Athletics Advisory Board Members
Judith Swift, Chair
Faculty Representative to NCAA
Professor of Communication Studies/ Theatre
Cheryl Foster
Associate Director, Honors Program
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Marquisa LaVelle
Associate Professor of Sociology/ Anthropology
Mark Higgins
Professor, College of Business Administration
Yngve Ramstad
Professor of Economics
Richard Rendine
Alumni Association
Marissa Medal
Student Athletic Advisory Board
Amy Klopfenstein
Graduate Student Association
Ex officio
Ron Petro
Director of Athletics
Lauren Anderson
Associate Athletic Director
John Vanner
Associate Athletic Director
Art Tuveson
Assistant Director of Athletics/Recreational Services and Facilities
Winkle Kelley
Coordinator, Advising Programs for Student Athletes
Paul Kassabian
Compliance Coordinator
Appendices (Available as PDF Files)
Memo from Lauren Anderson, Associate Athletic Director to AAB
Exam Schedule and Men's/Women's Basketball Games.
Memo to Judith Swift, Chair, AAB from Head Baseball Coach Frank Leoni
Atlantic Ten Conference Constitution and Bylaws, Article IV.2
Number of Missed Class Days Due to Team Travel and/or Competition
Advising Programs for Student Athletes Organizational Chart
Advising Programs for Student Athletes Proposed Organizational Chart
Support Program for Special Advisement Student-Athletes
URI Academic Support Team Tutor Agreement
1992-2001 University of Rhode Island Men's Basketball Player Status
Number of URI Student Athletes and All URI Students on Dean's List and Probation
QPA and Credits Earned for URI Student Athletes Compared with All URI Students
Intercollegiate Athletics: Athletes Earning Less than 12 Credits
Intercollegiate Athletics Academic Summary Report
Spring 1998-2001 Student Athlete GPA for Football, Men's and Women's Basketball
Coaches Summaries
The role of the Athletics Advisory Board (AAB) as defined in the University Manual is as follows:
5.14.10 The Athletics Advisory Board shall serve as a policy review board for all athletic programs for men and women, including intercollegiate, club, intramural, and recreational sports and the management of facilities and equipment. The Board shall make its recommendations to the President. In performing its functions, the Athletics Advisory Board shall advise and review, on a continuing basis, all fiscal, educational and social policy affecting all athletic programs, make recommendations regarding level of competition, and the nature of intercollegiate schedules.
In keeping with its charge, the Athletic Advisory Board is pleased to respond to the questions raised by the President and the Faculty Senate regarding policy for intercollegiate athletes at the University of Rhode Island. The joint request from University President, Dr. Robert L. Carothers, and Faculty Senate Chair, C.B. Peters, stated that "ºthe time is appropriate for a comprehensive review of policies related to the academic life of student athletes." While the AAB and members of the Athletics staff are continuously working to evaluate best practices for the academic opportunities and achievements of student athletes within the context of their athletic obligations, it is equally true that much of their time&emdash;staff time in particular&emdash; is consumed with issues of day-to-day management along with matters of compliance set forth by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The University has an obligation to comply with the policies of the NCAA but the AAB concurs that there is a no less important obligation to meet the standards of our own institution in service of the many fine young men and women who should and most often do represent the institution's highest aspirations as student athletes of fine character, academic accomplishment, and athletic achievement.
Although they are not the only cohort of students to whom this applies, student athletes have a unique opportunity to serve as role models to the youth in our surrounding communities as well as ambassadors for our institution in state, regional, national and even international settings. With this set of expectations come some privileges but primarily a host of responsibilities. Consequently, the members of the AAB welcome the opportunity to address the Faculty Senate's questions with the concurrent goal of demonstrating both what is laudable about URI's athletics programs and intercollegiate activities in particular, and what is in need of attention. The AAB appreciates the opportunity this report provides&emdash;along with subsequent discussion with the Faculty Senate&emdash;to address concerns and provide a more thorough understanding of the place of student athletes in this community of learning.
The committee was specifically asked to respond to the following three points related to intercollegiate athletics:
1. The scheduling of athletic contests in relationship to the academic schedules of student athletes. We have a particular concern about the scheduling of championship events during final exam periods and about travel schedules during the academic term.
2. The academic support services provided to student athletes. We would also ask for your counsel on the appropriate reporting relationship for those who work as academic aids and tutors for athletes.
3. The relationship of academic schedules for student athletes to the completion of courses in a timely fashion; i.e., whether grades of incomplete or withdrawals are used in an appropriate manner. 1
Given the nature and complexity of some of the issues involved in responding to these points, the AAB welcomes a continued dialogue with the Faculty Senate to ensure that the University of Rhode Island can look to its intercollegiate athletics programs as well as its club, intramural, and recreational sports as models of academic and athletic integrity.
The scheduling of athletic contests in relationship to the academic schedules of student athletes, in particular the scheduling of championship events during final exam periods and travel schedules during the academic term.
