Academic standards for athletes

[NDgradstudent]

I thought it would be useful to have a place to discuss these issues, which are of great interest to IE readers.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Some resources:

Books
Bowen, William G., and Sarah A. Levin. Reclaiming the game: College sports and educational values. Princeton University Press, 2011.

Clotfelter, Charles T. Big-time sports in American universities. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Shulman, James L., and William G. Bowen. The game of life: College sports and educational values. Princeton University Press, 2011.

Yost, Mark. Varsity green: A behind the scenes look at culture and corruption in college athletics. Stanford University Press, 2009.

Articles
Adler, Peter, and Patricia A. Adler. "From idealism to pragmatic detachment: The academic performance of college athletes." Sociology of Education (1985): 241-250. [abstract only]

Eitzen, D. Stanley, and Dean A. Purdy. "The academic preparation and achievement of Black and White collegiate athletes." Journal of Sport & Social Issues 10.1 (1986): 15-29. [abstract only]

Walter, Timothy L., et al. "Predicting the academic success of college athletes." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 58.3 (1987): 273-279. [abstract only]

Zaugg, Holt. "Academic comparison of athletes and non-athletes in a rural high school." NASSP Bulletin 82.599 (1998): 63-72.

Other
CNN Athlete SAT Data. Many schools did not release data; select public universities only.

Black male student athletes and racial inequities in NCAA Division I college sports. Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Academic standards are lowered for athletes across types of universities and for all different sports. They are lowered for everyone from Florida football players to Columbia fencers (although admittedly not to the same extent). Here are some charts from one of the books listed above (“high profile” refers to football, basketball, and hockey):

<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=2uekvtv" target="_blank"><img src="http://i67.tinypic.com/2uekvtv.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>
Shulman and Bowen, The Game of Life, 44.

<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=21e15k9" target="_blank"><img src="http://i63.tinypic.com/21e15k9.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>
Shulman and Bowen, The Game of Life, 45.

<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=2v30dxv" target="_blank"><img src="http://i65.tinypic.com/2v30dxv.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>
Shulman and Bowen, The Game of Life, 48.

<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=ehv09" target="_blank"><img src="http://i65.tinypic.com/ehv09.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>
Shulman and Bowen, The Game of Life, 48.

<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=2lkfm8l" target="_blank"><img src="http://i64.tinypic.com/2lkfm8l.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>
Shulman and Bowen, The Game of Life, 49.

<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=2rrnmdu" target="_blank"><img src="http://i64.tinypic.com/2rrnmdu.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>
Shulman and Bowen, The Game of Life, 49.

 

[stlnd01]

It appears you're in graduate school, but for the rest of us that's a lot of charts and citations, bro.

And, yeah, it's probably pushed to the limit at major football and basketball programs, but lower admissions standards for athletes are pretty standard across the board, even at the Ivies. Also lower for, say, great musicians or artists or people who have some unique skills or experience a university values. (Or whose parents have lots of money to donate). They are just fewer and less visible.
It's hard to get worked up about. Barring systematic discrimination, schools are generally free to admit who they want, for their own reasons.

Also I think it's important to distinguish between admissions requirements for prospective students and academic requirements once a student is enrolled. Notre Dame, I think, tries hard to ensure student-athletes get/earn a real education. I'm not sure that's true everywhere.

 

[Legacy]

This is an important and relevant topic, though Notre Dame has their pick of athletically-talented and higher-achieving high school students. That sometimes skews our outlook. Institutions that take on the task of educating student-athletes from inner cities deserve praise as long as they are not shorting the student with bogus courses and degrees.

I'll offer another article: A Competitive Disadvantage Nov 2014

Speaking to the University of Michigan faculty senate last week, Mark Schlissel, the university’s president, was candid in his assessment of the admissions process for athletes. "We admit students who aren't as qualified," he said. “And it's probably the kids that we admit that can't honestly, even with lots of help, do the amount of work and the quality of work it takes to make progression from year to year.”

“The original sin of college sports is willfully admitting deficient or unprepared students into an institution,” Gerald Gurney, president of the Drake Group and the former president of the National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics, said. “Admissions, specifically special admissions, is the single most problematic issue in college sports. It’s particularly troublesome with highly selective institutions.”

"It's about the need to ensure our athletics program is a fully integrated part of this university in terms of the culture and what's expected here. It's about ensuring students take full advantage of what we offer here and it's about admitting the right kinds of kids."

