Duck 1

Tyler Duck

Dr. Jerz

Seminar Thinking & Writing

1 May 2014

Student Athletes being Student-Athletes: The Traditional Name Stands

To the sports world viewers college athletes in myth are seen as students first,

and then athletes second, or arent they? The term student-athlete is a term that

will not be literally changed to define athletes at the college level. The dumb jock

stereotype assumes a lack of academic ability and motivation even though

studies have demonstrated conflicting results regarding athletes and academic

performance when compared to their student peers (Pearsons402). Reports of

athletes going through college taking classes based on conflicts with the athletic

schedule, eligibility requirements, and working towards "athlete-friendly majors,"

athletes tend to run out of eligibility before completing their degree. Because of

detrimental media exposure, poor past experiences with athletes and a prevalent

negative stereotype held by university members, an athlete stigma developed in

higher education (Pearsons 402).A student-athlete must balance out academic

success and athletic success in order to stay on scholarship; which means both

time spent on academics and sport are both critical and valuable but what if the

term student athlete is slowly turning into athlete-student? These athlete-

students we think to be known at higher division I colleges were they enroll

primarily on athletics but what if it can exist as division II levels also? Or is the

term "Athlete-Student a myth? The NCAA and the policy on academic time must
 Duck 2

be taken seriously or stricter than in the previous years. My thesis is that student-

athletes are more engaged (studying, class time, practice, games and

competitions, sleep) in time spent in academics than in athletes mostly in the off-

season but will show similar numbers in-season.

Before the athletic scholarship the NCAA was college sports at that time,

mostly football and basketball were turning to professionalism and NCAA wanted

to stay about amateurism so players are being paid in a form but not in value.

The athletic scholarship finally approved in 1956 resolved this long-festering

conflict in the simplest way possible: by making professionalism legal, almost .

The NCAA clung to its fiction of amateurism by designating these institutional

subsides scholarships, not athletic grants, awarded fiction to scholars who

happened to play sports (Oriard 130). So the athletic scholarship was given to

players of teams to prevent professionalism.

Stereotypes can be defined as qualities perceived to be associated with

particular groups or categories of people.The need for society to categorize

people into groups helps simplify the social environment by reducing and

facilitating the comprehension of information. This categorization of people can

develop into stereotypes, biased emotion reactions and potentially negative

associated behaviors (Parsons 403). By categorization of student-athletes can

give them the negative associated behaviors as only caring about their sport and

not succeeding in the classroom setting, which brings up stereotype threat.

Stereotype threat refers to the perceived risk of confirming, through ones

behavior or outcomes, negative stereotypes, that are held about ones social
 Duck 3

identity (Dee 173). Stereotype threats influence student performance because it

reduces the efficacy of effort and through its effects on the chosen level of effort

(Dee 175). Athletes are known to have certain stereotypes, such has the classic

dumb jock and discrimination results as a behavioral reaction to the stereotype

or prejudice (Parsons 401). This according to Parsons assumes a lack of

academic ability and motivation (Simons et al. 2007) even though studies have

demonstrated conflicting results regarding athletes and academic performance

when compared to their peers (Parsons 402). Student athletes take on themes

such as: athletes are poor students and athletes care more about sports than

schools. But some dont have a negative view toward student-athletes such as:

athletes possessed the ability to balance school and sports, and athletes build

life long skills through sports.

