News

Rates on the Rise

November 19, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Whichever way you choose to count, athletes in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Division I and II are graduating at higher rates.

The NCAA on Wednesday published its annual graduation rates reports, in which the association is increasingly focusing on its measure of choice, the NCAA-created Graduation Success Rate, which association officials say more accurately portrays the actual performance of athletes than does the federal graduation rate, because it includes students who transfer in to a particular institution and excludes those who transfer out of that college in good academic standing.

Not unimportantly, though, in almost all cases the Graduation Success Rates for given universities are higher than their federal graduation rates.

The latest data, which look at how many athletes who entered college in 2002 had earned degrees within six years, produce a Graduation Success Rate of 79 percent for all Division I athletes, the same as the previous class reported last year. The equivalent federal graduation rate for Division I for this year is 64 percent, also the same as in 2008. All students at NCAA Division I colleges graduated at a six-year federal rate of 62 percent, the NCAA said; there is no comparable figure for all students to the Graduation Success Rate.

Division II athletes, meanwhile, had an Academic Success Rate (the division's equivalent of the GSR, which includes non-scholarship athletes) of 71 percent, comparable to last year and up from 70 percent the previous two years. The federal graduation rate for Division II was 55 percent.

NCAA officials heralded the continued improvement in graduation rates, which they attributed at least in part to the emphasis the association has placed in recent years -- especially under the leadership of the late Myles Brand -- on changing the rules and the culture to focus on athletes' classroom performance.

Academic success is "a far more important priority for our coaches, our staffs, and our athletes than ever before," and the improving graduation outcomes reinforce that, said Walt Harrison, president of the University of Hartford and chair of the NCAA's Committee on Academic Performance, which helped craft the academic rules.

Harrison said he expected the improvement to continue next year because the 2003 class will be the first that will have entered with the NCAA's new academic rules formally in place -- rules that toughened the requirements athletes must meet to stay eligible to compete in sports.

Harrison and Jim Isch, who became the NCAA's acting president after Brand's death, said they were particularly heartened that the association has managed to move the needle on graduation rates for baseball and men's basketball players, which have historically lagged to the point that the NCAA created special panels to focus on those sports' academic outcomes.

As seen in the table below, athletes in both of those sports have shown sizable gains in their Graduation Success Rate since 1995, when the NCAA began using that statistic. Association officials expressed mild concern about a slight decline in the Graduation Success Rate in the Football Bowl Subdivision, the most competitive playing level, where the federal rate dropped to 54.8 percent this year from 56 last year.

Sport	Graduation Success Rate, Entering Class of 1995	Graduation Success Rate, Entering Class of 2002	Federal Rate, Class of 2002
Baseball	65.3%	69.9%	48.8%
Basketball (Men's)	55.8	65.5	50.8
Basketball (Women's)	79.8	82.8	64.2
Bowling (Women's)	100.0	86.4	54.2
Crew/Rowing (Women's)	89.6	92.0	79.6
Cross Country/Track (Men's)	72.1	74.6	58.6
Cross Country/Track (Women's)	82.4	85.3	70.7
Fencing (Men's)	100.0	81.0	64.3
Fencing (Women's)	86.7	100.0	100.0
Field Hockey	92.9	94.1	83.6
Football - Bowl Subdivision	63.1	65.9	54.8
Football - Championship Subdivision	62.0	65.7	56.5
Golf (Men's)	77.0	80.6	66.3
Golf (Women's)	88.3	89.4	73.8
Gymnastics (Men's)	76.4	85.7	83.3
Gymnastics (Women's)	93.1	92.9	82.9
Ice Hockey (Men's)	78.0	79.2	58.5
Ice Hockey (Women's)	85.7	89.8	67.6
Lacrosse (Men's)	91.2	83.0	67.7
Lacrosse (Women's)	93.9	92.9	82.5
Rifle (Men's)	84.2	80.0	60.0
Rifle (Women's)	66.7	82.1	67.9
Skiing (Men's)	84.2	85.0	90.0
Skiing (Women's)	100.0	95.0	76.5
Soccer (Men's)	74.3	77.7	57.9
Soccer (Women's)	86.1	88.6	70.8
Softball	82.3	85.7	69.5
Swimming (Men's)	81.0	81.3	75.9
Swimming (Women's)	90.8	91.7	69.7
Tennis (Men's)	84.7	86.5	68.3
Tennis (Women's)	85.7	88.5	70.9
Volleyball (Men's)	72.9	67.3	59.6
Volleyball (Women's)	83.2	89.2	69.1
Water Polo (Men's)	94.6	85.7	70.6
Water Polo (Women's)	100.0	91.0	79.1
Wrestling	61.5	71.8	57.2

The NCAA's Web site provides databases containing college-by-college data for Division I and for Division II.

