[JustAnotherFan]

ONLY Eight Power 5 schools -- Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Stanford, Duke, Georgia Tech, Michigan and Wake Forest -- are graduating more than 65 percent of their black male football and basketball players. 

The schools that break 80% should advertise this heavily to the student-athletes they are recruiting. Stanford is #4 at 82%. Notre Dame has a higher black male student-athlete graduation rate.  >:(

The only Pac-12 team in the bottom ten is Cal ... 5th worst with only 39% graduating.  ???

https://race.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/...Report.pdf

[JustAnotherFan]

ONLY Eight Power 5 schools -- Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Stanford, Duke, Georgia Tech, Michigan and Wake Forest -- are graduating more than 65 percent of their black male football and basketball players. 

The schools that break 80% should advertise this heavily to the student-athletes they are recruiting. Stanford is #4 at 82%. Notre Dame has a higher black male student-athlete graduation rate.  >:(

The only Pac-12 team in the bottom ten is Cal ... 5th worst with only 39% graduating.  ???

https://race.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/...Report.pdf

[2006alum]

Interesting report and really important issues. The authorship of the study makes it a bit dubious to me, however. It appears to be a report by one guy, and he writes in the first person, meaning that in a lot of places the tone of the report seems to promote his prominence in the field as much as the issues. Also, it doesn't seem to be based on any original data but data gathered from other sources. That's fine, but then you need to attribute which sources are responsible for which data.

I'll give you one example for why this is problematic: the graduation statistic you quoted - is that percent graduating in 4 years? 5? 6? Ever? Does the denominator include students who went pro (it apparently counts transfer students as dropouts)? Without specific context, those numbers aren't overly telling. If Bryce Love had gone pro this year, he'd reduce our graduation rate. Does anyone think that should be a damning statistic for Stanford? Probably not many. What about a student who transferred from C.al to Stanford. He'd reduce C.al's graduation rate. Should C.al be punished for having a student so successful he decided to transfer to a (clearly better ;)) institution? Again, I doubt many would think so.

And here's a concrete example of what I'm talking about:

For example, Duke is ranked fifth on my list of institutions with the highest graduation rates for Black male student-athletes. But it is important to note  that this rate is 14 percentage points lower than the University’s six-year rate for all undergraduates. While they deserve praise for graduating 81% of Black men who play on the University’s intercollegiate sports teams, Duke administrators and coaches must
assume greater responsibility for closing this 14-point gap.

First, since literally NONE of the data in this report is original, what make it "his"? I've honestly never seen data like this presented in the first person before. It's really disconcerting. Second, in the era of one-and-done on basketball teams, is anyone surprised there is a fourteen point gap? Should Duke stop taking one and dones? Is it better for those players that academically elite institutions shun them? Is it better for the NBA to get rid of that rule so their top players have no experience with college education at all? These are tricky questions and some of the answers that would close this gap may not be ones that actually benefit the students in question.

So without know more, I'm loathe to conclude too much from decontextualized numbers.

[2006alum]

Interesting report and really important issues. The authorship of the study makes it a bit dubious to me, however. It appears to be a report by one guy, and he writes in the first person, meaning that in a lot of places the tone of the report seems to promote his prominence in the field as much as the issues. Also, it doesn't seem to be based on any original data but data gathered from other sources. That's fine, but then you need to attribute which sources are responsible for which data.

I'll give you one example for why this is problematic: the graduation statistic you quoted - is that percent graduating in 4 years? 5? 6? Ever? Does the denominator include students who went pro (it apparently counts transfer students as dropouts)? Without specific context, those numbers aren't overly telling. If Bryce Love had gone pro this year, he'd reduce our graduation rate. Does anyone think that should be a damning statistic for Stanford? Probably not many. What about a student who transferred from C.al to Stanford. He'd reduce C.al's graduation rate. Should C.al be punished for having a student so successful he decided to transfer to a (clearly better ;)) institution? Again, I doubt many would think so.

And here's a concrete example of what I'm talking about:

For example, Duke is ranked fifth on my list of institutions with the highest graduation rates for Black male student-athletes. But it is important to note  that this rate is 14 percentage points lower than the University’s six-year rate for all undergraduates. While they deserve praise for graduating 81% of Black men who play on the University’s intercollegiate sports teams, Duke administrators and coaches must
assume greater responsibility for closing this 14-point gap.

First, since literally NONE of the data in this report is original, what make it "his"? I've honestly never seen data like this presented in the first person before. It's really disconcerting. Second, in the era of one-and-done on basketball teams, is anyone surprised there is a fourteen point gap? Should Duke stop taking one and dones? Is it better for those players that academically elite institutions shun them? Is it better for the NBA to get rid of that rule so their top players have no experience with college education at all? These are tricky questions and some of the answers that would close this gap may not be ones that actually benefit the students in question.

So without know more, I'm loathe to conclude too much from decontextualized numbers.

[gocard14]

Agreed. Is this the NCAA grad success rate, which is a much more applicable measure then graduation rate? If it is just a pure 4-5 year graduation rate, it really doesn’t carry that much weight.

[gocard14]

Agreed. Is this the NCAA grad success rate, which is a much more applicable measure then graduation rate? If it is just a pure 4-5 year graduation rate, it really doesn’t carry that much weight.

[lex24]

There is another relevant question:  what percentage of the athletes would have been admitted but/for athletics?

I don’t think you can fairly analyze the issue until you answer that question.

And then perhaps the most important - how do the athletes (the ones that don’t go pro) fare economically 5 years later. 10 years later. And how does that compare with his peers.

Difficult to follow I suspect

[lex24]

There is another relevant question:  what percentage of the athletes would have been admitted but/for athletics?

I don’t think you can fairly analyze the issue until you answer that question.

And then perhaps the most important - how do the athletes (the ones that don’t go pro) fare economically 5 years later. 10 years later. And how does that compare with his peers.

Difficult to follow I suspect

[Mick]

There is another relevant question:  what percentage of the athletes would have been admitted but/for athletics?

I don’t think you can fairly analyze the issue until you answer that question.

And then perhaps the most important - how do the athletes (the ones that don’t go pro) fare economically 5 years later. 10 years later. And how does that compare with his peers.

Difficult to follow I suspect

That would make for a pretty interesting thesis.

[Mick]

There is another relevant question:  what percentage of the athletes would have been admitted but/for athletics?

I don’t think you can fairly analyze the issue until you answer that question.

And then perhaps the most important - how do the athletes (the ones that don’t go pro) fare economically 5 years later. 10 years later. And how does that compare with his peers.

Difficult to follow I suspect

That would make for a pretty interesting thesis.