The Towerlight, November 2, 1979

tl19791102-000 "VOL. LXXIII No. 9 '(15olverJg PUBLISHED BY THE STUDENTS OF TOWSON STATE UNIVERSITY t Contents Sports 6 Entertainment 5 Features 3 Newsbriefs 8 Commentary 9 Week Watcher 7 Classifieds ' 8 November 2, 1979 NCAA bans Tigers from playoffs :1 Soccer is one of the sports that falls under the NCAA ban on Post season play. The ban covers all Division I sports, sa only football is exempt. Reaction varied among ad-ntiaistrators, coaches and athletes. Most felt that the ban Was unfortunate, but it would not hurt the athletic pro-gram very much. The concensus was that morale and recruiting would be hurt the most. Athletes were concern- ',/,' ed that morale would suffer since even if a team or an athlete was good enough to reach a championship com-petition, he could not participate. Coaches were concern-ed that their recruiting efforts may suffer during the next two years. The teams will be eligible again beginning in the fall of 1981. TL photo by Cindy Sheesley Ban gets mixed reaction Members of the administration and the Academic Council were not State upset by the news that Towson 6tate men's athletics were not eligible for post season NCAA competition. Dr. Joseph Cox, vice-president for academic affairs, who was then Acting-President of the University said he knew that the University's eligibility period would not start until May. 1979. L Cox said he was 'most perturbed the media accounts that said the University was put on probations for eligibility violations. The University la not on probation and Cox said the Papers should have checked their facts. He was pleased to see that the 4vezus American wrote a follow up article retracting the incorrect statements and explaining the case, said Cox. e a,l) n Esslinger, professor of ,,s-orY, who was then chairman of 'tie Academic Council, said ""It was an unfortunate error. I dont think there was any great plot, so I'm not greatly concerned.' Esslinger said that although academic standards was a highly debated topic when the Council was considering the move to Division 1, he did not think the ineligibility would have effected the Council's decision. There were many other com-plications involved in the decision, said Esslinger. If he thought there would be a compromise of academic standards it would have changed his mind, said Esslinger, but he did not feel that will happen. ""There is much more respon-sibility on the depaitment and the athletic director now. There is more pressure and we're in the public eye more. We can't afford to make another one of those mistakes. I don't see this one as being disastrous where another could be."" Dr. Robert Ziegler, chairman of the h sical education de artment and Dr. Margaret Kiley, professor of education, both of whom were members of the Academic Council Committee formed last spring to study the structure of the athletic department, said they did not feel the University has compromised academic standards in any way. Dr. George Friedman, professor of English, who was also a member of the committee said, ""I certainly would have wanted an explanation. We certainly talked about the effect on academics and admissions standards."" Milissa Murray, SGA president and also member of the committee, said she thought it would have swayed some decisions. With all the debate, she said, ""I definitely think the simplest thing would have changed their minds."" Dr. Patricia Plante, current chairperson of the Counil, said she thought some people may have changed their minds, but it is all in in the past now. Div. I rule causes 2 year ineligibility by Katherine Dunn Towson State men's athletics are ineligible for all National Collegiate Athletic Association post season play for two years due to complications involved in moving from Division II to Division I. The complications stem from a basic rules difference between the two divisions, said David Berst, director of enforcement for the NCAA. Division I rules are stricter than Division II rules. In Division I an athlete must have a certified 2.0 grade point average on his high school transcript to be eligible for intercollegiate athletics. For athletes' and coaches' reactions turn to page 2. Two student athletes at the University failed to meet this requirement. However, since the athletic program was still in Division II, the students were in compliance with rules under which they were playing because there is no such rule in Division II. An athlete cannot make up for not being a 2.0 qualifier by successfully completing evening or summer courses to achieve a 2.0 cumulative average. He can be admitted to the University after acquiring a 2.0 average and he can play on any Division II team, but he is not eligible for any Division I team. Before being eligible for any post season play, the University must comply with the Division I standards for two consecutive years. The requirement may be fulfilled during the last two years in Division II, or the last year in Division II and the first year in Division 1, or the first two years in Division I. The University complied with all other eligibility requirements during the last two years of Division Ii competition, May 1977 to May 1979. The administration was aware of the two students who were not 2.0 qualifiers since the University applied for Division I status last May, said Dr. Thomas Meinhardt, professor of athletics, who was athletic director at that time. The petition filed by the University with the NCAA dated May 24, 1979 states that the athletic director (Meinhardt) and faculty representative (Thomas evans, associate professor of German) reviewed the records of the institution and found the University in compliance with NCAA bylaws, ""Except for two students who were 2.0 nonqualifiers."" ""There has been no wrongdoing,"" said Joseph McMullen, current director of athletics. ""We are not on probation."" The ineligibility, he explained, is a change in the time the University will need to comply with the Division I eligibility standards. Dr. Joseph Cox, vice-president for academic affairs, who was then acting-President of the University said he thought from the time the petition was filed that the University would have to use its first two years in Division 1 as its time to meet the Division I standards. The two students involved played during different years. One was in competition during the 1977-78 season which was before a task force was even set up to study the possibility of moving into Division I. The other participated in a spring sport in 1979. Since one athlete competed last spring, the new eligibility period must begin after that season ended, said McMullen. The new time set for the University to comply with Division I standards began last May and will extend until May 1981. Cox said he thinks it is a better idea to start complying with Division 1 standards after the University actually moved into Division I, rather than study all the past records to see if the University is in compliance for the past two years. ""You're far more likely to run afoul through innocence by going that backward route,"" said Cox. There are some schools with Division I programs that never comply with NCAA eligibility rules, said Berst. Those schools, however, are not eligible for any Division I post season play. Meinhardt said the initial letter he received from the NCA granting the University Division I status said nothing about the two student nonqualifiers. He said he assumed everything was in compliance for eligibility. ,,It looked like the two students didn't matter,"" said Meinhardt. Cox said that the NCAA will grant a move to Division 1 and then after granting the request it will study the eligibility of the institution. Three months after the first letter, Meinhardt received a second letter from the NCAA requesting more information about the two students. By this time McMullen had taken over as athletic director and he forwarded all the information to the NCAA. coatinued on page 8 Fundraising to go as planned by Michael Bennett The exclusion of Towson State's male athletes from participation in NCAA post-season tournaments for two years will not have an adverse effect on athletic fund-raising, said H. William Bauersfeld, assistant vice-president for business services and executive director of the Tiger Club. The Tiger Club is the athletic scholarship fund-raising arm of the Towson State University Foundation, Inc. Tiger Club funds make it possible for the University to give scholarships to promising student athletes based solely on recognition of talent. Bauersfeld said that since there was no rules violation there should be no negative repercussions. ""I don't see it [the NCAA ban] having any impact on fund-raising. I haven't received any phone calls expressing interest or concern. That tells me that the people we deal with are not disturbed,"" he said. Formed in 1971 and originally called the Athletic Booster Club, the organization was renamed the Tiger Club in 1975. At that time a lay Board of Directors was added. In late 1978 the club was restructured, by-laws were written and officers elected. Bauersfeld said a few years ago the Tiger Club was rais-ing between $6,000 and $7,000 a year. In fiscal 1979 the club raised $80,000. The club's goal for fiscal 1980 is $125,000. Bauersfeld said they have never failed to meet a goal. The Tiger Club has no role in the dispersal of the money. Once operating expenses, which come to around 25 per-cent, are met, the rest of the money is turned over to the University. Faculty opinion mixed on published evaluations by Halaine Silberg The proposal for published, '�adent-run evaluations of instruct- �""8 has generated controversy h41.1115/1g Towson State faculty mem-rra. Initiated by Jeff Williams, Pident Government Association it( irector of communications, the Dr�Posed evaluations would be ccaiducted by students and made ttvailable for them to examine. ""I don't think anything would be accomplished"" by published evaluations, said Dr. Smart Ekpo, �Dr�fessor of political science. Ekpo "" only opposes published eval-tlations but questions the validity of present evaluation system. In 'e Present system, evaluations are administered by the instructor and rnstie available only to himself, the Patricia Plante department chairperson and other fauclty members. The University needs to under-take a study to determine if these evaluations are instrumental in improving teacher effectiveness, said Ekpo. ""That's what we need, not just evaluation for the sake of evaluation."" Ekpo said he does not believe a correlation exists between eval-uations and teacher effectivenes. ""My job is important,"" he said, explaining that his performance stems from his own committment, not fear of a bad evaluation. Furthermore, Ekpo said that he doubts both the fairness