An analysis of beliefs of NCAA Division I academic advisors on the impact of the increased percentage toward degree requirements

The purpose of the present study was to survey academic advisors/administrators for studentathletes about how the new academic reform legislation has impacted academic advising. While visiting various universities, a survey was administered to the members of the academic support units. On average, each institution had an academic support staff consisting of three to five members producing an administrator sample of 21 participants. No academic administrators declined to participate in the study. Kulics, J., Kornspan, A. S. , & Kretovics, M. (2011). An analysis of beliefs of NCAA Division I academic advisors on the impact of the increased percentage toward degree requirements. Academic Athletic Journal, 22, 56-80. AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACADEMIC ADVISING 57 ACADEMIC ATHLETIC JOURNAL (2011), 22(2) Recently, new reform standards have been passed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in order to help improve graduation rates of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I collegiate student-athletes (Christianson, 2004). Although, this reform was intended to improve graduation rates, a possibility exists that these new standards are creating challenges for academic advisors. For example, as academic advisors feel pressure to help student-athletes achieve success, clustering of student-athletes into particular majors (Case, Greer, & Brown, 1987) to meet eligibility requirements may be occurring more often (Fountain & Finley, 2009; Fountain & Finley, 2011; McCormick, 2010). This is exemplified by a participant in Diehl‟s (2009) study of academic advisors for NCAA Division I men‟s basketball student-athletes, who stated, “when you deal with basketball, it‟s eligibility, eligibility, period” (Diehl, p. 110). As Diehl found in her research, academic advisors reported feeling pressure from coaches to help athletes remain eligible for athletic competition. If the athlete did not remain eligible, many advisors reported feeling blame from the coaching staff for a studentathletes lack of academic success (Diehl, 2009). This increased pressure that academic advisors may experience since the development of the new academic progress reform (Ridpath, 2010) is extremely important to understand. Academic advisors for athletes influence the academic decision making of student-athletes and student-athletes view the academic advisor as having a positive influence on their academic goals (Potuto & O‟Hanlon, 2007). Thus, as Bell (2009) pointed out, the academic advisor for student-athletes can be very influential in choices that student-athletes make. Additionally, Bell (2009) found that student-athletes often attribute their level of academic motivation to their academic advisors influence. AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACADEMIC ADVISING 58 ACADEMIC ATHLETIC JOURNAL (2011), 22(2) Academic advisers have recently agreed that more student-athletes may begin to focus on staying eligible because of the new reform standards passed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (Suggs, 2003). Although the purpose of the new rules were to improve the graduation rate of student-athletes, a concern by the academic advising profession for studentathletes is that this legislation will encourage academic advisers to find alternative ways to help student-athletes remain eligible. For example, an academic advisor may feel pressure to encourage student-athletes to choose majors that will ensure athletic eligibility for the short-term as opposed to encouraging a student-athlete to choose a major that will prepare them to meet future career goals. In order to determine if student-athletes are encouraged to enroll in or select specific majors, three recent research studies have examined academic clustering of student-athletes. Fountain and Finley (2009) examined whether academic clustering occurred in the football programs of schools with in the Atlantic Coast Conference. Schneider, Ross, and Fisher (2010) examined academic clustering in the Big 12 conference football programs. Additionally, Fountain and Finley (2011) analyzed the extent of academic clustering of one Division I Bowl Championship Series (BCS) football program over a ten year period. All three studies concluded that academic clustering was occurring. In addition to researchers beginning to examine the academic clustering of studentathletes, national associations and researchers have also begun to analyze the views and opinions of advisors, administrators, and coaches about the new academic reform guidelines implemented by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics [N4A], 2004). The N4A created a task force to analyze the NCAA‟s academic reform package. The taskforce reviewed the reform issues and submitted a response to the NCAA. The AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACADEMIC ADVISING 59 ACADEMIC ATHLETIC JOURNAL (2011), 22(2) taskforce specifically addressed the increased percentage toward degree requirements and described various issues that may impact student-athletes and academic administrators in athletics (National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics [N4A], 2004). Specifically, the taskforce of the N4A was concerned about the issue of increased percentage to degree requirements. The N4A taskforce stated: “New progress toward degree requirements may cause student-athletes to accept enrollment in majors that predict eligibility rather than encourage exploration of more challenging or personally meaningful major fields of study” Christy, Seifried, and Pastore (2008) recently examined the opinions of administrators, coaches, faculty representatives, senior women administrators and athletic directors about the new academic reform developed by the NCAA. These researchers asked one open ended question about what respondents believed would be the impact of the new academic reform legislation on college athletics. Results of the study found that administrators and coaches believed that the use of the academic progress rate was good for college athletics since it may lead coaches to recruiting student-athletes that were better prepared to begin college. Although a majority of the administrators, coaches and faculty athletic representatives viewed the new legislation positively, there were concerns. The main concerns directly related to decisions academic advisors may make when working with student-athletes (Christy, Seifried, & Pastore, 2008). One theme that emerged was the concern that student-athletes may enroll in easier curriculum in order to obtain academic success. Additionally, the majority of head coaches suggested that student-athletes would have less flexibility to study what they were interested in, and that student-athletes would be encouraged to study find an academic program in which they would have academic success (Christy, Seifried & Pastore, 2008). These researchers suggested that it was important to understand attitudes and opinions of administrators in non Bowl AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACADEMIC ADVISING 60 ACADEMIC ATHLETIC JOURNAL (2011), 22(2) Championship Series (BCS) conferences since these researchers suggest that mid-major Division I universities‟ coaches and administrators believe they have been penalized because of the legislation. Although the National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics (N4A) task force and a previous study have begun to analyze the opinions of administrators and coaches on the new academic reform legislation, no literature exists that specifically surveys athletic advisors/and student-athlete services administrators about how the new legislation has impacted the academic advising of student-athletes. Thus, the main purpose of the present study was to survey academic advisors/administrators for student-athletes about how the new academic reform legislation has impacted academic advising. Specifically the attitudes, beliefs, and opinions of academic advisors/administrators on the increased percentage toward degree requirements, the impact of the role of the academic athletic adviser/administrator with respect to student-athlete eligibility, retention, college major selection, and projected graduation rates were explored.