 |
| Deborah Crowder, in response to NCAA Allegations https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B24WwCUVnfYtWFRDcm1aWllDTXc/view |
 |
| Page 1 (Click to Enlarge) |
 |
| Page 2 (Click to Enlarge) |
 |
| Page 3 (Click to Enlarge) |
 |
| Page 4 (Click to Enlarge) |
 |
| Page 5 (Click to Enlarge) |
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Fraudulent Classes
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
If You Wanted an Education...
I think I understood what Butch Davis meant by "if y'all wanted an education, you should've gone to Harvard," even before he gave his own explanation.
I have a niece who is in her second year at a Division I university, attending on an athletic scholarship, playing a non-revenue sport. Her freshman year, she was honored as an academic All-American, carrying a 4.0 GPA in a major "un-clustered" by student-athletes.
If I told you the name of the school, chances are you would not have it listed among those with stellar reputations for NCAA compliance or academic prestige. The school's athletics programs are, however, perennial powerhouses, including the sport she plays. For this blog, I'll just call it Athletic U.
Not quite a year ago, at a family gathering over the holidays, she shared with me an anecdote that dropped my jaw a bit. She loves her coach and the whole staff, so she'd never want to disparage them publicly; but she did relate to me how, at the very first team meeting her freshman year, the coach made absolutely clear that commitment to the team was to be priority number one; even superior to the classroom. Schedules, workouts, training -- they all trumped the classroom, at least up to the point that inadequate classroom performance started to impact eligibility. The staff would do what they could to accommodate class needs, but if push came to shove, the team's needs would supersede.
The working logic behind this philosophy is that the school is paying for the student-athletes' attendance with the expectation that they be committed primarily to athletic excellence. Attention to academics is vital, of course, but academic excellence, or even "above-average-ness," is not the priority. If the student-athlete's priority is education over sports, then it needs to be done on her own dime and absent the demands of the athletic program. Where Butch Davis perhaps hyperbolic cited "Harvard", my niece's coach was saying, non-hyperbolically, here at Athletic U, you can "quit now and pay your own way if you don't like this contract," Davis and she were conveying the same meaning: something's going to give, and it isn't going to be sports.
It wasn't subtle. It wasn't spoken in hushed tones or with cameras shut off. It was loud and clear. At Athletics U., where tension might arise between athletics and academics, athletics has priority because athletics is footing the bill. The guidance to student-athletes is you get what you can out of your educational opportunity, but only insofar as it doesn't compromise commitment to the team.
It does make some business sense, I guess. After all, the coach wasn't saying attention to classroom performance was not important, which is how Tydreke appears to have understood UNC's Coach Davis. In fact, being responsible academically IS part of the "team commitment" thing; not because of some ideal about the primacy of educational goals; but rather because the academic goal as far as athletics was concerned is mainly to avoid disrupting eligibility and impacting the team (or Academic Performance Rate or Graduate Success Rate metrics). In this philosophical framework, student-athletes are athletes first and foremost (athlete-students), with an education being an available secondary benefit of sports participation. This is flip-flopped from the NCAA's pitch that student-athletes can exploit their athletic ability for the primary purpose of achieving an education and secondary goal of competing in sports.
I give kudos to my niece for managing to strike a successful balance and not feel she's getting short-changed on her academic goals due to pressure from athletics. She knows that in 2 years, her playing days will be over (except maybe as an amateur and -- fingers crossed -- an Olympian), and she does have career aspirations beyond that of sports. She's a sharp woman and was well-prepared going into college. She had no disadvantages to overcome like a learning disability, low-income social hurdles or a sub-par pre-collegiate education. She's exploiting her athletic talents to get a free education, and she's taken full advantage of it. Her achievement in the classroom has not been compromised by her coach's requirement that the team comes first. Good for her.
But is she typical? She's, perhaps, the ideal. She's the model that the NCAA tries to put on a poster. But is she truly representative?
She'd be loathe to have to answer to an investigative reporter and criticize her coach or the school's tolerance -- nay, fostering -- of athletics-first priorities. Why would she dare do that? After all, the vast majority of student-athletes accept the bargain, make the sacrifice, and there are even some who have no qualms settling for a mediocre educational experience as long as they get to play their sport, have the University pay their way and graduate with an easy paper diploma, however diluted it may have been. It's a good deal. No reason to spit in that bowl of Cheerios. She told me this story in private and I hope I've "anonymized" it enough to not trace back to her.
If, later in life, the education that some of these student-athletes bargained for winds up being lacking, it will not have been -- and least for most -- because anyone forced them to skate through a series of check-the-box graduation requirements. It's ultimately one's personal responsibility to take full advantage of the opportunity given, isn't it? It's not the responsibility of counselors or coaches or advisors to force student-athletes to maximize their educational experience.
But having the onus rest mainly on the student-athlete doesn't relieve academic counselors and advisors from providing proper guidance. Responsibility is shared by the student-athlete and by those who assume a position of caretaker for these young adults. And never should student-athletes be barred by coaches or counselors from taking full advantage of the school's educational resources just because it's inconvenient to the sporting goals.
This bargain apparently works for most, but it doesn't work for everyone; and the philosophy of sports-first/education-second may be a reality in the business of college athletics, but it's upside-down from the claimed NCAA model, and it's a point source for the possible erosion of academic principles, making the ground ripe for abuse (at least in my opinion.)
The Athletic U. in this anecdote is far away from Chapel Hill in both geography and reputation. It doesn't have the sort of status UNC has in terms of academic prestige nor balance between academics/athletics, even with the current UNC scandal considered.
But the rationale Butch Davis (as well as Davis defenders Matt Merletti and Bryn Renner) gave explaining away the "if you wanted an education" comment belies the supposed distinction between UNC and Athletics U. It's identical, and sadly, the more driven for competitive success and profit the program is, the more prominent "if you wanted an education" philosophy tends to become.
It's nearly impossible to be a powerhouse on the court/field/arena AND expect the "student" element in the student-athlete equation not to be compromised at least a little, even at the Dukes and UNCs -- or Stanfords or Northwesterns or Harvards -- of Division I college athletics.
Personally, I think I'm comfortable in the belief that some academic compromise can be reasonably managed, in exchange for the demands of athletics, while maintaining academic integrity. I think in the case of students like Matt Merletti or Marcus Paige or Nelson Vick, and probably a great majority of student-athletes -- particularly in non-revenue sports -- it works and is an acceptable trade-off that student-athletes accept in exchange for tuition assistance and other allowable benefits. It's when education starts needing to be manipulated, engineered, diluted or compromised, in order to strike that balance, that the bargain becomes sullied. For those who do struggle with a learning disadvantage in the classroom, or who have been socialized into viewing coursework as a necessary evil, or who simply don't care enough to put forth an effort, the equation must be changed and the sport/education priority reversed until the obstacle to gaining the desired value out of the educational component is remedied.
"If y'all wanted an education..." is a bad way for any college coach to start off a sentence, unless one is okay with the athletic tail wagging the academic dog.
I have a niece who is in her second year at a Division I university, attending on an athletic scholarship, playing a non-revenue sport. Her freshman year, she was honored as an academic All-American, carrying a 4.0 GPA in a major "un-clustered" by student-athletes.
If I told you the name of the school, chances are you would not have it listed among those with stellar reputations for NCAA compliance or academic prestige. The school's athletics programs are, however, perennial powerhouses, including the sport she plays. For this blog, I'll just call it Athletic U.
Not quite a year ago, at a family gathering over the holidays, she shared with me an anecdote that dropped my jaw a bit. She loves her coach and the whole staff, so she'd never want to disparage them publicly; but she did relate to me how, at the very first team meeting her freshman year, the coach made absolutely clear that commitment to the team was to be priority number one; even superior to the classroom. Schedules, workouts, training -- they all trumped the classroom, at least up to the point that inadequate classroom performance started to impact eligibility. The staff would do what they could to accommodate class needs, but if push came to shove, the team's needs would supersede.
The working logic behind this philosophy is that the school is paying for the student-athletes' attendance with the expectation that they be committed primarily to athletic excellence. Attention to academics is vital, of course, but academic excellence, or even "above-average-ness," is not the priority. If the student-athlete's priority is education over sports, then it needs to be done on her own dime and absent the demands of the athletic program. Where Butch Davis perhaps hyperbolic cited "Harvard", my niece's coach was saying, non-hyperbolically, here at Athletic U, you can "quit now and pay your own way if you don't like this contract," Davis and she were conveying the same meaning: something's going to give, and it isn't going to be sports.
It wasn't subtle. It wasn't spoken in hushed tones or with cameras shut off. It was loud and clear. At Athletics U., where tension might arise between athletics and academics, athletics has priority because athletics is footing the bill. The guidance to student-athletes is you get what you can out of your educational opportunity, but only insofar as it doesn't compromise commitment to the team.
It does make some business sense, I guess. After all, the coach wasn't saying attention to classroom performance was not important, which is how Tydreke appears to have understood UNC's Coach Davis. In fact, being responsible academically IS part of the "team commitment" thing; not because of some ideal about the primacy of educational goals; but rather because the academic goal as far as athletics was concerned is mainly to avoid disrupting eligibility and impacting the team (or Academic Performance Rate or Graduate Success Rate metrics). In this philosophical framework, student-athletes are athletes first and foremost (athlete-students), with an education being an available secondary benefit of sports participation. This is flip-flopped from the NCAA's pitch that student-athletes can exploit their athletic ability for the primary purpose of achieving an education and secondary goal of competing in sports.
I give kudos to my niece for managing to strike a successful balance and not feel she's getting short-changed on her academic goals due to pressure from athletics. She knows that in 2 years, her playing days will be over (except maybe as an amateur and -- fingers crossed -- an Olympian), and she does have career aspirations beyond that of sports. She's a sharp woman and was well-prepared going into college. She had no disadvantages to overcome like a learning disability, low-income social hurdles or a sub-par pre-collegiate education. She's exploiting her athletic talents to get a free education, and she's taken full advantage of it. Her achievement in the classroom has not been compromised by her coach's requirement that the team comes first. Good for her.
But is she typical? She's, perhaps, the ideal. She's the model that the NCAA tries to put on a poster. But is she truly representative?
She'd be loathe to have to answer to an investigative reporter and criticize her coach or the school's tolerance -- nay, fostering -- of athletics-first priorities. Why would she dare do that? After all, the vast majority of student-athletes accept the bargain, make the sacrifice, and there are even some who have no qualms settling for a mediocre educational experience as long as they get to play their sport, have the University pay their way and graduate with an easy paper diploma, however diluted it may have been. It's a good deal. No reason to spit in that bowl of Cheerios. She told me this story in private and I hope I've "anonymized" it enough to not trace back to her.
If, later in life, the education that some of these student-athletes bargained for winds up being lacking, it will not have been -- and least for most -- because anyone forced them to skate through a series of check-the-box graduation requirements. It's ultimately one's personal responsibility to take full advantage of the opportunity given, isn't it? It's not the responsibility of counselors or coaches or advisors to force student-athletes to maximize their educational experience.
But having the onus rest mainly on the student-athlete doesn't relieve academic counselors and advisors from providing proper guidance. Responsibility is shared by the student-athlete and by those who assume a position of caretaker for these young adults. And never should student-athletes be barred by coaches or counselors from taking full advantage of the school's educational resources just because it's inconvenient to the sporting goals.
This bargain apparently works for most, but it doesn't work for everyone; and the philosophy of sports-first/education-second may be a reality in the business of college athletics, but it's upside-down from the claimed NCAA model, and it's a point source for the possible erosion of academic principles, making the ground ripe for abuse (at least in my opinion.)
The Athletic U. in this anecdote is far away from Chapel Hill in both geography and reputation. It doesn't have the sort of status UNC has in terms of academic prestige nor balance between academics/athletics, even with the current UNC scandal considered.
But the rationale Butch Davis (as well as Davis defenders Matt Merletti and Bryn Renner) gave explaining away the "if you wanted an education" comment belies the supposed distinction between UNC and Athletics U. It's identical, and sadly, the more driven for competitive success and profit the program is, the more prominent "if you wanted an education" philosophy tends to become.
It's nearly impossible to be a powerhouse on the court/field/arena AND expect the "student" element in the student-athlete equation not to be compromised at least a little, even at the Dukes and UNCs -- or Stanfords or Northwesterns or Harvards -- of Division I college athletics.
Personally, I think I'm comfortable in the belief that some academic compromise can be reasonably managed, in exchange for the demands of athletics, while maintaining academic integrity. I think in the case of students like Matt Merletti or Marcus Paige or Nelson Vick, and probably a great majority of student-athletes -- particularly in non-revenue sports -- it works and is an acceptable trade-off that student-athletes accept in exchange for tuition assistance and other allowable benefits. It's when education starts needing to be manipulated, engineered, diluted or compromised, in order to strike that balance, that the bargain becomes sullied. For those who do struggle with a learning disadvantage in the classroom, or who have been socialized into viewing coursework as a necessary evil, or who simply don't care enough to put forth an effort, the equation must be changed and the sport/education priority reversed until the obstacle to gaining the desired value out of the educational component is remedied.
"If y'all wanted an education..." is a bad way for any college coach to start off a sentence, unless one is okay with the athletic tail wagging the academic dog.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Independence: Does it Matter Who Pays?
The Martin Report, the Wainstein Report, and the three outside party reviews of the data set that served as the basis for Willingham's contested literacy claims, (Kuncel Report, Branum-Martin Report and Kramer Report) were all deemed "independent reviews" by the University hiring them. Each reviewer was claimed to have been given tasking and allowed to proceed unfettered, unguided and without influence from the University.
Is that all "independent" means? Lack of overt pressure, collusion or engagement? Can't there be subtle pressures coming from whoever's paying the bill that might compromise independence?
I freely admit the answer to that is "not always." The fact that the subject hires and pays for his own audit doesn't automatically mean the audit is suspect. Critics have denounced any of these Reports that UNC hired as being truly independent on the basis that each contracted by the University itself, creating a conflict of interest. In UNC's case, given the strong resistance to challenging the athletic department's role in the scandal, I don't think it's an unreasonable suspicion.
Then-Chancellor Holden Thorp enlisted former NC Governor, James Martin and the consulting firm Baker-Tilly to conduct what would be known as the Martin Report. The Martin Report confirmed discrepancies found in the AFAM Department, but declared it was not an athletic scandal but an academic scandal. Cynics called it a whitewash. (I did not, but I recognized the inherent weaknesses of the review and how it could not be the final word or discovery.)
UNC Vice-Chancellor and Provost James W. Dean directed the selection and contracting of the three outside experts to review the Willingham data set. These three outside reviewers wound up, to some degree or another, verifying UNC's own internal review, concluding as UNC had, that her findings were flawed. Cynics (which, in this case, included me) charged that UNC intentionally limited the scope of the tasking and didn't provide the depth of data Willingham claimed to have used.
UNC President Tom Ross and UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Carol Folt conducted the selection and hiring of Kenneth Wainstein. His report acknowledged the limitations that had handicapped the Martin and Baker-Tilly effort, but found sufficient evidence to conclude that the scandal was more than academic-only and actually an institutional issue. Though opinions differ, it is difficult to deny that Waintein's report was not the whitewash many anticipated. Skeptics, however, still feel that because the contracting agency had a vested interest, the scope narrowed, the investigation was tainted and the findings, though damaging to the institution, only scratched the surface. (I agree with this, not because I'm skeptical of Wainstein's independence, but he didn't, truthfully, have "full autonomy and authority to ask the tough questions and follow the facts wherever they lead." He did, however, provide the germ for further and wider inspection by releasing the supplemental information.)
Is skepticism over an institution hiring an outside agency to review itself warranted? I can say that I've worked on several government programs in which the program manager hired a 3rd party to conduct an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) review, with payment coming out of program funds. In government acquisition programs, true independence is derived by the selection of the reviewer being approved by the sponsor or oversight agency. The program manager can't independently audit his own development team (except for internal purposes). There must be a wall of separation between the auditor and the developer if a report of review is to be presented as evidence of a successful IV&V.
It's a tricky situation and not always clear where or how self-interests might influence a review. Many standards of conduct codes or ethics policies recommend eliminating even the appearance of possible conflicts of interest, where selecting, reporting and contracting are all done through a proxy or by a higher authority than the entity being reviewed.
This seems to be lost on those who don't see any problem with a university investigating itself.
Such are the opinions of those who are predisposed to trusting the institution that is auditing itself to do the right thing. It shouldn't be hard to understand how that appears from an external perspective where that trust isn't inherent.
