Of course there's more awareness of Rutgers ... so what?
By Jon Whiten
So, according to this story in the Star-Ledger today, "Rutgers' success on the gridiron has generated awareness of New Jersey's state university across the country." Beyond the initial "Duh" after reading the sentence, you most likely say to yourself, as a proud New Jerseyan, "...and that can't be bad," or something to that effect. Indeed, that's the way the two newspapers that ran stories on the new survey by Opinion Research Corporation frame it. The S-L headline: "A game raises Rutgers' national profile." And in the Asbury Park Press: "A lot more people know Rutgers' name." The headlines are so banal, it's hard to think about what's really going on here. I mean, who could disagree with new puppies?
But the most interesting part of the survey findings seems to work against the hypothesis presented by Athletic Director Robert Mulcahy and other Rutgers officials. They argue that the success of the football team, and the subsequent national recognition, will bring not only cash to the university, but a higher standard of academic learning. It is a hallucinatory pipe dream Mulcahy seems to be having quite a lot lately, in which the main actor, Jane Six-Pack in Anytown, America watches Rutgers on TV, maybe in a bowl game, and maybe she sees one of those ridiculous ads some schools run whilst their football team is playing, and she thinks, "I bet that Rutgers has some kick-ass philosophers/scientists/etc. -- maybe my gifted son/daughter should think about applying!"
So what does the survey say?
- Recognition of Rutgers is increasing nationally (from 22 percent to 34 percent after the victory over Louisville). This part is obvious and you can't argue with it.
- The devil is in the details, though, and in this case, that devil takes the form of "what people know about Rutgers." After the Louisville win, 83 percent of the people had heard of Rutgers had done so because of "athletic accomplishments." "Academic accomplishments" was 19 percent, while "famous alumni" was 16 percent.
So what's my point?
The Rutgers administration, and their boosters in the mainstream press, need to stop pretending that trickle-down theory will work any better for them than it did for poor people under Ronald Reagan. Thus football's success will not raise the academic prestige of the university. Nor will it magically recreate all those courses, programs, staffers and professors lost thanks to years of budget-cutting from the state.
Mostly, R.U. football's success will be good for one interest: R.U. football. Sure, there may be stray examples of other parts of the university being buoyed, or maybe it will convice one incredible scholar to come here. But that doesn't mean it's a successful plan, or a good idea. To paraphrase John Kenneth Galbraith, "if you feed enough money to the football team, some spare change will pass through to pay for education."
Recent Comments