23

My reply to T/Scte Boll w as as followsr

"I do not know what I om lotting myself in on when I answer your quorry of
a recent date. :

"Pirst, I think that it is a goneral conception that athlotes as a whole
are dumber than non-athletes. However, it must be considered that on athleto sponds
two hours a day on intensive training which many times fatigues him and nakes hin less”
comprchensive on intensive study. An athlete in order to be oligiblo for tho varsity
teams must be passing in more than the average hours carried by a non-athlotoe

"In 1930, I collaborated with a number of other educators on the toxt by
Ginn & Company, “Higher Education in America," my chaptor being on Organization and >
Administration of Physical Education and Athletics. May I quote from phases of-ny
contribution on pages 592 and 593.

‘We hear little of the thousands of athletes who have graduated and
have taken their places as worthy citizens,’ but we hear nuch about the
undesirable athletes who sift into the institutions ond bring them no
credit. Jany mon graduate from college and’ become prominent in the pro-
fessions and-in' business because of their athlotie inclinations. the
letics and the urge to play kept them in high school and led them to
college. Even though such a primary motive is insufficient, in many ine
stances it helps the boy to the placo of larger vision and truer motives. ..

'Of other undesirnble students who matriculate and fail to live up to
colloge standards, howover,we.hear very little. A recent survey was
conducted in one of our lid-Western - ‘universities to determine whnt per- ke
centage of the student body was eligible for athletic competition under
the present ruling of twenty-seven hours of passing work the precoding semee
sters. .The findings were interesting. Out of a total vnrollment of 4,082‘
students, 2,197 were found to be cligible and 1,992 ineligible. But it
was the average of the wonen in class standing thut brought the avorage of
the student body a little past the 50 percont mark. Of the men students,
1,240 wore oligible and 1,461 were ineligiblo; of tho women, 957 wero elie
gible, and 531 were inoligible. Perhaps it is unjust to. the athlete to
focus so nuch attention upon tho undosirable roflection that. he brings upon .
his school when his class grades ronder hin ineligible for intercollegiate

compotition.

"In spite of a mass of such statistics which might be oompiled there are.
those who see'no remedy for theevils of the systen except the abolition of
intercollegiate athletics and the establishment of on extensive system of
intramurals which will engage the entire student body in a program of play
in thoir stend. Tho organization of the jmorican college is such that a
spirit of rivalry in intranurals could not be sufficiontly aroused to tnke
the place of intorcollogiate competition. Ih spite of the fact that nature
has endowod us with wonderful powors of substitution, we should have diffie
culty in finding something else to take the place of our great team games as
they are not enshrined in our Soop eters civilization. Intrarurals will ale
ways be moro or less "fooling play." Competitive athletics will always be
serious play. Even if intramurals could supply, in the physical education
program, the need for recrention, and at tho sane tine build up the physical
body so that it can succossfully méet lifots demands, with therevenuo from
athlotics taken eway, there would be small chance for an appreciable systen
of intramurals to exist. The sole source of revonue for athletic and play
purposes in many of our colleges is from the gate receipts of football ganes.
Especially is this condition true in the colleges of tho South, It seems