UNC report finds 18 years of academic fraud to keep athletes playing

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**hotsauceman1**

Ahtman wrote:
I missed in the quote block where it was asked what his major was so it seemed as though he just brought it up as an appeal to authority, which is not an unusual thing for undergrads to do My apologies for the misunderstanding.

It's ok, I just thought it was odd.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I missed in the quote block where it was asked what his major was so it seemed as though he just brought it up as an appeal to authority, which is not an unusual thing for undergrads to do My apologies for the misunderstanding.

It's okay. There are plenty of other reasons to tell HSM that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, or is totally off base, in this thread.

I do have a clue. Too often do I see stories like this, where teachers or dean's or principals are forced to give grades and pass kids who do not deserve ito so they can play. I see them get away with gracious violations or even break the law and have them covered up. The way we treat people who can throw a ball is deplorable

**Ensis Ferrae**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

It's okay. There are plenty of other reasons to tell HSM that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, or is totally off base, in this thread.

I do have a clue. Too often do I see stories like this, where teachers or dean's or principals are forced to give grades and pass kids who do not deserve ito so they can play. I see them get away with gracious violations or even break the law and have them covered up. The way we treat people who can throw a ball is deplorable

**Ouze**

When I was a kid, my mom worked for a special ed program in NYC. Toward the end of the year, there was a state-driven test that all the kids had to take, and all of the special ed teachers were directed to change a percentage of the passing tests to failing; because if too many of the kids showed academic progress they would move them into regular classes and they'd lose their funding. That was when my mom decided to become a librarian instead.

**cincydooley**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

I do have a clue. Too often do I see stories like this, where teachers or dean's or principals are forced to give grades and pass kids who do not deserve ito so they can play. I see them get away with gracious violations or even break the law and have them covered up. The way we treat people who can throw a ball is deplorable

Gracious violations!

Do explain!

Are there congenial violations, too? Perhaps courteous violations?

The irony of the pot calling the kettle black situation here would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad and painfully colored by your bizarre resentment towards athletic people.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Actually, the times where people are actually "forced" to pass/grade favorably is pretty low, however I do agree with the sentiment that, in some schools, there have been numerous articles in the media about a hostile work environment (to put it nicely) toward anyone who isn't "with the program"

Which is absolutely no different than high schools all over the country where non-athletes are being passed to bolster graduation rates. That's not to say it's right; it is wholly unethical. But please, lets not pretend that it's happening for a larger population of athletes than it is for the general population of students. Hell, there are plenty of teachers that ENJOY failing athletes.

**Ensis Ferrae**

cincydooley wrote:

Gracious violations!

Do explain!

Gracious violations being "you didn't REALLY successfully add 2 and 2 to make four, but we'll look the other way, and "fix" this for you"

Or in college terms: "your paper was clearly plagiarized (it was exactly like the 5 other papers of this title that I got from 5 other football players), but we're going to let it slide, so long as you don't do it in my class again"

**cincydooley**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
cincydooley wrote:

Gracious violations!

Do explain!

Gracious violations being "you didn't REALLY successfully add 2 and 2 to make four, but we'll look the other way, and "fix" this for you"

Or in college terms: "your paper was clearly plagiarized (it was exactly like the 5 other papers of this title that I got from 5 other football players), but we're going to let it slide, so long as you don't do it in my class again"

Sorry, but no. No matter how you try and explain it away, "gracious violations" is nonsense. I'd wager he meant "grevious violations," but found himself unable to articulate a cogent argument and used the wrong word.

But that was fun.

**Ensis Ferrae**

I agree that a violation is still a violation, regardless of whether the intent was "good" or not.

**Bullockist**

cincydooley wrote:

Are there congenial violations, too? Perhaps courteous violations?
.

When it comes to US college football players it is far more likely to be a co-genital violation

**hotsauceman1**

Wow Cincy, now you are just Reaching, pointing out bad spelling that happened from an overzealous Auto-correct.
And I do n hate athletic people, I never said that. I hate athletics that ruin the integrity of academic institutions.
But please, continue assuming to know what my life and mind is about

**Bullockist**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wow Cincy, now you are just Reaching,

It's a reach around that you didn't ask for..that's how you can tell cincy played football.

