Keohane and Hennessy: Student-Athletes Must Make the Grade in the Classroom
Two university presidents say educators must step forward to bring aggressive reform to intercollegiate athletics
Friday, January 17, 2003
THE year-end bowl game extravaganza has now given way to the long and winding road to March Madness. As presidents of universities with well-known teams, we are aware of the many ways intercollegiate sports enrich student life and campus spirit.
Yet as we move from one athletic season to another, we are not alone among university presidents who feel increasing tension between our educational mission and the powerhouse of intercollegiate sports. We worry that the demands of major collegiate athletics loom so large for some students that they have a disproportionate, unhealthy impact on their lives.
The costs of athletics programs are also increasing significantly. Far from earning money, most intercollegiate programs are now subsidized heavily by their colleges and universities. The NCAA recently reported that the shortfall across 970 NCAA schools exceeds $1 billion annually.
Although the graduation rate for the latest group of student athletes in NCAA Division 1A schools is close to that for all students, 58 percent vs. 60 percent, the rates in football and basketball are embarrassing. According to a recent NCAA report, male basketball players graduate at lower rates than male students overall at two-thirds of Division 1 institutions. Of the 50 football teams that played in bowl games last season, 36 institutions graduated players at rates lower than those for their male students who were not athletes.
Some championship-caliber teams had zero graduation rates in multiple years, even though virtually all Division 1A programs now have elaborate academic support programs for student athletes.
In their thoughtful book ``The Game of Life,'' William Bowen and James Shulman document that two-thirds of male athletes in all sports have grade-point averages that place them in the bottom third of their class. In general, female athletes also have poorer academic records than their non-athlete counterparts.
What is causing these problems? For one thing, time demands on student athletes have increased dramatically. There is little or no off-season. Spring sports require practice and competitive play for much of the fall, and vice versa. In addition to their formal practice sessions, student athletes are expected to spend up to eight hours a week in conditioning and skill instruction.
The NCAA limits ``required athletically related activities'' to 20 hours a week, but many student athletes say this figure does not come close to their real life experiences.
We have reached a critical juncture. Those of us charged with leading our nation's major universities have a responsibility to restore the primacy of academics in the lives of student athletes. It is time to take some significant steps, and we suggest several measures that we believe will make a real difference.
First, we must toughen eligibility requirements for entering students. A college-bound athlete is now required to complete only 13 academic core courses in high school and can be eligible for NCAA participation with as little as two years each of math and science. This sets a standard for academic productivity that, if followed in college, makes graduation almost impossible.
The current initiative to increase the number of core courses to 14 is a step in the right direction, but college athletes should have passed at least 16 high school courses in core subjects such as math, science, the social sciences and the humanities.
Second, we applaud recent NCAA legislation that toughens eligibility requirements for athletic participation. NCAA requirements for ``satisfactory progress'' have been stiffened, as have those governing grade-point averages and progress toward completing a major. But more needs to be done.
We must develop sanctions with real teeth for programs that fail to achieve reasonable graduation rates. These sanctions should include disqualification from post-season bowl games or tournaments, and a significant reduction in scholarships available to teams that do not meet academic standards.
Third, to deal with spiraling practice requirements, we recommend establishing effective legislation to control the ``voluntary'' practices, workouts and off-season contests that now take up so much time. Although some student athletes may choose to devote additional time to their sports, the current pattern of activities significantly limits their ability to participate fully in the academic programs of the university. This trend must be reversed.
There will be powerful resistance to such initiatives on the grounds that they would make it harder for some students to hone their skills and pursue a lucrative professional career. Given the enormous broadcasting revenues at stake, moreover, the NCAA faces a conflict between its sometimes-contradictory roles as promoter and governor of intercollegiate athletics.
That resistance will make it difficult to bring about real change. That is why the university presidents who sit on the NCAA governing committees together with Myles Brand, the new NCAA president, must exhibit the resolve and leadership necessary to address these issues and champion reform. So should faculty members, governing boards, athletics administrators, coaches and alumni, as well as national groups such as the American Council on Education.
Most important, we call on our fellow university presidents to step forward. Without our united and aggressive leadership, we will not achieve the significant reforms in intercollegiate athletics that so many of us know are overdue.
This article originally appeared in the Jan. 14 San Jose Mercury News.