The tables below show those institutions that had the biggest gaps between their federal graduation rates for athletes and for all students. This first one shows those institutions where the rate for athletes in 2002 was at least 20 points higher than for all students; colleges on this list tend to admit most or all of the students who apply, and athletes are less likely to drop out for financial reasons than their student bodies at large:

	Federal Graduation Rate for All Students, 2002 Entering Class	Federal Graduation Rate for Athletes, 2002 Entering Class	Percentage Points by Which Athlete Rate Exceeds All-Student Rate
University of New Orleans	22%	94%	72
Long Island University-Brooklyn Campus	18	70	52
Cleveland State University	26	74	48
Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis	32	70	38
University of Maryland- Eastern Shore	38	75	37
Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne	21	57	36
Coastal Carolina University	47	80	33
Coppin State University	16	47	31
Eastern Kentucky University	37	68	31
University of Texas at El Paso	31	62	31
Wright State University	43	74	31
University of Hartford	54	84	30
Austin Peay State University	32	60	28
Middle Tennessee State University	45	73	28
Southern University, Baton Rouge	29	57	28
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee	42	70	28
Tennessee State University	35	62	27
University of Akron	35	62	27
University of Arkansas at Little Rock	23	50	27
University of Southern Mississippi	43	70	27
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale	45	71	26
Texas Southern University	13	38	25
University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff	28	53	25
Lamar University	32	56	24
Youngstown State University	35	59	24
Alabama State University	21	44	23
Idaho State University	26	48	22
Jacksonville State University	33	55	22
Delaware State University	35	56	21
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Metropolitan campus	36	57	21
University of Memphis	38	59	21
University of Texas at San Antonio	28	49	21
Portland State University	34	54	20
Utah State University	53	73	20
Western Michigan University	55	75	20

This table shows those colleges at which the rates for all students exceeded those for athletes by at least 10 points. This list tends to be dominated by academically competitive colleges at which athletes often enter with lesser academic credentials than the student body at large:

	Federal Graduation Rate for All Students, 2002 Entering Class	Federal Graduation Rate for Athletes, 2002 Entering Class	Percentage Points by Which All-Student Rate Exceeds Athlete Rate
Iona College	63	53	10
Texas Christian University	69	59	10
University of Connecticut	76	66	10
Bradley University	78	67	11
Georgetown University	93	82	11
Howard University	66	55	11
Rice University	93	82	11
San Diego State University	61	50	11
Texas State University-San Marcos	54	43	11
State University of New York at Binghamton	80	68	12
Stony Brook University	61	49	12
University of Evansville	63	51	12
University of Illinois, Champaign	82	70	12
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill	86	74	12
University of the Pacific	68	56	12
Clemson University	79	66	13
James Madison University	82	69	13
Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania)	56	43	13
Santa Clara University	85	71	14
University of Arizona	57	43	14
University of San Francisco	67	53	14
St. Mary's College of California	65	50	15
Vanderbilt University	89	74	15
University of Maryland, College Park	82	66	16
Florida State University	70	53	17
Texas A&M University, College Station	78	61	17
University of Southern California	88	71	17
Baylor University	73	55	18
Centenary College (Louisiana)	60	42	18
University of Delaware	80	62	18
University of South Carolina, Columbia	67	49	18
Duquesne University	72	53	19
North Carolina State University	71	51	20
University of Georgia	79	59	20
University of Virginia	93	73	20
Alcorn State University	40	19	21
Georgia Institute of Technology	77	56	21
University of California, Los Angeles	89	68	21
University of Florida	82	61	21
Gonzaga University	81	59	22
University of Wisconsin, Madison	81	59	22
University of Colorado, Boulder	67	44	23
University of Michigan	88	65	23
Florida International University	49	25	24
University of Texas at Austin	78	53	25
University of California, Irvine	81	50	31

Source: NCAA

— Doug Lederman

Go to comments (10) »

Get Hired!

