Title: A Comparison of Academic and Athletic Performance in the NCAA.
Abstract: The Academic Progress Rate (APR) of 34 sports was investigated to determine whether the top athletic teams performed significantly better academically compared to their bottom counterparts. A p value of 0.0029 revealed that top athletic teams academically outperformed bottom athletic teams. Further analysis showed the number of times a school made the top eight positions did not influence their academic performance. An analysis comparing men's and women's top athletic teams also revealed women academically outperformed men. Every year the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) holds championships for men and women in over 17 sports comprising of the nation's best collegiate athletes. Though their athletic performance is usually undisputable, their academic performance is something that is constantly under scrutiny. Often athletes are perceived as less intelligent than their non-athletic peers due, in part, to the time commitment of athletes' sports, the apparent low priority athletes have for their academics, and the belief that athletes receive more lenient treatment from professors. Sailes (1993) conducted an opinion poll of 869 undergraduate and graduate students at Indiana University and found 45% of respondents thought college student athletes were less intelligent compared to the average college student. In addition, 44% thought athletes enrolled in easier college courses to maintain eligibility and 37% viewed student-athletes as less academically competitive than other students (Sailes, 1993). This adverse perception does not go unnoticed by student athletes. In a study conducted by Simons et al. (2007), 538 Student athletes were polled to determine their experiences with faculty members and other university students. Of those athletes, 33% believed that their academic ability was poorly perceived by faculty members, while 59.6% believed that their non-athletic peers had an unfavorable opinion of their academic abilities. Furthermore, 61.7% of those athletes believed that they had been given a hard time and/or were refused accommodation for athletic events in the past (Simons et al, 2007). Numerous studies have been conducted to refute or support the 'dumb jock' stereotype that many student-athletes are associated with. In these studies, college athletes are compared to their non-athlete counterparts. These studies have had conflicting results as to whether student athletes perform better, similar, or worse than non-athlete students. Pascarella et al. (1999) found in second and third year male student-athletes, those participating in revenue sports (i.e. football and basketball), performed academically worse than their non-athlete counterparts. However, those in non-revenue sports showed little statistical difference in their academic performance, when compared to other students. On the women's side, it was found that there was not a statistical difference in the academic capabilities between student-athletes and their non-athletic peers (Pascarella et al., 1999). Aries (2004) compared the academic evolution, over 4 years of college, between student-athletes and non-athletes who had similar high school academic achievements. He found that there was no significant statistical change in their academic evolution throughout their college careers (Aries, 2004). Conversely, Schafer and Armer (1968) found that student-athletes achieved higher scholastic success and proposed several possible reasons as to why this was the case. Although they included potential lenience in the treatment of student-athletes by professors, as well as possibly getting more assistance, they also noted that the drive to win and the will to become better in their sport could spill over to their academics (Schafer & Armer, 1968). These reasons beg the question as to whether winning athletes have more drive and dedication compared to other less athletically achieved students, which then transitions into their school work. …
Publication Year: 2017
Publication Date: 2017-06-22
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 6
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot