student at Ohio University and is also a research associate at CCAP.