I'm reminded of this clip from the movie Erin Brockovich. If the sponsorship of a review is irrelevant to concerns over true independence, then this dialogue would not be tragically funny:
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Screenplay by Susannah Grant
Is that all "independent" means? Lack of overt pressure, collusion or engagement? Can't there be subtle pressures coming from whoever's paying the bill that might compromise independence?
I freely admit the answer to that is "not always." The fact that the subject hires and pays for his own audit doesn't automatically mean the audit is suspect. Critics have denounced any of these Reports that UNC hired as being truly independent on the basis that each contracted by the University itself, creating a conflict of interest. In UNC's case, given the strong resistance to challenging the athletic department's role in the scandal, I don't think it's an unreasonable suspicion.
Then-Chancellor Holden Thorp enlisted former NC Governor, James Martin and the consulting firm Baker-Tilly to conduct what would be known as the Martin Report. The Martin Report confirmed discrepancies found in the AFAM Department, but declared it was not an athletic scandal but an academic scandal. Cynics called it a whitewash. (I did not, but I recognized the inherent weaknesses of the review and how it could not be the final word or discovery.)
UNC Vice-Chancellor and Provost James W. Dean directed the selection and contracting of the three outside experts to review the Willingham data set. These three outside reviewers wound up, to some degree or another, verifying UNC's own internal review, concluding as UNC had, that her findings were flawed. Cynics (which, in this case, included me) charged that UNC intentionally limited the scope of the tasking and didn't provide the depth of data Willingham claimed to have used.
UNC President Tom Ross and UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Carol Folt conducted the selection and hiring of Kenneth Wainstein. His report acknowledged the limitations that had handicapped the Martin and Baker-Tilly effort, but found sufficient evidence to conclude that the scandal was more than academic-only and actually an institutional issue. Though opinions differ, it is difficult to deny that Waintein's report was not the whitewash many anticipated. Skeptics, however, still feel that because the contracting agency had a vested interest, the scope narrowed, the investigation was tainted and the findings, though damaging to the institution, only scratched the surface. (I agree with this, not because I'm skeptical of Wainstein's independence, but he didn't, truthfully, have "full autonomy and authority to ask the tough questions and follow the facts wherever they lead." He did, however, provide the germ for further and wider inspection by releasing the supplemental information.)
Is skepticism over an institution hiring an outside agency to review itself warranted? I can say that I've worked on several government programs in which the program manager hired a 3rd party to conduct an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) review, with payment coming out of program funds. In government acquisition programs, true independence is derived by the selection of the reviewer being approved by the sponsor or oversight agency. The program manager can't independently audit his own development team (except for internal purposes). There must be a wall of separation between the auditor and the developer if a report of review is to be presented as evidence of a successful IV&V.
It's a tricky situation and not always clear where or how self-interests might influence a review. Many standards of conduct codes or ethics policies recommend eliminating even the appearance of possible conflicts of interest, where selecting, reporting and contracting are all done through a proxy or by a higher authority than the entity being reviewed.
This seems to be lost on those who don't see any problem with a university investigating itself.
Andy Bechtel @andybechtel Criticism that it was paid for by UNC is silly too. Who else is going to pay the bill?
Doc Kennedy@DocHeelfire
It's a straw man argument about "independence" of investigation. If it got result some desired who paid is irrelevant.
Such are the opinions of those who are predisposed to trusting the institution that is auditing itself to do the right thing. It shouldn't be hard to understand how that appears from an external perspective where that trust isn't inherent.
I'm reminded of this clip from the movie Erin Brockovich. If the sponsorship of a review is irrelevant to concerns over true independence, then this dialogue would not be tragically funny:
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Screenplay by Susannah Grant
DONNA JENSEN: An on-site monitoring well? That means that it's...
ERIN: It was right up on the PG&E property over there.
DONNA: And you say that this stuff, this hexavalent chromium, it's poisonous?
ERIN: Yeah.
DONNA: Well, Erin, it's -- it's just gotta be different than -- than what's in our water, 'cause ours is okay. The guys from PG&E told me. They sat right in the kitchen and--and--and told me it was -- it was fine.
ERIN: I know. I know, but the toxicologist that I been talking to? He gave me a list of problems that can come from hexavalent chromium exposure. Everything you all have is on that list.
DONNA: No. No. -- No, that's--that's not what -- that's not what our doctor said. He said that -- well -- that one's got absolutely nothing to do with the other.
ERIN: But PG&E paid for that doctor.
[Pregnant pause as sounds of laughing and splashing from pool come from backyard. Donna jumps up, rushing out]
DONNA: ASHLEY! SHANNA! GET OUT OF THE POOL!
GIRLS: How come?
DONNA: BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT'S WHY!
Friday, November 21, 2014
Apologizing to Mary Willingham
This is a little long, so if you'd rather cut to chase to see what I'm driving at, click here.
If you didn't mean to reach this page or have decided you'd rather not wade through my drivel, I invite you to leave now, but do so by way of a link to a fascinating and talented musical artist, Sarah Jarosz. My recommendation has nothing to do with anything else on this blog. I'm just a fan.
This apology is not likely to appease anybody in the polarizing scandal at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). Nevertheless, I'm thinking I owe Mary Willingham an apology for some things I've said or written recently. Defenders of UNC athletics won't like it because they consider Willingham a pariah who deserves nothing but scorn and certainly not warranting any apology whatsoever. Conversely, UNC antagonists are protective of Willingham and won't like the form my apology takes because it's diluted and still accompanied by pointed criticisms which, to them, are just an annoying attempt by me to appear "balanced."
So first, allow me to say what is not included in this apology.
I don't apologize for my criticisms over how Ms. Willingham chose to articulate her literacy claims when she was highlighted in a CNN expose' by Sara Ganim. In that piece, originally aired on January 7th, 2014, and in many interviews, articles and comments since, Willingham has been indelicate and tactless in claiming literacy levels among the "for profit" student-athletes at UNC that were too low for college-level demands. Whether true or not, she seems out of touch with how insensitive to the hyperbolic manner in which she described the situation and how it could (and has been) be perceived as disparaging to the very constituency for whom she claims to advocate.
Neither do I feel regret for criticism I've lodged regarding her failure to make clear that her claimed findings were a descriptive analysis of a specific, small and non-random sample set. I know she knows that her findings should not be interpreted to infer anything about student-athletes outside of the tested group; yet many (though not all) media reports and editorials have, and continue to, extrapolate her findings as if they were representative of all UNC student-athletes. Willingham's own words, in her declaration in the Ed O'Bannon's suit against the NCAA, are ambiguous in a way that suggests even she tends to gloss over the distinction between inferential and descriptive analyses. This has been a critical error, in my opinion, in the contest for public opinion; and her failure to correct that error, silently allowing journalists to propagate such a key misconception, has caused many UNC student-athletes -- some of whom are already sensitive in the struggle to overcome the "dumb jock" stereotype," -- to feel stigmatized by her claims when, in fact, they should have no reason to be.
Finally, I do not apologize for calling Ms. Willingham to task for failing to defend her literacy findings with even a rudimentary technical explanation of how she derived her figures from the data collected. Instead, she has been strangely reticent about engaging in any technical discussion on the subject, only asserting by declaration, that she "stands by" her data and that her figures are "100% correct." Given that UNC officials have taken great strides to rebut and refute her claims, I think it behooves her to at least present a simplified defense of her study. Though the 3rd party reviewers who were contracted by UNC may have been intentionally limited by UNC's calculated narrow-scoping of their contract and the data they were asked to review, I don't believe that relieves Willingham from the onus of explaining her analysis methodology. Her blog response, in my opinion, was disappointing. Her loyal defenders may be able to take her claims on faith, but I can't.
In light of the foregoing, then, what in the world is it that I AM I apologizing for?
Well; after the Wainstein Report was published, some suggested that the University owed Willingham an apology for its poor treatment of her, feeling that the Report was vindication of what Willingham has been saying all along. I'd been vocal in objecting to the linkage of any apology talk with the whole literacy debate. In my view, the Wainstein Report hadn't vindicated her on that score, so if she didn't merit an apology for the truculent manner in which the University treated her over the literacy issue before Wainstein, it wasn't warranted now, in the wake of Wainstein, either.
I would still maintain that what the Wainstein Report addressed had nothing to do with the veracity of her literacy claims, but the difference is that my opinion has evolved such that I now believe Willingham did merit an apology from the University for the way it reacted and responded to that literacy squabble even before the Wainstein Report, and I, for one, am apologizing now for ever actively resisting that.
What changed my mind? Why should the University apologize, particularly if I'm allowing for justification of the harsh criticisms outlined above?
I stepped back this past weekend and took a close look at what, precisely, it might have been about Willingham's nationally broadcast claims that would bother UNC officials and proud supporters enough to throw down the gloves. Mary had been citing those figures for at least a year before the CNN story. Why the indignation only after a spurned and frustrated Willingham took them public?
Mary is guilty of a few "sins" that I can understand would raise the hackles of UNC loyalists and serve as obstacles to conceding any apology is due. As I outlined above, she disparages student-athletes with the way she has articulated her literacy claims. Her allegations are laden with unverifiable anecdotes. She resorts to sound bites with attention-drawing hyperbole. Her "research" study lacked rigor and was more accurately an analysis of existing data rather than a true research project. Not to mention her lax handling of privacy-protected data; clumsiness with the Institutional Review Board procedures; not being forthright in defending her calculations...yada yada.
But then why would I conclude that UNC has been in the wrong in how they've attempted to refute her claims, in both manner and tenor? To answer that, first recall what it was Mary claimed that caused so much offense. Paraphrasing:
What about that was the "travesty" that Provost James W. Dean spoke of in a presentation to faculty in responding to the CNN report and Willingham's literacy figures?
What UNC wound up publicly contested and condemning was the accuracy of Willingham's quantified literacy conclusions, stated in terms of grade-equivalency figures. The focal point of their rebuttal was mainly about challenging how she'd grossly erred in her calculated elementary school-equivalent reading proficiency. Was that the real "travesty?"
Let's replace that offending metric with something less quantifiable:
Without the controversial and sensation-invoking element of grade-equivalent reading levels, does the thrust of her message change? Would UNC and its advocates still feel hostile toward her for those declarations?
What difference did her citing grade-equivalent reading levels make other than to provoke a sense of stigma and outrage? Her citing calculated figures gave her claims an air of empiricism, which gave them more impact. It's more emotionally galling to claim students admitted to a college are reading at an elementary school level than to say they are at a gross disadvantage in their ability to tackle college-level reading. UNC, rather than acknowledging the issue, sought to deflate the embarrassing claim by debunking the supposed empirical measurement. UNC has managed to -- so far, anyway, since Willingham has chosen not to defend her metrics -- refute her reading level specifics; but what it hasn't done is refute the claim that a small but significant number of academically challenged student-athletes had been admitted to UNC during the time frame in question, and yet had somehow managed to navigate an academic curriculum of the rigor of UNC without academic casualty.
What number of student-athletes are we talking? What constitutes a "travesty?"
60% of 182 is 109. And that's over a nine year period, from 2004 to 2012, accounting for about 12 per year. Her lower reading proficiency category was 8-10% of 182 equates to around 14 to 18 over the same period, or about 2 per year. It's a small number relative to the whole student-athlete population, but the heavy representation within that number of athletes playing in the revenue sports is what makes it significant.
Remember, this tested sample group wasn't randomly selected. It was specifically focused on those who had verbal or writing scores on admissions tests below a threshold such that they were required to attend a "remedial" writing English course during the Summer session prior to their freshman year. (Note: defenders bristle at the characterization of the class as "remedial" but I consider that a semantic game. The course was prescribed only for those for whom writing skills were predicted to inadequate for UNC -- that's remediation even if you don't call it that officially.) Given that that threshold ranged in the 460-470 range on the SAT verbal section, and that all of UNC's special committee admits were in that category, does it really come as a shock that a majority of that particular grouping (60%) could be assessed with reading/writing deficiencies sufficient to put them at risk in a college-level curriculum?
The hand-wringing over the "3rd grade" and "illiterate" adjectives was a distraction, making the atmosphere ripe for indignant rhetoric meant to obscure Willingham's real message and undermine her credibility on all matters, not just her supposedly flawed grade-level calculations. To be sure, Ms. Willingham didn't help her cause by saying UNC "might as well go down to Glenwood Elementary and let in all the 4th graders." That was belittling and an exaggeration, and though intended to embarrass the UNC administration and, after a year or more of UNC stonewalling, to finally goad UNC into reacting to the campaign she'd been waging internally at UNC for 2-3 years, it also offended many who felt stung and insulted, either directly or vicariously.
The objections of UNC defenders fixates on a nonessential particular rather than the essence of what Willingham is saying. Willingham's particulars may very well be flawed, but the essence seems intuitively correct to me, even without a study or research project. It stands to reason that if you're going to admit student-athletes that require such special consideration to waive minimum admissions standards, those students cannot be expected to be adequately equipped to handle and survive collegiate level work, thus requiring more than token special handling.
The nature of the "special handling" of ill-equipped students admitted for their athletic prowess is at the heart of the debate. A positive and constructive approach might involve dedicated remediation beyond a single prerequisite English course; certainly addressing diagnosed learning disabilities; perhaps tailoring curriculum not by diluting it but instead maintaining actual educational merit. It might even involve suspension of athletic pursuits until that academic challenge is mitigated.
Or, sadly, it can take the form of corner cutting in the educational mission, which is what happened at UNC.
So in summary...
I extend a personal apology to Mary Willingham for vociferously disputing that she is owed any apology at all from her most ardent critics, particularly the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and some of its faculty and administrators.
I recognize that that's a rather recursive apology. Can one apologize for having resisted calling for an apology? Given that I've been critical of both antagonists AND defenders of UNC in this matter, I felt I needed to say it, even if only to myself. I honestly doubt she'll care, and I know for certain both her detractors and defenders will be unmoved by anything I've written here.
If you didn't mean to reach this page or have decided you'd rather not wade through my drivel, I invite you to leave now, but do so by way of a link to a fascinating and talented musical artist, Sarah Jarosz. My recommendation has nothing to do with anything else on this blog. I'm just a fan.
This apology is not likely to appease anybody in the polarizing scandal at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). Nevertheless, I'm thinking I owe Mary Willingham an apology for some things I've said or written recently. Defenders of UNC athletics won't like it because they consider Willingham a pariah who deserves nothing but scorn and certainly not warranting any apology whatsoever. Conversely, UNC antagonists are protective of Willingham and won't like the form my apology takes because it's diluted and still accompanied by pointed criticisms which, to them, are just an annoying attempt by me to appear "balanced."
So first, allow me to say what is not included in this apology.
I don't apologize for my criticisms over how Ms. Willingham chose to articulate her literacy claims when she was highlighted in a CNN expose' by Sara Ganim. In that piece, originally aired on January 7th, 2014, and in many interviews, articles and comments since, Willingham has been indelicate and tactless in claiming literacy levels among the "for profit" student-athletes at UNC that were too low for college-level demands. Whether true or not, she seems out of touch with how insensitive to the hyperbolic manner in which she described the situation and how it could (and has been) be perceived as disparaging to the very constituency for whom she claims to advocate.
Neither do I feel regret for criticism I've lodged regarding her failure to make clear that her claimed findings were a descriptive analysis of a specific, small and non-random sample set. I know she knows that her findings should not be interpreted to infer anything about student-athletes outside of the tested group; yet many (though not all) media reports and editorials have, and continue to, extrapolate her findings as if they were representative of all UNC student-athletes. Willingham's own words, in her declaration in the Ed O'Bannon's suit against the NCAA, are ambiguous in a way that suggests even she tends to gloss over the distinction between inferential and descriptive analyses. This has been a critical error, in my opinion, in the contest for public opinion; and her failure to correct that error, silently allowing journalists to propagate such a key misconception, has caused many UNC student-athletes -- some of whom are already sensitive in the struggle to overcome the "dumb jock" stereotype," -- to feel stigmatized by her claims when, in fact, they should have no reason to be.
Finally, I do not apologize for calling Ms. Willingham to task for failing to defend her literacy findings with even a rudimentary technical explanation of how she derived her figures from the data collected. Instead, she has been strangely reticent about engaging in any technical discussion on the subject, only asserting by declaration, that she "stands by" her data and that her figures are "100% correct." Given that UNC officials have taken great strides to rebut and refute her claims, I think it behooves her to at least present a simplified defense of her study. Though the 3rd party reviewers who were contracted by UNC may have been intentionally limited by UNC's calculated narrow-scoping of their contract and the data they were asked to review, I don't believe that relieves Willingham from the onus of explaining her analysis methodology. Her blog response, in my opinion, was disappointing. Her loyal defenders may be able to take her claims on faith, but I can't.
