Athletics Committee
April 1999
Report on Student-Athlete Academic Performance: An Update
Authors: Susan L. Dimmick, PhD, Communications; Burt English, PhD, Agricultural Economics; Peggy Pierce, PhD, Nursing.
Special thanks to Emily Roper, graduate student; Chris Morland and Dana Ellison, undergraduate students at UTK.
Introduction
This is an update of the first "Academic Assessment of Student-Athletes" conducted in June 1994 by the Faculty Senate Athletics Committee. The purpose of the update is to provide continuing oversight of the academic performance of student-athletes. We suggest that faculty who serve on the Senate's Athletic Committee do this assessment every two years so that faculty can be more involved in understanding the overall state of academic development and achievement of our student-athletes.
The purpose of the assessment, as it was originally in 1994, has several dimensions. We seek to understand how student-athletes perceive the quality of their academic experiences and compare that to the perceptions of a small random sample of students in general; to understand and compare the academic performance of student-athletes with the general student population; and, to identify potential problem areas in academic performance.
Data Collection
Data used in the assessment were generated from two sources. Academic performance was assessed through an analysis of grade point averages. Burt English and Peggy Pierce analyzed this data and the results are reported in the section titled: Academic Performance Analysis. Additionally, a random sample of both student-athletes (SA) and non-athletes (NA) was selected. Female student-athletes were interviewed by graduate student Emily Roper, and male student-athletes were interviewed by Chris Morland, an athlete himself. These students were recommended by Faculty Senate Athletics committee member, Craig Wrisberg. Non-student-athletes were interviewed by public relations intern Dana Ellison. She was supervised by Susan Dimmick. The results of these interviews are reported in the section titled: Interview Results.
Academic Performance Analysis
Two members of the committee (Burt English and Peggy Pierce) reviewed GPA data for the fall semester 1998 for student athletes (SAs) and non-athletes (NAs). Assisting in the analysis were Emily Ellis, assistant director with Enrollment Data Services , and Morgan Gray, computer analyst with the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. Where available, data supplied by Eddie Howell, senior programmer/analyst with the Athletic Department, were compared with the 1994 "Student Athlete Academic Performance Report". Cumulative GPAs were compared between all students enrolled in and completing the fall semester 1998, SAs enrolled fall semester 1998, and SAs enrolled fall semester 1993. Data for SAs were further sub-divided and analyzed by gender, class, and by sport. Data were analyzed to determine if there were any significant changes in the academic performance of SAs in 1998 compared to 1993 and to determine if there were any significant differences between non-athletes and athletes enrolled in the fall semester 1998.
In the fall 1998 semester SAs' academic performance was slightly better than that of NAs (Table 1). Compared to fall 1993 data, current SAs also demonstrated a higher level of academic performance. The mean GPA of all students enrolled in the fall, 1998 was 2.77 and that of SAs was 2.91. In the fall of 1993, SAs' mean GPA was 2.61. It is of interest to note that SAs in the lowest quartile had a mean 2.4 GPA compared to a 2.3 GPA for the lowest quartile of NAs in the fall semester 1998. In fall 1993, SAs in the lowest quartile had a mean GPA of 2.23. While a 0.3 improvement in the SA's cumulative GPA has occurred during the past five years, little change has occurred in the lowest quartile (.17).
When analyzed by gender, female student athletes (FSAs) continue to exhibit significantly higher academic performance than male student athletes (MSAs) (Table 2). Records of 326 MSAs and 227 FSAs were included in this analysis. Compared to 1993 data, both FSAs and MSAs had higher GPAs at the 75 and 50 percent quartile ranks. However, at the lower quartile ranks, the male student athlete has done slightly worse than in 1993. The lowest quartile of MSAs declined from a mean 2.18 GPA to a 2.09 GPA and FSAs improved from a mean 2.4 GPA to a 2.6 GPA in the lowest quartile. Comparison of changes in female GPA numbers must be done with caution; however, as several new sports have been added since 1993. The frequency distribution indicates that fewer male student athletes excel in the classroom when compared to female student athletes.
Analysis of the distribution of grades of MSAs and FSAs revealed 5.3 % of FSAs and 22.1 % of MSAs earned a cumulative GPA of less than 2.0 following the 1998 fall (Table 3). These percentages were nearly reversed at the highest GPA group (3.5-4.0) with 21.2 % of FSAs and 5.0 % of MSAs demonstrating this level of academic excellence.