See all postings »

Matching Jobs

Most Popular

Comments on Rates on the Rise

Practice What You Preach
Posted by Mike on November 19, 2009 at 7:30am EST
Walter Harrison is President of the University of Hartford and Chair of the NCAA Academic Performance Committee.
The University of Hartford is listed as an underachieving institution for graduation.
2002 overall graduation rate was 54 percent and the rate of graduation for student athletes was 84 percent.
It is good to have a preacher, but it does not have merit when the preachers institution under performs.

Posted by lapgr8ful on November 19, 2009 at 9:45am EST
Mike -
The article is about NCAA graduation rates, not overall graduation rates. Hartford's NCAA graduation rate is 84%, hardly "under-performing." Is there room for improvement in the overall rate, yes. But the fact is that an overall rate of 54% is about the national average graduation rate for 4-year institutions. And, Hartford's graduation rates have improved over the time Harrison has been president.
Before throwing stones, make sure you have the right target.

Good News, Maybe?
Posted by Jerry W. Miller at Retired on November 19, 2009 at 10:30am EST
On the surface this is good news, but how many are Dexter Manley degrees? You would have to fail an admissions test to kindergarten to believe that institutions won't cheat on graduation rates. Academic integrity will crumble in the face of $4 million a year coaches, 100,000 seat stadiums to fill, and the pressure to win.

Preaching
Posted by Mike on November 19, 2009 at 11:00am EST
The chart identifies that the University of Hartford has a 30 percent gap between the graduation rate for student athletes and the rate of graduation for the general student body.
Thats the point!

How to define "graduation"
Posted by Chris Drew, Ph.D. at Meta-threads LLC on November 19, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
Part of the problem with the numbers reported in the NCAA's "study"/press release is that the NCAA is comparing apples and oranges.
The NCAA's methodology for measuring "Graduation Success Rates" is from a different set of data used to measure "Federal Graduation Rates." I haven't been able to find a more complete explanation of the difference other than the one reported here:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/53a64b004e0daf00a54bf51ad6fc8b25/2008_d1_7-year_trends.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=53a64b004e0daf00a54bf51ad6fc8b25
In order to have a more rigorous conversation about graduation rates we need a more thorough explication of the methodologies used to determine the two different sets of numbers.
It's a bit odd that the overall Graduation Success Rate is 15 percentage points higher than the Federal Graduation Rate for all NCAA student-athletes.
Both sets of data clearly demonstrate a trend for improvement in graduation rates. Even so, it feels like the NCAA's figures are a bit...umm...exaggerated?

Another thing Chris
Posted by B. David Ridpath , Assistant Professor at Ohio University on November 19, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
Chris you are correct--the methodologies seem to be a bit exaggerated, but like the one poster said above, how many of these are Dexter Manley degrees? A system like the NCAA's APR and graduation rates are nothing more than a PR ploy to "demonstrate" that athletes are getting an education. Some obviously are, but when you have 70-80% of a team in the same major with the same friendly professors it becomes a game of eligibility maintenance rather than a bona-fide rigorous education that can benefit the athlete far past their playing days. Let's lift the curtain and show in the aggregate (permissable by FERPA) what these kids are actually doing, what classes are they taking, and who is teaching them. With a system of disclosure we will get a far clearer picture, and it likely will not be very pretty at all.

The Men's Basketball Culture Change
Posted by Gerald Gurney on November 19, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
In the NCAA press release rollout of the GSR improved graduation rate, NCAA Vice-President Kevin Lennon declared an academic culture change for men's basketball.
“We’ve seen a more thorough examination of academic preparedness of the prospective student-athletes being recruited by men’s basketball coaches and a greater campus involvement in recruiting evaluations,” said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs. “Academic reform and the (Academic Progress Rate) have become common subjects of conversation among coaches. Campus-wide improvement plans are receiving buy-in from coaches and administrators at all levels, and there is a very real concern over potential sanctions. That all indicates to me a real cultural change in basketball.”
We should all feel relieved that the NCAA thinks men's basketball is under control and coaches and administration have righted their ship. I know I sleep well knowing Kevin has the pulse of the coaches.

graduation rates.
Posted by guido stempel , distinguished proessor emeritus, journalism at Ohio university on November 19, 2009 at 11:15pm EST
Six-year rates are a gimmick to hide under-pereformance. After all,four years is the norm.
However, we ought to recognize that part of what athletic programs achiheve is because they monitor students' academic progress and tutor in ways that don't happen for other students. At my university the athletic department seeks midtrm grades on all students, and no other part of the university does. Also, coaches are in contact with athletes regularly much more than faculty advisers are.