The University Manual is very clear regarding the issue of scheduling athletic contests. The legislation reads as follows:
8.51.30 Final Examinations and Athletic Events. Intercollegiate athletic contests at the University of Rhode Island shall not be scheduled (at home or away) during either the final exam period or designated reading days. Compulsory practice sessions shall not be scheduled during the final exam period.
8.51.31 Issues regarding Conference championships, special tournaments, and other athletic competitions not controlled through University scheduling that occur during the final exam period shall be forwarded to the Athletics Advisory Board for their recommendation to waive the above policy and permit participation. The board's recommendation shall be forwarded to the University President for final action.
The AAB is vigilant in its responsibility to enforce this policy. However, there are occasions when Section 8.51.31 &emdash;the waiver&emdash;does apply and the AAB approves such exceptions only when its voting members find that circumstances warrant an exception. Ex officio board members, who are primarily athletics department staff, provide information as requested but do not participate in nor attempt to influence the vote. The decision-making process is anything but a rubberstamp. The AAB is a democratic body working to fulfill its charge on behalf of the President and the Faculty Senate. Consequently there is sometimes heated debate, which often results in a split vote on a request to waive the policy. On other occasions, the waiver is determined to be both reasonable and unavoidable. Although the AAB most often approves requests, this is more a testimony to the review process such requests undergo prior to their ever being brought to the AAB. (See Appendix, memo from Lauren Anderson, Associate Athletic Director to AAB, October 3, 2001, for the AY 2001-2002 list of waiver requests.) For example, in 1998, the men's basketball team was invited to participate in an invitational tournament during the final exam period and Athletic Director (AD) Ron Petro explored this with the President before bringing it to the AAB. The President and the AD saw the time away required as too great a disruption for the student athletes during finals and opted to turn down the invitation. It is most likely that had the request come to the AAB, the Board would have turned it down as well. Moreover, in a series of conversations with coaches over the last year, the AAB discovered that many coaches determine themselves that the request for an exception would be too detrimental to their student athletes and essentially create a first line of screening for the denial of exceptions. Furthermore, a number of the approved exceptions are based upon anticipating possible championship competitions, which are dependent upon the success of a given team and may never prove necessary, e.g. advancement to the national tournament. However, the AAB recognizes that there are some decisions made for scheduling that are in direct conflict with the best interest of student athletes. One recent example in which the AAB and the President approved a request for a non-conference men's basketball game occurred this past semester. A full understanding of this exception&emdash;which did receive reluctant approval on a split vote on the part of the AAB&emdash;requires a bit of historical background.
In the spring of 2001, there was considerable confusion created during the period between the departure of Coach DeGregorio and the selection and arrival of Coach Baron. During this period, a contract was signed with the University of Pittsburgh for a non-conference game for the evening of Saturday, December 15th. This would have required, at the earliest, that the team depart on the evening of Friday, December 14th, following the last final exam of the day. Subsequent to the signing of the contract, the University of Pittsburgh requested that the time of the Saturday game be moved from 7:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to accommodate television broadcasting of the game. While the University of Rhode Island could have considered this a breach of contract, URI's refusal to meet the shift in schedule would no doubt have resulted in litigation, which if URI lost would have cost $50, 000 in a contractually agreed upon cancellation penalty not to mention the additional cost of attorney fees. Given the added issue of travel difficulty in light of post September 11th security concerns, a wider berth needed to be provided for travel times and necessitated a 3:00 p.m. departure. Obviously this was not an appropriate use of the waiver for exceptions to the University Manual section 8.51.31. In response to this, the AAB formed an Athletics Scheduling Subcommittee, which is now reviewing athletic competition schedules prior to the signing of any contract.
The AAB is strongly focused on responding to faculty concerns regarding the integrity of athletic schedules. In response to faculty criticism of athletic events scheduled during finals, the Board initiated a policy that now requires any approved waiver to be printed in the revised final exam schedule thanks to the cooperation of Enrollment Services. Furthermore, the AAB is formally requesting that the Faculty Senate clarify the current legislation that specifically refers to not scheduling athletic competitions "during either the final exam period or designated reading days." (Section 8.51.30) Since weekend days are not specifically exam days or reading days, what is not clear is whether or not the weekend during the final exam period is considered part of the final exam period and subject to this prohibition. The precedent has been that the AAB approves athletic contests as long as neither the actual game nor travel falls on a scheduled exam day (the above example regarding the University of Pittsburgh notwithstanding). However, there are cases when non-tournament men's and women's basketball games have been approved if they were same day travel on a reading day, on a Saturday or Sunday and less frequently if they were home games on the evening of a final exam day. (See Appendix, Exam Schedule and Men's/Women's Basketball Games.)
As the Faculty Senate considers this request for clarification, the AAB asks that the Senate give attention in its deliberations to the complexity of scheduling. For example, even though the coaches know URI's academic schedule several years in advance, the fact remains that every coach is faced with several factors when creating a schedule in cooperation with the Associate Director of Athletics. (See Appendix, memo to Judith Swift, Chair, AAB from Head Baseball Coach Frank Leoni as an example of advance planning by coaches.) First, he/she must play a minimum number of contests within a set schedule issued by the NCAA (See Appendix, NCAA Manual, figures 17-1, 17-2). Second, conference members do not share identical semester-by-semester class and final exam schedules, and the process of scheduling within the conference is most often a compromise in the best interest of student athletes from multiple institutions. Third, the NCAA requires that teams play a minimum number of games per season in order to be eligible for tournament play. The NCAA also considers strength of schedule in determining which teams will play in post-season tournaments, for example, the use of the RPI in determining selection for the NCAA Final Four tournament. (See NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Handbook, http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2001/i_m_basketball.pdf.) Strength of schedule is also a requirement for basketball teams in the Atlantic-10. (See Appendix, Atlantic Ten Conference Constitution and Bylaws, Article IV.2.) Games against strong non-league opponents are also more likely to be televised, leading to revenue and exposure for the University. These are all significant factors that must be taken into account when finalizing a schedule.
To use basketball as an example, the bulk of the schedule is made up of conference games, which typically are played in January through March. Winter sport teams are prohibited from starting earlier than a specified date in late October or November, and need time to prepare before taking on quality opponents. Therefore, a number of games must be played in December. With a limited number of quality non-conference opponents, and a limited number of days in which to schedule them before conference play starts, the fact that some games conflict with the final exam period is difficult to avoid and not entirely within the our institution's control. (Of course the scheduling is in our control by fiat but the complexity of competing interests within the conference is not within URI's control.) Consequently, the assumption that such scheduling demonstrates a complete disregard for academic matters would be unfortunate.
AD Ron Petro and his staff continue to work with the NCAA and Atlantic-10 institutions to minimize conflicts between the scheduling of athletic contests and academic obligations. Toward this end one major change initiated by the AD during this academic year is that Associate Athletic Director Lauren Anderson is now overseeing all scheduling for athletic contests. This will ensure consistency and parity among the different sports. Furthermore, Anderson has a long history of impeccable integrity with regard to her dedication to the academic success of student athletes.
A recent memo from President Carothers (January 4, 2002) to AD Ron Petro stated:
After due consideration, I am notifying you that I will no longer approve intercollegiate athletic events by URI teams during the final examination periods. This policy decision is effective immediately. No future competition may be scheduled during the periods designated on the University calendar as exam periods.
Exceptions to this policy will be made only on the recommendation of the Athletic Advisory Committee and then only in the case of Atlantic Ten Conference Championship competition or NCAA playoff competition.
The AAB requests that this memo be clarified. As it now reads, student athletes could not participate in athletic contests such as the Lacrosse National Championships, the New England Track Championships and the Dad Vail National Rowing Championships. Furthermore, the AAB asks that the President go one step further. In his position, he has the unique opportunity to invite other Atlantic-10 presidents to convene and review the question of scheduling in light of the concern common to many institutions to balance strong athletics programs with the commensurate obligation to the development of the whole student athlete in preparation for his/her professional life beyond intercollegiate athletics. One option for exploration is development of a competition schedule that places first priority on limiting the number of days that a student misses class. 2 The AAB urges the President to work with the AAB Athletics Scheduling Subcommittee to resolve questions of definition and exceptions. Although the AAB agrees that the impact of scheduling of athletic contests must be designed to minimize its impact on a student athlete's academic performance, the schedule needs to be resolved both within the university and the larger context of conference and non-conference leagues. Otherwise, our coaches and teams will be unfairly disadvantaged.
Another major area of concern is the travel schedules associated with athletic contests. After careful review and consultation with Advising Programs for Student Athletes, 3 the AAB recommends that one way to lessen problems regarding travel&emdash;among other issues&emdash;during the academic term is to provide priority registration to all varsity athletes.
However, before initiating a discussion of how priority registration could help to alleviate the matter of classes lost for travel to athletic contests, it is worth examining sample scenarios of travel for a variety of sports and its effect on student athlete class attendance. (See Appendix, Number of Missed Class Days Due to Team Travel and/or Competition: Spring 2001 and AY 2001-2002.) As is apparent on examination, teams vary widely in the number of missed class days. While a wide variety of factors influence the number of travel and competition days&emdash;factors too varied to discuss in the scope of this report. One example is that men's and women's track teams are required to travel virtually every weekend during the outdoor season, i.e. in April/May, because URI does not have a serviceable outdoor competition facility; the track is condemned. In addition, it is important to consider other factors when weighing the effect of these absences: overall student accomplishment, a given team's academic record and capabilities, and an analysis of student schedules to determine the actual number of classes to be missed as opposed to the potential number. The AAB has also charged the Athletics Scheduling Subcommittee in cooperation with Associate Athletic Director Lauren Anderson to review any travel and competition schedule that might be deemed excessive.
