Making the Grade: Student-Athletes Struggle to Succeed Academically

In my last post I discussed the sanctions handed to Florida State University for its cheating scandal, and as the academic year slowly winds to a close I believe that the timing is excellent to take a deeper look into the student half of the student-athlete equation. College athletes find themselves pushed to the limits both on the field and in the classroom, and the temptation to take shortcuts or avoid the intellectual work altogether must be massive. It may be easy to shrug off these incidents as isolated outbreaks of misconduct at certain schools, but the problems run beyond the level of individual programs. Academic scandals like the one at FSU continue in the world of college athletics because the system is not designed for student-athletes to achieve academic success but rather athletic success. It is not enough to simply reflect on the extent of the problem, but rather to look at the causal factors and the problems with the mindset of both schools and the NCAA that allowed these issues to fester. There is no doubt that some athletes simply attend college because professional rules obligate them to do so, it is important to look beyond the small percentage who validate that statement and see how the system fails those student-athletes most in need of an education.

The problem begins before the athletes even get to college as they are put at a disadvantage by enrolling at institutions that they are not qualified for. Despite not having proven themselves as capable intellectuals, they are forced to work even harder to keep up with the rigorous curriculum. One of the strongest indicators of potential academic performance is the SAT Reasoning Test that measures skills considered necessary for success in college. For instance, the most recent NCAA academic analysis found that the average SAT for incoming freshmen at fifty public universities that have big football or basketball programs was 1161 compared to 1037 for athletes, a difference of 124 points. The better the university, the greater the disparity between those accepted because of academic merit, and those chosen because of their athletic abilities. One striking example would be the University of California at Berkeley where football players trail freshmen by 331 and male basketball players find themselves behind by 350. Lindsey Lubechow, the author of the Higher Ed Watch blog, puts it best when she says “a lot of students are being recruited for athletics that are not prepared for college, having come from places that do not put a priority on education.” This is especially disheartening since the NCAA doesn’t regulate the number of special admissions. The NCAA labels them as “at-risk students” and leaves it to schools to set their own caps in order to “to alleviate suspicion that student-athlete admissions is based more on the need to recruit winning teams than on academic integrity.” Stanford is a shining example of what the process should be like as head football coach Jim Harbaugh explicates, “It's something we proclaim when we're going after scholar-athletes. One of our main objectives is to graduate our athletes, and another is to win. We want to do both.” This attitude has given Stanford fourteen straight Sears Directors’ Cup victories for overall athletic excellence, and the inside track to number fifteen. Schools that do not hold themselves or their recruits to a higher standard are not doing their student-athletes any favors by encouraging them to disregard their scholastic achievements.

But this is simply the beginning of the issue, as the data reveals that student-athletes are failing to complete their education and attain degrees at rates comparable to their non-athletic peers. Division 1A football has a dismal graduation rate as “only 55 percent of…football players leave college in six years with a degree - and that number drop precipitously at most big-time programs that solely focus on counting Ws and Ls.” Though it is important to recognize that several prominent football institutions do manage high graduation rates, the majority of the top tier programs find the rate for athletes is lower than the rate for the general student body. This comparison and several other measures of academic success and are compiled into an “Academic BCS” formula that reveals the lack of dedication schools are showing their athletes in the classroom. At the University of Cincinnati former basketball coach Bob Huggins (pictured right) holds the dubious distinction of having a graduation rate of zero for two consecutive years near the end of his tenure with the team. Unfortunately there exists a widespread acceptance of this attitude, and currently a lack of impetus for change. While some of these abysmal numbers may be attributed to attrition as players leave early, the vast majority do not, and the programs fail to see them out the door as successfully matured college students but simply as used goods.

The most troubling aspect of the problem is that the effects of a student-athlete’s academic success or failure will continue to be a burden long after their moment in the spotlight has ended. According to the NCAA only one percent of college athletes will go on to play professionally. If this number is expanded to international leagues the number is slightly higher, but still miniscule in comparison to the number that will need to utilize the knowledge and skills gained in the college classroom in their future careers. And even among those individuals that are in that lucky one percent and do find a place with a professional organization, most will make the minimum or slightly above it, and be forced to enter the traditional workplace once their athleticism has left their bodies as Lindsey Luebchow notes “the future of most players depends on getting a college degree, not securing an NFL contract.” Even athletes that do earn a degree may find that their studies were not as intensive or valuable as those of other members of the student body as “the opportunity to receive a degree was secondary to the all-important basketball court, despite the fact that the vast majority of players don’t play professionally.” Lubechow goes further by explaining that “many of those players who left with a degree did not gain workforce-ready skills, because they were tracked into “jock majors” or were required to meet informal, deflated academic standards for student-athletes.” Most importantly this argument becomes even more relevant as the economic downturn takes hold and job competition is increasing as openings become scarcer.

