Chapter 11 gives us information on how colleges interact with outside educational associations, accrediting agencies, athletic associations, and research partners. Here are a few scenarios for comment...
1) Accreditation – This was my research paper topic and a very interesting subject. The book gives us a little but what I found was that when schools are denied accreditation they usually try to claim a violation of due process. However, the courts have maintained that accrediting bodies are separate from the government and therefore do not rely on the 14th amendment’s due process.
At USF, my program recently experienced a loss of accreditation and was granted a temporary reinstatement that allows us to tell our accrediting body of our changes. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/10/usf
Now that we have provided our new org chart, etc. they will be deciding soon to continue our accreditation or not. Since accreditation is voluntary, it was interesting to see how hard USF is fighting to keep it for our language program. Why do you think accreditation is so important for university programs? What do you think are negative effects of losing it?
2) Athletics – This section mentions one particularly confusing case: Trustees of State Colleges and Universities v. NCAA, 147 Cal. Rptr. 187 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978), http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9623521827693454984&q=Trustees+of+State+Colleges+and+Universities+v.+NCAA&hl=en&as_sdt=40002
Two players were deemed ineligible by the NCAA, and during the trials and appeals process they told they would be ineligible. However the Cal State Hayward told the players they were eligible during the appeals process stating it would be “unjust” to make the players lose eligibility while the case dragged on (it started in 1970 when they were freshman and wasn’t resolved until 1978.) In cases that question a player’s eligibility – do you think they should continue to be eligible during the trial (innocent until proven guilty)?
3) Research partnerships - The KDI case (pg. 654-655) illustrates the questionable line that is draw when universities and outside companies collaborate on research. In this case the court determined that the company KDI had patent rights, but not exclusive rights. But it brings up the question of who should own the rights to inventions created on campus? The creator, the sponsoring company, or the university?
Scenario: My Turkish friend is a graduate student in Mechanical Engineering at USF and he successfully designed a new surgical tool with the advice of a USF doctor. The patent cost $250,000 which the university paid and now USF is seeking to “sell” the tool if it clears animal and human testing trials. In this case, the university will own the rights to this tool. Do you think that’s fair?
Accreditation is a way of ensuring the viscidity and quality of education in higher education settings. The U.S. Department of Education has established agencies which assign accrediting designations to educational institutions. These accrediting bodies conceptualize and implement standards for superior pedagogy and intermittently assess educational institutions to ensure they comply with established rules and regulations.
The type of accreditation a university possesses greatly impacts its students. If an individual pursues a graduate degree, the accreditation status of the university where the undergraduate degree was obtained will definitively effect the probability of being selected by an accredited institution. Consequently, an undergraduate degree earned via a non-accredited institution will most likely not be accepted by an accredited graduate school and the student’s admission will inherently be denied. Moreover, the type of accreditation (i.e., national, regional, specialized, faith-based) a university acquires is of importance when applying for admission to graduate school. Hypothetically speaking, the University of Florida (Go Gators!) may decline the admissions status of a student who attended Universities-R-Us. In addition, credits from an accredited institution will transfer to other accredited schools. Finally, the accreditation status of a college will impact a student’s job prospects after graduation. According to the Council for Higher Education, employers strongly value a degree from an accredited institution when evaluating a candidate's credentials and qualifications for employment.
From a collegiate perspective, college and university accreditation provides dual benefits. There are grave pecuniary and research repercussions for an institution whereby accreditation is not extended or renewed. Access to federal funding (grants, scholarships, work study programs, veteran benefits, loans) is directly linked to whether the university is accredited. If the university can not access these funding sources, the potential to attract and increase student enrollment is significantly diminished. Furthermore, as in USF's case, the denial of accreditation highly impacts recruitment of international students. This is particularly important for USF as elimination of the ELI extinguishes a program which highly attracts international students. Consequently, increased fees typically procured due to the number of international students enrolled is no longer an added benefit. More importantly, as Provost Wilcox stated(paraphrased),"recruitment of international students creates a breakthrough strategy that will rapidly transform USF into a preferred destination for high ability students from around the world.” Summarily translated, this affords USF the opportunity to gleam from and/or collaborate with students from nations whose technology or industry standards may surpass current U.S. achievements.