**Hordini**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree that a violation is still a violation, regardless of whether the intent was "good" or not.

That's very gracious of you.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
When I was a kid, my mom worked for a special ed program in NYC. Toward the end of the year, there was a state-driven test that all the kids had to take, and all of the special ed teachers were directed to change a percentage of the passing tests to failing; because if too many of the kids showed academic progress they would move them into regular classes and they'd lose their funding. That was when my mom decided to become a librarian instead.

Wow... that's absolutely ridiculous and could've adversely affected the students.

One of the best things my mother did was insisted that I'd remain in "regular class" as it's MUCH more diverse than any special school classrooms.

**cincydooley**

whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
When I was a kid, my mom worked for a special ed program in NYC. Toward the end of the year, there was a state-driven test that all the kids had to take, and all of the special ed teachers were directed to change a percentage of the passing tests to failing; because if too many of the kids showed academic progress they would move them into regular classes and they'd lose their funding. That was when my mom decided to become a librarian instead.

Wow... that's absolutely ridiculous and could've adversely affected the students.

One of the best things my mother did was insisted that I'd remain in "regular class" as it's MUCH more diverse than any special school classrooms.

And it's really, really common.

So is "encouraging" teachers to pass failing students in HS to ensure high graduation rates, which directly tie to funding.

I had it happen to me TWICE while I was still teaching.

In both instances the students were moved to other classes where the teachers were on board with that highly unethical practice.

Oh, and HSM, neither were athletes.

Additionally, here are a few more facts that prove you really have no idea what you're talking about, HSM:

The 2012 graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2006 was 59 percent. That is, 59 percent of first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year institution in fall 2006 completed the degree at that institution within 6 years. Graduation rates are calculated to meet requirements of the 1990 Student Right to Know Act, which required postsecondary institutions to report the percentage of students that complete their program within 150 percent of the normal time for completion, which is within 6 years for students pursuing a bachelor’s degree. Students who transfer and complete a degree at another institution are not included as completers in these rates.

Among first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2006, the 6-year graduation rate was 57 percent at public institutions, 66 percent at private nonprofit institutions, and 32 percent at private for-profit institutions. The 6-year graduation rate was 56 percent for males and 61 percent for females; it was higher for females than for males at both public (60 vs. 54 percent) and private nonprofit institutions (68 vs. 63 percent). However, at private for-profit institutions males had a higher graduation rate than females (35 vs. 28 percent).

Differences in 6-year graduation rates for first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree in fall 2006 varied according to institutions’ level of selectivity. In particular, graduation rates were highest at postsecondary degree-granting institutions that were the most selective (i.e., had the lowest admissions acceptance rates), and graduation rates were lowest at institutions that were the least selective (i.e., had open admissions policies). For example, at 4-year institutions with open admissions policies, 33 percent of students completed a bachelor’s degree within 6 years. At 4-year institutions where the acceptance rate was less than 25 percent of applicants, the 6-year graduation rate was 86 percent.

From: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40

Versus

Division I student-athletes who entered college in 2006 earned their degrees at a rate of 82 percent - the highest ever.

The most recent one-year graduation figures are bolstered by football student-athletes competing in the Football Bowl Subdivision, who earned a 71 percent Graduation Success Rate, and African-American men’s basketball players, who graduated at a 68 percent rate – the highest ever for those groups. Each group gained one percentage point over the class that entered college in 2005.

From: http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2013-10-24/division-i-student-athletes-show-progress-graduation-success-rate

**Ensis Ferrae**

Cincey, the ONLY caution I would add to your point, and your sources, is the scope of who is included... On the one hand you are counting ALL students who meet a certain criteria, and in the other, they are only counting Athletes only.

