Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2003 | 9:55 a.m.
Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at [email protected] or (702) 259-4084.
The question was posed to me in casual conversation, not because I have any special knowledge or intellect on the subject but because I write about sports for a living.
"Why should it matter what the graduation rate of student/athletes is?" I was asked, albeit in a manner that erased any doubt how the questioner felt on the subject. "Why should student/athletes be held to a higher standard than the general student body?
"What difference does it make?"
I have to admit my initial response was no better than the standard, pat reply: "Well, athletes are held to a higher standard because they're in the limelight and some people might see them as role models."
Which brought this bit of one-upmanship: "But (former basketball star) Charles Barkley may have been right when he said it's not his responsibility to be a role model."
And after thinking this over for a few days, I have to say I agree.
Student/athlete graduation rates are endlessly topical and were back in the news last week when the U.S. Department of Education, via the National Collegiate Athletic Association, released the results of a comprehensive study that tracked graduation rates of the freshman class of 1996. It allowed a six-year window -- or through the 2002 school year -- for a person to graduate and be counted on the plus side of the equation.
Nationally, the graduation rate of the overall, collective student body of the country's four-year colleges was 59 percent.
For student/athletes, who were affected by tougher NCAA admissions criteria that went into effect in 1996, the graduation rate was 62 percent. That was up 2 percent from the previous year and was properly heralded as a good sign.
Broken down a little further, 70 percent of female student/athletes graduated and 55 percent of the males graduated.
In the high-profile sports of football and men's basketball, the national graduation rates were 54 and 44 percent, respectively.
But at UNLV the numbers were dismal and nothing near the national averages.
Counting all students, the graduation rate at UNLV during the period of time being studied was 35 percent. For student/athletes it was 33 percent.
For football players it was 35 percent.
For men's basketball players it was 0 percent, although the school disputes that number to some extent as it says Donovan Stewart has since graduated.
What the numbers revealed about UNLV is that neither students from the general population nor those who participate in sports are graduating at the rates of their peers across the country.
That's an item for the school president to address -- or disregard, as the case may be.
But Carol Harter did a bit of grandstanding when she named Mike Hamrick the school's new athletic director late last month and she called upon him to do something about the student/athlete graduation rate on campus. He responded by saying he would form a "task force" to study the issue and that he would "hold coaches responsible" for the graduation rates of their players.
This makes for a situation in which it seems the intent is admirable yet the outcome may be patently unfair.
Students gain from a campus experience no matter how long or briefly they stay, so maybe there's no need to get into a tizzy if some (or all) decide to leave early.
And forcing coaches to accept responsibility for the academic achievements or failures of their players puts a burden on them that may not be apropos. Why should they -- and not the parents, professors, instructors or tutors who are also involved in a student's development -- be held at least as accountable when a young man or woman decides to leave school for whatever reason he or she feels is justifiable?
A teachers' union would certainly revolt if its members were going to be "held accountable" -- i.e., fired or be denied salary increases -- for a school's graduation rate. And tutors, however loosely formed or unorganized as they may be, would be up in arms if they ran the risk of being fired if a certain percentage of their clients decided to drop out and join the general work force.
So why should coaches be any different?
Granted, there needs to be an assessment process when recruiting athletes to college campuses, and the coaches involved need to weigh the likelihood of those students actually graduating. But penalizing the coaches when the student drops out is blatantly unfair.
Harter and Hamrick should back off with their threats. Good intentions aside, their coaches have enough to do without having their own livelihoods jeopardized by their student/athlete's test scores, grades, personal decisions or shortcomings.
archive