Employers also value degrees from accredited universities. It gives them the opportunity to engage with schools more directly. There is also the added value to having consistency in the skills of graduates. Finally, there is the assurance that the curriculum being taught is appropriate, relevant and complying with industry standards.
2. Yes, I do think athletic players should play through one appeal process. And the reason is that there is no way to make them whole again, if they stop playing through the process but it is determined that they should have been eligible the whole time. A student athlete's playing time is extremely valuable property - it is the launch pad of their athletic careers and the only thing they can utilize to pursue a professional career in their sports. To deprive them of that during an adjudication would be unfair. The pressure should be on the NCAA to establish clearly defined policies regarding eligibility, and also to establish expedient review procedures if a student's eligibility is at question.
FYI - "helena" is really Jennifer Espinola - my Mom signed into my computer last night and I didn't switch the accounts before contributing to the Blog. :)
3. Research Partnerships Hypothetical - a prudent Graduate Student intending to create a product through his graduate study might want to consult with an attorney about the design of an agreement with the institution. Overall, I do think it is fair for the institution who makes a financial investment in the product (paying $250k for the patent, and also the contributions of its staff members who may be teaching/advising the student through the process) to have a stake and certain ownership rights to the product. I think it also depends whether the product is generated through an assignment initiated by the institution. In that case, the student receives a grade in exchange for his/her work and s/he can also receive the value of the experience to be put on his/her CV. However, as I alluded to, the graduate student could have negotiated a stake as well, if s/he anticipated the creation of a product with such a value.
I think your graduate student scenario is fair. If making money is your primary objective, all you need to do is make yourself a private commodity and make these moves yourself.
Here's my question though. What if the same graduate student made an equally lucrative invention, but did so outside of USF facilities, without USF subsidies and without the professor's advise - would it still be the property of USF?
I agree with Jennifer regarding her position on letting the athletes play during an eligibility trial. I believe it is always best to air on the side of caution when dealing with issues of student property. What if the two players in question continue to play, are both deemed to be the “X factor” for their team’s success, win the national championship? After a three year trial, both players are found to have been ineligible during their team’s national championship run. Would the team have to relinquish its championships? Does the NCAA have any legal right to act against the institution in this case?
I agree with Jennifer in regards to the fact that athletic players should be able to play through the appeals process and that their playing time could be considered a valuable property. However, when I read chapter nine of our text I found that the courts seem to be split, as to whether, if student athletes have property interest or not. The two cases that found that property interests existed for college athletes are Behagen v. Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives and Regents of the University of Minnesota v. NCAA. The two cases that found that property didn’t exist for student athletes are Colorado Seminary v. NCAA and Hawkins v. NCAA. I guess the best thing for universities to do is to give athletes some type of due process.
Regarding the NCAA athletes, it is my personal opinion that players should be allowed to play during an eligibility trial. Student’s have a finite time during which their athletic skills are at their peak, and often times this is during their college years (18-24). If a student was later deemed eligible to play, after a long trial, and realized that they were not allowed to play during their peek think of the repercussions! What if their skill had faded and although they might have had a strong chance of going pro a few years ago they were now not up to performance standards for drafted athletes? What if some freak accident occurred and they ended up hurt in a way that negatively impacted their ability to play? What if the period they were denied eligibility during was a time when the school they were playing for had a team and coaching staff assembled that could make a run for a national championship and by the time they were granted eligibility this perfect storm of talent and coaching was no longer in existence? There are so many opportunities lost if a student was to be found eligible later, the mental impact of knowing you were taking these risks by not playing would be horrible to endure and if you lost opportunities the desire to sue for this property right would be unquenchable for most young athletes. I do agree with Jennifer, however, that the NCAA should have such clear and strict guidelines that it doesn’t allow opportunities for dilemmas like this to occur. In my opinion, if they write their guidelines in a manner that allows grey areas, the students in these grey areas should be allowed to play. It should not become an issue in the courts, just something for the NCAA to address in rule changes the following year.
