Table of Tables

Part I: Longitudinal Analysis for the 2005-2006 Cohort, Year 1 and 2: NESCAC vs. All CSP Institutions Table 1.1: Participating CSP Institutions, 2005-06 Cohort, Year 2………………………………………………....7 Figure 1.1: Percentile Class Rank by Gender and Athletic Status………………………………..…………...... …..9 Figure 1.2: Two-Year Comparison of Average Percentile Class Rank for Men’s Sports…………………….….....11 Figure 1.3: Two-Year Comparison of Average Percentile Class Rank for Women’s Sports………………….…....13 Figure 1.4: Two-Year Comparison of Percentage of Withdrawals…………………………………………….…...15 Figure 1.5: Differences in Average Percentile Class Rank Between Athletes and Non- Athletes………………………………………………………………………………………..…...... 17 Figure 1.6: Two-Year Comparison of Average Percentile Class Rank among Male and Female Athletes and Non-Athletes…………………………………………………………………...…..…..19 Background Information for Estimated Underperformance………………………………………………...... 21 Figure 1.7: Differences in GPA and Estimated Underperformance for Athletes and Non-Athletes By Gender………………………………………………………………………………………….…23

Part II: Overview of 2006-07 Entering Cohort: NESCAC vs. All CSP Institutions Table 2.1: Participating CSP Institutions, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1……………………………..………….……...27 Table 2.2: Overview of 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1…….…………………………………………………………….29 Figure 2.1: Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Distribution by Athletic Participation…………………………….……31 Figure 2.2: Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Distribution by Recruited Status……….……………………………....33 Figure 2.3: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for the First-Year College GPA……………………..………...35 Figure 2.4: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank by Athletic Participation and by Gender……………..……….37 Figure 2.5: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for Athletes by Recruited Status……………………..………..39 Figure 2.6: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for Men’s Teams……………………………………..………..41 Figure 2.7: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for Women’s Teams…………………………………..……….43 Figure 2.8: Comparison of Percentage of Withdrawals by Athletic Status………………….……………..……...45 Figure 2.9: Comparison of Average SATCR + SATM Scores (1600-Point Scale)………………………………...47 Figure 2.10: Comparison of Average HS Percentile Class Rank by Gender & Athletic Status…………………...49

Table of Tables (continued)

Part III: Overview of 2006-07 Entering Cohort: Hamilton College vs. NESCAC Table 3.1: Overview of 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1……………………………………………………..…………….53 Figure 3.1: Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Distribution by Athletic Participation…………………………….……55 Figure 3.2: Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Distribution by Recruited Status……….……………………………....57 Figure 3.3: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for the First-Year College GPA……………………..………...59 Figure 3.4: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank by Athletic Participation and by Gender……………..……….61 Figure 3.5: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for Athletes by Recruited Status……………………..………..63 Figure 3.6: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for Men’s Teams……………………………………..………..65 Figure 3.7: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for Women’s Teams…………………………………..……….67 Figure 3.8: Comparison of Percentage of Withdrawals by Athletic Status………………….……………..……...69 Figure 3.9: Comparison of Average SATCR and SATM Scores (1600-Point Scale)……………………..……….71 Figure 3.10: Comparison of Average HS Percentile Class Rank by Gender and Athletic Status…………...……..73

2 Introduction

This report provides an analysis of the data submitted to the College Sports Project between November 2007 and June 2008. It is divided into three parts. The first is an update on the 2005-06 cohort, which was first reported on last year. The update includes information about underperformance among athletes in their second year of enrollment. The second and third parts of the report provide initial information about a new cohort: those who initially enrolled in 2006-07.

3 4 Part I: Longitudinal Analysis for the 2005-2006 Cohort Year One and Year Two

5 Table 1.1 provides a list of all institutions that have submitted two years of data for the 2005-06 cohort. It also includes the number of students in the cohort who were enrolled at each institution for at least part of the second year. Complete data files were received from 77 institutions, with a total of nearly 42,000 students. Institutions that first joined the project this year and also provided the prior year’s data are shown in bold.

The data for this report were received between November 2007 and June 2008. Participating institutions submitted data electronically using a secure FTP site protecting both student and institutional confidentiality.

Three colleges, Cabrini, Lebanon Valley, and Lewis & Clark, discontinued participation in the project, but may re-join at a later date. Several additional institutions will be joining the next round of data collection, and will be asked to provide data for all previous years.