While priority registration may not solve every problem, the AAB sees it as one important component for positive change. University College Dean Jayne Richmond recently made a request for priority registration to the Enrollment Management Advisory Committee on behalf of Advising Programs for Student Athletes. While the Committee did not approve the request at this time, the AAB remains strongly in support of the institution of this policy. On the most obvious level, priority registration for varsity athletes will allow them to register for classes that do not conflict with standard times for practice and essential travel, thereby lessening the amount of time student athletes lose in the classroom. Consequently, priority registration will enhance their opportunity for academic success. In addition, although the most obvious need appears to be decreasing&emdash;the possibility that student athletes will miss class due to competitions, the fact is that the lack of priority registration makes a serious impact on many aspects of their academic life. Currently the need to register in the queue with all students limits class choices for student athletes due to required practice times. For example, student athletes have a particularly difficult time majoring in the sciences because they may not be able to secure a morning or early afternoon laboratory time for a required class under the normal registration procedures. While the unique demands on their time would be mitigated by priority registration and in turn lessen the risk for academic failure, it is equally true that the lack of priority registration often prevents academically gifted student athletes from achieving the highest level of academic success in the field of their choice when that field involves a limited number of essential requirements such as laboratory meetings, practicum sessions or Honors course requirements.
The population of student athletes mirrors that of the general population in that students range from the academically gifted to the academically challenged, from those who have had the benefits of topnotch K-12 preparation to those who experienced marginalized and poorly supported K-12 educations. Moreover, the students who are defined as at-risk tend to cluster within particular sports. The institution needs to be candid about this range of student cohorts and re-enforce the value of sport as a means to assist the at-risk student in translating the discipline of sport to the discipline of the classroom. The basketball player who may be classified as at-risk (and this does not extend to all basketball players) demonstrates finely honed kinesthetic intelligence including the ability to retain significant numbers of play patterns, remain cognizant of what has just occurred in a given set of plays, what is occurring in the moment of play, projecting the likelihood of future plays&emdash;all within seconds&emdash;while evaluating and calculating the place of his teammates on the court. This is analogous to chess in motion. This is a person with exceptional intellectual skills. In recent decades, research has shown that there are multiple expressions of intelligence and as many ways to cull out those abilities. The challenge is to translate the skills of an at-risk athlete into more traditional academic applications. URI owes its at-risk students this opportunity and the concurrent development of the self-esteem that will support these student athletes as they work toward academic success.
URI has just enjoyed the success of seeing its first Rhodes Scholar selected from the ranks of alumni. The Rhodes lists as its criteria "high academic achievement, integrity of character, a spirit of unselfishness, respect for others, potential for leadership, and physical vigor." Typically Rhodes Scholars have some athletic achievement as part of their portfolio. Our registration system makes the development of a varied portfolio very difficult for student athletes. (This may be true for other cohorts as well but the purpose of this report is to focus on the student athlete.) Granted there are only a few students who are potential Rhodes material but the point remains that the Rhodes criteria would stand any student in good stead as educational goals in their undergraduate experience. URI student athletes can be strong candidates for graduate fellowships from the NCAA and the Atlantic&endash;10, but the fact remains that in order to be competitive for these awards, and for graduate studies or post-graduate internships in general, the student athlete must be perceived as undertaking a rigorous course of study. The current insistence upon the same procedures for all students results in student athletes finding themselves in the position of having to forfeit required or intellectually challenging classes, and even sometimes chosen majors, because of the unavailability of classes that allow multiple activities under standard registration procedures.
An rationale for priority registration stems from the lack of available facilities to accommodate all the teams that require indoor practice venues. Given the limited facilities, it is almost impossible to match class schedules with practice schedules. Student athletes have to juggle sections and courses to try to accommodate both their academic and athletic aspirations. In fact, student athletes sometimes have to take reduced loads, placing them behind in progress toward graduation, and ultimately further behind other non-athletes within their own class year. Ironically, the non-athletes who have garnered more credits based on flexibility of schedule then receive priority (based on accumulated credits seniority) for regular registration times. Coupled with this scheduling challenge is the need for student athletes to comply with the regulations of the NCAA, specifically "progress toward graduation" requirements. The travel and practice schedule for student athletes often makes it difficult if not impossible to achieve that progress in certain majors. This is especially true for those majors that include labs or majors in which there is already limited class selection and availability. Priority registration would alleviate many of these problems.
In addition, students who are enrolled in programs in which the curriculum requirements become more structured with each class year are caught in a particularly vicious cycle. Priority registration can help students obtain the class times they need to be able to meet both their academic and athletic goals, providing reasonable time for students to attend classes, study, practice, and participate in their sports. 4
In 1997, the NCAA Certification Peer Review Team recommended "ºconsideration be given to priority registration for at-risk sports." A recent survey of other Atlantic&endash;10 schools indicated that one half of the schools currently have priority registration. These include Dayton, Duquesne, George Washington, La Salle, St. Joseph, and Xavier. The other five are currently pursuing this process and include Fordham, UMass, Richmond, St. Bonaventure, and Temple. URI is just now moving forward in response to this recommendation.
