Athletes Go to the Front of Admission Line

Jack Citrin, the University of California’s faculty representative to the NCAA, recalled a colleague’s trials in getting his son admitted to prestigious Columbia University in New York.

During an interview, Citrin, a political science professor, asked an administrator what criteria Columbia used in admitting students.

“He said, ‘Well, we look at your academic credentials,’ ” Citrin said. “ ‘Then there are things that give you a special advantage, like being the child of a major donor or being able to throw the football.’ ”

The confusing and convoluted world of athletics and academics becomes all the more muddled when considering the special treatment given to athletes during the admissions process--even at Columbia, where Nobel Prize winners are almost as common as football victories.

Educators who face the ever-increasing dilemma of upholding academic integrity without sacrificing sports programs have been wrestling with the problem for some time.

The answer has been to allow a high percentage of special authority admissions--otherwise known as special admits--into their freshman classes each year.

A survey in this week’s Chronicle of Higher Education reported that about 27% of the football and men’s basketball players admitted in the fall of 1989 to NCAA Division I-A schools failed to meet regular academic admissions standards.

Players from these sports were more than six times as likely to receive special treatment by admissions boards than other students, the Chronicle reported. The survey found that 4% of all the 1989 freshmen were categorized as special admits. Others often receiving special consideration include musicians, artists, minority students and children of alumni.

The Chronicle, a Washington, D.C., weekly publication devoted to coverage of colleges and universities, received responses from 98 of the 106 Division I-A schools.

Two Pacific 10 Conference schools--Washington and Cal--ranked among the survey’s top four in special admits for football and men’s basketball. Washington and Cal granted more than 80% of their major-sport athletes special admission.

USC was third among conference schools at 68.8%, and UCLA was sixth at 51.4%. Oregon State was 55.6% and Oregon was 52.9%

The Big West Conference produced much lower percentages, because admission requirements are not as stringent as many of the Pac-10 members.

Entrance requirements vary from school to school and state to state, making any comparison suspect.

“We’re just not alike,” said Gertrude Peoples, Washington’s director of student services for athletes. “Nebraska, for instance, certainly is not the (academic) university that Washington is.”

Educators said that who is admitted is not as relevant as how that student performs once on campus. They cite a litany of tutorial programs designed to aid special admits, and they produce sterling models from the athletic community to illustrate how well the system works.

Cal, for example, admitted former Encino Crespi High running back Russell White, although he was ineligible at USC because of a low Scholastic Aptitude Test score. But after two years, Citrin said White is in good standing.

“Russell White would not have been admitted here if he had not been a major football talent,” Citrin said.

Educators emphasized that special admissions programs provide educational opportunities for the underprivileged. Margaret Gatz, USC’s faculty representative to the NCAA, said universities have a social obligation to help that segment of society.

But what happens when special admissions programs disregard that obligation and are nothing more than a loophole? Considering the poor graduation records of athletes, this question enters the equation.

The Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics spent more than a year exploring ways to overhaul the system.

William C. Friday, co-chairman of the commission and president emeritus of the University of North Carolina system, said one of the Knight Commission’s goals is to better integrate athletes into the university. That means treating athletes like other students.

Toward that end, Richard Schultz, executive director of the NCAA, proposed a certification program that would compare the performance of an individual college’s athletes in several areas with the institution’s other students.

Friday endorsed the proposal but said changes should start with admission requirements. The Knight Commission criticized admissions policies for athletes in its report published early this year.

“We felt what we had been seeing was not the way institutions should act,” he said.

The Commission recommended that colleges and universities reduce the discrepancy between special admits who are athletes and others.

Most educators agree that a disproportionate number of athletes are granted special admissions, as the Chronicle survey clearly shows. But many argue that they have few alternatives.

Cal’s Citrin said that as long as universities believe athletics have a place on campus, some consideration must be made.

“If you don’t take athletes into account (in special admissions), that would be the end of Division I sports as we know it,” Citrin said. “I think our institution sees itself in the issue of reform, not assassination.”

UCLA, like Cal, is governed by the University of California regents. The UC system mandates that its schools accept only the top 12.5% of any given California high school graduating class. This greatly reduces the recruiting field, said Judith Holland, UCLA’s senior associate athletic director.

She said if UCLA was not able to address the problem, it would not be competitive in the NCAA.

The Bruins seem to have found a balance. They have one of the country’s most successful sports programs, and their athletic graduation rate compares favorably with the general student body’s--54.6% for athletes, 62.2% for all students from the class of 1984.

