Quote - "How are students so utterly unprepared to succeed in higher education being admitted to these schools?"

I've often wondered this. I think the investigation needs to be in he admissions dept's as much as anywhere. Then again, maybe the recent NY Times and Wash Post articles about prep schools have brought this to light, as you mentioned on Feb 14th.

In my real life -- besides blogging, watching basketball and being a new
father -- I'm the Director of Marketing for NC State University (in
Public Affairs not in Athletics). But I also used to be the men's
basketball SID at NC State so I've lived on both sides of campus. All of
that was to say that I take these things seriously and think that the
student part is just as important as the athlete part.

I think there's a commitment that's made to every student-athlete that
comes to college. That is a commitment to provide every possible
resource that helps those individuals graduate. At the same time, those
students have a commitment to both themselves and the universities that
are providing scholarships, and that's to honor their promise to being
quality, engaged students. Any shortage in this "deal" can greatly
affect the image of both players and their universities (e.g., everyone
of those embarrassed schools who are losing scholarships).

So, anyways, to some of the points made in your blog, I do see a problem
with the fact so many schools are having a hard time reaching the 60
percent graduation rate for student-athletes. Also, I think your
observation that men's basketball and football -- programs with more
financial resources -- are doing better than the other Olympic sports is
troubling. Mainly I think it's troubling because it points to problems
that exist in all of higher education (and not just with student-athletes).

I don't have the facts and figures but across the nation the four-year
graduation rates are falling. We're failing our students (and
student-athletes). Classrooms are fuller. Faculty are being paid less
and less. Fewer and fewer classes are being offered each semester. And
students are having a hard time graduating in four years. At the same
time the general public pays lip-service to the importance of a quality
education. It is time for people to support their institutions, their
alma maters, in areas beyond athletics. It is time for people to put
pressure on their state and federal government to truly put funds into
both our K-12 and higher education systems. As we continue to discuss
competitiveness and worry about the "flattening of the world" it's time
to take action.

Thanks for being willing to take a stand.

I have posted my thoughts on these results, along with a link to an excellent column by ESPN's Pat Forde, on my blog. I like the intent of the APR, but I think the way the results were skewed needs work.

http://thecourtmaster.blogspot.com/2006/03/early-results-from-academic-progress.html

Josh,

I appreciated the tenor and tone of your posting and your skepticism surrounding the fact that..."There was a clear absence of major Division I football and men’s basketball programs on the penalty list and while these schools generally have greater resources than some of the smaller schools in the division, I find their absence intriguing."

As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Being a researcher I am always aware that any data can be manipulated, massaged, and is always interpreted by the researcher. Most often when researchers are involved in quantitative research the research question is framed as a null hypothesis. Such a framing of the question allows us to address reliability questions, as well as leads us to discussions that are more objectively based. In addition, researchers often share the original data with colleagues who might question their conclusions and allow them to mine the data for themselves. I have, on several occasions, shared my data with colleagues who questioned the validity or reliability of either the design, methodology, or statistical analyses of a study.
I have to beg ignorance to any of these steps having ever been done publicly. As is the case with most results released to the general public, the results are first sent to an PR department and they cull the results prior to them being disseminated to the general public. Since most folks do not have a high level of statistical expertise, the results are summarized for folks and then the organization or individual can use the data to their ends. Unless the data and the results can be subject to a peer review process, the results can not be verified, replicated, or disproved. This is a fatal flaw with the APR.

I would hope the NCAA will agree to share its data (APR and/or other relevant data) with scholars who study college sport. We should all engage in an open and complete dialog based on the data. Those of us outside the moat, so to speak, can simply not offer any discussion, because we have been denied access to the data.

All that being said, I have been baffled why over the past year and a half, none of my phone calls or emails to the NCAA's national office about getting access to any data have ever been returned. I think I know how to dial the correct number and I think I know how to use the internet, but I can never get a response. I have spoken to other colleagues at other universities and the they also report this situation. At the SRLA conference in Albuquerque, NM this past week, Anne Marx (a doctoral student at the University of Arkansas - and a former D-I soccer player) presented her research into the APR. In speaking with her after her presentation, I was struck by her frustration at having only incomplete access to the NCAA's APR data. I have conducted research on other areas of college sport that actually should be of interest to the NCAA and its member institutons and I have and would be glad to share my data with the NCAA and any other researcher. While I have heard from numerous colleagues and have always been open to such an exchange, I have never, not onece, ever had a response from the NCAA. As has been proven, you and perhaps others at the NCAA national office know who I am - you identified me for other bloggers during recent exchanges. At last year's TDG conference, I spoke to two NCAA representatives - including members of the research dept. I was even given the names of NCAA researchers to call. After that conference I immediately called and emailed the national office. Since then, I have repeatedly done the same, but have never received a response. That's okay, but a bt intriguing.

All that being said, I see two issues that haunt any open and complete discussion about the issue of academic integrity as it relates to college sports:
1) There is not full disclosure of the courses, including the cumulative GPA and professor's name (NOT necessarily any individual students' names) of athletes receiving a grant-in-aid. Without this data, we can make no assesment about the athletes' academic progress.
2)Allow full access to NCAA APR data for an independent investigation of the data and the statistical analyses employed on the data.

In addition, I would enjoy a full investigation and discussion of all of the APR "waivers" that have been granted.

Until these steps have been taken, I think your skepticism is well founded and the APR is well-described by Mr. Twain.

I wasn't that surprised that hockey did so well with the APR numbers. I think it could be due to a number of reasons.

Hockey is such a small sport, with only 58 Division I teams. It certainly helps when about 10% of the schools playing hockey are Ivy League schools, not to mention schools with outstanding academic reputations like Colorado College, Rensselaer, Clarkson, and Michigan Tech.

I also think that the way players are developed plays a big role in things. I know that not there weren't too many football and basketball teams that received penalties, but I noticed there were quite a few that avoided punishment thanks to the squad-size adjustment.

The difference is that I think more football and basketball players are a little more used to receiving "star treatment" growing up. Everyone in town seems to know the big football or basketball star since they usually star for the local high school team. Hockey players usually grow up playing on independent traveling teams that get very little local recognition. Obviously there are plenty of exceptions both ways, but I think overall, that creates a difference in attitude for those sports.

On a similar note, most hockey players spend at least part of their high school years playing in a junior league where their academic is monitored by their team. Meanwhile, I think there is the tendency to let top football or basketball players slide in high school and get away with not doing as much work.

The other advantage that hockey has over other sports is that players have other options besides just going to college. Most top hockey players have the option of choosing to play in the NCAA or going to Canada and playing in one of their major junior leagues. This gives less serious students the opportunity to play hockey with less academic focus. Players can also play in junior leagues for up to two years past high school. This gives players the opportunity to mature a little more and give them a little more academic focus. A 20 year old freshman is much more likely to be considering his future and be a serious student than an 18 year old freshman.

This is something that is missing in most other sports. It especially gets talked about with basketball. Struggling students often get forced into college athletics when they're not ready or not interested because they have no other options.

I think the NCAA's focus on the APR is a good idea. I think there's a lot of schools that may not have necessarily thought they had problem with academics that are going to have to put more focus on academics because of it.