In a memo to the Enrollment Management Advisory Committee (11/19/2001) Dean Richmond stated:
Academic Support Services believes that the University should establish a policy of priority registration for student athletes. We believe further that effective priority registration requires coordination and monitoring. Therefore we propose two requirements to be met: 1) require all student athletes to have their hold lifted by our athletic advisors before they may access priority registration, and 2) require that the athletic administration solidify the practice schedules before registration time. These changes will help to ensure that priority registration will be used by those who most need it, and once instituted, will not be subject to changing demands of practice times.
The AAB strongly urges the Faculty Senate to charge an ad hoc committee to pursue the development of a process and policy for priority registration. The AAB is persuaded that such a step will be positive for recruitment, retention, academic responsibility, and academic success of student athletes. The AAB also recognizes that there might be other groups of undergraduates for whom priority registration would be recommended, for example students who are part of performing arts ensembles, especially those with strict schedules. One might argue that all of our students face unique scheduling difficulties because so many of them hold outside employment. The difference is that they are dealing with a one-to-one problem&emdash;student schedule and employer needs&emdash; versus the student athlete whose schedule revolves around an entire team's availability. In any case, the AAB recommends that the ad hoc committee consider the needs of those students whose duties to the university require special consideration due to academic program needs.
Academic support services provided to student athletes and the appropriate reporting relationship for those who work as academic aids and tutors for athletes.
The current reporting relationship of Advising Programs for Student Athletes was outlined in a memo issued by President Carothers on August 9, 2001, stating as follows:
Effective this date, overall supervision of advising and tutoring for intercollegiate athletics will be vested in the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. For freshmen and undeclared majors, specific responsibility lies in University College. Advising and counseling staff assigned to athletes will report to the Dean of University College. The coordinator for academic advising (Winkle Kelley) will maintain established communications with the Associate Director for Athletics for Academics, who will coordinate efforts with coaches for continuous monitoring of academic progress and eligibility for all student athletes. Ron Petro, Lauren Anderson and their coaches will continue to be responsible for referring students into appropriate advising and tutorial programs. The Provost hereafter will be accountable for the integrity of the advising and tutorial programs for student athletes.
As part of the preparation of this report, the chair of the AAB spoke with all staff members of Advising Programs for Student Athletes, the Dean of University College, the Associate Director for Athletics for Academics and the Director of Athletics. All agree that the reporting relationship outlined by President Carothers is optimal. Currently, one advisor (for men's and women's basketball) is physically located in Athletics and reports directly to the Dean of University College while the remaining advisors reside in University College. While there is an array of opinions as to the most effective location for academic advisors, it is clear that Advising Programs for Student Athletes should continue to report to the Dean of University College and ultimately to the Provost. This reporting relationship reduces any appearance of or actual conflict of interest. All academic advisors should first report to the Coordinator for Advising Programs for Student Athletes. Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, M. Beverly Swan, strongly endorses this overall reporting line. At the same time, the Coordinator of Advising Programs for Student Athletes must continue to work with the Associate Director for Athletics for Academics in order to ensure that the needs of student athletes are being met along with NCAA compliance regulations. The ideal scenario is for the academic advisors to be formally housed in University College with a satellite office in the Athletics complex. This would not only allow advisors to have close involvement and presence with coaches, other athletics staff and student athletes, but also provide proximity to the many academic services central to their work including academic records, faculty advisors, Enrollment Services, the Learning Assistance Network, the Counseling Center and Career Services. (See Appendices, Advising Programs for Student Athletes Organizational Chart and Advising Programs for Student Athletes Proposed Organizational Chart.)
The AAB also recommends a change to its list of ex officio members to strengthen the lines of communication between academic and athletic units. The current legislation reads as follows:
5.14.11 The Board shall be comprised of nine voting members: four faculty members, one undergraduate student, one graduate student, two alumni; the President shall appoint one additional faculty member to serve as the ninth member and chairperson. The faculty membership shall be appointed in consultation with the Faculty Senate; the student membership shall be appointed in consultation with the Student Senate and the Graduate Student Association; the Alumni representatives shall be appointed in consultation with the Alumni Association. For each appointment made to the Board, each constituency shall nominate two persons. The President shall make appointments from among these nominations. Terms of appointment for faculty, administrators and representatives of the Alumni Association shall be for three years, renewable once at the end of the first term. Terms of appointment for students shall be for one year, renewable at the end of the first term. The Director of Athletics, the Associate Director of Athletics for Women and the Dean of the College of Human Science and Services shall be ex officio non-voting members of the Athletics Advisory Board.
