Colleges Play Numbers Game With Athletics : Academics: Graduation rates can be deceptive, depending on how they are reported and who they include.
The problems of intercollegiate athletics had reached such proportions that the Carnegie Foundation was asked to assess the situation. What researchers found was startling.
“More than any other force, (athletics have) tended to distort the values of college life and to increase its emphasis upon material and the monetary,” the Carnegie report said.
“Indeed, at no point in the educational process has commercialism in college athletics wrought more mischief than in its effect upon the American undergraduate. And the distressing fact is that the college, the Fostering Mother, has permitted and even encouraged it to do these things in the name of education.”
That was in 1929.
In 1989, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) testified before a Senate hearing on graduation rates of student athletes, saying: “Too many athletes leave college without an education. For these students--many of whom are disadvantaged--the promise of intercollegiate sports is a hoax.”
The more things change . . .
College sports have come under a Congressional microscope because Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) and Rep. Tom McMillen (D-Md.), both former athletes, introduced legislation that would force schools to reveal graduation rates of scholarship athletes at federally funded institutions.
The prospect of such legislation spurred the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. Presidents’ Commission last fall to recommend a similar program without federal intervention. The NCAA will consider the proposal at its yearly convention this week.
Either way, the publication of such information seems imminent.
And none too soon, some say. The U.S. General Accounting Office reported this year that 70% of the Division I men’s basketball programs had a graduation rate of 40% or less. By comparison, 70% of the general student bodies had a rate of 40% or better.
At Division I football schools, about half the teams had a rate of 40% or less, whereas two-thirds of the general student bodies had a rate of 40% or better. Men’s basketball and football are the largest revenue-earning sports on most campuses.
At the University of Oklahoma, where the football and, more recently, basketball teams have been nationally prominent, grade-point averages of athletes have become a national embarrassment.
In the 1988-89 spring semester, the Sooner basketball team earned a cumulative 1.68 GPA, with a 2.0 being a “C” average, according to data supplied by the Center for Instructional Research. In the 1988-89 fall semester, Oklahoma’s football team had a cumulative 1.94 GPA.
“The problem with graduation is just another issue that is besmirching the white-hat image of higher education,” said Sheldon Steinbock, vice president for the American Council on Education.
Although the NCAA and College Football Assn. have compiled graduation statistics, education experts rely on the GAO report in this numbers game.
Murray Sperber, an associate professor of English and American Studies at Indiana University, said the government report is the only valid information. And he warns parents of recruited athletes to read the fine print before signing a letter of intent.
On the surface, it seems uncomplicated. Computing how many freshmen begin college in a given academic year, and then graduate within four or five years is simple--until you get to the factors used to add to or detract from the basic equation.
Sperber, among others, said there are many ways to alter the graduation rates, such as discounting transfers and dropouts who leave in good academic standing. Eliminating those categories will increase a program’s percentage.
Some coaches give misleading results by basing percentages on how many seniors graduated, ignoring those from the original freshmen class who left. Some even go so far as to count walk-ons, practice players and student managers to increase the percentage.
Universities want higher rates to project a better image, and coaches like to use the figures in the recruiting battle. It gives them more ammunition when trying to persuade education-minded parents where to send their talented sons and daughters.
Ursula R. Walsh, director of research for the NCAA, understands the problem as well as anyone. She compiles the figures from each member institution to determine a national mean rate.
The NCAA computes both raw and adjusted percentages.
The raw percentage determines how many recruited athletes who start college in a given academic year graduate within five years.
The adjusted rate, which usually is higher, does not count those who left school in good academic standing and those who are still in school but beyond the five-year limit. Also, it adds athletes who transfer in and graduate.
Thus, if a school started with 10 freshmen, and five left in good academic standing and five graduated, its graduation rate would be 100% according to the adjusted rate. But to truly reflect the picture, should not the rate be 50%?
“It’s a problem,” Walsh said. “Both of (the rates) are kind of misleading.
“You will hear coaches say of the players who remained for four years, 98% have graduated. Now that is an adjusted rate because they discounted anybody who dropped away during those first four years.”
The NCAA rate reported by one school, however, has not necessarily been determined by the same method as used at another school.
Because of different interpretations of “leaving in good academic standing,” it is not valid to compare the NCAA figures from school to school, said Mike McGee, USC’s athletic director.
For instance, USC counts only those who left with eligibility; the NCAA allows schools to report those who left without athletic eligibility but are eligible to return to school.
Douglas S. Hobbs, UCLA’s faculty athletic representative, finds other faults with the statistics. But he also maintains that the data can unfairly indict schools.
He said that a comparison with the general student body is invalid, since scholarship athletes often leave because they are not playing, not because of anything related to academics.
On the other hand, regular students often leave to work, because of family problems or other personal circumstances.
“If a football player transfers at mid-year, and transfers for playing reasons, that student will probably kiss off the final exams,” Hobbs said. “He wouldn’t worry about eligibility because he would have to fulfill a year’s residence anyway. Because of NCAA rules, there is no incentive for that person to be in good standing.”
Martin French, who played football for USC through the 1985 season and now works as a producer for KTTV’s weekend sports news, took Hobbs’ thoughts a step further.
“When you’re not playing, you don’t want to do anything,” French said. “You came in as a student-athlete, but everybody knows it’s the other way around--you’re an athlete-student. It takes a real strong person to get through not playing and still doing something positive with your life in respect to school. You’re depressed.”
Another factor the figures do not compute is the inherent differences of colleges and universities--even at the Division I level. Attending Cal State Fullerton, a public school, is not the same as going to a private Ivy League institution.
Chuck Neinas, executive director of the College Football Assn., said this problem is exemplified by schools such as Duke and Stanford, whose tough academic entrance requirements filter out marginal students. Their chances of graduating a majority of students increases.
So, is it fair to assess those schools against schools that accept all high school graduates? Should anyone expect the graduation rates to be comparable?
“Each institution certainly has its own mission and own responsibility to its community,” Walsh said.
Hobbs, for one, has other problems with graduation figures. He contends that because the statistical sample is so small, one or two cases can drastically reduce the percentage, giving false impressions.
For instance, a basketball program could have only one senior during a given academic period. If that person becomes a professional in the NBA or Europe and does not graduate, the school’s percentage will be 0%. And if he does graduate, it will be 100%. Either way, the figure does not say as much about the school as it does about the individual.
This problem becomes clearer at major football schools, where some players fail to meet the five-year standard because they are more concerned with possible professional careers. Academics become secondary and once their eligibility has expired, they may leave without a degree never to return.
NFL candidates, once their college seasons have ended, have all-star games, workout sessions for scouting combines and early camps to prepare for.
“Most pro teams hold a mini-camp in May, but we’re still in school in June,” said Gary Gray, academic coordinator for University of Oregon athletics.
“Also, these guys are bombarded by sports agents. It makes it difficult to sit in a library on a project when they are thinking, ‘I can make more on a signing bonus than those people will in a year.’
“Having three or four pros (prospects) in your program can seriously affect your graduation rate.”
Although more than 17,600 athletes play Division 1 football and basketball, about only 150 will make the NFL or NBA in a given year. Still, most scholarship athletes believe they will be the ones.
“We have come to the realization we have an obligation to make it clear that no matter how good they are, their chances at making a livelihood in pro sports is small,” Hobbs said.
And those who play professionally should look beyond their athletic careers, said Marvin Cobb, assistant athletic director at USC.
“Even if you do play in the NFL for five years, sooner or later you have to put on a coat and tie and work for someone else,” Cobb said. “So, a degree is still important.”
Said Ken Henry, an All-Pacific 10 Conference receiver whose eligibility ended at USC in 1987: “A lot, like myself, think they will go through USC and have a glamorous pro career. After that turns sour, they have to face the real world.”
For Henry, that has meant working as a carpenter in Torrance. Although USC gave him an award for his vast improvement in the classroom, he left in 1988 without having earned a degree in public administration.
“I hate to have to say I went to USC for five years and didn’t get anything out of it,” Henry said. “They say they want you to get a degree while you’re playing football for them, but afterward you’re just another statistic.”
And often a statistic whose meaning is not even clear.
BACKGROUND
Eligibility rules have changed for college athletics in recent years. To enroll and play a sport, NCAA Prop. 48 requires the student to have accumulated a high school grade-point average of 2.0 in a core curriculum and have achieved a 700 score (out of 1,600) on the Scholastic Aptitude Test or 15 (out of 36) on the American College Test. To continue playing, the athlete must maintain satisfactory progress toward a degree.
* PROP. 42 MODIFICATION
The NCAA Convention votes to allow Prop. 42 casualties to receive non-athletic scholarship aid. C6
TRACKING GRADUATION RATES
Example: USC Men’s Basketball
Recruited Athletes (reported to the NCAA)
Four entering freshmen for the 1980-81 season
One graduated
Three left in poor standing
Adjusted rate of 25%
Four entering freshmen for the 1981-82 season
Two graduated
Two left in good academic standing
Adjusted rate of 100%*
*USC officials do not know whether the two who transferred--left in good academic standing--earned degrees from other schools.
Three entering freshmen for the 1982-83 season
One graduated
One left in good academic standing*
One left in poor academic standing**
Adjusted graduation rate of 50%
*USC officials do not know whether the player who transferred--left in good academic standing--earned a degree from another school.
**The player who left in poor academic standing earned enough units to graduate, but failed to meet the university’s minimum grade-point average to receive a degree. School officials are attempting to help him enroll to make up the deficiencies.
Five entering freshmen for the 1983-84 season
One graduated
Two left in good academic standing*
One left in poor academic standing
Adjusted graduation rate of 66.6%**
*USC officials do not know whether the two who transferred--left in good academic standing--earned degrees from other schools.
**One player graduated in six years, failing to meet the NCAA standard cutoff of five years. Because the player was in good academic standing and had not left the university he was not counted in the rates reported to the NCAA.
Editor’s note: Graduation rates reported to the NCAA cannot be fairly contrasted from school to school because there is no standard methodology used to determine the percentages.
USC serves as an example of a school that counts only athletes who have athletic eligibility. Others count athletes who have used their athletic eligibility but remain in good academic standing, which in effect, would increase the rate.
Source: USC.
BASKETBALL PLAYERS’ GRADUATION RATES
The graduation rates of college basketball players compared to all students at 97 Division I-A schools.
Graduation Basketball All Rate Players Students 0 to 20% 35 Schools 4 Schools 21 to 40% 33 27 41 to 60% 11 40 61 to 80% 10 20 81 to 100% 35 4
FOOTBALL PLAYERS’ GRADUATION RATES
The graduation rates of college football players compared to all students at 103 Division I-A schools.
Graduation Football All Rate Players Students 0 to 20% 14 Schools 5 Schools 21 to 40% 39 30 41 to 60% 31 42 61 to 80% 13 20 81 to 100% 6 6
THE STUDENT-ATHLETE RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
BILL SUMMARY
The Congressional bill (s. 580) requires colleges and universities receiving federal assistance to report to the Secretary of Education annually:
1. The graduation rates of their athletic-scholarship recipients broken down by sport, sex and race.
2. Statistics on students who receive athletic scholarships, broken down by field of study, type of degree received and sport.
3. The number of scholarship athletes who earn a degree within five years, broken down by sport, sex and race.
