Four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader earned widespread media attention last week when he called for the termination of athletic scholarships given to college student athletes. Nader's comments coincided with the end of March Madness, the popular name for the NCAA Basketball Championships. Nader explained his promotion of need-based scholarships to replace those that are explicitly athletic, stating, "It's time we step back and finally address the myth of amateurism surrounding big-time college football and basketball in this country."Nader's reasoning revolves around his concern that the hyper-competitive nature surrounding the institution of college athletics manipulates American families. "An entire industry has developed in the youth sports arena-club teams, personal trainers, etc.-to prey on families' dreams of an athletic scholarship," he said. His concern for the negative impact athletic scholarships have on American society as a whole is certainly commendable, though I think these scholarships may do even greater damage to the structure and legacy of the American university.

The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, an organization that works to promote academic integrity and priority within university sports, found that 10 of the 68 men's basketball teams that participated March Madness this year were ineligible for play under the academic benchmark recommended by the Commission and backed by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. The benchmark requires that teams graduate at least 50 percent of their players.

More statistics show the dismal relationship between academics and upper-tier athletics. According to the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, 66 percent of Division I male basketball players graduated in 2010. What kind of standard is this? We should not have such low expectations for student athletes. To think of them as professional players with full course loads in addition to their all-consuming jobs explains this low figure for graduation. But technically, Division I athletes are supposed to be college students who participate in a normal-albeit intense-extracurricular activity while studying at their university. We should stop pretending academics are the priority for these athletes and admit that, to them and the industry created around them, their sport comes first.

Of course, failure to maintain a high-enough grade point average is not the only reason Division I athletes frequently fail to graduate. Many transfer and some drop out early to join professional teams. Either way, the low graduation rate is a testament to the low priority of academics.

The university shouldn't be a pool where athletes wait it out until they can join the big leagues. Viewing the university as a mere stepping stone to a professional athletic career devalues the entire academic system, and students who see college in this way take the spaces of potential students who truly want to study and learn.

Besides concern for the academic standing of student athletes who prioritize their sport, Nader's proposal calls for a re-evaluation of university athletics. The nature of amateur athletics is undoubtedly integral to the American university life and experience. College sports were first introduced and promoted over a century ago as a way to develop student life. It was supposed to enrich the overall experience of attending a university; it wasn't intended to be a mimicry of professional sports adapted to the university level. It grew out of the university, not into it.

Nader and other critics of the current system have suggested removing the false label of amateurism from Division I sports by revamping the system and allowing it to become a fully professional organization. I think there is a lot of merit to this idea.

The number of games, the abilities of the players and the culture surrounding the league could remain the same. The changes associated with the shift toward professionalism would remain unseen by fans, though the impact on players would be significant.

Logistically, student athletes would receive need-based aid and then join their university's athletic teams as paid players. This would require an alternative source of funding to athletics, most likely sponsored by alumni and fans. These athletes would essentially play for their teams as any student works a part-time job while living on campus. Need-based scholarships would allow athletes to do what athletic scholarships in theory should be allowing them to do. Athletes could train harder for their sport without having to worry about living up to the parameters of their scholarship, and they could juggle activities and priorities to maintain their grades just as normal college students do. As the athletic scholarships stand now, athletes are required to maintain a minimum GPA in addition to being forced to achieve a certain standard of play in their sport. As Nader points out in his criticism, athletic scholarships take advantage of student athletes in this way by requiring them to do too much. A need-based scholarship would support their education without putting pressure on the students to pass their classes just so they can play. By separating schoolwork from sports, athletes may be able to give each the attention it deserves without fear of losing their scholarship.

Separating college athletics from academia is, of course, a far-fetched and probably unrealistic move. But it would mean that students, administrators, athletes and fans could stop lying to themselves about who these athletes really are to their schools. Fans would no longer have to look at the low graduation rates of Division I basketball players, sigh and shake their heads in shame, as such statistics would become irrelevant. Forging a clean split between athletics and academics might be the most honest solution to restoring academic integrity to college sports and preserving two crucial aspects of university life.