Data were further analyzed by class with comparisons between current students and student athletes in the freshmen, sophomore, junior, and senior class (Table 4). Mean GPA improved as SAs progressed from freshmen (2.51) to sophomores (2.75) and to seniors (2.88). There is a slight decline when comparing sophomore student athlete GPA to juniors' GPA (2.69). Freshmen SAs, however, do have a larger number of individuals earning less than a 2.0 than other classes (Table 5). Over 25% of the freshmen SA's have an accumulated GPA of below 2.0 following their fall 1998 semester. Freshmen and sophomore student athletes do better than their counterparts in the general student body (see table 4). The cumulative GPA of the student body freshmen is 2.36 while SA's have a GPA of 2.51. Generally, cumulative GPA in the top 10 percent of the student body in each of the four classes is greater than the SA. However, it is also lower in the bottom 10 percent with the exception of the senior class. Junior and senior student athletes have GPAs that are slightly below the general student body.
When analyzed by sport, differences are apparent. Table 6 reveals that a much higher percentage of MSAs in basketball, football and track had GPAs below 2.0 than those playing other sports. Over 2/3 of the FSA's in crew rowing, soccer, and volleyball had cumulative GPA's exceeding 3.0.
Based on the above data, it appears that in general SAs academic performance at UTK has improved compared to five years ago. Many student athletes have excellent academic records and the percentage of those with GPAs below a minimum standard of 2.0 has declined. Caution must be taken, however, as four women's sports have been added to the analysis since the 1993 report and three of these sports show a higher then average GPA.
Data on graduation rates of SAs and NAs was not available to the subcommittee in time for inclusion in this report. However, a report from the Office of Institutional Research presented to the Athletics Committee in November 1998 reported an overall graduation rate of 76.9% of MSAs who had enrolled in 1991 and exhausted their NCAA eligibility. This compares favorably with the six-year graduation rate reported in several university documents. The adoption of NCAA core eligibility requirements appears to have had a positive influence on the academic success of SAs at UTK.
In the 1994 report, it was noted that one coach had met with the chair of the athletics committee and expressed not only his concern about the academic performance of SAs in his sport but also had made a commitment to the "objective of graduating his players rather than to simply maintain their eligibility" (Faculty Senate Athletics Committee Report on Student Athlete Academic Performance, June, 1994). He adopted several policies to deal with SAs academic difficulties. Based on data available to this subcommittee it appears that while some progress has been made, 28 % of SAs in that sport are not achieving a basic standard of a 2.0 GPA. Since previous sport specific data was not available, it is impossible to determine if this represents any significant change. Nevertheless coaches and staff working with athletes who are not maintaining a GPA of 2.0 should be encouraged to consider additional strategies for dealing with this problem.
Overall student athletes appear to be performing academically as well as students in general at UTK. In the programs where significant percentages of SAs continue to demonstrate academic difficulty, additional measures to improve their academic success should be initiated. While freshmen appear to be doing well compared to their counterparts in the general student body, in fall sports, it appears that they might be having difficulty adjusting to the rigors of the classroom and competition on the field.
Table 1. A comparison of cumulative GPA between the student body and all athletes.
| |
All Students |
Fall 1998 Athletes |
Fall 1993 Athletes |
| Item |
|
|
|
| Mean GPA |
2.77 |
2.91 |
2.61 |
| Number |
19,361 |
554 |
362 |
| % Quartile |
|
|
|
| GPA at 100 |
4 |
4 |
4.0 |
| GPA at 75 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
3.01 |
| GPA at 50 |
2.8 |
3.0 |
2.61 |
| GPA at 25 |
2.3 |
2.4 |
2.23 |
| GPA at 0 |
0 |
1.0 |
0.54 |
| |
|
|
|
| GPA for Top 1% |
4 |
4 |
N/A |
| GPA for Top 5% |
3.9 |
4 |
N/A |
| GPA for Top 10% |
3.7 |
3.8 |
N/A |
| |
|
|
|
| GPA for Bottom 10% |
1.8 |
2.1 |
N/A |
| GPA for Bottom 5% |
1.3 |
2.0 |
N/A |
| GPA for Bottom 1% |
0 |
1.6 |
N/A |
N/A indicates data not available
Table 2. A comparison of cumulative GPA between the male and female undergraduates and student-athletes, fall 1998
|
Males |
Females |
| Item |
1993
Athletes |
1998
Athletes |
Student
Body |
1993
Athletes |
1998
Athletes |
Student
Body |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mean GPA |
|
2.51 |
2.67 |
|
3.00 |
2.87 |
| Number |
|
326 |
9638 |
|
227 |
9709 |
| % Quartile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GPA at 100 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
| GPA at 75 |
2.91 |
2.96 |
3.24 |
3.42 |
3.43 |
3.43 |
| GPA at 50 |
2.45 |
2.46 |
2.74 |
2.92 |
3.02 |
2.98 |
| GPA at 25 |
2.18 |
2.09 |
2.23 |
2.4 |
2.6 |
2.46 |
| GPA at 0 |
0.54 |
0.3 |
0 |
1.45 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GPA for Top 1% |
N/A |
3.9 |
4.0 |
N/A |
4.0 |
4.0 |
| GPA for Top 5% |
N/A |
3.61 |
3.85 |
N/A |
3.97 |
3.91 |
| GPA for Top 10% |
N/A |
3.35 |
3.67 |
N/A |
3.84 |
3.78 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GPA for Bottom 10% |
N/A |
1.81 |
1.72 |
N/A |
2.24 |
1.92 |
| GPA for Bottom 5% |
N/A |
1.5 |
1.21 |
N/A |
2.00 |
1.50 |
| GPA for Bottom 1% |
N/A |
0.6 |
0 |
N/A |
1.20 |
0 |
N/A indicates data not available
Table 3. Cumulative GPA distribution by gender for student-athletes, fall 1998.
| GPA Range |
Females |
Males |
All |
| |
| <2.0 |
5.29 |
22.09 |
15.19 |
| 2.0 - 2.5 |
16.30 |
33.13 |
28.22 |
| 2.5 - 3.0 |
29.52 |
23.31 |
25.86 |
| 3.0 - 3.5 |
27.75 |
15.64 |
20.61 |
| 3.5 - 4.0 |
21.15 |
5.85 |
12.12 |
| Number of Student Athletes |
227 |
326 |
553 |
Table 4. A comparison of cumulative GPA By class for student-athletes, fall 1998
| |
Freshman |
Sophomore |
Junior |
Senior |
| Item |
Athletes |
Student Body |
Athletes |
Student Body |
Athletes |
Student Body |
Athletes |
Student Body |
| |
| Mean GPA |
2.51 |
2.36 |
2.75 |
2.71 |
2.69 |
2.86 |
2.88 |
3.00 |
| Number |
150 |
4210 |
142 |
4052 |
125 |
4082 |
137 |
7017 |
| % Quartile |
|
| GPA at 100 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
3.95 |
4.0 |
| GPA at 75 |
3.17 |
3.23 |
3.22 |
3.27 |
3.12 |
3.36 |
3.25 |
3.42 |
| GPA at 50 |
2.60 |
2.47 |
2.67 |
2.72 |
2.6 |
2.89 |
2.91 |
3.02 |
| GPA at 25 |
2.00 |
1.65 |
2.26 |
2.23 |
2.24 |
2.43 |
2.42 |
2.62 |
| GPA at 0 |
0 |
0 |
0.33 |
0 |
1.20 |
0 |
1.50 |
0 |
| |
| GPA for Top 1% |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
3.95 |
4.0 |
3.94 |
4.0 |
| GPA for Top 5% |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
3.95 |
4.0 |
3.94 |
4.0 |
| GPA for Top 10% |
3.52 |
3.7 |
3.79 |
3.71 |
3.67 |
3.74 |
3.62 |
3.76 |
| |
| GPA for Bottom 10% |
1.29 |
0.865 |
2.0 |
1.86 |
1.89 |
2.07 |
2.05 |
2.25 |
| GPA for Bottom 5% |
0.87 |
0 |
1.85 |
1.50 |
1.81 |
1.77 |
2.04 |
2.06 |
| GPA for Bottom 1% |
0.3 |
0 |
1.68 |
0 |
1.62 |
0.57 |
1.82 |
1.72 |
Table 5. Number of student athletes by cumulative grade point average grouping
| Cumulative GPA Range |
Freshman |
Sophomore |
Junior |
Senior |
Number of Student Athletes |
| |
| <= 2.0 |
42 |
17 |
19 |
8 |
86 |
| 2.0 - 2.5 |
28 |
45 |
37 |
35 |
145 |
| 2.5 - 3.0 |
38 |
36 |
32 |
37 |
143 |
| 3.0 - 3.5 |
30 |
21 |
23 |
40 |
114 |
| 3.5 - 4.0 |
12 |
23 |
15 |
17 |
67 |
| Total |
150 |
142 |
126 |
137 |
555 |
Table 5A. Number of Athletes by UTK College
| UTK College |
Number of Athletes |
| Agriculture |
17 |
| Architecture/Planning |
6 |
| Arts and Sciences |
138 |
| Business Administration |
82 |
| Communication |
28 |
| Education |
59 |
| Engineering |
34 |
| Human Ecology |
34 |
| Nursing |
4 |
| Social Work |
3 |
| University Studies |
149 |
| Total |
554 |
Table 6. Cumulative GPA distribution by sport.
