Topic:
In my research paper, I plan to explore in which direction a college athlete’s motivation is used, whether it is towards their academic or their athletic success. This topic ties into privatization of college with the central question of how much money does the university actually make off of exploiting student-athletes and how they view the student athlete in terms of these academic/athletic responsibilities. Do student athletes fear losing their scholarship and having to find a way to afford the increased tuition costs? Do they fear the idea of joining the “student loan bubble”?
Research Question:
What motivates a student athlete, and is that motivation used towards their academic responsibilities or athletic responsibilities? How does a university view the student athlete in terms of these responsibilities?
Theoretical Frame:
Michelle Mahoney of Cal State University analyzes the intersections between a student-athlete’s athletic and academic role by interviewing 18 student-athletes and finding that there were some main themes that emerged: Athletic role is more reinforced than academic role, they are part of an “elite group” in the eyes of the university, among others. She employs that the Role Theory and role conflict affect a student-athlete’s view on their academic and athletic success. She notes that many of her subjects didn’t view their responsibilities as academic or athletic, but that they are interconnected. She notes that the additional stress student-athletes face sometimes cause a significant decline in their academic or athletic success, sometimes even both. In danger of losing their scholarship, student-athletes often feel the necessity to succeed academically, but then struggle to perform as expected in their athletic role. Because of this, their role conflict of student-athletes is dramatically increased and becomes problematic for the individual. Sibongile Kamusoko finds that this increased stress on a student-athlete without a doubt leads to poor academics, which in turn hinders their athletic eligibility and ultimately their ability to graduate. A student athlete is under pressure to succeed both academically and athletically, causing them to self-motivate, generally leaning more towards one or the other. If they over compensate towards one or both responsibilities, they probably won’t be successful in both. It’s a slippery slope and an incredibly difficult task managing both. Kamusoko puts a focus on how colleges exploit athletes and how universities maximize the financial gain at the expense of these student-athletes. He cites the Carnegie Foundation of Advancement of Teachers (CFAT) where Howard Savage performed a study that confirmed inconsistencies associated with intercollegiate athletics and the role and mission of colleges in terms of their core business of education students. This lead to the formation of the Presidential Committee by the American Council of Education, where they investigated the ethics of college sports and how it affects student-athlete’s college experience. He even cites the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (KFCIA) that published reports revealing conflicts between academic and athletic goals; attributing the increased gap to a “business model of intercollegiate athletics that has led to unattainable economic demands for most institutions, compromising their academic values.” The idea of decreased admission standards has been a topic of concern for many of these studies. It even led the NCAA to institute a legislative reform to strengthen admission standards for prospective student-athletes by mandating minimal GPA and SAT scores. This legislature has been modified multiple times, but it has not fixed the problem of where a student-athlete’s true motivation is used towards. This only led to the issue of academic dishonesty across the nation for universities to bypass this legislation to boost their athletic success and financial gains. I hope to explain how the university’s attitudes towards their student-athletes affects their motivations towards their academic and athletic responsibilities.
Case:
The scholarly articles cited above by Michelle Mahoney and Sibongile Kamusoko, entitled “Student-Athletes’ Perceptions of Their Academic and Athletic Roles; Intersections Amongst Their Athletic Role, Academic Motivation, Choice of Major and Career Decision Making” and “Student-Athlete Wellbeing and Persistence: An In-depth Look a Student-Athlete perceptions” respectively. Both provide substantial evidence in how universities, due to their privatization and focus on athletic success, affect a student-athlete’s college experience and motivation towards their athletic and academic roles at the university. A great primary source is an interview with Professor George Hochfield at SUNY-Buffalo entitled “We’re all Playing Games: The Incompatibility of Athletic and Academic Excellence” where he talks on lengths about his opposition of Division 1 athletics altogether, and how it completely hinders a student-athlete to succeed academically and become a successful part in society post college. He talks about the complete incompatibility of being able to succeed athletically and academically for most student-athletes and that the odds of them succeeding in their future through their athletic ability is slim. Compared to most views, this is definitely a radical approach towards college sports, which I definitely want to explore in it’s connection to my topic/question. I do not necessarily agree with everything Professor Hochfield says, but he makes some very valid points in how incredibly difficult it is for a student-athlete to succeed academically and athletically under the circumstances thrust upon them by the university. Most universities focus on their sports programs as a financial gain, all at the expense of a student-athlete’s overall well-being and complete disregard of the “student” aspect. Joy L. Gaston-Gayles work in “Examining Academic and Athletic Motivation Among Student Athletes at a Division I University” talks heavily about predicting academic performance among 211 college athletes at a Division 1 Institute in the Midwest. She examines that ACT scores, ethnicity, and academic motivation were significant in expression her model. James Lawrence Shulman examines how Division 1 athletics is a powerhouse money making machine, at the expense of a student-athlete. It focuses on data that shows how a school might take advantage of the overall positives sports brings them, and how that may or may not endanger the core of their educational missions. He notes that colleges and universities are “dependent upon a broad range of constituencies (students, parents, fans, alumni/ae, staff) and over the long term, policy decisions affecting admissions play a crucial role” in the success of a university academically and athletically. His work focuses on how sports plays a role in a university's academic mission, and how different divisional levels affects a school’s attitude towards their academics, ultimately affecting the student-athlete’s attitude as well. For example, the difference between playing football at Vanderbilt University or playing football at Oberlin College. It’s a unique take on how the struggles can be handled by the student-athlete by choosing which school to attend, based on that school’s academic mission and place in college sports’ hierarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment