John A. White, Chancellor

University of Arkansas

BACKGROUND

Considerable attention has been drawn to the subject of graduation rates for student-athletes in the nation’s colleges and universities. While concerns have been expressed regarding the graduation rate for all student-athletes, particular attention has been focused on the graduation rates for football and men’s basketball. As expected, they have been singled out because they are abysmally low; for example, at Division 1A colleges and universities only 51 percent of those who entered the university as freshmen in 1994 on football scholarships graduated within a six-year period—the corresponding rate for men’s basketball was 32 percent. To put these percentages in perspective, the comparable graduation rate for all students was 60 percent.

My views on the subject of student-athlete graduation rates have been influenced by my being one of three SEC representatives on an ad hoc task force made up of two presidents or chancellors and the commissioner from each of six athletic conferences: ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Pac 10, and SEC. Among the topics considered by the task force is student-athlete graduation rates. In addition to discussions with task force members, I have discussed the subject with SEC presidents and chancellors, plus several members of the UA community.

For the University of Arkansas, the subject of graduation rates is particularly acute. The six-year graduation rate for the 1994 UA freshman cohort was 46 percent. It is the lowest graduation rate among the fifty-four universities that make up the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC athletic conferences. The comparable graduation rate for all UA student-athletes on scholarship, male and female, was 51 percent; the graduation rates for football and men’s basketball were 43 percent and zero percent, respectively. (One male basketball player graduated in seven years during this time period.)

On January 25, 2002, ESPN sent a team to the University of Arkansas to interview Nolan Richardson, Jr., Head Coach for Men’s Basketball, Paul J. Kirkpatrick, Assistant Director for Men’s Athletics, and me. The focus of the interview was the national championship team of 1994 and the paucity of graduates from the men’s basketball program. The bulk of the interview was directed toward there being no male African American basketball graduates from the University over a period of several years. The ESPN interviewer compared the graduation rates of the two teams that competed for the national championship in 1994, Duke University and the University of Arkansas. Because of the significantly different graduation rates, many questions were asked: why did it occur, do we care that it occurred, what has been done to change it, what evidence is there that the changes were effective, and so forth.

Even though I was not at the University of Arkansas during the time period in question, the interview caused me to think seriously about my views on graduation rates for student-athletes. Further, I had to articulate what I considered to be the role of the University in the matter of graduation rates for student-athletes. Having done so in a 75-minute interview with ESPN, I thought it would be useful to document those views.

AS I SEE IT

Lest anyone interpret this paper as a defense for not graduating any male basketball players, it is not! Zero graduates over any period of time is not acceptable, nor is it defensible. However, the overall UA graduation rate is neither acceptable nor defensible either. I am confident we will improve the graduation rates for student-athletes, as well as all UA students. It is imperative that we do so!

How Are Graduation Rates Calculated?

The six-year graduation rate is based on the number of first-time freshmen who enroll in either summer or fall as full-time students and declare an intention to earn a degree. No students who transfer from another university or community college, who enter in the spring semester, who graduate in seven or more years, or who do not take a sufficient course load to be considered full-time are included in the calculation. Thus, the graduation rate is applicable to a subset of the total freshman enrollment in any given year who complete a degree in less than seven years. The subset, referred to as a cohort, has been deemed as a group whose performance can be compared nationally in colleges and universities having similar missions.

While the University of Arkansas serves the traditional student population defined by the cohort, it also serves a much broader set of students. Of the University of Arkansas graduates who receive bachelor’s degrees, only about half began as members of one of the six-year graduation cohorts. Hence, in benchmarking the performances of the University of Arkansas and its students, it is important to consider the broader set of students being served.

The six-year graduation rate for student-athletes includes additional criteria in defining the cohort. The graduation rates published by the NCAA include the performance of only those who receive athletic scholarships upon initial enrollment. The graduation rate of student-athletes differs slightly from the overall university rate in that students on scholarship who enroll in the spring semester are counted in the student-athlete cohort.

