Student-athletes on full scholarships may be able to hold part-time jobs starting this August, but don't expect to see many Duke athletes serving up lattés at the Perk.
This April the NCAA Board of Directors passed Proposition 62, a rule which will allow full-scholarship student-athletes to hold part-time jobs during the academic year. Athletes can work during the season or the offseason and earn up to $2000 per year.
Most Duke athletes, however, think there isn't enough time to hold a job during the year. With 15 or more hours devoted to their sport during the season and a full course load, many Blue Devils feel that their plates are already full enough.
"As student-athletes, we need to focus on academics," said Jeff Becker, a third baseman on Duke's baseball team. "If you try to get in a couple hours of work too, it could be too much."
Those few extra hours a week spent working would take time away from studying, conditioning or even resting, and a student-athlete's grades or athletic performance could suffer as a result, many said.
While difficult, holding a job, playing a varsity sport and taking a full load of classes is possible. Whether an athlete works may not just be an issue of feasibility but of time management as well.
"When you're in college, you should be able to make the decision to work or not," tennis player Vanessa Webb said. "As an adult, you're responsible to decide how to manage your time."
Webb, who said she would not have the time to take a job herself, plays tennis, a sport that holds tournaments year-round. With no offseason and frequent travel, sports that compete all year leave little time for athletes to make extra money.
Other sports at Duke, however-field hockey, lacrosse, volleyball, football, basketball and soccer, for example-only compete during part of the year. Athletes in these sports have a less demanding off-season, in which they may have to practice but do not have to devote as much time to their sports as they do during the season. These athletes could lessen the balancing act by holding a part-time job only during the offseason. At least one athlete, women's basketball guard Hilary Howard, said she would consider that
"In the spring after the season's over, we have no practice and only two hours of class a day, so there would be time to have a job then," Howard said. "I'm glad they changed the ruling. We're just like everyone else; we need jobs to make money too. We can't rely on the summer to make enough money for the whole year."
One Duke athlete has already experienced juggling school, a sport and a job. In addition to playing No. 4 singles for the men's tennis team, Ramsey Smith is also a model. Smith gained a special NCAA exemption permitting him to appear in advertisements for Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger.
Smith considers his experience balancing school, sports and employment a positive one and added that modeling has not created any significant time conflicts with tennis. Although he would choose tennis over modeling, he says he would model again if given the chance and that it's unfair to deny student-athletes such an opportunity.
"I think it's a good idea for students to make money and support themselves," Smith said. "It puts us at a disadvantage when other students are making money and we can't because of our sport."
Proposition 62 has raised questions concerning the means by which student-athletes can find employment. Boosters can set up jobs for athletes, as can a university's athletic or recreation department, as long as the athlete's salary doesn't come directly from revenue generated by that athlete's sport.
Critics of Proposition 62 claim that these provisions create avenues for corruption. Recruits could flock to colleges with the best job opportunities or demand that their coaches ensure they get good jobs as a condition of their signing.
The most danger, though, lies with the boosters. Several Division I colleges have faced NCAA sanctions because boosters fixed games or provided recruits or athletes with gifts. Such boosters could take advantage of the NCAA's ruling on jobs by offering student-athletes large amounts of money for very little work. It was for this reason that the NCAA originally forbade athletes from having jobs.
"Things like that used to happen all the time; it was part of being an athlete," golfer Kyle Elfers said.
A policy that would regulate student-athletes' employment could keep corruption at bay, but Proposition 62 does not contain such a mechanism.
"From a Duke standpoint, it'll be done in a proper way, but other schools might stretch the boundaries of what's allowed," men's tennis coach Jay Lapidus said. "The NCAA would need someone to monitor it. It opens up another can of worms.... You already hear about things happening with revenue sports. I'm surprised the NCAA let it pass."
Some critics of Proposition 62 have suggested a stipend as an alternate means for athletes to cover their living expenses. A stipend, they argue, would not take time away from studies or sports. Nor would it engender the possibilities for corruption that jobs arranged through boosters could.
It could, however, blur the lines between making ends meet and being paid to play a sport. If the goal of Proposition 62 is simply to allow student-athletes to pay expenses not covered in scholarships, expenses such as a load of laundry, a phone call home or a haircut, a stipend would serve just as well as a job. But advocates of jobs claim that a job would provide more than money-it would give athletes valuable experience.
"I think the intention is there to get athletes to work for what they get and not just be handed things," women's soccer player Kristy Whelchel said.
Whether working, playing and studying simultaneously is possible, and whether boosters and athletes will take advantage of Proposition 62, only time will tell.
"I don't understand why we have to make the athlete work to make it up," men's basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski said. "I would love to donate the difference for my players so that they wouldn't have to work. If the NCAA would allow that, I'd do that every year. Kids should have the right to work; I'm not against that. But the practicality of it is very difficult."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.