1. I believe accreditation is important for universities because it provides an extra "umph" that the program is doing what it needs to be doing to provide a quality education. As a peer review process, accreditation allows for unbiased, outside sources to assess the program to make sure it is meeting necessary standards of education. That level of scrutiny challenges institutions to do more and exercise a certain level of excellence in the educational experience and because it is an ongoing process, it forces programs to stay current and to continue providing quality education. The other piece that is extremely important in accreditation is the financial aid piece - accredited institutions have more financial aid assistance from the federal government, which allows for education to be more accessible to students.
3. The question of research partnerships is an interesting one. It is my opinion that it should be just that - a partnership. If a university is spending monetary resources on things like patents and materials that provide individuals the opportunity to create and develop resources that perhaps would not have been possible without the university's assistance, then the right to that item should be shared as it would not have been invented independent of the other. In other words, monetary compensation and production decisions should be shared. While this creates a sticky situation in the event that both entities do not agree on their share or next steps, it also allows for those invested in the product to be involved in decisions and outcomes related to it.
After researching several sites regarding graduate students and patents, many research agreement forms came up that stipulated that patents created by a graduate student utilizing university resources would become the property of the university. The university is investing a significant amount of resources including advice, assistance from other employees, equipment, labs, and other resources that it would be unavailable to an individual. Therefore, the University is burdened with the financial costs associated with the research. The same would be said of an employee who is working for company X. creates a patentable product.
In terms of sharing profits made from copyrights and patents, there should be profit-sharing with the graduate student even if the university owns the patent. According to the Michigan Technological University graduate student research agreement, the following royalty agreement is set up for any copyrights or patents that are generated by the graduate student:
• Initial $1,000 to me • Income from $1,000 to $30,000 divided 15% to me and 85% to the University • Income from $30,000 to $180,000 divided equally among the University, my department, and myself • Income in excess of $180,000 divided 1/3 to me and 2/3 to the University.
I believe this payment agreement is fair to both the university and the student. It takes money to make money and since the University is fronting most if not all of the cost, more royalties should be kept by the institution.
In terms of patents and copyrights created by graduate student without ANY use of university resources, should be owned exclusively by the graduate.
Accreditation (scenario 1) - Both Dionne and Viancca have great points (thanks!) that illustrate the importance of having and maintaining accreditation in higher education. In my example, if USF loses accreditation for our English language program we could lose future international students which means a bigger loss financially and culturally for USF long term.
Athletics (scenario 2) -It looks like many of us are in agreement that players should be allowed to continue playing while disputes of eligibility are being resolved. As Christina points out athletes have a "finite time" in which they can compete at the college level and this may have serious implications for their ability to get pro contracts, etc. However, Reggie brings up a good point...what happens if the result is they were in fact deemed ineligible and they win a national championship during the dispute time? I think the court and NCAA might have to treat it like the INS does with visa issues. If your immigration status is in dispute, you can legally remain in the country until a status decision is made. Even if they declare you illegal at a later date, you have legal status while you wait. But as Matthew suggests, the courts need to be clearer on this issue and protect due process rights.
Research rights (scenario 3) -Great discussion here on the rights of the graduate student. I liked Viancca's idea that the research could be a true partnership. The tool design was not part of a class project. The student approached their professor with the design idea/concept and asked if the university would allow him to work on it as part of his research. He's an international student without funds to attempt to patent this on his own (as Troy suggests). It's a good example of how ideas are themselves property/a commodity and if the university seeks to profit from a graduate student's work....does the law come into play?
Thanks again to everyone that contributed thoughts to these scenarios!
Not directly related, but an interesting story in light of Reggie's concerns. Pouncey's alleged misconduct could cost the Gators their Sugar Bowl victory.
I agree for the most part with my classmates on the importance and need for accreditation. It is true that this process allows for a review of programs and services provided to ensure the value of the program or degrees offered. I wonder however, How effective is accreditation if each regional body has their own, and in some instances different standards? Is an accredited school in the Florida better because the SACS standards for accreditation are more stringent or differently defined in a particular area than say a school in Washington State? Further, I wonder if say a school like Harvard lost accreditation. Would it matter? I would like to think that it would, but I tend to think that too many, the name of the institution and its reputation carries significant weight to the average consumer. Accreditation certainly means more to a school like USF that is trying to grow its reputation, but does it matter as much to others?
with regard to the athletes, I don't see this situation as any different than a conduct situation and thus concur with Jennifer E. and the others that have said that the athletes should play while under review. Sanctions should be held in abeyance until a processes has run its course.
