<p>It could also be that 1) athletes (especially football players) are leaving early to turn pro, which was their goal to being with, and that the chances of injury are so high (in college or pro) that it would be a really poor decision to stay in school (if you could get a couple of mil for 2-3 years of play and then return to school later without the pressure of athletics, would there be any sense, academic or economic, in turning it down?); and 2) some colleges have set up tracks toward graduation that are so easy that it makes a mockery of what a college education is supposed to be about. What may look like the development of "student-athletes" might turn out to be in fact the opposite.</p>
<p>Another key indicator would be to compare graduation rates by sport with students of the same family economic status at the same schools.</p>
<p>As a div 1 athelete the possibility you'll make the pros is less than 1%. Alot of kids leave for the same reasons other kids leave. Some just can't make the commitment to the classroom and the hours the sport D1, 2 or even 3 require. Football especially requires an ungodly amount of hours, inseason and offseason, it has to come from somewhere so usually studies are effected or carrer choices made.</p>
<p>Oh, I know what it is for "Div. I" (when was the last time I saw a pro from Rice? or from Princeton?) I think you'd find the rate far higher at USC. At any rate, take the USC percentage and add those who successfully made it to the pros (which was, after all, their educational goal.)</p>
<p>But that might not be the key issue. What is the graduation rate for lower income students at Ohio State who do NOT participate in high impact sports? And I'd ask exactly the same question for those with higher grad rates, like ND or HYP.</p>
<p>mini -- The Graduation Success Rate was developed to take into account the lure of the pros. If an athlete leaves for the pros, but is in good academic standing, the school is not penalized. So many kids transfer nowadays, and not because they are flunking, that the NCAA had to account for that.</p>
<p>The six-year graduation rate at Ohio State is 68%, and that's before one accounts for race/income status and graduation rates. So 55% for the football team may in fact be better than that of the "average" low-income, minority student, and perhaps better than ND's 95% rate, relative to their race/class peers (more data needed). And this is even before accounting for the success of those who DO turn pro (which, again, may have been the educational goal.)</p>
<p>I am not suggesting that I "like" this situation. Frankly, I think the colleges should be paying the football players as professionals, especially since there is such a high rate of injury, or they should get rid of the teams all together. But some students who would have received no college education at all receive 2 or 3 years as a result of football, and I think that is a good result, regardless of whether they graduate. (And at USC, such a high proportion do end up with at least short but high-paying pro careers that the economic payout of "some college" is higher than it might have been for graduating.)</p>
<p>Ohio State has a below national average grad rate in men's baseball, basketball, football, track, ice hockey, and wrestling.</p>
<p>USC has below nat avg grad rates in men's baseball, basketbball, track, football, golf, tennis, and volleyball. Also in women's track, golf, swimming, and waterpolo.</p>
<p>The graduation rate for black athletes at Notre Dame has consistently matched or exceeded that of whites. I doubt that ND sweeps up all the wealthy black athletes in the US. They're doing something right.</p>
<p>I actually think they sweep up a bunch of 'em, but no matter. The question is whether their rate of graduation exceeds that of their non-athlete race/class peer group at the same institution. The grad rate of the football players at OSU might (and I think probably does) exceed the rate of their non-athletic race/class peer group.</p>
<p>For football I think you need to distinguish between Div 1-A and 1-AA. Additionally, there are also a number of schools that do well. The article posted only looks at the schools currently in the top 25 and does not include those just outside the top 25.</p>
<p>USA Today recently ran an article on this same subject but used the final rankings of Men's Football and Men's and Women's Basketball:</p>
<p>Stickershock, to say that some colleges have forgotten the student part of the student-athlete is the negative way of looking at things.</p>
<p>However there is a positive way of looking at the stats. Some Div 1 colleges are willing to give a few highly recruited student athletes a college opportunity that they would otherwise not have recognizing that there is a greater probability that they will not graduate compared to the overall student body. </p>
<p>Another factor is that a higher percentage of student athletes transfer to other colleges if their playing opportunities do not meet their expectations. I went to Ohio State and there was a scholarship f'ball player on my dorm floor who was a good student but did not play a single down in four years because he ticked off coach Hayes his freshman year. </p>
<p>And perhaps the most frequent reason that so many f'ball and b'ball players do not graduate is that during the season they do not take full load schedules so that they are short credit hours when their college athletic eligibility is completed. For academically unmotivated students, the preference is to drop out shy of graduation.</p>
<p>The fact is that the graduation rate problem largely exists in the big men's programs of football and basketball. The graduation of the other mens and womens teams are, in aggregate, on a par with the overall student body. And anyone who has been around Div 1 storts knows that for many of the recruited football and b'ball players, the focus is on their sport 24/7. And the colleges offer these players more academic support that the typical nonathlete gets.</p>
<p>It is my opinion that there is a symbiotic relationship between big time college sports and some of the athletes they recruit. For those who graduate it is a fulfilled opportunity which would not have been otherwise available to them. For those who fail to graduate, a vast share of the blame rests with the students themselves.</p>
<p>And the odds of those with "some college" continuing on to complete a four-year degree at a later point is much higher. To that extent, affording a college education, even some of it, to folks who might otherwise have none should be viewed as a success, not a failure. But again, I think to get a better handle on the football/college intersection, one has to compare race/class cohorts at the same university. Some do dismally (Cal. might be the worst in that regard, perhaps because they have a cohort of academically gifted but low-income non-athletic minority students); others, like Ohio State, even with seemingly low graduation rates, might be doing quite well.</p>
<p>I think you have to look at what programs are offered to those student athletes who do not qualify for higher level (i.e. real degrees) programs, like quasi-business programs by some other name that do not require any math, finance, economics, or accounting. I personally know student athletes who have been admitted at Notre Dame with SATs in the low 800s. Something tells me theyre not taking the same classes as the average student, or if they are, Notre Dame isnt the school I thought it was. How can you compare matriculation rates without knowing which colleges offer the dumbed-down programs and which dont?</p>
<p>I agree doubleplay, looking at the graduation stats in isolation does not tell the whole story, be they for athletes or the student body as a whole. Many state universities have quite low graduation rates but that is not necessarily a bad thing if the goal is to provide excellence in the classroom which weeds out ill prepared or unmotivated students. People must also realize that significantly more public students may fail to graduate in the magic 6 year period because of financial obstacles or factors which the typical private college student do not face as often.</p>