University of South Carolina Libraries
.opinion Academics on hold for some athletes . Academics and athletics? <? >U ^ 4- 0-% ^ r* rvi T T COl/C liiiti a> wuai a uiuuuaiu ^aiu^ai^u *jj wuv/ m;?, but according to published reports, the two don't mix at USC for some athletes. According to The State eight of 28 fresh-? men who entered USC last year on football scholarships could barely read and write. Three of the eight scored the equivalent of zero on the verbal section of the Scholastic Aptitude TW<t onH all haH rr*mhinf?H SAT totals of less than JL VJ V y UltVt VMl ilM%t w Vf m?? v ? ? 600. The test's possible scores range from 400 to 1,600. The eight freshmen were assigned to a special program outside of the competitive environment of the university that would give them up to 12 credit " f infanoiira rao^lina on^ m ltV? in ct rimfinn I1UU13 U1 llllVUOlTV 1 VUUUlg HI1U ilium 111UI.1 uvuv?} according to the reports. The students were admitted to Carolina because USC President James Holderman waived standard admissions requirements for them. Of the 25 waivers Holderman granted for 1982-83, about 10 went to athletes. Athletic department academic counselor Harold ' J 4-1? ? time f/Ar O CnfflTKY WIIllC ScllU lllC uuivciaiiy vvaa luuiviiig 1U1 <JL OVIUU5 in which the athletes would be "comfortable." He said he felt the athletes could graduate in five years, including summer sessions, "if we could spend a year and get them ready for college instruction." It is outrageous that USC would make such n^n/lami/1 flvfontinri c fr?r oth Ipfpc A fnnrHino to Cll>auvilliv ^AVVpilV/uo 1 v/l UW11VIVJ1 i ?vv> V?<1Q kv/ USC Admissions Director John Boiin, "very, very few" non-athletes are admitted to Carolina with skill levels as low as those of the football players in the remedial program. These athletes obviously are not ready for college. Their athletic abilities should not be exploited at the expense of education. The university admitted these athletes to benefit the athletic program, not to benefit the student athletes. Bolin said, "I wish we could go out every time and get good academic athletes, but we can't.'' If crhnr?1c enrh ac ITS1P HiHn't arrant athlpfps with such low skill levels, they might be more inclined to acquire an education before going to college. It is hoped that USC is moving away from this practice. Holderman said he is cutting back on special admissions, including those for athletes. He also said he favors a National Collegiate Athletic Association rule effective in 1986 that will require all athletes entering Division One schools such as USC to have a combined score of at least 700 on the SAT. It is encouraging that Holderman said the athletic department's approach is "to get away from the student who can't make it academically." The university subordinated academics tc athletics in this case. Football players' "special contributions" to USC should not outweigh the standard admissions requirements fulfilled by mosl other students. The administration should ask itself why th< DUiooara campaign lists "academics" first. Gamecock Editor in Chief Richard Meyers Copy Disk Chief... Ann Appiegate Photo Editor Michael Becker Newt Editor Chris Handat Copy Editors . . . David OeWitt. Mark Asst. News Editor .... Janet Edens Farmer. Leigh Jones and Ralph W. Stice Asst. News Edit. . Rachel Waterhouse Ent. Editor JohnVaughan General Manager RonF.mler Asst. Ent. Editor . . . Jim Van Arsdale Ad Manager Linda S. Haines Sports Editor Johnny Boggs Business Manager . . . Jean Hatched Asst. Spoils Editor. . Oennis Swiuer Production Mgr Mark McEwan Opinion Pago Editor.... Leslie Katz Graduate Asst Wanda M. Hite Wire Editor Leslie Potash Adviser Mark Ethridge Jr. Newsroom 777-7181 Advertising 777 4249 Business Office 777 3888 Production 777 2833 The 6?m*coek welcomes letters and guest editorials. All letters and guest editorials must be typewritten, triple spaced on a 65 spec*line. Letters should be no longer than 300 words and guest editorials should be limited to one newsworthy subject no longer than four typed pages. Letters and gu??t editorials MUST be signed with the writer's name, telephone number, mailing address, class standing or faculty position and major. Pseudonyms are unac ceptable, but the writer's name may be withheld upon request if the circumstances warrant. We reserve the right to edit guest editorials and letters. Address letters and columns to: Opinion Page Editor, &m?#09cA, Drawer A, USC, Columbia, S.C. 29208. * o" Jetters_ Protessor e By Dr. Donald A. Marchand What will happen to S.C. state government for the remainder of the 1980s? Will public services decline precipitously in the face of economic slowdowns and delayed recovery? What will be the impact of declines in federal revenues targeted to the states c: li??, uvci me xiCAi live lvj cigiu ycaisi huh will state government decide to survive these revenue restrictions ? by increasing state revenues, by letting vital public services deteriorate or by increasing the productivity of the available tax dollars expended? To understand and resnond to these questions in the 1980s, public officials and state government executives will need to walk a fine line between comprehending the changes in our state and national economy that will determine the revenues available to state government and grappling with the difficult, but necessary, challenges of increasing the productivity of state government with whatever revenues are available. The nrincinal management nrohlem S.C. state government faced during the decades of the '60s and '70s was to manage growth. Personnel costs and operating expenditures have grown : substantially since 1960. SEVERAL FACTORS help to ex plain increasing employment and m) creasing costs of state government over [ this period, including economic k growth and population increases. Pro' bably the major factor, however, was ^ the new responsibilities state government assumed to help administer I federal programs and to provide matching grants. Examples of these new responsibilities assumed during the "Great Society" era include