Perhaps we will get to see another example of what transpires between the NCAA, the institution (USC) and the courts: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/37621070/
Interesting enough and somewhat to the point of our discussion...concerning their 2004 BCS championship... "While no action would go into effect until USC’s appeals are heard by the NCAA..." So, perhaps a player gets to play while throughout the adjudication of the case as cited by many, however, it could void (and cost) the institution (dollars/reputation.) When will they (we) learn?
Ken, you bring up a really interesting point in mentioning the NCAA v USC case that is currently developing. While we know that USC is currently appealing to the NCAA on their ruling, I am at a loss as to their claim that the penalty is too harsh or not fair.
I agree with you that due process and the need to understand the law is the most important issue at hand, I don't think any changes will take place until true penalties are given. I believe that coaches know and understand the NCAA requirements and many chose to ignore the policies to survive under the extreme pressure of being a college coach. The coaches then chose to bolt as soon as the NCAA begins investigating and understanding the improper use of funds or treatment of athletes.
I believe that college athletics are important to student life and student affairs. I can't help to feel that the law and the NCAA must do more to enforce policies and provide a true learning environment for our student athletes.
With respect to the two players at UC Hayward, I think that they should not have been allowed to play while there was an appeal unless there was some type of successful injunction put in place for the duration of the appeals process. There was a distinct decision that was mede by the NCAA and that was not upheld by the university itself. This brings to question where the powers are: with the NCAA or UC Hayward? There should be some sort of sanctions placed upon the university for going against the NCAA decision and making the players eligible during the appeals process.
Hi Everyone!
ReplyDeleteChapter 11 gives us information on how colleges interact with outside educational associations, accrediting agencies, athletic associations, and research partners. Here are a few scenarios for comment...
1) Accreditation – This was my research paper topic and a very interesting subject. The book gives us a little but what I found was that when schools are denied accreditation they usually try to claim a violation of due process. However, the courts have maintained that accrediting bodies are separate from the government and therefore do not rely on the 14th amendment’s due process.
At USF, my program recently experienced a loss of accreditation and was granted a temporary reinstatement that allows us to tell our accrediting body of our changes. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/10/usf
Now that we have provided our new org chart, etc. they will be deciding soon to continue our accreditation or not. Since accreditation is voluntary, it was interesting to see how hard USF is fighting to keep it for our language program. Why do you think accreditation is so important for university programs? What do you think are negative effects of losing it?
2) Athletics – This section mentions one particularly confusing case: Trustees of State Colleges and Universities v. NCAA, 147 Cal. Rptr. 187 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978),
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9623521827693454984&q=Trustees+of+State+Colleges+and+Universities+v.+NCAA&hl=en&as_sdt=40002
Two players were deemed ineligible by the NCAA, and during the trials and appeals process they told they would be ineligible. However the Cal State Hayward told the players they were eligible during the appeals process stating it would be “unjust” to make the players lose eligibility while the case dragged on (it started in 1970 when they were freshman and wasn’t resolved until 1978.) In cases that question a player’s eligibility – do you think they should continue to be eligible during the trial (innocent until proven guilty)?
3) Research partnerships - The KDI case (pg. 654-655) illustrates the questionable line that is draw when universities and outside companies collaborate on research. In this case the court determined that the company KDI had patent rights, but not exclusive rights. But it brings up the question of who should own the rights to inventions created on campus? The creator, the sponsoring company, or the university?
Scenario: My Turkish friend is a graduate student in Mechanical Engineering at USF and he successfully designed a new surgical tool with the advice of a USF doctor. The patent cost $250,000 which the university paid and now USF is seeking to “sell” the tool if it clears animal and human testing trials. In this case, the university will own the rights to this tool. Do you think that’s fair?