In light of the foregoing, then, what in the world is it that I AM I apologizing for?
Well; after the Wainstein Report was published, some suggested that the University owed Willingham an apology for its poor treatment of her, feeling that the Report was vindication of what Willingham has been saying all along. I'd been vocal in objecting to the linkage of any apology talk with the whole literacy debate. In my view, the Wainstein Report hadn't vindicated her on that score, so if she didn't merit an apology for the truculent manner in which the University treated her over the literacy issue before Wainstein, it wasn't warranted now, in the wake of Wainstein, either.
I would still maintain that what the Wainstein Report addressed had nothing to do with the veracity of her literacy claims, but the difference is that my opinion has evolved such that I now believe Willingham did merit an apology from the University for the way it reacted and responded to that literacy squabble even before the Wainstein Report, and I, for one, am apologizing now for ever actively resisting that.
What changed my mind? Why should the University apologize, particularly if I'm allowing for justification of the harsh criticisms outlined above?
I stepped back this past weekend and took a close look at what, precisely, it might have been about Willingham's nationally broadcast claims that would bother UNC officials and proud supporters enough to throw down the gloves. Mary had been citing those figures for at least a year before the CNN story. Why the indignation only after a spurned and frustrated Willingham took them public?
Mary is guilty of a few "sins" that I can understand would raise the hackles of UNC loyalists and serve as obstacles to conceding any apology is due. As I outlined above, she disparages student-athletes with the way she has articulated her literacy claims. Her allegations are laden with unverifiable anecdotes. She resorts to sound bites with attention-drawing hyperbole. Her "research" study lacked rigor and was more accurately an analysis of existing data rather than a true research project. Not to mention her lax handling of privacy-protected data; clumsiness with the Institutional Review Board procedures; not being forthright in defending her calculations...yada yada.
But then why would I conclude that UNC has been in the wrong in how they've attempted to refute her claims, in both manner and tenor? To answer that, first recall what it was Mary claimed that caused so much offense. Paraphrasing:
60% of her sample group of 182 revenue sport student-athletes were assessed as having a reading proficiency level equivalent to 4th to 8th grade. Additionally, 8-10% more had reading proficiency levels of 3rd-grade equivalency or below.
What about that was the "travesty" that Provost James W. Dean spoke of in a presentation to faculty in responding to the CNN report and Willingham's literacy figures?
What UNC wound up publicly contested and condemning was the accuracy of Willingham's quantified literacy conclusions, stated in terms of grade-equivalency figures. The focal point of their rebuttal was mainly about challenging how she'd grossly erred in her calculated elementary school-equivalent reading proficiency. Was that the real "travesty?"
Let's replace that offending metric with something less quantifiable:
60% of her sample group of 182 revenue sport student-athletes were assessed as having reading proficiency levels well below what can be considered college-ready. Additionally, 8-10% more had reading proficiency levels so low that significant remediation would be required before pursuing an undergraduate curriculum.
Without the controversial and sensation-invoking element of grade-equivalent reading levels, does the thrust of her message change? Would UNC and its advocates still feel hostile toward her for those declarations?
What difference did her citing grade-equivalent reading levels make other than to provoke a sense of stigma and outrage? Her citing calculated figures gave her claims an air of empiricism, which gave them more impact. It's more emotionally galling to claim students admitted to a college are reading at an elementary school level than to say they are at a gross disadvantage in their ability to tackle college-level reading. UNC, rather than acknowledging the issue, sought to deflate the embarrassing claim by debunking the supposed empirical measurement. UNC has managed to -- so far, anyway, since Willingham has chosen not to defend her metrics -- refute her reading level specifics; but what it hasn't done is refute the claim that a small but significant number of academically challenged student-athletes had been admitted to UNC during the time frame in question, and yet had somehow managed to navigate an academic curriculum of the rigor of UNC without academic casualty.
What number of student-athletes are we talking? What constitutes a "travesty?"
60% of 182 is 109. And that's over a nine year period, from 2004 to 2012, accounting for about 12 per year. Her lower reading proficiency category was 8-10% of 182 equates to around 14 to 18 over the same period, or about 2 per year. It's a small number relative to the whole student-athlete population, but the heavy representation within that number of athletes playing in the revenue sports is what makes it significant.
Remember, this tested sample group wasn't randomly selected. It was specifically focused on those who had verbal or writing scores on admissions tests below a threshold such that they were required to attend a "remedial" writing English course during the Summer session prior to their freshman year. (Note: defenders bristle at the characterization of the class as "remedial" but I consider that a semantic game. The course was prescribed only for those for whom writing skills were predicted to inadequate for UNC -- that's remediation even if you don't call it that officially.) Given that that threshold ranged in the 460-470 range on the SAT verbal section, and that all of UNC's special committee admits were in that category, does it really come as a shock that a majority of that particular grouping (60%) could be assessed with reading/writing deficiencies sufficient to put them at risk in a college-level curriculum?
The hand-wringing over the "3rd grade" and "illiterate" adjectives was a distraction, making the atmosphere ripe for indignant rhetoric meant to obscure Willingham's real message and undermine her credibility on all matters, not just her supposedly flawed grade-level calculations. To be sure, Ms. Willingham didn't help her cause by saying UNC "might as well go down to Glenwood Elementary and let in all the 4th graders." That was belittling and an exaggeration, and though intended to embarrass the UNC administration and, after a year or more of UNC stonewalling, to finally goad UNC into reacting to the campaign she'd been waging internally at UNC for 2-3 years, it also offended many who felt stung and insulted, either directly or vicariously.
The objections of UNC defenders fixates on a nonessential particular rather than the essence of what Willingham is saying. Willingham's particulars may very well be flawed, but the essence seems intuitively correct to me, even without a study or research project. It stands to reason that if you're going to admit student-athletes that require such special consideration to waive minimum admissions standards, those students cannot be expected to be adequately equipped to handle and survive collegiate level work, thus requiring more than token special handling.
The nature of the "special handling" of ill-equipped students admitted for their athletic prowess is at the heart of the debate. A positive and constructive approach might involve dedicated remediation beyond a single prerequisite English course; certainly addressing diagnosed learning disabilities; perhaps tailoring curriculum not by diluting it but instead maintaining actual educational merit. It might even involve suspension of athletic pursuits until that academic challenge is mitigated.
Or, sadly, it can take the form of corner cutting in the educational mission, which is what happened at UNC.
So in summary...
I extend a personal apology to Mary Willingham for vociferously disputing that she is owed any apology at all from her most ardent critics, particularly the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and some of its faculty and administrators.
I recognize that that's a rather recursive apology. Can one apologize for having resisted calling for an apology? Given that I've been critical of both antagonists AND defenders of UNC in this matter, I felt I needed to say it, even if only to myself. I honestly doubt she'll care, and I know for certain both her detractors and defenders will be unmoved by anything I've written here.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Exam Results
The results are in, and I am now certified to comment on the Wainstein Report. Checking my answers against the answer key reveals I scored 32 for 35, or 91%. A score of 30/35 was required to pass.
I was docked 3 points for the three questions I intentionally left blank; but I was able to answer the remaining 32 questions without too much complaint, leaving myself enough of a buffer to stay above the threshold needed to avoid having to "sit down and shut up."
Even though the exam was rhetorical -- and super easy since reference citations were supplied -- it was a good exercise in that it encouraged the test taker to look more closely at the Report and consider its content and composition more carefully than one might otherwise. Mr. Bethel might consider reviewing my commented notes - which are also obviously of a rhetorical nature -- though I'm not optimistic he will ponder them as seriously as I did his exam.
I noticed that the edited exam page with answers moved the question about what prompted UNC to contract Wainstein to conduct an investigation from it's original placement as Question #2 to Question #17, shifting all of the intervening questions up by one. Not sure why that happened other than maybe Mr. Bethel felt it better fit the flow of the narrative the exam was intending to convey.
Despite my critique of the exam, I enjoyed it; and with tongue planted firmly in cheek, I will display my certification proudly.
I was docked 3 points for the three questions I intentionally left blank; but I was able to answer the remaining 32 questions without too much complaint, leaving myself enough of a buffer to stay above the threshold needed to avoid having to "sit down and shut up."
Even though the exam was rhetorical -- and super easy since reference citations were supplied -- it was a good exercise in that it encouraged the test taker to look more closely at the Report and consider its content and composition more carefully than one might otherwise. Mr. Bethel might consider reviewing my commented notes - which are also obviously of a rhetorical nature -- though I'm not optimistic he will ponder them as seriously as I did his exam.