In addition to publishing the graduation rate of a student-athlete cohort, the NCAA also publishes graduation rates for student-athletes who complete their athletic eligibility. Nationally, for Division 1A schools this graduation rate is 82 percent; the comparable UA rate is 74 percent. Although it is an important statistic, it does not receive attention from the media, perhaps because there is no comparable rate for the overall student body.

Why Don’t Student-Athletes Graduate?

Student-athletes, and particularly men’s basketball players, are not counted among a team’s graduates for many reasons, including the following: they transfer to another college or university; they leave early to play professionally and do not return to complete their degrees before the six-year limit; they are dismissed academically; they complete their athletic eligibility and never graduate even though they made reasonable progress toward completion of the degree; they complete athletic eligibility, but do not make reasonable progress toward completion of the degree and have little hope of graduating within a one-year period; and they depart for personal reasons.

For student-athletes, graduation rates are based on the number of scholarship athletes who graduate within a six-year period from the same institution at which they matriculate as freshmen. Hence, transfers and non-scholarship athletes are excluded from the calculation. If a student enrolls, transfers to another institution, and graduates, the student does not count in the six-year graduation rate for either institution. A recent UA football example of a transfer is Gary Brashears; Zach Clark’s transfer, however, will not impact the UA graduation rate since he was not on scholarship his freshman year.

Although athletes transfer for a variety of reasons, a predominant consideration is playing time. Also, transfers frequently accompany a change in head coaches, as occurred in football at the University of Arkansas during the mid-1990's.

In men’s basketball, several transfers occurred in recent years: Glendon Alexander to Oklahoma State University, Steve Green to the University of Arkansas at Monticello, Jason Jennings to Arkansas State University, Jason Gilbert to Southwest Missouri State University, and Chris Jeffries to Fresno State University. One current basketball player, Jannero Pargo, transferred to the University of Arkansas. Whether they graduate or not, they will not count toward the number of UA graduates. And, two recent basketball players who graduated (Lance Keeling and Guy Whitney) did not count toward the UA athletic graduation rate, due to their non-scholarship status. Landis Williams completed his degree after playing professionally, but did not count in our totals because the time required for his cohort had expired. Pat Bradley, on the other hand, returned and graduated within the time limit for his cohort.

Professional Opportunities in Basketball

The number of opportunities available for basketball players to play professionally is sizeable. While the NBA has the greatest attraction, the CBA and many international leagues ensure that a substantial number of student-athletes in U.S. universities will pursue the option of playing professionally.

In many ways, a high school basketball player has a better chance of "hitting it big" on a lottery than she or he does of playing professionally in the WNBA or NBA. However, that is the dream of hundreds of thousands of young people. And, they are very reluctant to give up on their dreams.

For the high school basketball player whose abilities are not developed sufficiently to be drafted out of high school, there are few options available beyond college. Until very recently, the NBA, unlike major league baseball, did not provide a minor or development league. That changed, however, in November 2001, with the inauguration of the National Basketball Development League (NBDL), which features eight teams, all located in the south. NBDL players must be 20 years old to play in the league, although exceptions will be made for players at least 18 years old who have been drafted by an NBA team and subsequently cut. If this league becomes successful, it could have major implications for college basketball as we know it today.

In addition, the challenges colleges and universities face in men’s basketball are exacerbated by AAU summer league play and the omnipresent professional agent. The most gifted high school basketball players and their families are offered extraordinary inducements.

The professional ranks bear some culpability in the low graduation rates for men’s basketball. Increasingly lucrative rookie contracts lure more and more players out of college before completing their degrees. It is time for the NCAA to propose a summit with the NBA to see what can be done to ensure that college players have the opportunity to complete their degrees before joining the professional ranks. In addition, shouldn’t NBA teams, out of concern for the general welfare of their players, employ academic advisers to work with players to complete their degrees through a combination of courses taken through distance delivery, at other colleges, and via correspondence courses?