| |
GPA Range |
Student Athletes |
| |
<2.0 |
2.0 - 2.5 |
2.5 - 3.0 |
3.0 - 3.5 |
3.5 - 4.0 |
|
| |
Percent |
Number |
| Mens: |
|
| Basketball |
20 |
27 |
33 |
17 |
3 |
30 |
| Baseball |
14 |
57 |
7 |
14 |
7 |
14 |
| Cross Country |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
6 |
| Football |
28 |
33 |
23 |
12 |
4 |
162 |
| Golf |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
9 |
| Swimming |
9 |
37 |
17 |
29 |
9 |
35 |
| Tennis |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
5 |
| Indoor Track |
24 |
19 |
14 |
29 |
14 |
21 |
| Outdoor Track |
23 |
30 |
33 |
10 |
3 |
30 |
| |
| Womens:* |
|
| Basketball |
0 |
14 |
57 |
29 |
0 |
14 |
| Cross Country |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
2 |
| Crew Rowing |
10 |
17 |
22 |
30 |
21 |
75 |
| Golf |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
5 |
| Softball |
11 |
33 |
22 |
22 |
11 |
18 |
| Soccer |
0 |
21 |
3 |
41 |
34 |
29 |
| Swimming |
0 |
11 |
35 |
23 |
31 |
26 |
| Tennis |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
(D) |
9 |
| Indoor Track |
14 |
0 |
50 |
29 |
7 |
14 |
| Outdoor Track |
8 |
31 |
31 |
23 |
8 |
13 |
| Volleyball |
0 |
0 |
47 |
27 |
26 |
15 |
D indicates data withheld.
Total number of students < 10. |
*WBP left out of analysis. |
Interview Analysis
In the interview phase, we asked student athletes and non-athletes about their coursework, interactions with faculty, study habits and the quality of their educational experience. Question wording was kept substantially the same as in the 1994 assessment. However, we did add a questionnaire to compare the responses of non-athletes with athletes. We chose a random sample of students from a list provided by the Registrar. We used a filter question to determine which non-athletes worked at least 20 hours outside the classroom to have a reasonably comparable group of students to compare to student-athletes, who also spend at least half of their time in activities unrelated to academics. We interviewed 10 female and 10 male non-athletes. Interviews were obtained with 16 female student-athletes but only 9 male student-athletes because of scheduling difficulties. Questionnaires for both SAs and NAs are contained in Appendix A, as are the results from all interviews.
Female athlete respondents (n = 16) represented 10 different sports. They said that being an athlete at UTK was "demanding", "fun", "wonderful" and "rewarding." As one young lady summed up, "It's great to do something that 10,000 other people don't get to do."
An average day for a Lady Vol was, in one respondent's word, "Hectic." Another said, "Basically, it's: Practice...Class...Lunch...Class...Practice...Dinner...Study...Sleep." Time was a scare commodity. Studying was a priority: "I'm doing a lot of studying. Have practice at 6:30 in the morning for around two hours and the come back and eat. I usually go to class all day long. On Tuesday and Thursday we also have weights. I go straight to practice from class at 4 p.m., usually for around an hour. We come home and eat again and study all evening."
