Running head: STUDENT-ATHLETE COLLEGE EDUCATION 1

Are Student-Athletes Receiving the Same Education as Their Collegiate Peers?

Jessica Resler

Western Carolina University

STUDENT-ATHLETE COLLEGE EDUCATION 2

Are Student-Athletes Receiving the Same Education as Their Collegiate Peers?

Problem Statement

To quote the NCAA (n.d.), The associations belief in student-athletes as students first is

a foundational principle. NCAA student-athletes as a group annually outperform counterparts in

the general student body in graduation rates. Although the NCAA prides themselves in athletic

and academic integrity, 15 institutions have been charged with academic fraud in the past ten

years (New, 2016). Colleges and Universities are challenged with recruiting the best athletes in

the nation coming out of high school. However, this can lead to academic standards being

compromised. On average, revenue sports athletes, those who play football and basketball, score

up to 230 points less than their non-athlete peers on the SAT, yet they have no troubles with

being accepted to large division, one, two, and three schools (Go, 2008). There is an ongoing

discussion on whether student-athletes are receiving the same education as their non-athlete

peers and whether they are prepared for the challenges of college academia.

For many years, college athletic departments have been accused of crossing the line

between helping athletes and cheating them out of an education. NCAA Athletic Departments

have been faulted in creating classes where a student is guaranteed an A, enrolling athletes in

online classes so their advisor can do the work and clustering athletes in one major due to its

relaxed demeanor. I will be addressing the supposed lesser value of student-athlete education by

first analyzing the literature on the subject, relating it to Perrys cognitive development theory,

and finally, developing an intervention on the issue.

Literature Review

Although student-athlete academic fraud has become a controversial topic among higher

education practitioners, there is limited research on the matter. College athletics has become a
STUDENT-ATHLETE COLLEGE EDUCATION 3

symbolic representation of America, with every child striving to be the next top recruit.

Academically, however, student-athletes are questioned about their legitimacy in the classroom.

There is a lack of research on how athletic departments are audited and an abundance of research

on what student-athletes are studying. I will be focusing on information from articles focused on

the stigma of student athletes in higher education, clustering and corruption, and the overarching

academic experience of student athletes.

Although all athletes do not receive differential treatment from their peers and professors,

a significant percentage report that they have been stigmatized due to their athletic priorities.

Low academic self-esteem can be attributed to the stigma placed on college athletes before even

entering the classroom (Njororai, 2012). Jameson, Diehl, and Danso (2007), alongside Yopyk

and Prentice (2005), confirmed this idea in stating that there is a definitive connection between

negative stereotypes and the poor performance of athletes in the classroom. In a 2007 study of

538 collegiate athletes who were asked about how they were perceived by faculty and non-

athlete peers, a mere 15% reported being viewed positively, with 33% reporting negative

perceptions from faculty, and 59.1% reporting negative perceptions by student peers (Simons,

Bosworth, Fujita, & Jensen, 2007). Interestingly, individuals who do not identify with athletic

affiliation assume that athletes receive special treatment and leniency in the classroom, with

support from athletes reporting that 26.6% of them always, often, or sometimes receive special

treatment from faculty and support staff (Simons et al., 2007). 11.2% of athletes simultaneously

reported receiving a higher grade than they deserved on an assignment or test; this treatment may

be a result of athlete-friendly classes in which the faculty is infamous for favoring athletes

(Simons et al., 2007).

STUDENT-ATHLETE COLLEGE EDUCATION 4

It is assumed that many college student-athletes lack the skills necessary to be successful

in a college classroom. Advisors and peer athletes recommend student-athletes to select a major

that is flexible on class times, study options, and elective credits; thus creating athletic clustering

(Schneider, Ross, & Fisher, 2010). Leaderman (2003) sums this idea up in stating that, many

athletic departments have a hidden agenda, a non-disclosed curriculum, for student-athletes. In a

2006 study of 424 junior and senior status football players, 58% of their institutions had

clustering represented in multiple majors (Schneider, Ross, & Fisher, 2010). Although clustering

was highly representative among social science majors, at 30.6%, there is no indicative

information pointing at academic fraud (Schneider, Ross, & Fisher, 2010). The issue with such

research is that there are only indicators of academic integrity concerns and no conclusive

evidence of deception.