What Are the Responsibilities of the University?

Student-athletes face extraordinary demands on their time. Consequently, it is important for the University of Arkansas to do the following: admit academically qualified student-athletes who want to graduate; provide an environment that encourages learning and the pursuit of a degree; provide academic counseling, advising, and tutoring services; monitor classroom attendance and academic progress; prepare the student-athlete for "life after athletics;" and provide encouragement and support to the limit allowed by NCAA and SEC rules and regulations.

In the case of a student-athlete who faces the prospect of a professional career, it is incumbent upon University representatives to ensure that the individual understands the risks associated with leaving early to play professionally. In addition to the low probability of success, there exists the possibility of a career-ending injury. Without a college degree, many doors will be closed to a former student-athlete who no longer can play professionally, e.g., coaching at either the high school or college level.

Having been advised of the risks involved and encouraged to remain in school to complete the degree, the student-athlete must then decide and live with the consequences of that decision. Few question Tiger Woods’ decision to leave Stanford University early to pursue a professional golf career.

Joe Johnson is a recent example of a UA basketball player who left early and is currently playing professionally for the Phoenix Suns. He enrolled at the University of Arkansas for only two years before entering the professional draft, becoming a first-round pick, and signing a contract believed to be in excess of $4 million over a three-year period.

I understand Joe Johnson’s reasons for leaving early. However, I am disappointed he did not graduate before pursuing a professional career. I believe strongly in the value of an education and believe we should reinforce its importance at every opportunity.

During the ESPN interview, I was asked if coaches should recruit a student-athlete who has no desire to complete the requirements for a degree. My response was that we should not recruit a student who lacks the academic ability to graduate or displays little value for education.

While it is important to make available educational opportunities for those who are qualified academically, I believe scholarships should be reserved for those who are going to pursue a degree. We must have the courage to "just say no" to the student-athlete, no matter how gifted athletically, who desires only to play for the Razorbacks and has no interest in obtaining a degree from the University of Arkansas. The Razorback program is neither a minor league franchise nor part of a developmental league. It is an integral part of the University and we must never lose sight of that fact.

My reasons for believing we should award athletic scholarships only to students who are committed to graduating from the University are as follows:

• We must remember the principal reason the University exists—to educate! If a student-athlete has no interest in obtaining an education, if the only reason she or he wishes to enroll is to pursue her or his athletic dream, then I do not believe she or he should be offered a scholarship.
• Accepting a scholarship from the University should be akin to signing a contract—a contract between the University and the student—with both parties having responsibilities and obligations that are clearly understood. Students who receive both academic and athletic scholarships should embody the values of the University and be a credit to it.
• At public universities, through their taxes, citizens of the state pay a portion of the cost of a student’s education. Even if the athletic department reimburses the institution for the cost of tuition and fees, some portion of the cost of a student’s education is still paid by taxpayers. Admitting a student who is not capable of doing the academic work required and awarding a scholarship (academic or athletic) to a student who does not value education is not good stewardship of the public’s or the institution’s scarce resources.
• I want every student to graduate. However, I recognize not all will do so due to personal circumstances. The same is true for student-athletes. Regardless of what the coaching staff, the academic staff, and others do, some will choose to transfer to other schools and some will choose to leave early to pursue a professional career. However, it is still important for a best effort to be made to encourage students to complete their degrees.

Of all the reasons a student-athlete might fail to graduate, the most troubling is when she or he cannot graduate within a year of completing her or his athletic eligibility. If a student "red shirts" for a year, it seems reasonable to expect her or him to be within a semester of graduation upon completion of athletic eligibility. In fact, I believe we have failed in our mission when a student-athlete passes all courses taken, completes her or his eligibility, and cannot graduate within a year.