“We have taken calculated risks that would make us conclude (athletes) would have a good chance to graduate,” she said of the special admits.

Peoples said one of the problems for Washington, Cal, UCLA and other similar schools is strict entrance standards. She said some Washington football players were categorized as special admits even though they had 3.4 high school grade-point averages and 1,200 SAT scores. The players failed regular admission requirements because they lacked two years of foreign language or three years of math, she said.

“It does not mean the caliber of the student is inferior at all,” Peoples said. “It just means he didn’t take what we require for admissions for the university. These students would have been regular admits at many other schools.”

Administrators said a large number of their special-admit athletes have social and economic backgrounds that fail to prepare them for the rigors of college.

“I don’t think athletes are less smart, but sometimes we’re just getting kids who didn’t have college in their plans until we started recruiting them,” said Alison Cone, Cal State Fullerton’s athletic-academic coordinator.

Holland said that once an athlete has been targeted, he or she must be monitored. Otherwise, she said, the schools have not fulfilled their obligation to the recruit.

“We put special requirements on these students,” said Sylvia Manning, USC’s executive vice provost.

This sounds sincere on paper. But not to the Knight Commission’s Friday. He rejects the idea that counseling programs are helping assimilate the special-admit athletes.

“This has got to stop,” he said.

SPECIAL ADMISSIONS SURVEY PACIFIC 10 CONFERENCE

Special Overall Special Overall Special School Admits Admits % Admits Athletes % Admts Washington 507 3,362 15.1 60 91 65.9 28 Cal 251 3,915 6.4 48 207 23.2 17 USC 63 2,923 2.2 31 88 35.2 22 Oregon St. 113 2,724 4.1 19 70 27.1 15 Oregon 84 2,033 4.1 13 51 25.5 9 UCLA 239 4,411 5.4 49 108 45.4 18 Wash. St. 158 2,541 6.2 15 88 17 14 Arizona St. 291 4,134 7 7 73 9.6 5 Arizona 228 5,491 4.2 7 49 14.3 3 Stanford 0 1,564 0 0 143 0 0

Football/ School Basketball % Washington 34 82.4 Cal 21 81 USC 32 68.8 Oregon St. 27 55.6 Oregon 17 52.9 UCLA 35 51.4 Wash. St. 34 41.2 Arizona St. 17 29.4 Arizona 18 16.7 Stanford 27 0

BIG WEST CONFERENCE

Special Overall Special Overall Special School Admits Students % Admits Athletes % Admits Fresno State 368 1,783 20.6 30 89 33.7 13 CS Fullerton 108 2,091 5.2 20 56 35.7 5 Long Beach 134 3,024 4.4 45 96 46.9 2 San Jose St. 78 1,324 5.9 9 41 22 5 N. Mex. St. 215 1,951 11 1 47 2.1 1 UNLV 44 1,255 3.5 1 41 2.4 0 Pacific 0 556 0 0 0 0 0

Football/ School Basketball % Fresno State 16 81.3 CS Fullerton 12 41.7 Long Beach 5 40 San Jose St. 13 38.5 N. Mex. St. 18 5.6 UNLV 0 0 Pacific 0 0

UC Irvine No football Santa Barbara No Division 1-A football Utah State Declined to respond.

OTHER SCHOOLS OF NOTE

Special Overall Special Overall Special School Admits Students % Admits Athletes % Admits Houston 109 2,866 3.8 23 63 36.5 15 Clemson 105 2,899 3.6 41 90 45.6 23 Florida 173 3,092 5.6 37 73 50.7 24 State Georgia Tech 31 1,727 1.8 24 63 38.1 20 Colorado 512 3,601 4.2 36 80 45 20 Michigan 368 6,155 6 41 116 35.3 15 State Oklahoma 48 2,421 2 17 78 21.8 6 Alabama 9 3,187 0.3 6 60 10 3 San Diego 423 3,939 10.7 23 78 29.5 Did State Notre Dame 0 1,842 0 0 170 0 0 Duke 0 1,488 0 0 118 0 0

Football/ School Basketball % Houston 16 93.8 Clemson 28 81.3 Florida 30 80 State Georgia Tech 28 71.4 Colorado 29 69 Michigan 24 62.5 State Oklahoma 23 26.1 Alabama 21 14.3 San Diego not respond. State Notre Dame 26 0 Duke 22 0

Note: Private schools such as Duke, Notre Dame and Stanford claim they do not accept special-admission students among athletes or other students. Some educators, however, contend that these schools grant entrance to athletes who would otherwise be ineligible for admission.