Site Map | Archives

Home › Opinions › Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor

related linksMore Letters to the Editor
related linksMOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

related linksTRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.
STORY TOOLS

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

About Alford's graduation stats

Last month, the University of New Mexico's new men's basketball coach, Steve Alford, spoke to an eager overflow crowd at the Kiwanis Club of Albuquerque's weekly luncheon.

At Q and A, a member cited the embarrassing 7 percent graduation rate of Lobos men's basketball players in the most recent NCAA disclosure. He had just begun to ask the obvious question, when Alford interjected that the graduation rate of players finishing his program is 95 percent, followed by a grumbling reference to how the NCAA unfairly counts athletes who transfer out, before reiterating his 95 percent figure.

Every Division I member school's report of graduation statistics to the NCAA can be checked, including, of course, UNM's, and the University of Iowa's, Alford's most recent employer.

Google searches using key terms - "NCAA" and "graduation rates" - yield 938,000 references. Indeed, they report federal graduation-rate data using the model required of institutions that spend federal money. To wit, individuals from the freshmen class of a particular year - a cohort - are tracked for six years or until they graduate or otherwise leave the institution.

Coaches resent having to count scholarship athletes who leave the program before completing their athletic eligibility, because it swells the denominator. The government and the NCAA, however, hold member institutions accountable for tracking the graduation success of every scholarship athlete.

The generous term, tracking athletes for six years after original matriculation, allows players who stay in the program plenty of time to graduate. Thus, the bad news for coaches is that every scholarship athlete who leaves the institution represents a nongraduate. But the good news is that players who stay have six years to make a tally on the "graduated" side of the ledger.

Scholarship athletes not tracked until they finish the program conveniently avoid freshman attrition. Moreover, completing four years of athletic eligibility means the athlete has matriculated four years - five years if he or she red-shirted or spent a year in school without competing.

Such a manipulation is tantamount to the angler who boasts to have never lost a fish once it is in the boat.

The 2006 NCAA Graduation-Rates Report from the University of Iowa shows 53 percent of the 1999-2000 freshman men's basketball scholarship athletes graduating. This is demonstrably better than UNM's infamous 7 percent graduation of the same cohort group. However, it falls short of the 65 percent graduation rate for all Iowa freshman in the cohort - and reflects barely half claimed by Alford.

Perhaps he meant the graduation rate of his players at Southeast Missouri State, his penultimate employer. The 2005 NCAA Graduation-Rates Report of the 1998-99 freshman cohort - Alford's final SMSU recruiting class - reveals 14 percent. Comparatively, UNM's graduation success for that same cohort - 27 percent - almost doubles that of SMSU.

What, then, of the elusive 95 percent stat? Was it George Carlin or Billy Crystal who coined the aphorism: "42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot?"

Gary Ness

Adjunct professor of sport management

SportCenter

Virginia Commonwealth University

Richmond, Va.

Master's and bachelor's degrees

from UNM

Albuquerque

State should pay for Rail Runner

The editorial, "Rail Runner Express needs federal support," Tribune, May 21, repeats platitudes about the "need" for mass transit in the middle Rio Grande corridor and gives the impression that ours is the only area looking for federal money for seemingly worthy projects. The arguments are simplistic, yet they illustrate very real problems with our socialized transportation system.

The only way to truly gauge genuine public support for a project like the Rail Runner is at the fare box. But $9 out of every $10 needed to operate the Rail Runner will come from taxpayers, not passengers. This makes it difficult for Sen. Pete Domenici to persuade Washington that the Rail Runner really is integral to the region's transportation system.

The fact is, because transportation is socialized by federal, state and local governments pooling resources, it can be quite difficult to determine the success or relative importance of some projects.

One way to add a degree of rationality to the system would be to get Washington out of the picture and allow each state to manage its own system. This would create incentives for states to use their own money more wisely, while reducing the number of pork projects and bridges to nowhere. This would also allow states to embrace innovative practices, such as tolling and cost-effective bus rapid transit.

The Rail Runner, like nearly all mass transit, is heavily subsidized, just as roads also receive some subsidies. Rather than constantly battling back and forth with inadequate information, advocates on both sides should encourage devolution to state government.

In the meantime, building projects like the Rail Runner that are contingent on uncertain federal support is not wise.

Paul J. Gessing

President

Rio Grande Foundation

Albuquerque

But what are their qualifications?

The presidential campaign season is in full swing. There's an abundance of candidates. But let's pause a minute.

Anyone seeking a job is expected to submit a r‚sum‚ - any job, that is, except president of the United States. If you are 35 years old and born in the United States, those are the only requirements. Being an actor or a celebrity of some sort also helps, as does an attractive appearance, articulate delivery and good wit.

The usual ingredients of a r‚sum‚ include education, experience, personal philosophy and reason for wanting the job. We have a lot of educated candidates with degrees from some of the best schools running for president. You would expect them to know the basics about good government, law of the land, history, sociology, cultures, economics and world affairs, because all of these disciplines play a part in conducting the affairs of state. They don't have to be experts in all of these fields - there will be advisers - but some groundings of a liberal education help the decision-making process. This should be a qualification.

Maybe they could all be given a test.

We hear talk about experience and how some candidates don't have it. I wonder what kind of experience qualifies. I've come to the conclusion that the longer a candidate serves in Washington, D.C., the more he or she is removed from the reality of the American people. Do congressional junkets to other parts of the world, where the itinerary is carefully controlled to show only one side of the reality, qualify? Does his or her experience include working among the people on a local level? Does serving eight years as first lady qualify as experience? Does playing the role in a movie or TV show qualify? Personally, I don't think so.

Does raising large sums of money constitute qualification for the job of president? I think it's a negative to doing the job. The same goes for knowing how to work the system. Often this substitutes for intelligence.

Then there's worldview. How does a candidate view the world? Does he or she see the United States as the policeman of the world, as the great enforcer of our way of life? Does he or she respect and understand other cultures? Does he or she believe in equality and sharing of resources for all peoples? Is he or she committed to justice and peace? . . .

Their answers should play a big part in rating their qualification for the job. . . .

Wanting a job like this also raises the question of their sanity as another qualification to consider.

Sally McMillan

Albuquerque