and validity of student evaluations, as they involve a ""question of subjective judgement by the student."" Many students lack objectivity in evaluating, he said. Students tend to judge an instructor by the grades he gives and his individual personality rather than his instructional methods, Ekpo said. Most students do not understand that an instructor must make them study hard for their own benefit. Dr. Jack Osman, professor of health science, also questions the validity of present evaluations but for different reasons. The present evaluation system is ""grossly inadequate,"" he said, as it ""doesn't lend itself to a true evaluation. To be more effective, it requires the students to write , in comments"" which they often will not do for fear of revealing their identities. Osman said the concept of evaluation presents great possi-bilities for effective judgement by students. ""Students are mature and responsible enough to be able to render an accurate evaluation of a faculty member. I think they know implicitly when they have an excellent teacher, because they've seen so much contrast within their education. Students are constantly exposed to the instructor's ability,"" he said. Published evaluations, said Os-man, ""could be very useful to students interested in making better instructor selection."" These eval-uations would provide a checklist from which students could ascertain methods of grading and testing, course requirements, consistency of instructors and teaching techniques most suited to their needs. He cited one exainple to be a student who, feeling uncomfortable in a class discussion group, selects an instructor known to conduct a primarily lecture-type class. Instructors, too, could benefit from published student evaluations, Osman said. ""It would keep more of us on our toes."" He recognized the tendency of some instructors to label evaluations as unfair due to a lack of student knowledge and a tendency of students to use evaluations as popularity contests. Osman, however, said these statements are merely a ""rational-ization for their (instructors) in-effictiveness. He said that many instructors still take evaluations seriously, referring to himself as a prime example. ""I was interested in winning the approval of my students and/or my peer evaluators. The opinions of other people became more im-portant than my own opinion,'' said Osman. He said he is now able to put evaluations in their proper perspective. ""I have solid, sound, educational basis for what I do."" Although he is in favor of published evaluations, Osman pointed out some possible dis-advantages. ""They have potential hurt to them. In fact, there is potential destruction to some of the evaluations,"" he said. Some new faculty members who are still inexperienced could be destroyed by a bad evaluation. For that reason, he said, it must be taken into account that the evaluations are composites of student opinion. ""Some people don't respond favorably to being graded pub-lically,"" said Hank Bullwinkle, professor of business adminis-tration. He questioned if the good of the evaluations would be worth the exposure of subjective judgements and said the most effective evaluation occurs when the com-munication is back and forth between the student and teacher. Bullwinkle said evaluations are important but he opposes publi-cation. Instructors presently take the evaluations seriously without the threat of publication, he said. ""Anybody who is committed to teaching is concerned about any evaluation they get. Any eValuation has to make you better."" Publishing these same eval-uations presents the ""possibility of a good instructor getting tor-pedoed."" He said the student ""grapevine"" is sufficient in helping students select instructors who best suit their needs. Dr. Patricia Plante, professor of English, said published evaluations could be beneficial unless they are taken into account for promotion and tenure. She said this is because ""whatever instrument they (stu-dents) use will not allow for fine discriminations to be made between one professor and another."" She cites the main purpose of published evaluations to be more informed instructor selection by students. Plante said it is not sufficient for students to be ""running around campus"" in search of someone who may have had a certain instructor. By utilizing evaluations, students may be happier in a course than if they we're ""going in blind,"" she said. Instructors will be aided by evaluations only if they see a pattern emerging in specific complaints, Plante said. Although instructors should take evaluations seriously in some aspects, they should never substitute a student's judgement for their own when dealing with course content,"" she said. This is because there is the dancer that ""what is being judged is not the ability to teach but the ability to please,"" said Plante, explaining that a very popular teacher may not necessarily be a very good teacher. ""You are not there to please primarily. You are there to teach."" In this Issue Bored this week-end? We have the answer. Whatever your taste, there's something for you in Week Watcher. Page 7. Workin' with cops can be excit-ing� especially when you're working with the squad from ""Bar-ney Miller."" Page 3. What's the feeling when you know there will be no cham-pionships for the next two years? Towson's coaches and athletes react to the post-season ban. Page 2. "