FSAs reported majoring in everything from statistics to exercise science. They described their instructors as helpful, interested in teaching, and challenging but fair. There were a few neutral to negative comments, such as having a mundane teacher or that there were only a few "terrible" teachers. When asked if they talked with their instructors very much, respondents said that they did when they needed to, or if they had questions. Interaction was higher when class sizes were smaller.
FSAs were asked if they thought that instructors treated them differently because they were athletes. The majority said, "No" and that most could "care less" about their athletic status. They were asked if students treated them differently and most said, "No" as well. Two FSAs said, "Yes": "They think that athletes get everything handed to them, but they don't see the whole picture."
FSAs were asked to compare their college level advising with athletics department advising. They seem to be satisfied with both, although two athletes said that athletics department advising was better. FSAs report studying between 2 to 4 hours per day and between 10 to 30 hours per week. Most said that they do have enough time to study for their classes. As a percentage of their total time per day, FSAs reported spending between 20% to 70% on athletics and between 20% to 60% on school work.
Female athletes do not report using the library very much.
Female student-athletes said that they felt that their education was preparing them for life outside the university. A typical answer was: "Yes. I'm learning a lot about myself both through sport and through school. I'm very happy with what I am gaining here at UTK." On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "terrible" and 10 being "outstanding", FSAs gave their quality of education at UTK an average of 8.09.
Male student-athlete respondents (n = 9) represented six different sports. They said that being an athlete at UTK was "time-consuming, hard and rough." Another said, " It's really intense. It's like a full-time job. It's definitely more of a lifestyle in college than it is in high school. There's also a really good support system, with teammates and stuff. It's taught me what hard work really is, and dedication is, and self-discipline is ... so, I guess I owe a lot to it."
An average school day for the MSA is much like that for the Lady Vols. Early to practice and study in the evening. Majors ranged from electrical engineering to wildlife and fisheries science. Instructors were described as "like a family", "cooperative" and "knowledgeable but not always understanding." One athlete said, "Some are real kind and work with you, but you have to communicate with them. One of five give you a hard time about missing class because you are an athlete."
Fewer MSAs than FSAs talked with their instructors often. The most common reason as a hectic schedule. However, one athlete advised, "You need to as an athlete. You miss a lot of classes and that can make instructors think you are not committed." Most MSAs said that instructors do not treat them differently. One said that he was treated more leniently because he was an athlete, and another said that he stopped mentioning that he was an athlete because "some profs figured I was arrogant." More MSAs (6 of 9 respondents) than FSAs said that other students did treat them differently because of their athlete status. Some of the reasons were:
"I am put on a pedestal."
"Some of the women think it's kind of neat, but most of the guys could care less."
"Yes, because of stereotypes. They think we aren't smart and we get everything free, but that's not really true."
Male student-athletes definitely liked athletic department advising better than their college advising. Four of nine respondents said that college advising ranged from "horrible" to "not good because they have no idea." Most MSAs said that they had enough time to study and estimated that they spent between 1.2 hour to 5 hours daily and between 2 to 40 hours per week. As a percentage of their total time, male athletes estimated that they spend between 5% to 60% on academics and 20% to 75% on athletics. Like FSAs, male student athletes reported using the library infrequently.
Most male student-athletes said that they felt that their education was preparing them for life outside the university. One respondent said: "Yes, because teachers have been in the real world have helpful experience." On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "terrible" and 10 being "outstanding", MSAs gave their quality of education at UTK an average of 7.66.
Female non-athletes (n = 10) described balancing work and classes at UTK as "difficult" and "stressful". One said, "I have little time to think on my own. I have time to study, but I'm also active on campus, so it's like three jobs." Another said "I work based on being sure that I can study and sleep. I'm scared to work more than 16.5 hours per week." Respondents reported majoring in a range of areas, from ornamental horticulture to criminal justice. An average day for female non-athletes is described in a comparable way to that described by female athletes. The typical day starts very early and ends with studying in the evening.
Sixty percent of respondents said that they do talk with their instructors outside of class, and they do so for extra help or for use as references. Nine out of 10 women said that they are not treated differently because they are working students. A typical comment was: "Professors are very understanding." No respondent felt that other students treated them differently. One woman said, "I don't know anyone who doesn't work or intern (besides freshmen and sophomores)."
