Comments on Another Case of Academic Fraud

• The Cost of Lowering Standards
• Posted by Gerald Gurney on January 21, 2010 at 9:15am EST

• Paul Dee, the Chair of the NCAA Committee on Infractions, is absolutely correct in that he is noticing an increase in academic fraud cases in college athletics. It is a predictable consequence of the NCAA's decision to open access to higher education for high risk and underprepared student-athletes through a virtual open admissions NCAA initial eligibility standard and the high stakes "win at all cost mentality for coaches". There is a cause and effect relationship between these ridiculously low standards and academic dishonesty, tutoring scandals, and academic fraud. The NCAA will have you believe that grad rates are increasing. But at what cost to higher education and integrity?

• he's a coach
• Posted by Monty Python , former MBB manager at a mid-major on January 21, 2010 at 10:00am EST

• "the then-director of basketball operations (a highfalutin name for a team manager)" A director of basketball operations (DOBO)is not a manager..it's typically a paid position for in essence what is an extra coach.

• NCAA's Make-Believe World
• Posted by Jerry W. Miller , retired on January 21, 2010 at 10:00am EST

• It has been obvious from the start that setting graduation rates for atheletes would result in increased academic fraud and more Dexter Manley degrees. Million-dollar coaches, huge arenas and stadiums to fill, the pursuit of national championships, and the loss of control of athletics by presidents of instituions are certain to fracture academic integrity at most institutions. Given the nature of the academic enterprise, there is no sure way to police it, despite the best efforts of the NCAA. The NCAA's own actions, such as the multi-billion dollar contract with television for March Madness, long ago made the student/athlete concept a tenuous proposition.
  The only real way to restore academic integrity is to disassociate educational requirements from eligibility. Let the athletes have four years of eligibility and be students if they want to be. The real student/athletes, of which they are many, will earn valid and untainted degrees. But such honesty, I realize, is too much to ask of higher education.

• Great comments
• Posted by B. David Ridpath , Asst Professor at Ohio University on January 21, 2010 at 11:15am EST

• Gerry and Jerry--great comments and correct so I will not add more on that except just to state again that lowering of standards and the new APR are essentially tools inviting this type of fraud. Coaches are getting paid bonuses based on reaching those numbers and their jobs are based solely on winning and losing. The losers are kids who are brought to a gunfight with a plastic spoon. Many simply cannot compete.

  I like Jerry's idea and one I have long advocated--separate the eligibility from athletics and let the athletes go to school if they want to, others can play only--if they desire, leve it up to them. It does no one any good to get a sham education like was going on at GSU and I surmise it is much more widespread than Dee is even stating--plus he is part of the problem as a former AD at Miami (moving to the ACC for a money grab for example). Frankly then the degrees would not be tainted and an environment like that may actually encourage those on the fence to take one or two classes and slowly assimilate into education, especially if they realize a pro career is unreachable. At least them it would be what it is, a minor professional league who has some serious students, and those beginning to see the importance of education, and those who just want to play. No reason for fraud there and we can all watch the games without wanting to take a shower afterward.

• Coaches as Admissions Officers
• Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on January 21, 2010 at 12:00pm EST

• I have considerable respect for Jerry W. Miller's work in accreditation, so it surprises me that he has missed the larger issue here, which Gurney's perceptive comment addresses.

  If, as students of the 100 year old history of higher education accreditation recognize, the very first problem addressed by the nascent volunteer associations was college admissions -- who would be admitted, and under what circumstances (entrance exams, admission by diploma, the status of preparatory students, etc.) -- then the very existence of an alternative mechanism for admissions would appear, at first glance, to call into question that initial key achievement.

  The existence of alternative systems of college admissions specifically set up for athetes demonstrates the extent to which schools have lost legitimacy, and the NCAA sports-complex has gained it -- at their expense. One of the longest standing criterion for accreditation was (and is) that institutions maintain control over their athletic programs. Again and again we see evidence that this is not true (See the recent IHE story on increased sports spending, as other expenditures continue to decline).

  For Jerry Miller to suggest open eligibility for student-athletes is therefore a step in the wrong direction, one which presumably would leave admissions up to the coaches, effectively making them admissions officers -- which, some would argue, they already are.

  All this points to the extent to which athletics programs have become alternative institutions in their own right, dispensing their own norms, values and incentives -- all beyond the scope of Title IV accreditation.

  One would hope that CHEA would recognize and address the threat these competing institutions pose, and do so without unduly legitimating the NCAA, as the US Sec of Ed Duncan did inadvertantly with his recent appearance at the NCAA podium.

• Athletics and Distance Education
• Posted by Robert Leopard , Instructor of Biology at Monroe Community Colleg on January 21, 2010 at 4:30pm EST

• The headline of the article is Academic Fraud. Yet what all of the cases have in common are two things: athletics and distance education.