Another thing + Culture Change...?
Posted by Chris Drew on November 19, 2009 at 11:15pm EST
David, I think the way you phrase your point about the NCAA's data reporting being a "ploy" will cause certain people to blindly put up their partisan defenses against what I think is a valid claim. I spent three years studying the literacy practices of student-athletes at D-II school (articles forthcoming). I myself competed at a D-I school. All of my siblings competed at the D-I level (including one who plays in the Big East Conference). As a former student-athlete who played a revenue-generating sport (i.e. basketball), I think it's safe to say that a lot of student-athlete graduates would resent the implications of the "Dexter Manley" generalization. The implication is that the student-athlete has completely gamed an entire college/department and has not honestly earned his/her diploma. Obviously there are exceptions, but I don't think an examination of those exceptions should start with the student-athlete. Shouldn't professors, coaches, support staff and even administrators be held accountable? What does it say about a program that allows an illiterate student to progress through the course work? Speaks more of the program than it does the individual student. The "it-takes-a-village" metaphor applies equally to raising a child as it does to nurturing a college student through a degree program (or cheating a student through a degree program). I actually agree with your point that these "reports" and this "data" is part of a PR ploy. But I'm not sure that putting the student-athlete under more scrutiny than s/he is already under is appropriate - it certainly shouldn't be the starting point. Whether at a big or small school, student-athletes are already under pretty bright spotlights and carry much heavier burdens than the average student (whatever "average" means in an era when the majority of college students are working 30+ hour work weeks on top of attending classes).
I can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic, but neither do I think, Gerald, that we should be uncritically accepting PR statements from the NCAA president. The NCAA, remember, is a FOR-PROFIT entity generates hundreds of millions of dollars a year off of a group of amateur men and women athletes who have, comparatively, few rights or say-so in how they are "governed." Press release statements like the one cited above are about brand imaging. The NCAA is a brand - a very valuable brand. (One which has, incidentally, been investigated by Congress for the commercial success of a supposedly amateur organization.) Furthermore, what other labor system exists wherein a group of people provide free labor to an organization that generates such large sums of money?
Such reports as this by the NCAA should lead us to critique and ask questions about things like academic rigor and academic integrity. For example, if student-athletes ARE graduating at such high rates, why haven't academic units taken a closer look at the training regimens and retention strategies of athletic programs (pardon the shameless self-promotion, but I have). It should also make us wonder, out loud, about the relationship between sports and academics when an organization that generates billions of dollars in revenue is overseeing studies about academics. There's clearly a conflict of interest. I don't necessarily think picking away at student-athletes should be the starting point.
One last point before I conclude with this garrulous comment: Sports is an essential part of American culture and an important part of the American economy. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Excellent points Chris
Posted by B. David Ridpath , Asst Professor at Ohio University on November 20, 2009 at 2:45pm EST
Chris you make some excellent points--let me first say the Gerry was being sarcastic. I do sometimes generalize too much but I won't back away from the PR ploy that grad rates and the APR are. Still to categorize all athletes into "Manley Degrees" is wrong and I was just building on a previous poster's statement and that was not the intent. Many are getting legitimate degrees. Still I know from years as a D-1 coach and administrator academic integrity overall is lacking and the system is broken on many levels.
Most important though--understand that disclosure and transparency is not about athlete behavior nor is calling them out. It is about institutional behavior and is a tool to hold all those accountable that you mention. Right now it is easy to say, Like Auburn did a few years ago, "Look at our grad rates," but then it turns out hundreds of hours of independent study was involved taught by a single professor. Disclosure would call that out, reign in academic fraud, and people accountable. In addition--it would give the athlete a chance at a legitimate education and not one he/she does not want. It might not be a Manley degree, but no one should be forced into a major just to stay eligible and that is exactly what the GSR and APR are doing.
You have the right perspective, for more info on how disclosure would work, there are several articles at www.thedrakegroup.org and in the Wisconsin Law Review Article "Cleaning up Buckley" by Ericson and Salzwedel. I also recommend that current letter in CHE that Dr. Svare wrote. It says it much better than I.
I do look forward to reading your articles--sounds interesting. I would enjoy talking to you further at some point, please contact me off-line when you have a chance.

Search News