6 Table 1.1: Participating CSP Institutions, 2005-06 Cohort, Year 2, Continuing Students

# of # of # of Institution Name Students Institution Name Students Institution Name Students in Cohort in Cohort in Cohort Albion College 529 Haverford College 318 St. Lawrence University 549 Allegheny College 587 Hiram College 236 St. Olaf College 800 Amherst College 447 Hobart and William Smith Colleges 488 SUNY - New Paltz 1225 Austin College 364 Hope College 835 Susquehanna University 484 Bates College 517 Illinois College 226 Sweet Briar College 399 Beloit College 384 Illinois Wesleyan University 589 The University of Texas at Dallas 2081 Bowdoin College 478 Juniata College 417 Thomas More College 194 Bridgewater College 448 Kenyon College 425 Transylvania University 314 Bryn Mawr College 359 Lawrence University 430 Trinity College 581 California Institute of Technology 239 Lynchburg College 568 Trinity University 668 Carleton College 544 Macalester College 512 Tufts University 1393 Centre College 339 Middlebury College 646 Union College 592 Claremont McKenna College 307 Millsaps College 293 University of Minnesota Morris 385 Clark University 593 Moravian College 417 University of Puget Sound 758 Colby College 559 Mount Holyoke College 582 Ursinus College 414 College of Saint Benedict 559 Muhlenberg College 582 Vassar College 661 Connecticut College 505 Oberlin College 773 Washington & Jefferson College 367 Denison University 611 Occidental College 471 Washington and Lee University 488 Earlham College 346 Pomona College 387 Waynesburg College 326 Emory & Henry College 366 Rhodes College 460 Wellesley College 654 Franklin & Marshall College 606 Rockford College 278 Wesleyan University 762 Goucher College 384 Saint John’s University 438 Westminster College (MO) 265 Guilford College 416 Sewanee: The University of the South 415 Whitman College 391 Hamilton College 519 Skidmore College 732 Williams College 543 Hampden-Sydney College 319 Smith College 751 Wittenberg University 530 Hartwick College 419 Southwestern University 354

7 Figure 1.1 presents the percentile class rank for the cumulative GPA at the end of the first year and at the end of the second year, for athletes and non-athletes by gender. The percentile class rank re-expresses the GPA ranking on a scale from 0 to 100. A student group with a percentile class rank of 55, for example, has a group average GPA that is above the GPAs of 55% of students and below that of 45% of students in that institution’s cohort. In general, differences in the percentile class rank between the first and second year of college are modest.

The short line associated with each group represents the percentile class rank in Year 2 for all CSP participating institutions. The horizontal red and blue lines represent the average for all men and for all women at NESCAC.

8 Figure 1.1: Percentile Class Rank by Gender, Athletic Status, and Year NESCAC vs. All CSP Institutions, 2005-06 Cohort

60 56 56 56 55 53 53 50 50 49 50 50 46 47 46 47 43 43

40 37 38 34 34

20 Average Percentile Class Rank (%)

10 (4843) (2217) (2174) (1202) (905) (297) (2669) (1015) (701) (314) 0 (4620) (2330) (2062) (1263) (886) (377) (2558) (1067) (690) (377) Non-Athletes Athletes Male Non- Male Athletes Recruited Non-Recruited Female Non- Female Recruited Non-Recruited Athletes Male Athletes Male Athletes Athletes Athletes Female Female Athletes Athletes

( ) = Number of Students in Category

Year 1, NESCAC, 2005-2006 Cohort Year 2, NESCAC, 2005-2006 Cohort All Men, Year 2, at NESCAC All Women, Year 2, at NESCAC Average not reported if 3 or fewer students in category All Institutions, Year 2, 2005-2006 Cohort

9 Figure 1.2 presents the cumulative average percentile class rank for men’s sports and for male non-athletes for years 1 and 2.

The Year 2 cumulative percentile class rank for all 77 CSP participating institutions is represented by the short lines associated with each group. Note that a few students leave teams and others join teams in the second year, so that the students represented in the two years are not identical.