So while nationally, you might see an 82% graduation rate among athletes, what percentage do they account for in the total population? What conferences have lower/higher graduation rates? what schools account for the best graduations rates among athletes?

As we can see in the OP, just because UNC is "graduating" a bunch of athletes (and other students), doesn't necessarily mean they have something worth the paper its printed on, if they are taking phony classes.

**cincydooley**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Cincey, the ONLY caution I would add to your point, and your sources, is the scope of who is included... On the one hand you are counting ALL students who meet a certain criteria, and in the other, they are only counting Athletes only.

So while nationally, you might see an 82% graduation rate among athletes, what percentage do they account for in the total population? What conferences have lower/higher graduation rates? what schools account for the best graduations rates among athletes?

As we can see in the OP, just because UNC is "graduating" a bunch of athletes (and other students), doesn't necessarily mean they have something worth the paper its printed on, if they are taking phony classes.

Ohio State posted an 89% this year.

They have the largest athletic department in the country and routinely have at least three top 15 men's programs, two of which are the Big 2.

The football team, by the way, posted a 78% this year.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

As we can see in the OP, just because UNC is "graduating" a bunch of athletes (and other students), doesn't necessarily mean they have something worth the paper its printed on, if they are taking phony classes.

And I absolutely concede this. Difference is, even if you assume the UNC problem is the exact same at every major university (and it's not), that still doesn't make up the difference in graduation percentages.

**Prestor Jon**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

It's okay. There are plenty of other reasons to tell HSM that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, or is totally off base, in this thread.

I do have a clue. Too often do I see stories like this, where teachers or dean's or principals are forced to give grades and pass kids who do not deserve ito so they can play. I see them get away with gracious violations or even break the law and have them covered up. The way we treat people who can throw a ball is deplorable

Actually, the times where people are actually "forced" to pass/grade favorably is pretty low, however I do agree with the sentiment that, in some schools, there have been numerous articles in the media about a hostile work environment (to put it nicely) toward anyone who isn't "with the program"

I do agree with you, that College Athletes should be treated as College Students first, and Athletes second.... There is truly no way to know whether that 18 year old Freshman is going to be the next Joe Montana, the next Ryan Leaf or the next "Guy at Kinkos" so they really NEED to be there for the schooling, not the sporting.

**dogma**

Prestor Jon wrote:

I would be very surprised if any of the coaches at your alma mater didn't speak with any HS students who came to campus to visit and spoke with the coaches of the teams they were considering playing for. Even D3 has current players host potential applicants for visits. During those visits coaches may advise the aspiring applicants to apply via early decision to increase their odds of acceptance, depending on their academic and athletic prowess. The coaches will also speak to the admissions office on behalf of players to help increase their chances of acceptance. I don't see the point in a school investing the money and resources to have facilities, trainers and coaches only to then let the coaches sit back not care who gets in and hope that enough students want to participate so they can field a team.

At the D3 level facilities and trainers are often used by all students. In fact, good athletic facilities and staff are often a selling point touted in admissions brochures. The only expenditure solely related to intercollegiate sports is that of maintaining a coaching staff, and even then only for certain sports.

Aside from that, what you're describing is not the same as setting aside a certain number of admissions slots for athletes in a particular sport. Sure, being an athlete may give you a better chance of being admitted (in fact it generally does even if you have not an expressed in interest in competing), but there is no form of rigid quota system at most D3 schools. Hence the need to build a team by interesting people who have already been admitted.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Covering up crimes is also something that is not limited to student athletes. Every campus has some level of crime even if it's nothing more than petty theft but you won't see any college, even public universities, showing their crime stats to the public. No school wants prospective students or their parents to think their campus isn't safe (and for the most part they are pretty safe) so nobody makes crime stats available. The dozens of schools being investigated by the feds for violating their Title IX requirements for reporting sexual assaults isn't just an athletic problem.

Adding to that, many schools maintain a campus security force as a means to not only maintain campus security, but to prevent police from being called to resolve campus disputes. This is especially prevalent at smaller private schools.