Female non-athletes were mixed in their responses about academic advising. Some were pleased: "Excellent. We get professors as advisors instead of inexperienced grad students like some other majors." Others were unhappy: "It was bad because she was too busy to take time with me and always in a rush."
Women reported studying an average of 1.5 to 2 hours daily and 10 hours weekly. Seventy percent said that they had enough time to study for classes. As a percentage of time, women report spending between 10% to 60% of their time on classes and home work, and between 15% to 70% of their time on their job. Female non-athletes reported slightly more use of the library weekly, with most saying once per week.
The majority of women say that their education is preparing them for life outside the university. "I'm impressed with my major. It goes back to how they won't sugarcoat what we do and how it teaches up discipline." On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "terrible" and 10 being "outstanding", women gave their quality of education at UTK an average of 7.33.
Male non-athletes (n = 10) also said that balancing work and school was "hard" but was a "good experience." One man said, "It helps me mature faster and appreciate things." Another said, "Your social life disappears, but I choose to work so it's not that bad." One man compared working and not working while a student. "It's a whole lot different than not working. This is my first semester that I've been employed. I thought I could do 12 hours of class and then do what I want. It's a lot harder, but it makes me stay on the ball, and I don't waste a lot of time."
A typical day included alternating work and classes. "I work extra hours 8 to 10; class from 10 to 2, work form 2 to 5, evening classes, spare time, then study 9 to 12." Majors ranged from environmental studies to mechanical engineering.
Men described their instructors as "running the gamut." "Some are enthusiastic and give good lectures and are receptive to what students have to say. Others just talk, lecture and end the class." The majority thought that their professors cared and were intelligent. Most men said that they did not have time to talk with their instructors, but would if they needed help or had a question. Ninety percent of men said that their instructors did not treat them differently because they were working students. However, one student offered this insight: "Yes. A teacher I had was head of the romance language department and didn't have to teach at night. He actually preferred to because he said working students are more dedicated and work harder because they are actually paying for their education." Most men said students do not treat them differently. One said, "People who are working know it's a part of life. My friends know my time is tighter than before and they won't pressure me to go out (like they used to)."
Half the male non-athletes said that their academic advising was a good experience. "Really helpful in engineering. Excellent. When I switched my major they were real encouraging and made sure I was happy in my decision." The other half were displeased or had found a way around the formal advising process. One said, "Crappy. I had student advisers for four years; they always graduate so I got passed around. I usually just made my own schedule and never really got advised. I got some professor to approve my schedule."
Men reported studying between 1.5 to 2.3 hours daily on average, and between 10 and 11 hours per week. Most men said they had sufficient time to study. As a percentage of time, men spent between 5% to 50% of their time on classes and home work, and between 15% to 60% of their time on their job. Nearly half of the male students said they never used the library unless the had to do a research paper.
The majority of men say that their education is preparing them for life outside the university. One student said that "Yes, I'm preparing myself. It's the whole experience, not just the education." On a scale of 1 to 10, with I being "terrible" and 10 being "outstanding", men gave their quality of education at UTK an average of 7.5.
Summary and Conclusions
The purpose of this assessment was to update the 1994 Academic Assessment of Student- Athletes done by the Faculty Senate Athletics Committee. Goals included:
**To understand how student-athletes perceive the quality of their academic experiences and compare that to the perceptions of a small random sample of students in general.
**To understand and compare the academic performance of student-athletes with the general student population.
**To identify potential problem areas in academic performance.
In general student-athletes' academic performance at UTK has improved compared to five years ago, is consistent with the general student population performance, and in some cases is better than that of the student population. In the programs where significant percentages of student-athletes continue to demonstrate academic difficulty, additional measures to improve their academic success should be initiated. While freshmen appear to be doing well compared to their counterparts in the general student body, in fall sports it appears that they might be having difficulty adjusting to the rigors of the classroom and competition on the field.
Interview data with both student-athletes and non-athletes indicate that most students in both groups perceive that the quality of their education is good and that their university education is preparing them effectively for life outside the university. Most interviewees indicated that they had successfully balanced either their athletics training and classes, or their jobs and their classes. Time was at a premium for all students interviewed, but most said that they had sufficient time to study. A minority of students in both groups reported using the library with any significant frequency. In both groups, students' comments indicate that there is a need to improve academic advising that occurs outside the athletics department.
To offer suggestions or comments about this web site, please click here.