Academic and athletic support staff can create an environment of academic dishonesty

simultaneously. Perhaps one of the greatest cases of collegiate academic fraud, the 1994 to 1999

University of Minnesota instances, painted a clear picture of what it means to be involved in a

corrupt athletic and academic situation. In this particular scenario, individuals other than the

athletes themselves performed over 400 assignments, take-home exams, and papers (Khil,

Richardson, & Campisi, 2008). Such actions resulted in consequences ranging from probation, to

the release of staff, limited athletic scholarship opportunities, and restrictions on future

recruitment (Khil, Richardson, & Campisi, 2008). A circumstance such as this creates misleading

representations of athletic department culture and skews the perception of educational quality

among student-athletes (Khil, Richardson, & Campisi, 2008).

Although the NCAA attempts to enforce policy, practitioners still question the

relationship between athletics and academics (Gayles, 2009). The literature points out that
STUDENT-ATHLETE COLLEGE EDUCATION 5

student athletes are seemingly disengaged; creating an isolated athlete culture that reportedly

does not align with the academic mission of higher education institutions (Gayles, 2009).

Interestingly, in the Khil, Richardson, and Campisi (2008) study, only 9% of student athletes

reported being accused of cheating or academic dishonesty. However, they did report more

academic favoritism from faculty and staff with enhanced grading leniency on due dates. The

greater question is whether student athletes are aware that they are a part of an academic fraud

situation.

Proposed Intervention

Perrys Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development would help support an argument

that it is important for athletes to receive the same education as their peers to reach full

intellectual and ethical development (Rapport, 2013). Practitioners must guide a students

development without inhibiting movement to the next stage of intellectual and ethical

development. Athletic departments must hold themselves accountable to the student first, athlete

second model.

Research states that student-athletes are embedded in their institutional subculture, often

creating academic isolation (Schneider, Ross, & Fisher, 2010). By following Perrys theory,

student-athletes could be better integrated into regular curricula. Athletic departments must be

held accountable to the standards of the NCAA for their athletes to reach full intellectual and

ethical development, as well as overcome the stigma of the over-privileged athlete stereotype

(Rapport, 2013; Simons, Bosworth, Fujita, & Jensen, 2007).

I believe an athletic department auditing and review system is an effective way to

monitor educational practices within all athletic departments around the country. I envision this

process mimicking the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) for Higher Education
STUDENT-ATHLETE COLLEGE EDUCATION 6

accreditation process. First, the athletic department would appoint a leadership team. For an

Athletic Department to successfully be accredited, they would adequately address how they

align with the overall standards of their respective institution. Once the final drafts of compliance

reports were in, there would be an off-site reviewer from a similar institution who would perform

an audit. Lastly, the NCAA would assign an individual to review the proposal for accreditation

and deem the athletic department as an abiding entity, or make recommendations and ask for a

resubmission. This process, or similar approach, might help eliminate the preconceived notion

that every school has a hidden agenda and curriculum for student athletes (Lederman, 2003).

I anticipate backlash with this proposed process. Athletic departments already have a

strenuous workload, and unfortunately, this would only add to it. I also expect athletic

departments to argue that they have never had issues with academic fraud and that they have

always followed protocol. However, with the increase in the problem, I would argue that the

epidemic needs to be investigated and regulated on a national scale. I would approach this

situation with the athlete in mind and present each athletic department with the facts, and show

the detriments of having student-athletes on campus who are not receiving the education they are

supposed to be. I do not think this will be an easy implementation; however, I would hope that

athletic departments would be on board to break down the stigmas of their athletes and their

agencies. I believe an intervention like this could help re-instill the legitimacy of college athletics

and eventually gain the respect of non-athlete populations.

Conclusion

NCAA athletics is a significant representation of the American college experience.

Colleges are stressed with recruiting the best athletes; however, they are not challenged with

recruiting the smartest athletes in the nation. Athletic departments fail to remember that the
STUDENT-ATHLETE COLLEGE EDUCATION 7

NCAA demands student first, athlete second. It makes it difficult to stay true to this model as the

jobs of coaches, advisors, and tutors are on the line when athletes fail to perform on the court or

field. To eliminate the distraction from sport, we see athletic departments comprising the

education of athletes and engaging in acts that are considered to be academic fraud, such as

doing the work for athletes, enrolling them in easier majors, or enrolling them in classes known

for there easy demeanor and favorable athletic treatment.

Although the research does not point directly at every school engaging in academic fraud,

a wide variety of schools show implicating behaviors. Athletes do not always recognize this

treatment as favorable, but as a resource to succeed with the high demands of being a college

athlete and student. This issue stems with the support staff and recognizing their practices are

unethical and at the detriment of their athlete, athletic department, and school as a whole. The

student athletes development should be of utmost importance to the support staff; however,

athletic departments focus is often poorly prioritized.

I believe further research can offer a better insight on the subject of athletic, academic

favoritism. Further research should concentrate on non-revenue teams, such as swimming and

golf, to identify if the same actions are being taken to ensure eligibility. The second

recommendation would be to look at co-ed teams to determine whether female and male athletes

of the same sport engage in similar majors, tutoring, and advising recommendations. Finally, it

would be beneficial to look at multiple athletic conferences around the country ranging from

division one to three. It is important for researchers to establish whether there is a trend, or

whether these actions only take place in highly recognized, high-pressure big five conference

schools. Once this research has been developed, it will be easier to implement an appropriate
STUDENT-ATHLETE COLLEGE EDUCATION 8

intervention and further breakdown the stigma of athletic departments and build the legitimacy

of academics while being student-athletes.

STUDENT-ATHLETE COLLEGE EDUCATION 9

References

NCAA. (n. d.). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved October 27th, 2016, from

http://www.ncaa.org/about/frequently-asked-questions-about-ncaa

Ganim, S. (2014). CNN analysis: Some college athletes play like adults, read like 5th-graders.

CNN U.S. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/ncaa-athletes-reading-

scores/s

Go, A. (2008, December 30). Athletes show huge gaps in SAT scores. U.S. News and World

Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-

trail/2008/12/30/athletes-show-huge-gaps-in-sat-scores

Jameson, M., Diehl, R. & Danso, H. (2007). Stereotype threat impacts college athletes

academic performance. Current Research in Social Psychology, 12(5), 6879.

Kihl, L. A., Richardson, T., & Campisi, C. (2008). Toward a grounded theory of student-athlete

suffering and dealing with academic corruption. Journal of Sport Management, 22(3),

273.

New, J. (2016). An Epidemic of academic fraud. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/08/more-dozen-athletic-programs-

have-committed-academic-fraud-last-decade-more-likely

Njororai, W. W. S. (2012). Challenges of being a Black student athlete on US college

campuses. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 5, 40-63.

Schneider, R. G., Ross, S. R., & Fisher, M. (2010). Academic clustering and major selection of

intercollegiate student-athletes. College Student Journal, 44(1), 64.

Simons, H. D., Bosworth, C., Fujita, S., & Jensen, M. (2007). The athlete stigma in higher

education. College Student Journal, 41(2), 251.

STUDENT-ATHLETE COLLEGE EDUCATION 10

Gayles, J. G. (2009), The student athlete experience. New Directions for Institutional Research,

2009: 3341. doi:10.1002/ir.311

Rapport, J. W. (2013, September 26). William Perry's scheme of intellectual and ethical

development. A journey along the 9 "Perry" positions. Retrieved from

https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

Yopyk, D. J. A. & Prentice, D. A. (2005). Am I an athlete or a student? Identity salience and

stereotype threat in student-athletes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(4), 329

336.