According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I bylaw 2.14,

students competing in intercollegiate athletics in Division I or II are limited in the

number of hours they can participate in athletically sponsored activities both in

and out of season (Ayers et al. 22). This rule is commonly known as the 20-hour

rule which in the title athletes cant participate more than 20 hours a week in

sporting events. These limitations were established to help ensure that student-

athletes are afforded quality time for academic pursuits similar to the general

student body (Ayers et al. 22). Along with the approval of the scholarship in

1956, the twenty-hour rule was established to maintain the NCAA amateur status

of the student-athlete and to help keep colleges and universities from abusing the

status of student-athletes. According to a source within my source Ayers found

 Duck 4

that the increased commercialization of intercollegiate athletics has increased the

pressure to be competitive (Zumbalist, 1999; Shulman & Bowen, 1991) which

makes athletes feel as if they need to become better than the next person and

spend more time on athletics than academics which would make people believe

that athletes are starting to care more about their sport so they can maintain

scholarships. Some authors conducted surveys for student athletes at different

levels (Division I and II) to see how much time student-athletes spent in class,

studying, practicing, and etc. One study is about one particular college in

Kentucky, Morehead State University, Another different Division I institution and

a Division II institution.

Steven Chen surveyed 186 voluntary student-athletes (125 males, 67.2%, 61

females, 32.8%) of a NCAA Division I affiliated institution in Kentucky. The

results are self-reported time spent in daily activities in hours and the categories

are class time, studying, sleeping, practice and competition, leisure and social

time. In the first tables study it shows that student-athletes spent 7.4 hours

sleeping being the highest, practice and competition at 3.9 being the second

highest, leisure and social at 3.5 hours, class time at 3.2 hours and studying at

2.8 hours. So to summarize the categories the participants spent a daily average

of six hours studying and attending classes and four hours in athletic practices

and competitions (Chen 38) however social and leisure time varied by sport.

Table 2 talks about comparing revenue sports such as football and basketball

compared to a category of other sports. In that study it shows that revenue sports

spent 2.5 hours studying, 4 hours practicing and competing, and 3.7 hours for
 Duck 5

leisure and social time. While other sports spent 3.2 hours studying 3.6 hours

practicing and competing and 3.2 hours for social and leisure. This study

supports the thesis that student-athletes spend more time doing academic work

or in a academic setting than in a athletic setting. Revenue sports bring in a good

amount of money for schools so for them to be involved in athletics more than

academics makes sense. However this isnt the way it should be which brings up

the next case study by Dr. Ayers.

Fifty-nine student-athletes at a different Division I university were administered a

38-question survey to determine their time commitments on athletics and

academics. The survey results are in hours per week with athletics in-season and

off-season, academics in-season and off-season, and relaxing in-season and off-

season. It turns out in this study by Dr. Ayers athletes spend a total of 21.5 hours

with athletic activities in-season per week and 12.7 hours per week in academics

in-season, which would make sense that student-athletes miss classes due to

traveling to events and other reasons. Student-athletes in-season only had 9.3

hours per week of relaxing. However in the off-season the number of hours spent

on athletics was 13.1 hours per week while time spent on academics was 13.0

hours per week. Although thats only great by one hour it still makes a difference

when looking at it a bigger scale. However athletes spent 14.9 hours per week

relaxing or engaging in recreational activities in the off-season, which is great

than any amount of hours in the off-season. The results to this survey shows

student-athletes spend more time generally in athletics than academics at this

division I institution. The time spent relaxing in the off-season is way too high
 Duck 6

because it is more time than academics itself. The time spent relaxing could be

used more wisely studying or going to group study sessions or something to that

nature, which this study shows how students in the off-season dont focus on

academics that much because they dont have to worry about the pressure of

failing and not being able to play. These results were similar to the survey

results the vast majority of student-athletes (92%) responded in their journals that

they were satisfied with their time commitments to athletics (NCAA, 2006; NCAA,

2011) (Ayers 25). Although, it is clear from this study that participation in

collegiate athletics constitutes a significant time commitment on the part of the

student-athlete. These studies at the division I level cant speak for all division I

levels but these results were similar to previous results by the NCAA.

Another study found by Jennifer Parsons explains how athletes on a NCAA

Division II campus believe professors perceive and treat them and frequency of

professors negative remarks towards athletes in class heard by participants.