I noticed that the edited exam page with answers moved the question about what prompted UNC to contract Wainstein to conduct an investigation from it's original placement as Question #2 to Question #17, shifting all of the intervening questions up by one. Not sure why that happened other than maybe Mr. Bethel felt it better fit the flow of the narrative the exam was intending to convey.
Despite my critique of the exam, I enjoyed it; and with tongue planted firmly in cheek, I will display my certification proudly.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Certification to Comment on Wainstein Report
Coaching the Mind has published a 35-question test that Bradley Bethel claims will "demonstrate sufficient knowledge to offer informed opinions" on the Wainstein Report. Since I do intend to continue to offer commentary and analysis of any issues relating to the UNC scandal, I figured I'd better submit my answers and, if able, obtain that Bethel Seal of Approval. I certainly don't want to be lumped together with Pat Forde, Paul Barrett, Dan Kane or any of the rest of sensational media types.
So, here we go.
Q1: What were the "paper classes" at the center of the UNC scandal that Kenneth Wainstein investigated?
Answer: (C) Classes that were conducted by a department student services manager and for which students had no interaction with a faculty member but were required to submit a lengthy research paper that was graded leniently (Wainstein, p. 1)
Comment: Could not find any reference in the Report specifying that paper requirement was that it be "lengthy."
Q2: What prompted UNC to retain Wainstein to investigate the paper classes?
Answer: (A) Deborah Crowder's willingness to speak about the paper classes for the first time (p. 2)
Comment: More accurately, it was the conclusion of the State Bureau of Investigation's criminal investigation which would provide access to both Ms. Crowder and information obtained from the investigation. (ps. 2 & 7)
Q3: In which department were the paper classes offered?
Answer: (A) African and Afro-American Studies (p.1)
Comment: The Wainstein investigation was scoped to look at that department specifically. It does not logically follow that the technique didn't exist in other departments, though no evidence to date supports that suspicion.
Q4: Who was the person who conducted the paper classes?
Answer: (A) Deborah Crowder (p. 1)
Comment: None
Q5: Who was the department chair?
Answer: (C) Julius Nyang'oro (p.1)
Comment: None
Q6: When were the paper classes offered?
Answer: (B) 1993-2011 (p.3)
Comment: As with Q3, the investigation was tasked with examining this date range. It is an incorrect assumption to conclude that the scheme was bound by these dates, though, again, no evidence has been proffered otherwise, to date.
Q7: What was the primary reason the paper classes were offered?
Answer: (C) The person conducting the paper classes was "passionate about helping struggling students of all kinds" (p. 14)
Comment: (C) is the answer that Nyang'oro and Crowder gave to investigators as to the primary reason the paper classes were offered. To better reflect the content of the referenced passage, and more accurately test for a careful reading of the report, the answer should include two elements: (1) she was "passionate about helping struggling students of all kinds, " and (2) her love for Chapel Hill athletics. (p. 44)
Q8: What percentage of enrollments in the paper classes were athletes?
Answer: (A) 47.4% (p. 3)
Comment: None
Q9: A previous investigation identified a similar percentage of athlete enrollments and revealed that the percentage was consistent with other cluster groupings of classes that fit conveniently into athletes' schedules. The Wainstein Report also provides that context so that readers can develop a comprehensive understanding of athletes' experience scheduling classes.
Answer: (F) False
Comment: This question is problematic because it is apparently rhetorical, posed to test for knowledge of the absence of subject matter from the report, the inclusion of which would be an editorial decision.
Q10: Which students received grades or grade changes for paper classes without completing any work?
Answer: (B) No students: Wainstein found "abundant evidence" that grades were only awarded after students submitted their papers (p. 39).
Comment: Equating "work," as the question is posed, with "papers," as provided in option (B), is an editorial insertion not found in the Report. Based on evidence found in the supplemental materials, there is sufficient suspicion that some submitted papers required little or no work. Recommend rephrasing the question to replace "completing any work" with "submitting a paper" to be consistent with the Report.
Q11: Which administrators and staff outside of the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) and Athletics had at least some knowledge of the paper classes?
Answer: (A) An advisor, an assistant dean, and an associate dean in the Steele Building, coordinators in the Carolina Covenant and the Moorehead-Cain programs, and the Senior Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education Bobbie Owen (p. 68)
Comment: Doesn't impact the answer, but recommend replacing the phrasing "outside of" in the question with "besides" and add comma punctuation to resolve potential ambiguity. As currently written, it could be interpreted that ASPSA and Athletics are excluded from having had knowledge of paper classes when, according to the report, members of ASPSA and athletics did possess "at least some knowledge."
Q12: When did Owen learn that Nyang'oro was the instructor of record for more than 300 independent studies in a single year?
Answer: (A) 2005 or 2006 (p. 21)
Comment: None
Q13: What was Owen's response when she learned about the impossible number of independent studies listed for Nyang'oro?
Answer: (A) She merely directed him to reduce the numbers (p. 21).
Comment: None
Q14: What concerns regarding Nyang'oro did Associate Dean Carolyn Cannon bring to Owen's attention?
Answer: (A) An inordinate number of grade changes were occurring in his department, and there were discrepancies between signatures on the grade forms (p. 69).
Comment: None
Q15: What was Owen's response to Cannon's concerns?
Answer: (A) She merely directed Nyang'oro to submit an exemplar of his signature (p. 69).
Comment: None
Q16: Who approached Owen with questions about the propriety of the paper classes?
Answer: (C) Senior Associate Athletics Director John Blanchard (p. 104)
Comment: No issues, as long as the report's phrasing "lecture courses that were reportedly being conducted as independent studies" from the report is synonymous with "paper classes" articulated in the question.
Q17: What was Owen's response to questions about the propriety of the paper classes?
Answer: (A) She explained that professors can teach however they choose to teach (p. 104).
Comment: None
Q18: In Fall 2011, Dean Karen Gill charged Senior Associate Deans Jonathan Hartlyn and William Andrews to investigate the paper classes. Shortly thereafter, Gill charged Owen to lead a task force to examine the use of independent studies. For both reports, each released on May 2, 2012, Owen revealed what she knew about the paper classes.
Answer: (F) False
Comment: Recommend removing reference to the Independent Task Force directed by Dean Gil (single "L") since its scope was to examine University then-current independent study course policies and practices. It also wasn't tasked with looking at "lecture courses that were reportedly being conducted as independent studies" or any other classes with the signature characteristics of a "paper course."
Q19: In an email sent to Blanchard on July 20, 2006, what reasons did ASPSA Director Robert Mercer give for not feeling compelled to question the paper classes further?
Answer: (A) Athletics does not have authority to challenge classes available to all students, and "time is better spent working with faculty and administration to ensure our student-athletes are having a quality educational experience (learning, improving skills, preparing for whatever comes after college)."
Comment: Certain that (A) is correct, but could not find source email. Please provide a citation.
Q20: How did ASPSA counselor Jaimie Lee perceive the paper classes?
Answer: (C) As an "opportunity to work on the building blocks of a research paper, such as how to write a thesis statement, how to create an abstract, how to conduct research, and ultimately, how to do critical analysis" (p. 119)
Comment: None
Q21: How did ASPSA counselor Wayne Walden perceive the paper classes?
Answer: (C) "Walden was aware of the paper classes and thought they had been approved by the University because they were open to all students. Walden said that he tried to limit the number of enrollments in the paper classes for the students [Coach] Williams recruited. He explained that he wanted to avoid developing a culture that depended on these classes, preferring the structure of a regular lecture course" (p. 122).
Comment: None
Q22: How many years after the paper classes started did ASPSA counselor Brent Blanton begin working at UNC?
Answer: (C) 12 (p. 117)
Comment: None
Q23: How many years after the paper classes started did ASPSA counselor Beth Bridger begin working at UNC?
Answer: (C) 13 (p. 118)
Comment: None
Q24: How many years after the paper classes started did [Jamie] Lee begin working at UNC?
Answer: (C) 13 (p. 119)
Comment: None
Q25: How many years after the paper classes started did ASPSA counselor Walden begin working at UNC?
Answer: (C) 10 (p. 122)
Comment: None
Q26: What part-time counselor and respected figure regularly referred athletes to the paper classes, giving other counselors the impression the paper classes were legitimate?
