Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a new article that just makes my blood boil. Here's the summary:

"THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION would toughen academic requirements for Division I athletes under a plan proposed Monday by a group of faculty members at the association's annual convention. Athletes would have to take an additional core course in high school, and would have to make steady progress toward a degree in college."

The nerve of the NCAA! Imagine--ONE extra high school course!? "...make steady progress toward a degree in college"!? Where's the ACLU when you need them? This is absurd. Next thing you know, they'll require jocks to go to class. Sheesh.

By GatorDad on Friday, January 18, 2002 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Aw, c'mon, George... At least some of the athletes take advantage of the education they are offered, and they contribute a lot to how students feel about the school, not to mention the alumni.

By Dadster on Sunday, March 10, 2002 - 05:26 pm: Edit

I wouldn't mind seeing graduation rate requirements/penalties. If the graduation rate of athletes in a major sport falls to more than 10% below the average of the student body as a whole, for example, that sport loses some scholarships...

By anon on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Keep in mind, Dadster, that at some schools the four-year graduation rate isn't very high. It's possible that Notre Dame and Stanford could be held to 80% graduation rates or higher, while some state schools could easily be sub-50%. Not exactly a level playing field!

By Dave Berry on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 08:47 am: Edit

Good point, anon. I'd like to know the overall, average graduation rate of both the women's and men's division of the NCAA basketball tourney this year. Those numbers are probably out there somewhere, most likely on The Chronicle's or NCAA's site. Maybe I'll check that out later, unless one of our well-informed posters already knows.

By Ivy Wannabe on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 09:50 am: Edit

If you are interested in these issues (grad rates of Div. I athletes, who benefits from big-time college sports, etc.) you might want to read a book called "Unpaid Professionals," by Andrew Zimbalist. He's a sports economist, consultant on many national sports issues (e.g., labor disputes, new-stadium proposals) as well as an econ prof at one of the most "elite" colleges in the country--Smith.

By Shennie (Shennie) on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Graduation rates are important, but, as in most things, you need to look beyond the numbers. Basketball grad rates are especially difficult to evaluate because you are looking at a very small number of students. I believe that Div. I scholarships are capped at 12. That means you average 3 students/class on scholarship. However, we know that the distribution is usually skewed. So if you have 2 scholarship players in the class of 2002 who leave early for whatever reasons, your program has a graduation rate of 0 for that year.

Also, according to NCAA requirements, athletes get 5 years to graduate, so you can't evaluate the numbers based on 4 year rates. Finally, in well known programs, you will have students who leave at the end of 4 years to pursue professional careers. The is especially true in football and hockey. It is difficult for a student/athlete to complete a degree in 4 years in a D-I program. So those who leave to go pro may be close to graduation, but may not complete their degree in the 5 year time line, if they finish it at all. This does not necessarily mean the colleges have failed them.

The issues surrounding graduation rates for athletes is complex and can't be summed up by stating that athletes who don't graduate should not have been admitted in the first place.

By Dadster on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 10:30 am: Edit

I guess for a sport like basketball you'd have to average it over a period of time to compensate for the small numbers. I just think that some programs accept kids with no expectation that they will be real students with realistic prospects of graduating. There needs to be a way to distinguish between the schools that provide serious education for their athletes and those that don't.

By Shennie (Shennie) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Dadster - I do agree with you there. I think the NCAA tries to deal with that by requiring all athletes to be enrolled in a degree program. What that means is that from day 1, they need to demonstrate that they can obtain a degree from the institution in the 5 year limit. This is easy for first year students and becomes harder as they go along if they are not taking classes that will meet degree requirements.

One large program used to get around this by offering a "General Studies" major. They only thing that was required to get a degree in General Studies was that the student had to take 120 credits in anything. They could be all easy classes and they didn't have to fit together or be thematic in any way. I believe that this option was finally eliminated under pressure from the NCAA.

Graduation rates are one way to see how well universities are doing with their athletes, but they will never tell the whole story, since in very prominent programs you will always have students who leave early to go pro. And yes, there are programs that take advantage of youngsters on a regular basis. Unfortunately, kids who don't have good mentors and/or informed parents often get taken in by the the bright lights and end up being used up and thrown away.

By R Storm (Anonrs) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 03:18 am: Edit

The University of Washington has a new mens basketball coach, Lorenzo Romar. (Former two season UW Husky in 1978-80, five year career in NBA, and recruited from head coach position at Saint Louis University). Base salary is $700,000 and directly quoted from Seattle Times: "In addition, he can reach another $100,000 in incentives if his team meets certain academic standards along with competitive standards..."