Who or What Are Graduate(d) Student-Athletes?: Defining a Misunderstood Sub-population

Abstract

After reading Columbus Dispatch's cover story "Battle of Brothers" about the upcoming collegiate football game in which my two youngest cousins-who are brothers-would face each other, I was annoyed. The article used the term "fifth year senior" to describe the elder brother, which struck me because it was juxtaposed with a description of his younger brother as a "thirdyear junior"-not only making a fifth year seem aberrant, but also transforming a purely athletic achievement (playing as a freshman) into a disingenuous testament to his academic progress. Yet, as a collegiate athlete under the purview of the NCAA, the elder brother was a "fifth-year senior" in his final year of eligibility despite having walked at graduation the year before, completing an internship, and starting coursework toward a graduate degree.

Lessons From Graduate(d) Student Athletes: Supporting Academic Autonomy and Achievement

“…This lens may reveal connections between theory, graduate(d) student athletes’ success, and applied solutions to the all‐too‐common academic struggles and failures of college athletes, especially those in revenue sports. I draw on the implications of my own previous research on graduate(d) student athletes in this section of the chapter in order to describe lessons from the experiences of this subpopulation (Haslerig, , ; Haslerig & Navarro, ). Themes discussed include academic monitoring and support, earned academic autonomy, and distancing from support services.…”

“…A rigorous, iterative coding process was followed (Glaser, ; Miles & Huberman, ) which enabled confidence in both the richness and the thickness of the data. More information on the method, sample, and data analysis can be found in previously published research (Haslerig, , ).…”

“…These needs might be precipitated by undiagnosed learning disabilities, being academically underprepared, and/or the general need for support services that assist athletes in navigating inherent tensions between academic and athletic success in modern intercollegiate athletics. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) academic reform efforts have led to more college athletes graduating with remaining eligibility; that is, more time in which they are eligible to compete and to receive athletic grants‐in‐aid (Haslerig, ; Martin, ; NCAA, ). To avoid penalizing college athletes who excel academically, the NCAA permits college athletes who graduate with remaining athletic eligibility to further their education with “postbaccalaureate studies,” or by taking graduate courses and/or enrolling in a graduate degree program while continuing to compete.…”

“…To avoid penalizing college athletes who excel academically, the NCAA permits college athletes who graduate with remaining athletic eligibility to further their education with “postbaccalaureate studies,” or by taking graduate courses and/or enrolling in a graduate degree program while continuing to compete. I refer to this population, collectively, as “graduate(d) student athletes” (Haslerig, ). A study of 89% of Division I (DI) institutions estimated that 2,185 (2%) of the 2014 cohort of DI student athletes were graduate(d) student athletes (NCAA, ).…”

“…Although the graduate(d) student athlete population is small, it represents a growing trend, one that is rapidly increasing in revenue sports. This is due to a confluence of factors, including NCAA requirements such as student athletes’ progress‐toward‐degree or enrollment in 9‐credits a term, as well as trends like mid‐year enrollees, year‐round course enrollment, and the additional year of eligibility available for those who “redshirt” by sitting out a year (Haslerig, ).…”