   

  There seems to be an atmosphere of ‘anything goes’ in many athletic programs. Years ago my wife was pressured to change an athlete’s grade and when she refused a VP forced her to change it. Last semester a professor I know had many athletes in one class and was harassed by the coach to change their grades so they would remain eligible to play. I teach a course required for a PE degree. I am pleased to say that I have never felt any pressure to change grades. However, I’ve had athletes who thought everything was a team effort, including all tests. I had to give each member of the team a different form of the test. The point is not what they did, or tried to do, but what their expectations were. That same thing shows up in each of the cases mentioned, GSU, UNM and FSU. In each one a spokesperson for the athletic department or university claimed that the students did nothing wrong. It seems to me that any person of integrity would object to having someone else take their college courses. I’m afraid that our sports programs, rather than instilling appropriate values, are corrupting student morals.

   

  The common element is distance education. I started teaching online 6 years ago and the most common question has always been “How do you know who’s taking the class?” For my students, my answer has been “Because they take a comprehensive final exam.” Clearly the courses involved in these abuses have not had a similar level of security. The fraud cases are painting all distance education courses with a broad brush of implied fraud. That weakens the strength and marketability of any online course or degree. When an institution has to prove that it knows who is taking its online courses in order to be accredited this particular opportunity for abuse will be reduced. I say reduced rather than ended because I am detecting fraud in my proctored exams. A number of my online students have had athletic directors as their proctors. They get implausibly higher scores on the final exam than their class average. Last semester I had a D student athlete score the top score on the final exam. We’re back to that “anything for an athlete; nothing done to keep a player is immoral” attitude.

• Concur
• Posted by michael , Former athletics administrator on January 22, 2010 at 5:00am EST

• B. David Ridpath gets it right. The APR causes more schools to not only bend but break academic integrity related rules.

• Here we go again
• Posted by Frank G. Splitt , Member at The Drake Group on January 22, 2010 at 11:45am EST

• In the story, Doug Lederman writes:
  "Documenting it irrefutably is a challenge, and many college sports officials -- when asked if academic fraud is a growing problem -- tend to write off such wrongdoing as the occasional work of "rogue" bad employees, as Florida State University did last year. But evidence of a problem continued to mount Wednesday, with the latest announcement of a sports program punished by the National Collegiate Athletic Association."

  The NCAA is penalizing another small school. It's the same old same old.

  The NCAA cartel utilizes a multi-pronged strategy to reduce exposure of the academic corruption that enables its professionalzed college sports businesses. Key tactics of this strategy are well known -- involving: 1) Claim that academic fraud is rare (rather than endemic), the "only-a-few-bad-apples-spoil-the-barrel approach, 2) Pathetically weak rules enforcement and weak penalties for infractions, 3) Primary focus on small, financially weak schools that cannot afford to build and staff elaborate academic eligibility centers, 4) Special study classes and athlete-oriented general studies programs, 5) Friendly faculty and FARs, 6)Administrations that cast a blind eye at infractions, 7) Strenuous resistance to calls for transparency, accountability, and independent oversight, and 8) The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) -- the ultimate cover up for academic corruption.

  Although FERPA was crafted to shield academic records such as grades and transcripts, it wasn't intended to block all information about students -- and certainly not information about athletes. Nevertheless, FERPA is used regularly by NCAA cartel members to hide information about wrongdoing in their athletic programs. For example, former NCAA President, (the late) Myles Brand, took refuge in FERPA's privacy provisions when asked to respond to questions related to the academic life of college athletes from William Thomas (R-CA), past Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means in his sharply-worded October 2, 2006 letter to Brand.

  The Drake Group began working to clean up FERPA some six years ago; see "The Faculty-Driven Movemrnt to Reform Big-Time College Sports,http://thedrakegroup.org/Splitt_Sequel.pdf. Efforts focused on the U.S. Department of Education and the Congress came to no avail despite repeated followups.

  After speaking at the recent NCAA Convention, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said it's worth looking at and discussing a FERPA clean up. Senator Sherrod Brown, (D-OH), says he is waiting for details from Secretary Duncan about what he's going to do to ensure openness in the college system.

  Perhaps the material presented in this story and the many excellent comments thereon will help make this happen.

• Posted by A. Isham , MENTOR/ATHLETIC at CLEMSON UNIV. on February 10, 2010 at 2:45pm EST

• As a Mentor to Student Athletes, i have taken the opportunity to discuss the importance of doing their own work. I have also encouraged the S/A to ddisaccociate himself from those who may be involved in this type activity.

  I have also indicated to the S/A that he/she may be be inclined to report such behavior, because the inappropriate behavior can hurt them as well as the Athletic Department. The School suffer by loosing Scholarships and Games Won.

  Several things which I currently do already include keeping up with the progress S/A is making on written assignments and encourage the S/A to seek help if needed. I have also discussed the policies and consequences of Cheating and allowing others to complete their work.