More lit review for our paper

I wanted to make sure each of you saw some of the later additions from Aaron, Jennifer, and Troy in the past few days. All of this will be useful to add or mold into our paper as we proceed.


Here is the full section of Aaron's presentation that we had to cut back:


Clopton will frame the current issue with a discussion of the recent New York Times series in the context of relevant literature. The Times series brought to light issues relating to parents’ desire to secure some sort of athletic scholarship for their child to attend college without a complete understanding of the type and extent of scholarship awards available (Pennington, 2008). Further, the series noted how much on average, by sport, that scholarships were helping to fund athletes’ cost of attendance. On average, at the highest level, Division I and Division II institutions supported college hockey players with a $21,755 scholarship worth 80% of a full scholarship. Yet, at the lowest level, college baseball players received a $5,806 scholarship worth just 32% of a full scholarship (Pennington, 2008). Thus, the ever-salient issue of support for today’s student-athlete becomes juxtaposed across arguments for limiting the separation of social worlds of students and student-athletes (e.g. Adler & Adler, 1987; Sperber, 2000). For instance, Shulman & Bowen (2001) established a growing divide in athletics and academics across many campuses resulting in a differential existence for today’s student-athletes, an existence that might not hold the benefits once thought (see also Byers, 1995).A study by The Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (WHECB) investigated gender equity at its state institutions and found, in 2005-2006, that female athletes receive 92 cents in tuition aid for every dollar that male athletes receive (WHECB, 2006). Most notably, Central Washington University moved away from participation proportionality and Eastern Washington University has demonstrated disproportionality in the awarding of aid to female athletes since 2001-02, with a proportionality ratio of .79 in 2005-06. Both gender and Title IX-specific implications (e.g. Anderson, Cheslock, Ehrenberg, 2006) are discussed.A recent settlement with former athletes (White vs NCAA) would require the association to consider multiyear scholarships, allow year-round comprehensive health insurance, and pool a variety of its special needs funds into one larger fund directed at all athletes and not just at those with extraordinary circumstances. As a result, economist Andrew Zimbalist stated that the NCAA “conceded the point that there’s reasonableness in the argument that the grant-in-aid [or athletics scholarship] should be larger” (Lederman, 2008). Further, Paul Haagen, a law professor at Duke University, stated, “Since [the NCAA] recently had a series of public statements that the cost of education would be fully consistent with amateurism, it raised the question about what exactly would be the reason why you would suppress payments below that level?” However, such ramifications from scholarship adjustments would catalyze renewed discussion into the “student-athlete as employee” debate (see Judge, 1986) and its protection under the NCAA’s tax-exempt status, a position that is currently under fire (e.g. Wolverton, 2006).

Here is some information that Jennifer shared with me:

With the adoption of bylaw 16.12.2 in 1991, the NCAA offered special funds for which students of financial need could apply to cover special circumstance or essential expenditures for which there was not already aid available (National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA], 2007a; NCAA, 2007b). Special Assistance Fund awards are determined on a student by student basis, and both foreign and domestic students of financial need are eligible. Special assistance funds totaled $12.3 million in 2007-2008 with approximately $7 million for clothing, $2.6 for medical expenses, $269,000 for expendable academic course supplies, and $159,000 for emergency travel (NCAA, 2007b). Additionally through this legislation, reasonable local transportation in combination with these monies was allowed (NCAA, 2007a).

Through Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund (SAOF) benefits, the NCAA provides additional funding to all student-athletes, regardless of need, for use with expenses associated with collegiate athletics participation, collegiate coursework enrollment, and academic achievement. Intended to provide a flexible direct financial benefit to student-athletes, SAOF benefits were not designed to fulfill current budget commitments. The NCAA dispersed over $31 million to Division I conference offices according to a distribution formula based on sports sponsorship and grants-in-aid (NCAA, 2007b).

As a result of a settlement in White v. NCAA, the Special Assistance Fund will be restructured to provide a wider range of access as laid out in the SAOF. Acknowledging the disparity between full-ride scholarships and true cost to student-athletes, the NCAA released a statement saying, “The NCAA believes the full-ride scholarship currently offered is appropriate for the majority of student-athletes, but we recognize there may be some students for whose needs are still not met despite access to Pell Grants and other need-based aid (Hosick, 2008).”

Hosick, M. (2008, February 5). Court initially approves settlement in White case. The

NCAA News. Retrieved April 28, 2008 from http://www.ncaa.org.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). (2007a). 2007-2008 NCAA

Division I manual. Indianapolis, IN.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). (2007b). 2007-2008 Revenue

distribution plan. Indianapolis, IN.


And, here is the full section from Troy:

There is a wide assumption that athletic scholarships have provided access to many athletes who would otherwise be unable to afford college, particularly minority student-athletes from low-income backgrounds (Shulman & Bowen, 2001). Indeed, the cost of higher education, as well as the availability of financial aid, have been identified by researchers as important considerations in the college-going decision-making process for low-income students (Berkner & Chavez, 1997; Heller, 1997; Leslie & Brinkman, 1987; St. John, Asker & Hu, 2001) But while research has addressed aspects of the effect athletic scholarships have on athletes (Medic & Starkes, 2007; Sutter & Winkler, 2003), as well as faculty perceptions of athletic scholarships (Baucom & Lantz, 2001; Knight Commission, 2007), the literature does not sufficiently address the role of athletic scholarships in the college-going and college choice decision-making process of student-athletes from low-income backgrounds. While a decade-old dissertation examining Division I college volleyball players identified “receiving an athletic scholarship” and “academic reputation” as the most important factors in athletes’ college selection decision-making process (Reynaud, 1998), more timely and comprehensive research of athletic scholarships and student college choice and persistence is needed. Among the questions Buer and Swan will address are: 1) How many student-athletes planned to attend college in the absence of an athletic scholarship?; 2) What were students’ most important considerations when choosing which college to attend (e.g., amount of financial support, academic reputation, quality of team, proximity to family)?; and 3) Among those students who began college on athletic scholarships, and later lost all or a portion of their scholarships due to poor academic or athletic performance, how many of them persisted to degree? What factored into their decision to persist, drop out, or transfer? Given the limited and mixed findings on athletic scholarships and athletes, this study will provide a better understanding of the ways in which athletic scholarships affect low-income student-athletes’ choices and experiences.