The role of the Dean of the College of Human Science and Services as an ex officio member dates back to the period when Athletics and Physical Education were more closely aligned administratively. The HS&S Dean has not attended AAB meetings for many years. Given the current role of the Dean of University College in relationship to academic issues for student athletes, it would be most effective to have that Dean serve as the ex officio member. The AAB requests that the Faculty Senate and the President consider this change.
Although the issues posed in this section do not explicitly address the role of advisors and tutors, and their duties related to student athletes, the AAB has examined this question and is satisfied that their roles are well defined and professionally executed. Appended are copies of the role and responsibilities of academic advisors, and the agreement tutors sign regarding their responsibility to student athletes. (See Appendices, Support Program for Special Advisement Student-Athletes, and URI Academic Support Team Tutor Agreement.) In this excerpt from an e-mail, one of the academic advisors described work with student athletes as follows:
I might brainstorm with a student to help in assisting them in starting a paper or project. I have also read over papers with the students present and explained the needed [grammatical] corrections. I have gone over college study skills with a lot of students, such as note taking, reading with a purpose, test taking, and writing. I also frequently encourage students to use the Learning Assistance Network for tutoring needs in the math and science areas.
The majority of the actual tutoring is currently coordinated through the Learning Assistance Network (LAN). The rationale for this as described by the coordinator for Advising Programs for Student Athletes, Winkle Kelley, is twofold: "to insure that tutors are being screened in the same way as LAN tutors and to include the athletes in a learning environment which includes other students." In addition, men's basketball employs a tutor recommended by Talent Development to assist with writing skills and women's basketball employs a tutor to monitor study hall and assist with skill development as needed. Please note that tutors specifically sign a contract agreeing among other things "to insist that students complete their own work." It is essential that Sandra Pearlman, director of the Learning Assistance Network, and the coordinator for Advising Programs for Student Athletes continue to work together to review the work of tutors to ensure that students&emdash;both non-athletes and student athletes&emdash;are completing their own work under the appropriate guidance of tutors. The AAB plans to meet with both of these individuals and the dean of University College in the upcoming semester to discuss appropriate safeguards for tutors in their relationship to the academic work of student athletes.
The relationship of academic schedules for student athletes to the completion of courses in a timely fashion and the appropriate use of grades of incomplete or withdrawals.
Again, the recommendation for priority registration holds here as well. The ability to gain entry to courses that allow student athletes to meet requirements, maximize class attendance and have a greater chance for academic success in a major of their choosing as opposed to one that is most easily scheduled all contribute to the timely completion of courses. Priority registration will help to ensure that prerequisite courses and subsequent major courses will be more available to students allowing them to choose majors they genuinely want and make progress toward graduation in a timely manner. Perhaps the best source of information regarding the relationship of academic schedules to the completion of courses in a timely fashion is the group of academic advisors. These are the individuals most intimately aware of the needs of student-athletes vis-à-vis academic challenges and barriers to success. The academic advisors deal daily with the problems student athletes face struggling to get into classes that will allow them to succeed in both areas of responsibility and strongly urge the institution of priority registration.
The AAB understands that negative publicity about URI athletics related to academics had to be a major catalyst in the Faculty Senate's requesting this report. It is no secret that men's basketball was at the center of the media firestorm. There is also no question but that men's basketball is the sport with the highest level of visibility. With that comes the benefit of extraordinary public support when the team is doing well, which is most simply defined as winning, and also comes equally harsh public scrutiny when the team is not as successful. The AAB concurs that success cannot be measured by wins and losses alone. Players' GPAs and a sport's graduation rate must be of equal importance in measuring success. Fortunately our current men's basketball coach is an individual who has a fine track record for working to achieve wins without sacrificing academic integrity. Coach Baron demonstrated this within days of his arrival at URI. However, in the interest of full and candid discussion, it is worth examining the facts pertaining to men's basketball and academics.
The men's basketball program has undergone very intense criticism in recent years. Appended is a table showing this team's graduation rates for the last ten years under three different coaches (See Appendix, 1992-2001 University of Rhode Island Men's Basketball Player Status). As is apparent upon review, following Coach Skinner's departure the change in the direction of the team and the philosophy of winning above all else had a major impact on the graduation rates of players. Sixty-two percent of Coach Skinner's student athletes graduated while only twenty percent (two out of ten) and ten percent (one out of ten) graduated under Coach Harrick's and Coach DeGregorio's respective watch. With Coach Baron's arrival and his strong commitment to academic discipline and success, the program has begun to turn around. While we cannot expect immediate results either on the court or in the classroom, if the current coaching staff continues to value academic performance as demonstrated to date&emdash;and is supported in this by the administration, athletics staff, faculty, academic advisors, alumni, fans, boosters and fellow students&emdash;the AAB is confident that the program can make progress toward consistent academic and athletic success.
