• The overall percentage graduated held steady at 77%, and it must be said that this is far better than the overall graduation rate of non-athletic students.
• Of the top 25 football teams, Boston College is the best at graduating players with 93 percent; Nebraska is #2 at 83 percent (The N stands for Nowledge!)
• The Red River Shootout combatants rank right at the bottom (Oklahoma and Texas with 44% and 42% respectively)
• Notre Dame football ranks near the very top of all schools (hey, at least you can celebrate something – you are in Duke football territory now).
• For the first time in a while, UNC men's basketball is better than Duke (86% to 67%)
• Maryland, under the esteemed Gary Williams scored a 0%. They failed to graduate a single player during this timeframe. Remember, this includes their title run in 2002.
Now, step back a second. Does this matter one bit to you? Could you care less if your favorite school actually graduated its revenue sports student-athletes? Don’t they add a value to an institution far greater on the field or court than they do in the chemistry lab? In all reality, elite players at these top programs are in a lucrative (note: for everyone except the players) minor league that allows them to practice the skills they will hope to use at the next level. For these players, we should not be worried. But for those student-athletes with no shot of playing professionally, it is imperative on the academic institution to do everything possible to ensure the student is prepared for a life beyond athletics. This includes helping them at every step on the way to graduation.
5 comments:
That's the best Gary could do? THOSE chicks? If I'm Gary, I would be less worried about graduating kids than about making sure I climb the campus babe ladder a little bit.
Which, presumably, he was.
To what end does an academic institution have to go to ensure its players graduate? At what point does personal repsonsibility on the part of the player enter into the discussion? Channeling Jim Harbaugh...I think the responsibility falls on the school if/when they enroll student-athletes who clearly are not up to the academic standards of the school. However, if we are talking about a player who is clearly academicly qualified, their personal responsibility becomes paramount over anything the school can do.
Also,
From your post, you say that student athletes are graduating at a much higher rate than non-athletic students. Is that not evidence that these institutions are taking drastic measures to graduate its student-athletes? What responsibilty does a school have to ensure that the students who actually PAY to go to school graduate? I would argue they have more of a responsibility.
To quote Flip: "True.... Good Point."
On the issue of being academically qualified, I think that is a sliding scale. I think a lot of recruits have not had the benefits of doting parents and an environment conducive to building up academic progress. Yes, they might need more help, but perhaps just because they didn't get that help we got when we were younger. I don't have a problem with schools taking a chance on these players.
On your second point, I think schools make every effort possible to ensure that each student graduates. For most dropouts, I would assume money is the main issue. That's not as much of a problem for scholarship athletes.
Money is the #1 reason attributed to the over 50% of non-scholarship-athlete college students who dropout according to almost every article you read on the subject. Still, I am with Phil on this one as far as the responsibility lying with the student. Though universities and colleges have become money machines who seemingly have no problem with a student being an undergrad for 8 years as long as they are paying the bills; I don't think anyone could say that the university does not offer every resource available for you to graduate (i.e. officer hours, tutors, study groups). The problem is that most students aren’t utilizing those resources. Which brings me to my biggest beef with 'our generation;’ the feeling of entitlement.
Though the availability of financial aid has not been able to keep up with the rate of increase in tuition, there still are more options for people to pay for college than are being utilized. Financial aid, military service, companies offer tuition assistance, university jobs, etc.--are all options for students to pay their way through college. I know from experience that working as a cashier at the dining hall might not be the most glamorous way to help pay for college…and being an RA means you give up a lot of freedoms you otherwise enjoy…and military service is a whole other ball of wax because you are giving up time, freedom, family, and possibly your personal or family politics prevent military service from being an option. But at least you are helping pay your way, which probably gives more value to your education in the long run. However our popular culture (i.e. reality tv, sweet 16, lack of parental supervision/intervention) is creating/has created this generation who feel that everything should be served to them with little to no effort on their parts. The fact of the matter is there is only a small percentage of the population who are able to afford $500,000 sweet 16 (or 15 in some cases) parties and a $50,000 car—but between Sweet 16, Laguna Beach, and every other ‘reality’ TV show playing 8 hrs a day, teenagers grow up feeling that they are entitled to this lifestyle (absent parental guidance) and it isn't until college that the rude awakening hits and they don't know where to start figuring out their own problems.
I probably made a huge leap connecting student-athlete graduation rates with reality TV…I apologize for any of you veteran bloggers.
The key issue in this entire situation is the language you use to describe these players. Most, if not all of the programs that have low graduation rates are title contenders, and the athletes are there to make money for the school. therefore lets stop calling the players on these teams student-athletes, and call them what they are, ATHELETES.
Art Long and Kenyon martin were at UC to play basketball. Not become a nuclear scientist. If they happen to learn some life skills in the way then good for them, but if not oh well. Danny Fortson took 3 tries to pass the SAT to get into UC.... to UC!!!, how can schools like Notre Dame and Duke possibly compete in major sports where you need 50 legit athletes to field a good football team when it is hard enough to find 8 hoops players that fit the bill (and i know pleanty of Duke students that will say the basketball players were not the sharpest tools in the shed)
All of us went to institutions of higher learning, and all had successful, or major athletics (if the hampshire ultimate frisbee team counts) and all of us are aware of certain members of the teams that got in to the school because they were good at their sport. It is a reality that athletes get into schools that are potentially above their heads academically because they can do something someone else does. So lets get over it.
However this is not mutually exclusive to athletics. Every day a bassoon player, or classical violinist get into Harvard because they can do something nobody else in the world can do.
Every day a pampered rich kid gets into a school because his father donates a wing to the science department, therefore doing something nobody else can do/
Why is it Ok for them and not Athletes?
Lets see the numbers on the academic performance of all kids who are below the Procrustian bed of students admitted to a university. How many of them graduate 5 years after they start.
Post a Comment