Accreditation is a way of ensuring the viscidity and quality of education in higher education settings. The U.S. Department of Education has established agencies which assign accrediting designations to educational institutions. These accrediting bodies conceptualize and implement standards for superior pedagogy and intermittently assess educational institutions to ensure they comply with established rules and regulations.
ReplyDeleteThe type of accreditation a university possesses greatly impacts its students. If an individual pursues a graduate degree, the accreditation status of the university where the undergraduate degree was obtained will definitively effect the probability of being selected by an accredited institution. Consequently, an undergraduate degree earned via a non-accredited institution will most likely not be accepted by an accredited graduate school and the student’s admission will inherently be denied. Moreover, the type of accreditation (i.e., national, regional, specialized, faith-based) a university acquires is of importance when applying for admission to graduate school. Hypothetically speaking, the University of Florida (Go Gators!) may decline the admissions status of a student who attended Universities-R-Us. In addition, credits from an accredited institution will transfer to other accredited schools. Finally, the accreditation status of a college will impact a student’s job prospects after graduation. According to the Council for Higher Education, employers strongly value a degree from an accredited institution when evaluating a candidate's credentials and qualifications for employment.
From a collegiate perspective, college and university accreditation provides dual benefits. There are grave pecuniary and research repercussions for an institution whereby accreditation is not extended or renewed. Access to federal funding (grants, scholarships, work study programs, veteran benefits, loans) is directly linked to whether the university is accredited. If the university can not access these funding sources, the potential to attract and increase student enrollment is significantly diminished. Furthermore, as in USF's case, the denial of accreditation highly impacts recruitment of international students. This is particularly important for USF as elimination of the ELI extinguishes a program which highly attracts international students. Consequently, increased fees typically procured due to the number of international students enrolled is no longer an added benefit. More importantly, as Provost Wilcox stated(paraphrased),"recruitment of international students creates a breakthrough strategy that will rapidly transform USF into a preferred destination for high ability students from around the world.” Summarily translated, this affords USF the opportunity to gleam from and/or collaborate with students from nations whose technology or industry standards may surpass current U.S. achievements.
Employers also value degrees from accredited universities. It gives them the opportunity to engage with schools more directly. There is also the added value to having consistency in the skills of graduates. Finally, there is the assurance that the curriculum being taught is appropriate, relevant and complying with industry standards.
2. Yes, I do think athletic players should play through one appeal process. And the reason is that there is no way to make them whole again, if they stop playing through the process but it is determined that they should have been eligible the whole time. A student athlete's playing time is extremely valuable property - it is the launch pad of their athletic careers and the only thing they can utilize to pursue a professional career in their sports. To deprive them of that during an adjudication would be unfair. The pressure should be on the NCAA to establish clearly defined policies regarding eligibility, and also to establish expedient review procedures if a student's eligibility is at question.
ReplyDeleteFYI - "helena" is really Jennifer Espinola - my Mom signed into my computer last night and I didn't switch the accounts before contributing to the Blog. :)
ReplyDelete3. Research Partnerships Hypothetical - a prudent Graduate Student intending to create a product through his graduate study might want to consult with an attorney about the design of an agreement with the institution. Overall, I do think it is fair for the institution who makes a financial investment in the product (paying $250k for the patent, and also the contributions of its staff members who may be teaching/advising the student through the process) to have a stake and certain ownership rights to the product. I think it also depends whether the product is generated through an assignment initiated by the institution. In that case, the student receives a grade in exchange for his/her work and s/he can also receive the value of the experience to be put on his/her CV. However, as I alluded to, the graduate student could have negotiated a stake as well, if s/he anticipated the creation of a product with such a value.
ReplyDeleteI think your graduate student scenario is fair. If making money is your primary objective, all you need to do is make yourself a private commodity and make these moves yourself.
ReplyDeleteHere's my question though. What if the same graduate student made an equally lucrative invention, but did so outside of USF facilities, without USF subsidies and without the professor's advise - would it still be the property of USF?