It is important to note, however, that the vast majority of student athletes are successful academically and compare favorably with the undergraduate population as a whole in attaining Dean's List status; In Spring 2001, twenty-five percent of student athletes versus twenty-nine percent of the overall student population. Conversely, during the same semester six percent of URI student athletes were on probation and six percent of all URI students were eligible for probation. (See Appendix, Number of URI Student Athletes and All URI Students on Dean's List and Probation.) The overall cumulative QPA for URI student athletes during Spring 2001 was 2.81 and 2.87 for all URI students. Four percent of male student athletes and one percent of female student athletes earned fewer than seven credits during that term, while three percent of all URI male students and two percent of all female students earned less than seven credits. (See Appendix, QPA and Credits Earned for URI Student Athletes Compared with All URI Students) Please note that it was not possible to remove student athletes from the aggregate population so they figure as a separate cohort and as part of the data for students as a whole. For a team-by-team breakdown of GPA, probationary status, dismissals, and numbers on Dean's List and Centennial Scholars, see Appendix, Athletics Table 2. A similar breakdown is provided for credits earned for Fall of 1998 through Spring of 2001 (See Appendix, Intercollegiate Athletics: Athletes Earning Less than 12 Credits.)
The appended Intercollegiate Athletics Academic Summary Report (See Appendix) shows a 20-year history of QPA, percentage of student athletes on probation and Dean's List. As is apparent upon examination, the performance of student athletes has steadily improved over these two decades. Finally, the appended Spring 1998-2001 Student Athlete GPA for Football, Men's and Women's Basketball (See Appendix) shows the same data for three of the higher profile teams. All these data demonstrate the institution's commitment and obligation to tracking student-athlete academic progress.
Although the careful perusal of these data is important, of equal importance is the institution's recognition of the value of athletic competition in an academic setting. Dr. Cheryl Foster addressed the role of sport related to academic accomplishment as follows:
This is first year of Athletic postgraduate scholarships being administered by my office in the Honors Program. To date, we have submitted an A-10 nominee and most recently an NCAA postgraduate application. I expect there to be more of these as the year progresses: there are rolling deadlines according to season of play, but the NCAA is in any case a national program and of high visibility. Our goal is to nominate URI student athletes for the NCAA and A-10 awards every year and to have a strong pool of candidates from which to make our nominations. URI's visibility in these programs has been low to non-existent, but Athletics Director Ron Petro has made it a priority to assist student athletes in aspiring to and obtaining national and conference academic awards.
During the last year, one of our Rhodes Scholar state finalists was a varsity athlete and sports captain, and another Rhodes candidate was a member of the club ski team. A third varsity athlete also applied for a Rhodes nomination this year, though the field was of such high quality that his application for URI nomination did not succeed.
One of the candidates for the Marshall Scholarship was a member of the Recreational Athletics Staff at the pool and is a Pool Captain. Several other scholarship candidates participate in intramural athletics.
The key thing is, many of the national fellowships take athletic participation into account when measuring a candidate's overall discipline and accomplishment. The Truman Scholarship for example actually awards strong points if a student is a captain of a sport: leadership ability in sport is highly valued even for academic awards. In addition, competitive graduate programs recognize the value in a candidate who has achieved a high GPA while also participating in varsity sports, as this is the mark of discipline and strong time management skill.
In addition to preparing student athletes for competitive academic scholarships, the university must ensure that they are equally well prepared and competitive for graduate work, post-graduate internships and career entry. The Athletics staff must continue to work with the university community as a whole to ensure readiness for the larger competition of life beyond intercollegiate athletics. To date, the AAB finds the Athletics administration eager to play this role.
Key to the academic success of our students is the coaching staff. While they are not directly involved in academic advising or tutoring&emdash;nor should they be&emdash;it is essential that they clearly and unequivocally communicate to their student athletes that academic achievement must go beyond the basic question of eligibility. To that end, the AAB has invited coaches to attend each AAB meeting to report briefly on the athletic and academic status of his or her team. In order to provide the Faculty Senate with a sense of the level of commitment from the coaches, there are several "state of the team" summaries appended to this report (See Appendix, Coaches Summaries). These reports demonstrate the interest of the coaching staff in wins and losses but also the academic progress of their respective teams.
Whether or not incompletes are assigned appropriately is not within the purview of the AAB to determine. As the University Manual states:
8.53.20 Incomplete. A student shall receive a report of "Incomplete" in any course in which the course work has been passing up until the time of a documented precipitating incident or condition, but has not been completed because of illness or another reason which in the opinion of the instructor justifies the report. An instructor who issues a grade of "Incomplete" shall forward a written explanation to the student's academic dean.
Consequently, the assignment of an incomplete is a matter between the student athlete&emdash;or any student for that matter&emdash; and his/her instructor. Faculty, or in exceptional circumstances, deans are the only individuals with the power to assign an Incomplete. In fact, even instructors or temporary lecturers are often instructed that they may not give an Incomplete without the permission of the department chair to prevent potential problems if the instructor is no longer working for the university when the student attempts to complete the work. If in fact the Faculty Senate believes that grades of Incomplete are being assigned inappropriately to either non-athletes or student athletes, this is a matter for the Faculty Senate to discuss with deans, department chairs and in turn with the faculty involved. The Faculty Senate can choose to look to the number of grades of Incomplete assigned and compare that number to the overall cohort of undergraduates.