Answer: (A) Director of the Parr Center for Ethics and eventual Chair of the Faculty Council Jan Boxill
Comment: Could not find reference in the Report suggesting that Boxill's practice gave other counselor's the impression the paper classes were legitimate. Is this an interpretation?
Q27: On p. 4, Wainstein states that "several" ASPSA tutors provided impermissible assistance to athletes with paper-class papers. How many is "several"?
Answer: (A) 3 (p. 56)
Comment: 3 of 9 falls within the definition of several.
Q28: On p. 39, Wainstein states that two counselors regularly contacted Crowder and Nyang'oro to "request" certain grades for athletes, but on p. 67 he states that those two counselors only "suggested" grades for athletes. Regardless of the discrepancy, which two counselors were they?
Answer: (A) Boxill and Cynthia Reynolds
Comment: Suggest removing the phrase "regardless of the discrepancy" since it is superfluous to the question. Given that the semantic differences aren't sufficient to represent a discrepancy, please remove the phrase "regardless of the discrepancy." (See what I did there?)
Q29: On p. 42, Wainstein quotes an email from an ASPSA staff member who jested that paper-class papers were more like middle school reports than college papers. Wainstein then writes, "This one comment speaks volumes about the low expectations placed on the players." What do the actual volumes of tutor summary forms reveal about ASPSA's approach to tutoring athletes in the paper classes?
Answer: (A) That ASPA staff collectively and earnestly attempted to teach athletes the "building blocks of a research paper, such as how to write a thesis statement, how to create an abstract, how to conduct research, and ultimately, how to do critical analysis" (p. 119)
Comment: Beside the fact that a case could be made for the absence of inconsistency between these two pieces of evidence, this question asks for a subjective assessment, expecting the test taker to balance documentary evidence versus interview testimony. Some may consider the former to be more candid and thus more trustworthy making the answer more a matter of opinion than a matter of fact.
Q30: On p. 67, Wainstein states that "counselors often steered players toward AFAM majors." What evidence does he provide to support that claim?
Answer: Intentionally left blank
Comment: Opted not to answer since none of the provided choices offers an accurate enough answer to qualify for "best." This question would be more suitable to a short answer or essay test format, but like the previous question, it leans more toward subjective rather than objective assessment.
Q31: Between 1999 and 2011, there were 963 enrollments of football players in the paper classes. How many football players did Wainstein interview to learn about football players' experiences enrolling in paper classes?
Answer: (A) 4 (p. 47)
Comment: None
Q32: During the two years following Crowder's retirement, how many paper classes did Nyang'oro offer?
Answer: (A) 6 (p. 23)
Comment: None
Q33: On p. 2, Wainstein states that Nyang'oro offered those six classes after Crowder's retirement "at the request of ASPSA football counselors." On p. 4, Wainstein states that those football counselors "undertook an effort to persuade Nyang'oro to continue the paper classes." On p. 23, Wainstein states that Lee "lobbied Nyang'oro to offer certain paper classes." On p. 44, Wainstein contends there was a "demonstrably concerted effort by the counselors to have Lee persuade Nyang'oro to continue the [paper] classes after Crowder's retirement, an effort that is clearly laid out in the email traffic between them." What does that email traffic actually reveal?
Answer: Intentionally left blank
Comment: None of the provided options are correct. Suggest/request a fourth option, either supplying the actual answer or "none of the above."
Q34: On p. 23, Wainstein states that Bridger "seized" on the idea of Lee's establishing a relationship with Nyang'oro, insinuating that establishing a professional relationship with a professor was out of the ordinary for the counselors. How does Wainstein support his insinuation?
Answer: Intentionally left blank
Comment: See comment for Q33. The last two questions are geared toward opinion and not testing understanding of facts. Remember what the stated mission of this test is.
Q35: On p. 64, Wainstein contends that Reynolds, Bridger, and Lee were "aware of every irregular aspect of these paper classes." What evidence does he provide to demonstrate that Bridger and Lee were aware Crowder was conducting the paper classes without Nyang'oro's approval and supervision?
Answer: (C) No evidence...
Comment: None of the available answer options are suitable choices, but (C) is the best of 3 flawed options because it does offer some valid evidence, albeit loaded to reflect an arguable position. The answer should be left blank until a revision can be completed, but here I've chosen (C) only for the purpose of scoring so as to achieve a certifying score, particularly in light of having conceded 3 points previously.
Pencils down.
Edit: the Web form on the Coaching the Mind site would not allow submission with any answers left blank, so I had to intentionally choose incorrect answers for those several (or is it few?) questions I would have preferred to leave blank, just for the purposes of completion. I approached the bonus questions the same way, not desiring the fill them out but being required to by the test mechanism. In cases where I felt the question was loaded and the "correct" answer wrong, I intentionally chose wrong answers to simulate leaving them blank.
So, here we go.
Q1: What were the "paper classes" at the center of the UNC scandal that Kenneth Wainstein investigated?
Answer: (C) Classes that were conducted by a department student services manager and for which students had no interaction with a faculty member but were required to submit a lengthy research paper that was graded leniently (Wainstein, p. 1)
Comment: Could not find any reference in the Report specifying that paper requirement was that it be "lengthy."
Q2: What prompted UNC to retain Wainstein to investigate the paper classes?
Answer: (A) Deborah Crowder's willingness to speak about the paper classes for the first time (p. 2)
Comment: More accurately, it was the conclusion of the State Bureau of Investigation's criminal investigation which would provide access to both Ms. Crowder and information obtained from the investigation. (ps. 2 & 7)
Q3: In which department were the paper classes offered?
Answer: (A) African and Afro-American Studies (p.1)
Comment: The Wainstein investigation was scoped to look at that department specifically. It does not logically follow that the technique didn't exist in other departments, though no evidence to date supports that suspicion.
Q4: Who was the person who conducted the paper classes?
Answer: (A) Deborah Crowder (p. 1)
Comment: None
Q5: Who was the department chair?
Answer: (C) Julius Nyang'oro (p.1)
Comment: None
Q6: When were the paper classes offered?
Answer: (B) 1993-2011 (p.3)
Comment: As with Q3, the investigation was tasked with examining this date range. It is an incorrect assumption to conclude that the scheme was bound by these dates, though, again, no evidence has been proffered otherwise, to date.
Q7: What was the primary reason the paper classes were offered?
Answer: (C) The person conducting the paper classes was "passionate about helping struggling students of all kinds" (p. 14)
Comment: (C) is the answer that Nyang'oro and Crowder gave to investigators as to the primary reason the paper classes were offered. To better reflect the content of the referenced passage, and more accurately test for a careful reading of the report, the answer should include two elements: (1) she was "passionate about helping struggling students of all kinds, " and (2) her love for Chapel Hill athletics. (p. 44)
Q8: What percentage of enrollments in the paper classes were athletes?
Answer: (A) 47.4% (p. 3)
Comment: None
Q9: A previous investigation identified a similar percentage of athlete enrollments and revealed that the percentage was consistent with other cluster groupings of classes that fit conveniently into athletes' schedules. The Wainstein Report also provides that context so that readers can develop a comprehensive understanding of athletes' experience scheduling classes.
Answer: (F) False
Comment: This question is problematic because it is apparently rhetorical, posed to test for knowledge of the absence of subject matter from the report, the inclusion of which would be an editorial decision.
Q10: Which students received grades or grade changes for paper classes without completing any work?
Answer: (B) No students: Wainstein found "abundant evidence" that grades were only awarded after students submitted their papers (p. 39).
Comment: Equating "work," as the question is posed, with "papers," as provided in option (B), is an editorial insertion not found in the Report. Based on evidence found in the supplemental materials, there is sufficient suspicion that some submitted papers required little or no work. Recommend rephrasing the question to replace "completing any work" with "submitting a paper" to be consistent with the Report.
Q11: Which administrators and staff outside of the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) and Athletics had at least some knowledge of the paper classes?
Answer: (A) An advisor, an assistant dean, and an associate dean in the Steele Building, coordinators in the Carolina Covenant and the Moorehead-Cain programs, and the Senior Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education Bobbie Owen (p. 68)
Comment: Doesn't impact the answer, but recommend replacing the phrasing "outside of" in the question with "besides" and add comma punctuation to resolve potential ambiguity. As currently written, it could be interpreted that ASPSA and Athletics are excluded from having had knowledge of paper classes when, according to the report, members of ASPSA and athletics did possess "at least some knowledge."