My understanding is if you invent something in your garage using your own resources, brain power, etc., it is yours.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jennifer regarding her position on letting the athletes play during an eligibility trial. I believe it is always best to air on the side of caution when dealing with issues of student property. What if the two players in question continue to play, are both deemed to be the “X factor” for their team’s success, win the national championship? After a three year trial, both players are found to have been ineligible during their team’s national championship run. Would the team have to relinquish its championships? Does the NCAA have any legal right to act against the institution in this case?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jennifer in regards to the fact that athletic players should be able to play through the appeals process and that their playing time could be considered a valuable property. However, when I read chapter nine of our text I found that the courts seem to be split, as to whether, if student athletes have property interest or not. The two cases that found that property interests existed for college athletes are Behagen v. Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives and Regents of the University of Minnesota v. NCAA. The two cases that found that property didn’t exist for student athletes are Colorado Seminary v. NCAA and Hawkins v. NCAA. I guess the best thing for universities to do is to give athletes some type of due process.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the NCAA athletes, it is my personal opinion that players should be allowed to play during an eligibility trial. Student’s have a finite time during which their athletic skills are at their peak, and often times this is during their college years (18-24). If a student was later deemed eligible to play, after a long trial, and realized that they were not allowed to play during their peek think of the repercussions! What if their skill had faded and although they might have had a strong chance of going pro a few years ago they were now not up to performance standards for drafted athletes? What if some freak accident occurred and they ended up hurt in a way that negatively impacted their ability to play? What if the period they were denied eligibility during was a time when the school they were playing for had a team and coaching staff assembled that could make a run for a national championship and by the time they were granted eligibility this perfect storm of talent and coaching was no longer in existence? There are so many opportunities lost if a student was to be found eligible later, the mental impact of knowing you were taking these risks by not playing would be horrible to endure and if you lost opportunities the desire to sue for this property right would be unquenchable for most young athletes. I do agree with Jennifer, however, that the NCAA should have such clear and strict guidelines that it doesn’t allow opportunities for dilemmas like this to occur. In my opinion, if they write their guidelines in a manner that allows grey areas, the students in these grey areas should be allowed to play. It should not become an issue in the courts, just something for the NCAA to address in rule changes the following year.
ReplyDelete1. I believe accreditation is important for universities because it provides an extra "umph" that the program is doing what it needs to be doing to provide a quality education. As a peer review process, accreditation allows for unbiased, outside sources to assess the program to make sure it is meeting necessary standards of education. That level of scrutiny challenges institutions to do more and exercise a certain level of excellence in the educational experience and because it is an ongoing process, it forces programs to stay current and to continue providing quality education. The other piece that is extremely important in accreditation is the financial aid piece - accredited institutions have more financial aid assistance from the federal government, which allows for education to be more accessible to students.
ReplyDelete3. The question of research partnerships is an interesting one. It is my opinion that it should be just that - a partnership. If a university is spending monetary resources on things like patents and materials that provide individuals the opportunity to create and develop resources that perhaps would not have been possible without the university's assistance, then the right to that item should be shared as it would not have been invented independent of the other. In other words, monetary compensation and production decisions should be shared. While this creates a sticky situation in the event that both entities do not agree on their share or next steps, it also allows for those invested in the product to be involved in decisions and outcomes related to it.
After researching several sites regarding graduate students and patents, many research agreement forms came up that stipulated that patents created by a graduate student utilizing university resources would become the property of the university. The university is investing a significant amount of resources including advice, assistance from other employees, equipment, labs, and other resources that it would be unavailable to an individual. Therefore, the University is burdened with the financial costs associated with the research. The same would be said of an employee who is working for company X. creates a patentable product.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of sharing profits made from copyrights and patents, there should be profit-sharing with the graduate student even if the university owns the patent. According to the Michigan Technological University graduate student research agreement, the following royalty agreement is set up for any copyrights or patents that are generated by the graduate student:
• Initial $1,000 to me
• Income from $1,000 to $30,000 divided 15% to me and 85% to the University
• Income from $30,000 to $180,000 divided equally among the University, my department, and myself
• Income in excess of $180,000 divided 1/3 to me and 2/3 to the University.
I believe this payment agreement is fair to both the university and the student. It takes money to make money and since the University is fronting most if not all of the cost, more royalties should be kept by the institution.
In terms of patents and copyrights created by graduate student without ANY use of university resources, should be owned exclusively by the graduate.