health 1 care for the poor and elderly, child care for the children of the poor and college expenses for the middle and working classes. New and expanded federal programs since 1965 have dramatically increased the federal funds flowing into South Carolina. Federal funds increased by 193 percent during the 1960s and $225 million per year in 1970. Moreover, enormous increases in federal funds occurred during the 1970s with a 385 percent increase during the decade to $1,083 million per year in 1980. Because state agencies administered many federal programs and because the state Legislature had to provide matching state revenues to obtain fedpral mnnips fnnrtc Hrr?v#? un state government expenditures. Driven by increased resources, the major challenge for state government officials and managers in the past 20 years has been to keep up with new programs and revenues ? hiring new personnel, building new buildings, expanding programs and keeping up with J the flow of new federal and state ? mi nnnaiy-p-i 111f I, mi m ririwrr valuates S. guest editorial revenues available each year. To a large extent, this era of growth management no longer exists. The challenge of the 1980s presents a different set of problems and opportunities for state government. While it is difficult at best to forecast precisely the future of state government in the next eight years, we can reasonably assume the growth rates experienced by state government ~ in the 1960s and 1970s will be slowed "substantially in the 1980s. Total personnel income, the basis for general fund revenues, grew 130 percent in the 1960s to $7.7 billion in 1970, by 197 percent in the 1970s to $22.8 billion in 1980. ACCORDING TO the S.C. Budget and Control Board, personal income is expected to grow by 155 percent in the 1980s to $58.1 billion in 1990. After taking inflation into account, real personal income is expected to grow by about 3 percent annually, down from the 4.8 percent annual growth rate of the 1970s. Therefore, since the tax base is likely to grow at a slower rate in the 1980s, general fund revenues probably will grow at a slower rate in the 1980s than the 1970s. Moreover, the most dramatic shock to the state budget probably will come from limitations on federal funds. It appears that federal funds will not increase from their present level in actual dollars for the remainder of the decade. Even if a liberal Democrat is elected President in 1984, the federal budget will still be saddled with substantial deficits and the states are unlikely to see growth rates in federal funHc to (vnml thnep r?f ttiA lOAAc anH M v>v?v^ v\jv*w ?aavuv vf a * wl? U11V4 1970s. ' If federal funds stay consistent for the rest of the 1980s and if general fund revenues increase at an average annual rate of 8 percent, the composition of the state budget in 1990 will look substantially different from that of 1980. Federal funds, which constituted 25 percent of the total 1970 state budget and 32 percent of the 1980 state budget, would decline to 18 per cent 01 tne total in lyyo. Total funds available to state government, which grew by 176 percent in the 1960s and 275 percent in the 1970s, would increase by just 83 percent in the 1980s. In other words, if inflation increases by an average annual rate of 7 percent, total revenues would not increase at all in constant (inflation adjusted) dollars during the 1980s. If these revenue projections are anywhere close to the mark, state government will have to undergo limitations on revenues in the 1980s, the demand for onvcrnmpnt QW . VfVt TJVVO j wmmmmmmmmmmtmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmrnmmmm ws Tut ure* probably will increase. South Carolina's population grew by 20.4 percent in the 1970s, and the U.S. Census Bureau expects population to continue growing at the same rate in the 1980s to a total of 3,132,000 in 1990. An expanding population obviously requires increasing education, licensing and health services from state government. More imnortantlv. the portions of the population that are most dependent on government ser- w vices ? the aged, the poor and their [children ? are growing disproportionately as well. TODAY WE stand on the threshold of a major management change in state government. Finding ways to improve the productivity of state government ? to do more with less ? is a practical necessity in the face of possibly precipitous declines in public ^ services. Management of state agencies in a period ot tiscal constraints demands a different set of priorities from management in a time of revenue growth. As a service "industry/' state government is very labor and information intensive. Increasing the productivity of the state's white-collar workforce will require emphasis on five basic objectives: f To develop a climate in state government where strategic planning and priority setting are basic goals of managers. To increase awareness of and control over the costs of government services. To seek whatever opportunities there are to apply modern information and communications technologies to the delivery of public services. To provide incentives in state ? agencies for employees to seek to im prove productivity in their offices and individual workplaces. To invest in career development and skill retraining programs in state government for employees displaced by productivity improvement measures. There are no easy answers to the resource squeeze in which our state government finds itself. Neither can we afford to be "penny wise and pound foolish.'* The objectives of _ management in a time of fiscal con- ? straints will require a long-term view of productivity improvement in state government and the redirection of resources to support such efforts. Short-term budget cuts and personnel squeezes do little to alleviate the basic problems we face. A major commitment to productivity improvement in the 1980s is both a necessity and our onlv real alternative. ? : " ? m Marchand is the director of the Institute of Information Management, Technology and Policy in (JSC's College of Business Administration.