Q12: When did Owen learn that Nyang'oro was the instructor of record for more than 300 independent studies in a single year?
Answer: (A) 2005 or 2006 (p. 21)
Comment: None
Q13: What was Owen's response when she learned about the impossible number of independent studies listed for Nyang'oro?
Answer: (A) She merely directed him to reduce the numbers (p. 21).
Comment: None
Q14: What concerns regarding Nyang'oro did Associate Dean Carolyn Cannon bring to Owen's attention?
Answer: (A) An inordinate number of grade changes were occurring in his department, and there were discrepancies between signatures on the grade forms (p. 69).
Comment: None
Q15: What was Owen's response to Cannon's concerns?
Answer: (A) She merely directed Nyang'oro to submit an exemplar of his signature (p. 69).
Comment: None
Q16: Who approached Owen with questions about the propriety of the paper classes?
Answer: (C) Senior Associate Athletics Director John Blanchard (p. 104)
Comment: No issues, as long as the report's phrasing "lecture courses that were reportedly being conducted as independent studies" from the report is synonymous with "paper classes" articulated in the question.
Q17: What was Owen's response to questions about the propriety of the paper classes?
Answer: (A) She explained that professors can teach however they choose to teach (p. 104).
Comment: None
Q18: In Fall 2011, Dean Karen Gill charged Senior Associate Deans Jonathan Hartlyn and William Andrews to investigate the paper classes. Shortly thereafter, Gill charged Owen to lead a task force to examine the use of independent studies. For both reports, each released on May 2, 2012, Owen revealed what she knew about the paper classes.
Answer: (F) False
Comment: Recommend removing reference to the Independent Task Force directed by Dean Gil (single "L") since its scope was to examine University then-current independent study course policies and practices. It also wasn't tasked with looking at "lecture courses that were reportedly being conducted as independent studies" or any other classes with the signature characteristics of a "paper course."
Q19: In an email sent to Blanchard on July 20, 2006, what reasons did ASPSA Director Robert Mercer give for not feeling compelled to question the paper classes further?
Answer: (A) Athletics does not have authority to challenge classes available to all students, and "time is better spent working with faculty and administration to ensure our student-athletes are having a quality educational experience (learning, improving skills, preparing for whatever comes after college)."
Comment: Certain that (A) is correct, but could not find source email. Please provide a citation.
Q20: How did ASPSA counselor Jaimie Lee perceive the paper classes?
Answer: (C) As an "opportunity to work on the building blocks of a research paper, such as how to write a thesis statement, how to create an abstract, how to conduct research, and ultimately, how to do critical analysis" (p. 119)
Comment: None
Q21: How did ASPSA counselor Wayne Walden perceive the paper classes?
Answer: (C) "Walden was aware of the paper classes and thought they had been approved by the University because they were open to all students. Walden said that he tried to limit the number of enrollments in the paper classes for the students [Coach] Williams recruited. He explained that he wanted to avoid developing a culture that depended on these classes, preferring the structure of a regular lecture course" (p. 122).
Comment: None
Q22: How many years after the paper classes started did ASPSA counselor Brent Blanton begin working at UNC?
Answer: (C) 12 (p. 117)
Comment: None
Q23: How many years after the paper classes started did ASPSA counselor Beth Bridger begin working at UNC?
Answer: (C) 13 (p. 118)
Comment: None
Q24: How many years after the paper classes started did [Jamie] Lee begin working at UNC?
Answer: (C) 13 (p. 119)
Comment: None
Q25: How many years after the paper classes started did ASPSA counselor Walden begin working at UNC?
Answer: (C) 10 (p. 122)
Comment: None
Q26: What part-time counselor and respected figure regularly referred athletes to the paper classes, giving other counselors the impression the paper classes were legitimate?
Answer: (A) Director of the Parr Center for Ethics and eventual Chair of the Faculty Council Jan Boxill
Comment: Could not find reference in the Report suggesting that Boxill's practice gave other counselor's the impression the paper classes were legitimate. Is this an interpretation?
Q27: On p. 4, Wainstein states that "several" ASPSA tutors provided impermissible assistance to athletes with paper-class papers. How many is "several"?
Answer: (A) 3 (p. 56)
Comment: 3 of 9 falls within the definition of several.
Q28: On p. 39, Wainstein states that two counselors regularly contacted Crowder and Nyang'oro to "request" certain grades for athletes, but on p. 67 he states that those two counselors only "suggested" grades for athletes. Regardless of the discrepancy, which two counselors were they?
Answer: (A) Boxill and Cynthia Reynolds
Comment: Suggest removing the phrase "regardless of the discrepancy" since it is superfluous to the question. Given that the semantic differences aren't sufficient to represent a discrepancy, please remove the phrase "regardless of the discrepancy." (See what I did there?)
Q29: On p. 42, Wainstein quotes an email from an ASPSA staff member who jested that paper-class papers were more like middle school reports than college papers. Wainstein then writes, "This one comment speaks volumes about the low expectations placed on the players." What do the actual volumes of tutor summary forms reveal about ASPSA's approach to tutoring athletes in the paper classes?
Answer: (A) That ASPA staff collectively and earnestly attempted to teach athletes the "building blocks of a research paper, such as how to write a thesis statement, how to create an abstract, how to conduct research, and ultimately, how to do critical analysis" (p. 119)
Comment: Beside the fact that a case could be made for the absence of inconsistency between these two pieces of evidence, this question asks for a subjective assessment, expecting the test taker to balance documentary evidence versus interview testimony. Some may consider the former to be more candid and thus more trustworthy making the answer more a matter of opinion than a matter of fact.
Q30: On p. 67, Wainstein states that "counselors often steered players toward AFAM majors." What evidence does he provide to support that claim?
Answer: Intentionally left blank
Comment: Opted not to answer since none of the provided choices offers an accurate enough answer to qualify for "best." This question would be more suitable to a short answer or essay test format, but like the previous question, it leans more toward subjective rather than objective assessment.
Q31: Between 1999 and 2011, there were 963 enrollments of football players in the paper classes. How many football players did Wainstein interview to learn about football players' experiences enrolling in paper classes?
Answer: (A) 4 (p. 47)
Comment: None
Q32: During the two years following Crowder's retirement, how many paper classes did Nyang'oro offer?
Answer: (A) 6 (p. 23)
Comment: None
Q33: On p. 2, Wainstein states that Nyang'oro offered those six classes after Crowder's retirement "at the request of ASPSA football counselors." On p. 4, Wainstein states that those football counselors "undertook an effort to persuade Nyang'oro to continue the paper classes." On p. 23, Wainstein states that Lee "lobbied Nyang'oro to offer certain paper classes." On p. 44, Wainstein contends there was a "demonstrably concerted effort by the counselors to have Lee persuade Nyang'oro to continue the [paper] classes after Crowder's retirement, an effort that is clearly laid out in the email traffic between them." What does that email traffic actually reveal?
Answer: Intentionally left blank
Comment: None of the provided options are correct. Suggest/request a fourth option, either supplying the actual answer or "none of the above."
Q34: On p. 23, Wainstein states that Bridger "seized" on the idea of Lee's establishing a relationship with Nyang'oro, insinuating that establishing a professional relationship with a professor was out of the ordinary for the counselors. How does Wainstein support his insinuation?
Answer: Intentionally left blank
Comment: See comment for Q33. The last two questions are geared toward opinion and not testing understanding of facts. Remember what the stated mission of this test is.
Q35: On p. 64, Wainstein contends that Reynolds, Bridger, and Lee were "aware of every irregular aspect of these paper classes." What evidence does he provide to demonstrate that Bridger and Lee were aware Crowder was conducting the paper classes without Nyang'oro's approval and supervision?
Answer: (C) No evidence...
Comment: None of the available answer options are suitable choices, but (C) is the best of 3 flawed options because it does offer some valid evidence, albeit loaded to reflect an arguable position. The answer should be left blank until a revision can be completed, but here I've chosen (C) only for the purpose of scoring so as to achieve a certifying score, particularly in light of having conceded 3 points previously.
Pencils down.
Edit: the Web form on the Coaching the Mind site would not allow submission with any answers left blank, so I had to intentionally choose incorrect answers for those several (or is it few?) questions I would have preferred to leave blank, just for the purposes of completion. I approached the bonus questions the same way, not desiring the fill them out but being required to by the test mechanism. In cases where I felt the question was loaded and the "correct" answer wrong, I intentionally chose wrong answers to simulate leaving them blank.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)