Great discussion everyone!
ReplyDeleteAccreditation (scenario 1) - Both Dionne and Viancca have great points (thanks!) that illustrate the importance of having and maintaining accreditation in higher education. In my example, if USF loses accreditation for our English language program we could lose future international students which means a bigger loss financially and culturally for USF long term.
Athletics (scenario 2) -It looks like many of us are in agreement that players should be allowed to continue playing while disputes of eligibility are being resolved. As Christina points out athletes have a "finite time" in which they can compete at the college level and this may have serious implications for their ability to get pro contracts, etc. However, Reggie brings up a good point...what happens if the result is they were in fact deemed ineligible and they win a national championship during the dispute time? I think the court and NCAA might have to treat it like the INS does with visa issues. If your immigration status is in dispute, you can legally remain in the country until a status decision is made. Even if they declare you illegal at a later date, you have legal status while you wait. But as Matthew suggests, the courts need to be clearer on this issue and protect due process rights.
Research rights (scenario 3) -Great discussion here on the rights of the graduate student. I liked Viancca's idea that the research could be a true partnership. The tool design was not part of a class project. The student approached their professor with the design idea/concept and asked if the university would allow him to work on it as part of his research. He's an international student without funds to attempt to patent this on his own (as Troy suggests). It's a good example of how ideas are themselves property/a commodity and if the university seeks to profit from a graduate student's work....does the law come into play?
Thanks again to everyone that contributed thoughts to these scenarios!
-Michelle Bell-
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5392159
ReplyDeleteNot directly related, but an interesting story in light of Reggie's concerns. Pouncey's alleged misconduct could cost the Gators their Sugar Bowl victory.
I agree for the most part with my classmates on the importance and need for accreditation. It is true that this process allows for a review of programs and services provided to ensure the value of the program or degrees offered. I wonder however, How effective is accreditation if each regional body has their own, and in some instances different standards? Is an accredited school in the Florida better because the SACS standards for accreditation are more stringent or differently defined in a particular area than say a school in Washington State? Further, I wonder if say a school like Harvard lost accreditation. Would it matter? I would like to think that it would, but I tend to think that too many, the name of the institution and its reputation carries significant weight to the average consumer. Accreditation certainly means more to a school like USF that is trying to grow its reputation, but does it matter as much to others?
ReplyDeletewith regard to the athletes, I don't see this situation as any different than a conduct situation and thus concur with Jennifer E. and the others that have said that the athletes should play while under review. Sanctions should be held in abeyance until a processes has run its course.
Perhaps we will get to see another example of what transpires between the NCAA, the institution (USC) and the courts:
ReplyDeletehttp://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/37621070/
Interesting enough and somewhat to the point of our discussion...concerning their 2004 BCS championship... "While no action would go into effect until USC’s appeals are heard by the NCAA..." So, perhaps a player gets to play while throughout the adjudication of the case as cited by many, however, it could void (and cost) the institution (dollars/reputation.) When will they (we) learn?
Ken, you bring up a really interesting point in mentioning the NCAA v USC case that is currently developing. While we know that USC is currently appealing to the NCAA on their ruling, I am at a loss as to their claim that the penalty is too harsh or not fair.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that due process and the need to understand the law is the most important issue at hand, I don't think any changes will take place until true penalties are given. I believe that coaches know and understand the NCAA requirements and many chose to ignore the policies to survive under the extreme pressure of being a college coach. The coaches then chose to bolt as soon as the NCAA begins investigating and understanding the improper use of funds or treatment of athletes.
I believe that college athletics are important to student life and student affairs. I can't help to feel that the law and the NCAA must do more to enforce policies and provide a true learning environment for our student athletes.
With respect to the two players at UC Hayward, I think that they should not have been allowed to play while there was an appeal unless there was some type of successful injunction put in place for the duration of the appeals process. There was a distinct decision that was mede by the NCAA and that was not upheld by the university itself. This brings to question where the powers are: with the NCAA or UC Hayward? There should be some sort of sanctions placed upon the university for going against the NCAA decision and making the players eligible during the appeals process.
ReplyDelete