As for the NW, the actual assignment of this grade is also within the purview of the instructor as outlined in the University Manual.
8.53.12 Enrolled - No Work Submitted. In those instances when a student enrolls in a course through the registration process and (1) never attends the course, or (2) stops attending early in the semester, the instructor may record a grade of NW, no work submitted. The grade will not affect the student's attempted or earned credits and will have no effect on a student's QPA.
The Faculty Senate's concern with potential abuse of the NW matches that of the AAB and the Athletics staff. In this most recent semester, however, faculty issued only four NWs to student athletes who earned fewer than 12 credits. Clearly no student athlete should ever be encouraged or allowed to attempt to "beat the system" and maintain eligibility through the use the NW just as no non-athlete should be permitted to use the NW as a way of fraudulently maintaining financial aid. The AAB is working to address this; consequently another area under AAB review is the matter of eligibility. Currently, the NCAA mandates that eligibility be reviewed for all student athletes in the fall of each academic year. 5 As a result, it is possible for a student playing a sport that spans semesters or a spring sport to register for the NCAA-mandated 12 credits per semester and remain officially eligible with an NW reported for one or more classes in the fall semester. The student could then take classes during the summer months and retain his/her eligibility. The AAB is firm in its conviction that actual abuses must be weeded out and prevented. However, the process of reviewing eligibility is time consuming and costly in person hours. Nevertheless, the AAB has established a subcommittee to review the issue of raising institutional standards for eligibility review above and beyond that mandated by the NCAA. The AAB would expect to report its findings to the Faculty Senate regarding this important matter. Currently, however, there are cases of coaches monitoring student athletes and refusing to allow them to play even though they are technically eligible. Ideally, this standard of self-monitoring would be sufficient. It is the AAB's plan to develop a system that prevents abuse but allows for reasonable flexibility based on the same considerations any student would receive when and if he or she is experiencing difficulty.
The Athletics Advisory Board is charged with advising and reviewing all fiscal, educational and social policy affecting all athletic programs, making recommendations regarding level of competition, and the nature of intercollegiate schedules. The AAB is now focusing on two major issues: 1) the continued integrity of the University's relationship with its student athletes as models of intellectual achievement and physical well-being; and 2) the assurance that student athletes, coaches, faculty, athletics staff, alumni, boosters and academic administration all work together to ensure that the University of Rhode Island meets standards of eligibility in an ethical framework which meets or exceeds the letter of the NCAA law. Along with the potential for public acclaim, student athletes bear a significant burden in that their success or failure&emdash;either on the playing field or in the classroom&emdash;is public information. The NCAA annually publishes information on graduation rates, time to graduation, and the overall academic success of varsity athletes. This report is made available to the Board of Governors for Higher Education and, as a required part of the University's recruiting process, distributed to high school guidance offices and parents of prospective students. The information is used as one important benchmark against which URI is compared with all other schools. The information is also available to the press to do with what they will. The result is an opportunity to enjoy the positive publicity and commensurate benefits athletics can reap while remaining vigilant in preventing the abuses of young men and women who are entrusted to the University of Rhode Island for the benefits of accruing a higher education. Deeply embedded in this trust is the obligation to prepare student athletes for their professional lives and their place in society as productive and responsible citizens. To a significant degree, Athletics bears the burden of keeping this trust and ensuring that the University of Rhode Island is visible in the Atlantic-10 and the NCAA as an institution of athletic and academic achievement.
Athletics programs are ultimately consonant with the university's commitment to Wellness as an ideal of college life, wellness in both the physical education sense but also in the spirit of mental well-being. Some philosophers have called man Homo Ludens&emdash;the playing animal. Student athletes carry the burden not only of playing but also of providing entertainment, community-building events and esprit de corps for the greater Kingston population. At their best, student athletes incorporate the ideal of mens sana in corpore sano, a sound mind in a sound body. This is a standard worthy of all of our efforts, be they expended in scrutiny or celebration.
The AAB appreciates the Faculty Senate's candor and concern as well as the President's support for dealing openly with the successes and failures that accompany today's world of intercollegiate athletics. The Board remains committed to working with the President and Faculty Senate to ensure a continued commitment to excellence for both parts of the equation that comprise the student athlete.
The Athletic Advisory Board extends its appreciation to President Robert L. Carothers, Chair C.B. Peters and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee for their concern and support in requesting this report. In particular we wish to thank the staff of Advising Programs for Student Athletes, the Athletics administrative staff, the coaching staff and Kandice Salomone of the Office of Strategic Planning and Institutional Research. Mike Scott of Advising Programs for Student Athletes was of particular assistance in the preparation of this document.
Copies are available upon request.