Remarks made by professors in class also could indicate the overall perception

or attitude towards athletes. Two-thirds of the participants (67%) indicated that

they rarely or never heard a professor make a negative remark about student

athletes in class. Only a small percentage of participants selected the provided

potential negative remarks made by professors (Parsons 407). 38% of the

participants marked athletes are only interested in sports and athletes expect

special treatment they dont deserve. Three-fourths of the participants (76%)

indicated that they often or sometimes heard a professor make a positive

remark about student-athletes in class. Over half (55%) of the athletes

 Duck 7

remembered the positive comment about athletes working hard, and close to

60% of the participants selected the positive comment regarding an athletes

ability to balance academics and athletics. Conclusively, 37% of the athletes

chose the positive professors comment about athletes being good for the

schools reputation. Athletes who only are interested in sports was answered yes

by 95 student-athletes (37%) out of 126 student-athlete which is a low

percentage. 43 student-athletes said yes to athletes dont participate in class

(17%) and 41 (16%) athletes turn in assignments late or not at all. The

percentage and numbers to these negative remarks is low and shows that

athletes are praised more in academics then negatively talked about by faculty.

As previous studies suggest, the dumb jock stereotype may exist on college

campuses. However, the existence of a stigma did not appear to be as strong in

the current study. Participants reported high levels of academic interest, nearly

full disclosure of their athletic identity, and generally favorable faculty perceptions

and treatment (Parsons 412). Many of the findings indicated that the participants

cared about success in the academic setting, which was similar to the results

found by Simons et al (2007). The athletes' self-reported GPA was comparable to

that of the general student population. A large majority of athletes stated they

regularly attended class, turned in assignments on time and worked hard to show

athletes were good students (Parsons 413). Previous research has suggested

that athletes often take less difficult coursework in order to remain eligible for

competition and from the results in this study you can see that this isnt the case

anymore. In 2012 a Syracuse basketball player was suspended for academic

 Duck 8

reasons and didnt finish the rest of his sophomore year and sat out in the NCAA

Tournament. This shows that not students at Division I schools dont get over

because they play a sport, and that the rules apply to everyone even at the end

of the season during the big NCAA Tournament.

The data by Dr. Ayers concludes that in the most important way students

spend too much relaxing in the off-season and could put that time to better use

but at the Division II level Dr. Parsons explains that student-athletes success in

time spent on academics is greater than the time spent on athletics which

concludes me to believe that the support of the studies I researched the thesis

that student-athletes spend more time in academics and the stereotype given by

peers and faculty or positive and not negative. The studies in the research I

found my thesis was proved to be true. By researching about student-athletes at

the Division I and II levels not only in one state and school but at another Division

I school student-athletes are more involved in academics than athletics and the

data along with studies show that this is true. Student-athletes don't expect

special attention nor do they spend more time in athletics expect in-season. That

was shown at the Division II level where athletes also get the stereotype threat.
 Duck 9

Work Cited

Ayers, Kevin; Monica, Pazmino-Cevallos; Cody Dobose. "The 20-Hour Rule:

Student-Athletes Time Commitment to Athletics and Academics." Virginia

Journal. 33.1(2012): 22-26. SPORTDiscus with Full Text. Web. 30 March.

2014.

Chen, Steve; Nicholas Mason; Steven Middleton; William Salazar. "An

Examination of Behavioral Data and Testing Scores as Indicators of

Student-Athletes' Academic S." KAHPERD Journal. 36.4(2013): 34-43.

SPORTDiscus with Full Text. Web. 30 March. 2014.

Dee, Thomas. "Stereotype Threat And The Student-Athlete ." Western

Economic Association. 15.2(2014): 173-182. SPORTDiscus with Full Text.

Web. 30 March. 2014.

Oriard, Michael. Bowled Over: Big-time College Football from the Sixties to the

BCS Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2009. Print.

Parsons, Jennifer. "Student Athlete Perceptions of Academic Success and

Athlete Stereotypes on Campus." Journal of Sport Behavior. 36.4(2013):

400-416. SPORTDiscus with Full Text. Web. 30 March. 2014.