"The Game of Life," took center stage at the Division III forum at the 2002 NCAA Convention, but it was perhaps a different game than the Division III delegates were expecting.

James Shulman, co-author of the now well-known book, was to have led a participatory discussion session on the culture of Division III athletics.

A packed house of attendees were seated at round tables awaiting the discussion, but the anticipated interaction among colleagues never occurred, as Shulman's presentation and subsequent audience participation focused more on the book's findings -- and the specific schools and conferences that were the subject of his study -- rather than the five more probing questions related to the athletics culture in Division III that he was expected to introduce for group discussion.

"What I'd like to do today is have a discussion about what I call the 'athletics culture,' " he said at the beginning of the presentation. "I think there is a culture, and, as it is with most cultures, there are norms, practices and mores that govern it," he said. "I think there's good to that culture and I think there's bad to that culture."

Shulman explained that the premise of the book was to examine trends at a group of schools that were similar in terms of academics yet different in terms of how they administer athletics.

Shulman then reviewed some of the more controversial findings of his book, including the concept that athletes earn more after graduation than nonathletes and that athletes consistently "underperformed" academically compared to what might have been expected of them based on their incoming standardized-test scores.

"We consistently found that at Ivy League and liberal arts colleges," he said, "but not at the big-time public schools because (student-athletes there are) already predicted to do poorly."

Shulman attributed part of his findings to the time student-athletes spend working at their sport. But he also said he thought "athletics culture" and perhaps a devaluing of academics also was a part of the equation, since other students who devoted significant amounts of time to say, the school newspaper or debate, were more likely to "overperform."

"Part of it is time -- time spent traveling, in the training room, in practice, in games. But I also think a good part of it is not time and rather what they value," Shulman said.

Shulman also asserted that athletes were more likely to have "being very well-off financially" as a stated goal and were more likely to major in certain subjects, such as finance or economics, particularly in liberal arts schools that didn't offer business as a major.

Shulman also reviewed his findings that former student-athletes want less emphasis on athletics and more emphasis on teaching undergraduates. Shulman noted that he found that the people driving expansion in athletics at some schools, those alumni who volunteer their time and serve on committees, are far more likely to be interested in increased emphasis on athletics than the average former student-athlete.

"You have to look at the views of athletes versus the views of athlete alumni leaders," he said. "And remember that those leaders want twice as much emphasis on athletics as the alumni at large. They are not representative of your alumni nor of your athlete alumni."

Shulman spent a great deal of time explaining his research methods and taking questions regarding how data were collected and compared.

Several attendees took issue with his method of comparing the "admissions advantage" of athletes over other students. The other groups Shulman looked at were underrepresented minorities and "legacies," those who were defined by their institutions as such by virtue of a previous family member attending. Shulman asserted that there was a 15 percent athlete advantage (over all other students) in 1976 and a 53 percent athlete advantage in 1999. In other words, he said, athletes were 53 percent more likely to be admitted than nonathletes with similar scores and attributes.

"That means that it may very well be a rational act as a parent to drive your fourth grader all over the state on a traveling team for soccer," he said. "For all the good that college sports does, we have to be conscious that we are setting the course for society."

Shulman used the number of athletes on the list presented to the admissions offices from the athletics departments to identify the athletes, an element that many attendees said skewed the results.

"The difference between 1989 and 1999 is the change in communication between admissions and athletics," said Bill Gehling, athletics director at Tufts University. "Where I once may have given them a list of 30 kids, some of whom may not have been appropriate, now there's that communication and pre-qualification element. I may only submit 15 athletes now, but they are ones that I think have a really good chance and those that I believe are a good fit academically."

Because some conferences or other groups may wish to engage in their own discussions on the idea of an athletics culture, the list of discussion questions that were to have been discussed in more detail at the forum follow:

Are there any specific characteristics that society perceives as being more common among student-athletes?

A relationship with a coach is often the strongest and longest-held relationship that a team member has with the campus community. What are the positives of this relationship? What are the negatives? What can be done to make sure that coaches are part of the larger campus culture?

Do the potential benefits to be gained from participation in intercollegiate athletics (such as leadership, collaboration, discipline, being goal-oriented) transfer to academic and campus life? If so, then how?

Is the culture of athletics the same for women as for men?

What are the positives and negatives of specializing in one sport?

CHAMPS/Life Skills

The second part of the Division III forum was a discussion of the NCAA's CHAMPS/Life Skills program and how that program can benefit Division III institutions.

Tim Clark, NCAA education outreach program coordinator, introduced the program and the panelists, who were: Jean Conway, academic counselor and life skills coordinator at State University College at Oswego; Sandra Moore, athletics director at Oswego State; Mike Lindberg, associate athletics director and life skills coordinator at Ithaca College; and Stacie Wentz, student-athlete at Salisbury University and a member of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

Clark noted that more than 400 NCAA institutions participate in the CHAMPS/Life Skills program, including 102 from Division III.

"The program recognizes differences in institutions," Clark said, "And the commitment areas are very broad to permit the maximum amount of institutional autonomy and creativity."

Those commitments are to academic excellence, athletics excellence, personal development, service and career development.

Clark noted that instructional materials and support were available from the NCAA national office's education outreach staff, and he also noted that institutions participating in the program could nominate student-athletes to attend the NCAA Foundation Leadership Conference.

Conway detailed how the life skills program developed and grew on her campus.

"I would disagree with those who say Division III student-athletes don't need the life skills program," Conway said. "Our campus provides many first-year programs and other services for students. Our student-athletes, like other populations, face some challenges that are unique to their roles."

Moore noted that the academic shortcoming of one talented student-athlete on her campus several years ago served as a wake-up call to her for the need to provide services on Division III campuses.

"Throughout the development of our program, we have been cognizant of the Division III philosophy," she said. "And we have tried to make the program part of the campus environment. We do not tutor student-athletes. We educate them to take advantage of tutoring services on campuses, and we encourage them to work closely with their professors."

Moore also pointed out that their life skills program had enjoyed significant faculty support on campus.

"It's not a very difficult task to convince faculty to support a program that helps improve academic performance."

Lindberg told attendees that the life skills program on his campus had made the most of limited resources.

"Your life skills program can be as simple or as complex as you want. You just need to decide and then commit to it," he said. "Do we really need CHAMPS on our Division III campuses? I think so, in part to ensure that the intensification of athletics in our society does not pull our student-athletes away from the rest of our students. Student-athletes need life skills programming to assimilate."

Lindberg also noted that the programs and services offered to student-athletes can be easily offered to the entire campus, a sentiment echoed by Conway.

Wentz spoke of the benefits of a life skills program to student-athletes.

"CHAMPS/Life Skills benefits all student-athletes, no matter what division they compete in," she said, noting that the program assists student-athletes in learning to balance the joint demands of academics, athletics and campus life. "The program teaches us to take the skills we've learned on the court or field or track and apply them to life. The life skills program promotes ownership of student-athletes' own athletics, academics and social responsibilities."