One of the defenses offered for the lower academic performance and graduation rate of student-athletes is that the intense pressure placed on them diverts most of their attention away from the classroom and into the gym. While it is clear that there are great time demands for student-athletes, the same is also true for other students as well. Many of them have to work, ranging from a few hours per week all the way to full time, in order to cover costs that are above and beyond what scholarships may be provided. Some individuals may choose to pursue other time intensive activities such as being involved in a student group like the school paper, or outside activities such as bands (an example student band pictured left) that require an enormous amount of practice and travel like student-athletes endure. However, these students are not told it is acceptable to put these activities before schoolwork, so they learn to balance their time and energy and find a way to make it work. I must admit that it is also unfair, and definitely not my intention, to label all athletes as under performers. Many earn high academic honors, and are capable of being self-motivated students, taking advantage of the resources available. One benefit they are given is early registration, to ensure they get the classes needed and at times that fit the team schedule, but still a number of seats reserved for athletes are left empty when the bell rings. Most students will never face the pressure of a cover two defense, of the full-court press, but they will all experience the same stresses and strains, the same roller coaster of ups and downs that the student-athletes are exposed to through athletics.

Though the problem is clearly entrenched, there are a number of ways the institutions and the NCAA can rectify the situation. One potential solution would be to provide athletes with tutorage that goes beyond academics and into the professional world, similar to what trade schools accomplish. Teaching them how to utilize skills other than their athleticism and providing career guidance will help accelerate the learning process that other students get in internships and other real world experience. Another way to encourage student-athletes to take an active role in their education would be for the NCAA to allow institutions to give extra benefits to players that match the academic expectations of the rest of the student body. This can take a number of forms, from monetary rewards, to something akin to extra eligibility or an extension of their athletic career to provide them both with time to focus on academics, and an incentive to maintain a high level of performance in the classroom. The school can also benefit by being allowed to play extra exhibition games to bring in grater revenues, or holding extra practices to help prepare the team better. For example, the Pac-10 recognized 48 football players on 2007-2008 Pac-10 All-Academic Football Team, after they earned at least a 3.0 GPA, but only one of them came from USC, the winner of the past seven Pac-10 Championships. Why not take away practice time from USC, or give more to the teams with higher academic performance, helping them compete on an unlevel playing field. Even if it represents a simple stopgap, the mostly likely development in the near future is a change to the rulebook to allow the NCAA to actually punish institutions that fail to properly develop student-athletes. There is no reason to believe that given a fighting chance to use the resources that schools are obligated to provide that these athletes would be failing in such great quantities. If coaches on the field can push the athletes to their physical peak, then there is no reason schools should not be required to have an academic supervisor that is removed from the influence of the athletic teams to push these players to their intellectual peak, after all, their livelihood may depend on it.

It is dizzying to read the series of conditions that must be met before a team is actually considered to be in violation of the academic standards. This is the result of the numerous loopholes in the NCAA rules book that allow universities to continue recruiting and playing failing athletes. But there is hope on the horizon, as the NCAA is seemingly targeting more high profile schools, though this hope is countered by the reality that the majority receive a small slap on the wrist and another footnote in the history book. I can only say seemingly as Eric Prisbell, a writer for the Washington Post, points out that “ninety-nine Division I college sports programs will lose scholarships for failing to meet new academic standards, but almost all the traditional marquee football and men's basketball programs will avoid sanctions this year.” Eliminating this double standard should be the major focus of the rules committee, as its existence simply reinforces the notion that athletes at premier programs should make the school money first, and get their education if it fits conveniently into their schedule. The only certainty is that this trend cannot continue or college athletics will be forced to turn into something equating the minor leagues rather than a vital part of the college experience as the NCAA claims to be striving for currently.