While the admissions gap and "special admissions" rates for individual institutions may vary, these are based on standarized testing. Recent studies show there is no difference between students who are admitted on standarized testing and those who are not. What is more predictive of college performance and success is high school performance, e.g. GPAs. More colleges are not requiring standardized testing. The SAT itself is revising its tests, which may become more relevant to measuring minorities achievement and more predictive of succcess. (Articles linked)

What is a negative predictor of college success is poverty. The eductional gap between rich and poor is widening. (Articles linked)

“We have moved from a society in the 1950s and 1960s, in which race was more consequential than family income, to one today in which family income appears more determinative of educational success than race,” said Sean F. Reardon, a Stanford University sociologist

.

 

[MNIrishman]

This is an important and relevant topic, though Notre Dame has their pick of athletically-talented and higher-achieving high school students. That sometimes skews our outlook. Institutions that take on the task of educating student-athletes from inner cities deserve praise as long as they are not shorting the student with bogus courses and degrees.

I'll offer another article: A Competitive Disadvantage Nov 2014






While the admissions gap and "special admissions" rates for individual institutions may vary, these are based on standarized testing. Recent studies show there is no difference between students who are admitted on standarized testing and those who are not. What is more predictive of college performance and success is high school performance, e.g. GPAs. More colleges are not requiring standardized testing. The SAT itself is revising its tests, which may become more relevant to measuring minorities achievement and more predictive of succcess. (Articles linked)

What is a negative predictor of college success is poverty. The eductional gap between rich and poor is widening. (Articles linked)
.

I can believe it. I had to pay for all of my AP tests, SATs, and ACTs myself, since my parents couldn't really afford it. Shit's expensive, yo. I'm not sure what would have happened if I hadn't had the ability to make money for myself when I was in high school. Beyond that, there's all sorts of shit that rich kids get that poor kids don't. I tutor STEM stuff for the local university, and the most egregious thing is pre-med students. Many of them have no business becoming doctors, but can afford to pay me to spend hours teaching them basic calculus and genetics so they can pass their courses. Several of them have near a 4.0 and I don't think they'd be anywhere close if they weren't so affluent.

I know that's a collegiate example but I believe the "rich kids have access to things like tutors that poor kids don't" concept extends to high school and grade school.

 

[Legacy]

The Poverty Factor

The Poverty Factor

One study (from U. of Michigan) showed "the imbalance between rich and poor children in college completion — the single most important predictor of success in the work force — has grown by about 50 percent since the late 1980s."

Another study (from Stanford) where "researchers analyzed 12 sets of standardized test scores starting in 1960 and ending in 2007. He compared children from families in the 90th percentile of income — the equivalent of around $160,000 in 2008, when the study was conducted — and children from the 10th percentile, $17,500 in 2008. By the end of that period, the achievement gap by income had grown by 40 percent, he said, while the gap between white and black students, regardless of income, had shrunk substantially."

One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall involvement in their children’s schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources. This has been particularly true as more parents try to position their children for college, which has become ever more essential for success in today’s economy.

The impact of the recession - not included in either of these studies - undoubtedly worsened these gaps.

The implications for high school student-athletes from low-income families who have increased demands on their time due to athletics and from the need to work to contribute to family income is clear.

 

[NDgradstudent]

I am moving my posts about the rankings of offered recruits here. I have expanded the data to include the years 2013-2016. I will be posting a comparison between Alabama and Notre Dame for those years next.

As you can see, ND's offered player position rankings actually exceed those of OSU. Academic standards are not the problem.

Avgrank = average position rank of offered players at that position, 247.com
T10offers = number of offers to top 10 ranked at that position
Totoffers = total offers at that position
T10as%oftot = top 10 offers as % of total offers at that position

 

[NDgradstudent]

Comparing Bama and ND:

Avgrank = average position rank of offered players at that position, 247.com
T10offers = number of offers to top 10 ranked at that position
Totoffers = total offers at that position
T10as%oftot = top 10 offers as % of total offers at that position

 

[NDgradstudent]

This data comes from the NCAA website. The point of posting it is to emphasize what makes Notre Dame "different" in terms of academics, which is important to remember given the NCAA sanctions.

 

[IrishinSyria]

never mind, misread a chart.

e. ok, I found something that interested me that didn't rely on a misreading of the data.

I wonder what goes into the difference between the male hockey players at public schools (some of the dumbest athletes relative to the student body at large) and the male hockey players at private schools (some of the smartest).