Clearly, the University must be responsible for ensuring that student-athletes make reasonable progress toward completion of the degree. How to measure such progress requires careful thinking. Formulaic approaches, for example, can fail to recognize a common phenomenon—students change majors! They should not be penalized for doing so. At the same time, safeguards are needed to ensure that such changes are "student-driven" and not "coach-driven." Another concern regarding the use of formulas to gauge progress toward completion of the degree is the unintended consequence of student-athletes’ being advised to pursue a tightly constrained set of majors—majors that have high graduation rates but do not match the interests or abilities of the students.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Once a rational approach is developed to measure academic progress, then incentives should be developed for all coaches to ensure that student-athletes make satisfactory progress toward completion of a degree. Changing the culture of intercollegiate athletics, particularly the men’s basketball culture, will not be easy or quick to accomplish. Hence, in the meantime I favor establishing guidelines on what it takes for UA student-athletes to make satisfactory progress toward completion of a degree. A first step in that direction is the current UA goal for all student-athletes to pass at least 30 hours in the freshman year, rather than only 24 hours as required by the NCAA.

The University of Arkansas must recruit students (athletes and non-athletes) who are academically qualified and fully capable of graduating. With the academic counseling and tutoring available to student-athletes, it is reasonable to expect the average grade point and graduation rate for student-athletes to exceed those of the overall student body. And, it is reasonable to expect them to graduate at rates equivalent to those at other SEC schools.

In addition, I believe we must do more to "reach out" to scholarship athletes who quit or leave for the professional ranks to assist them in completing their degree. For example, could we design and deliver combinations of distance education courses, as well as intensive courses that are scheduled during the off season, to accommodate the needs of the athletes? Perhaps there are other outside-the-box approaches that should be explored, realizing that anything developed for athletes can be made available to all of our students.

Finally, I believe universities should provide five years of scholarship support for all student-athletes. For some, this will be an incentive to complete the baccalaureate degree early so that post-graduate work can be pursued while on scholarship.

As noted previously, the challenges we face regarding student-athlete graduation rates are not unique to the University of Arkansas. Furthermore, all colleges and universities in the State are faced with a similar challenge regarding overall graduation rates. Their improvement is one of the highest priorities for the Arkansas Department of Higher Education. Importantly, no one suggests that quality standards be lowered in order to increase graduation rates. Instead, improvements are sought in admission standards and decisions, in advising and counseling, in providing mentoring and academic support, and in access and scholarship support, among others.

CLOSING

In closing, the University of Arkansas must and will show progress in improving the graduation rates for all students, including students of color and student-athletes. While there will be year-to-year variations, significant improvements must occur if we are to truly serve the State and its citizens.

I recognize that the task is difficult. However, the need for reform is so great that improvements must occur. And, I am encouraged by the progress that I see on many fronts. For example, in the case of female student-athletes, over a ten-year period 96 percent of those who completed their athletic eligibility graduated from the University of Arkansas. The men’s tennis team has had comparable results.

In addition, each of the past three years, the football team set new records in overall grade point average; for fall semester, the football team was the highest ranked team in academic performance at a public institution in the SEC. The women’s swimming and diving team consistently ranks among the best in the nation academically, ranking second this year. Over the past two years, the women’s basketball graduation rate has been 100 percent. Progress is also occurring with men’s basketball; of the seven scholarship freshmen who formed the 1998 freshman cohort in men’s basketball, it appears that at least three will graduate within the six-year period. (As noted previously, two of the seven will not be counted among our graduates because they transferred to other institutions.)

Given the number of successes occurring on the University of Arkansas campus, I can hardly wait for ESPN to do a follow-up story on student-athlete graduation rates. When they do, they will find that dramatic improvements have occurred across the board at the University of Arkansas.

In the end, the issue of student-athlete graduation rates is about winning—not in the short run, but in the long run. It is about positioning students to win consistently in their futures by developing their academic and athletic abilities and instilling within them the many positive values that come from participating in intercollegiate athletics. It is about the University of Arkansas winning by doing the right things for our students and doing so for the right reasons. It is about being that nationally competitive, student-centered research university serving Arkansas and the world we envision.