College Guide
Blog
The hoopla that surrounds the NCCA basketball finals is an essentially permanent characteristic of the contemporary collegiate experience. It’s like pro sports, but slightly less banal and corporate, which means that there is much more potential for people to enjoy and feel connected to it.
I get it, that’s great. What I find troublesome about this period is the weird way that education policy people attempt to piggyback on this popular pastime by using it as a platform to discuss super unpopular and complicated policy efforts. The real problem might not have anything to do with education.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who actually used to be a college basketball player, is one of the worst violators. This year he breaks out, yet again, his annual college basketball graduation rate mantra.
Today he tweeted:
13 teams in the men’s #NCAA tournament won’t qualify going forward unless they improve academically. And that’s the way it should be.
Universities can’t use athletes just to make money, investing in their education is a moral imperative. #NCAA
Congratulations to the 30 men & women March Madness teams with 100% graduation rates. #NCAA
Thank you @NCAA Pres. Emmert & Univ. Presidents for your leadership and moral courage to raise the bar on #NCAA academics.
In 2010 he proposed that that schools that graduated less than 40 percent of basketball players shouldn’t be eligible to participate in the tournament. Last year he suggested 50 percent. This year I was expecting 60 percent, just for consistency.
It perhaps makes sense to use the basketball tournament to force schools to improve their completion rates, but this particular focus on the graduation rate of the men’s basketball team seems somewhat misguided.
Perhaps I’m missing something but it seems to me star that players at major basketball powerhouses don’t drop out for the normal reasons students drop out, like the finances and poor preparation for college. These factors are so very important for institutions trying to improve their graduation rates.
In fact, star basketball players seem to drop out mostly because the National Basketball Association has a rule that requires draft applicants to be at least 19 years old and one year removed from high school. This essentially forces the students to go to college, whether they really want to or not. This particular rule makes it fairly difficult for colleges to promote meaningful academic standards.
Students drop out because they think they can make money playing basketball, for a living. And, as basketball players, that’s pretty much exactly what they want to do. Why stick around to finish that bachelor’s degree in geography? Is that economically rational? Aren’t they ready to move on? Why would basketball players think another two years in college would make them dramatically better prepared for life beyond college, especially if the only reason they went to college was to play basketball after college? [Image via]
Facebook
Twitter
Snarki, child of Loki on March 15, 2012 9:02 AM:
The vast majority of NCAA basketball players are not going to make it in the NBA, so if their college years are not going to just be pure exploitation, they need the education to succeed in other areas.
I generally don't have a high opinion of business/marketing/finance/investment education, but players that go into pro sports really stand to benefit from education in those areas. At the very least, just to make sure that they are in good shape when their pro sports career comes to an end.
John on March 15, 2012 10:54 AM:
This is just wrong. There are over 300 NCAA Div I men's basketball programs - that's over 3600 players, or about 900 each year. The NBA draft each year consists of 60 players, an increasing percentage of whom are foreigners who didn't attend an American university. I'd guess that in total maybe 100 of the 900 college players each year end up playing professional basketball of some sort - but many of them are playing in minor or European leagues where they aren't going to have particularly long or lucrative careers. Many of the ones in the NBA aren't going to have particularly long or lucrative careers either.
So you've got hundreds of players every year with no shot at a professional career. Many of them fail to graduate, and the reasons are exactly the ones you denigrate - especially lack of educational preparation.
Nobody brought "star basketball players" into the discussion but you. Most college basketball players who do not graduate are not stars. And colleges have an obligation to try to actually provide these people with an education, something which many of them fail to do.
Daniel on March 15, 2012 11:12 AM:
I didn't say they all go on to have successful NBA careers. Most of them don't. The incentive structure encourages them to TRY for those careers, however, that's the problem.
As I explained, NBA rules require draft applicants to be at least 19 years old and one year removed from high school. This essentially forces the students to go to college, whether they really want to or not. This encourages good basketball players to go to colleges and discourages them from sticking it out. Should we be surprised this is happening? Are colleges entirely to blame for this?
John on March 15, 2012 2:30 PM:
Do you really think the one and done rule is responsible for low graduation rates? Graduation rates were low long before that. And most of the people not graduating are not stars with the prospect of any kind of professional career before them.
Daniel on March 15, 2012 3:54 PM:
Not entirely no. Indeed, until very recently no one much cared about college grad rates, either for athletes or other students.
But this is the policy as it currently exists, and it appears to be a very bad way to encourage college completion.