10 Figure 1.2: Two-Year Comparison of Average Percentile Class Rank Men's Sports in NESCAC, 2005-06 Cohort

60 53 54 50 50 48 49 50 46 46 44 44 45 44 42 43 40 41 38 39 39 40 36 37 36 37 34 35 34 34 34 31 32 32 29 30 28 27 23

20 Average Percentile Class Rank (%)

10 (2174) (83) (55) (65) (69) (88) (133) (34) (82) (74) (86) (102) (16) (2062) (85) (44) (58) (69) (69) (132) (24) (84) (48) (66) (59) (46) (98) (104) (3) (5) (13) 0 (246) (215) (23) (29) (52)

l l y l f g es ol olo ling et bal G ckey osse uash min door P 's o ut est thl Soccer Sq im A Basebal Footbal en H acr s k, Indoor O asket L s Sw c Wr B M Ice s s on- s oss Countr Men's Crew n' Men's Skiing en' s N r 's e Men' M Men's Tennis e en' C en' Track, s en M M Men' M M Men's Water Mal en' Men's Tra en's M ( ) = Number of Students in Category M

Year 1, NESCAC, 2005-2006 Cohort Year 2, NESCAC, 2005-2006 Cohort Average not reported if 3 or All Men, Year 2, at NESCAC All Institutions, Year 2, 2005-2006 Cohort fewer students in category

11 Figure 1.3 presents the cumulative average percentile class rank for women’s sports and for female non-athletes for years 1 and 2.

12 Figure 1.3: Two-Year Comparison of Average Percentile Class Rank Women's Sports in NESCAC, 2005-06 Cohort

70 62 61 60 60 58 59 59 58 60 56 56 54 54 51 50 50 49 49 49 47 47 47 47 47 50 45 46 44 43 44 44 44 44 43 43 41 41 41 41 40 36 34

20 Average Percentile Class Rank (%) 10 (33) (4) (90) (38) (101) (42) (110) (125) (50) (57) (30) (74) (40) (85) (34) (112) (133) (41) (2669) (49) (83) (109) (80) (12) (52) (79) (9) (66) (2558) (37) (75) (75) (6) (64) (16) (48) (67) (10) (4) 0 0

l r s l y g ng es ew in ing ash i oor et r ki m bal C nc oftbal thl s S im Tenni Ind ley A S Socce Squ asketball Fe 's Rugby n's s s k, ol n- en' s n n's Sw V o B m e en' s ross Countr en' ield Hockey e en' s n's o F Women's Golf m m omen's e C W m o en' en' ale N s o n's Wome Wom Women's SailingWo m W W e Wom W o em en' Women's Lacrosse W Wom F Wom m Women's Ice Hockey men's Track, Outdoor Wom Women's Traco Wo W

( ) = Number of Students in Category

Year 1, NESCAC, 2005-2006 Cohort Year 2, NESCAC, 2005-2006 Cohort Average not reported if 3 or All Women, Year 2, at NESCAC All Institutions, Year 2, 2005-2006 Cohort fewer students in sport

13 Figure 1.4 presents the percentage of withdrawals for NESCAC institutions and for all institutions in Year 1 and Year 2. The withdrawals in Year 2 are cumulative for both years. Students who did not return for their second academic year are included in the Year 2 totals, as are any who permanently withdrew during the second year.

14 Figure 1.4: Two-Year Comparison of Percentage of Withdrawals NESCAC vs. All CSP Institutions, 2005-06 Cohort

14 13.42 13.21 13.01

12 11.47

6 5.66 5.01 5.17 4.53 4.58 4.21 3.86 4 3.59 Percentage of Students in Cohort 2005-06 (%) 1.98 2.18 2 1.69 1.55

(119)(75)(44)(35) (297) (212) (85) (62) (2212) (1675) (537) (449) (5450) (4031) (1350) (1012) 0 NESCAC, Year 1 NESCAC, Year 2 All Institutions, Year 1 All Institutions, Year 2

( ) = Number of Students in Category All Students In Cohort Non-Athletes Athletes Recruited Athletes

15 Figure 1.5 displays the difference in average percentile class rank for athletes, recruited athletes, and non-recruited athletes when compared with non-athletes in NESCAC.

16 Figure 1.5: Differences in Average Percentile Class Rank Between Athletes and Non-Athletes in NESCAC, 2005-06 Cohort, Year 2

0 (377) (1263) (1067) (886) (690) (377) -1 -3 -5 -6

-10 -9

-12 -15 -16

-20

-25

Difference from Rank in Percentile Class Non-Athletes (%) Athletes Recruited Athletes Non-Recruited Athletes Negative values indicate that averages for ( ) = Number of Students in Category Male Athletes Female Athletes the group are lower than averages for non- athletes

17 Figure 1.6 compares the cumulative average percentile class rank over a two year period, for the 2005-2006 cohort. For all CSP institutions, male and female non-athletes have a higher average percentile class rank than male and female athletes, a pattern remaining consistent over time.

18 Figure 1.6: Two-Year Comparison of Average Percentile Class Rank Male and Female Athletes and Non-Athletes NESCAC vs. All CSP Institutions, 2005-06 Cohort

60 56 56 55 55 51 52 50 49 50 50 50 48 47

38 39 39 40 37

30 Average Percentile Class Rank (%)

) ) ) ) 9) 2) 67) 668) (2174 (1202) (266 (1015) (206 (1263) (2558 (10 (12 (6541 (19693) (5185) (11227 (6154) (17323) (5088) 0 NESCAC, Year 1 NESCAC, Year 2 All Institutions, Year 1 All Institutions, Year 2

( ) = Number of Students in Category Male Non-Athletes Male Athletes Female Non-Athletes Female Athletes

19 Background Information for Estimation of Underperformance

The final pages of this section provide estimates of the underperformance of athletes using the average cumulative GPAs based on a 4-point scale. For instance, suppose that the recruited female athletes have an average GPA of 3.10 and their comparison group of female non-athletes has an average of 3.30. The difference in these averages is -0.20, as shown in the example on the following page.

The group differences in second-year cumulative GPAs, when they exist, may derive from two different sources:

(1) differences that are attributable to (and that can be predicted from) variation in the entering qualifications (e.g., high school test scores, high school grades) and the demographic characteristics (e.g. gender, race, citizenship) of the students; (2) other differences that may be due to unmeasured selection factors in admitting students, and to differences that are present in the collegiate environment (e.g., student cultural influences, time demands of athletic participation, motivational factors in college students, choice of courses taken).

Multiple regression analyses of student GPAs are used to adjust the GPAs for many factors which contribute to different student academic performance in college: high school SATs, high school class rank, measures of academic quality of high school attended, student gender, race, citizenship, and class standing in college. The regression model, in effect, “holds these factors fixed” and determines the differences in average GPA attributable to athletic status. For example, it compares the average GPA of a group of recruited female athletes to a (hypothetical) group of students with identical characteristics as measured by all the covariates used in the model, EXCEPT that the comparison group is one comprised entirely of female non-athletes. The difference defined by these two averages is viewed as “predictable.”

20 Background Information for Estimation of Underperformance (Continued)

In the illustration with female athletes, if the “identical” non-athletes have an estimated average GPA of 3.25, then of the original GPA difference of -0.20, approximately 3.25 – 3.30 = -.05 was predictable from knowing the characteristics of students when they started college, and the remaining component, 3.10 – 3.25 = -0.15, is termed “underperformance.”

Observed Difference and Underperformance for Female Recruited Athletes

0 -0.05 -0.1

-0.15

Scale) (4.0 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 -0.2

Difference in GPA points in Difference Female Recruited Athletes

Observed Difference in 2-Year GPA between Athletes and Non-Athletes Estimated Underperformance for Athletes

These estimates of underperformance reflect an initial effort to address an important question. The statistical precision or significance of the estimates has not yet been assessed. The methods will be refined and reported in greater detail as additional years of data are collected. Comments and suggestions on this initial attempt to analyze “underperformance” are welcome.

Figure 1.7 provides information separately for male and female students about differences between athletes and their non-athlete counterparts in academic performance.

The darker bar in each pair compares average college GPAs after two years of college for recruited and non-recruited athletes to those for non-athletes at your institution. Unlike previous displays, this figure presents differences among student groups on the customary 4-point GPA scale. The lighter bar in each pair provides estimates of how much of the observed difference can be attributed to academic underperformance (when that exists) by the groups of athletes.

A negative difference indicates that a group of athletes has a lower average GPA than the non-athletes of the same gender. A part of this difference may reflect academic underperformance. Positive differences mean that athletes have higher GPAs than non-athletes.

Note that underperformance calculations for NESCAC do not include Amherst College and Connecticut College due to limited information regarding student high school records.

22 Figure 1.7: Differences in GPA and Estimated Underperformance Athletes vs. Non-Athletes by Gender, 2005-06 Cohort NESCAC vs. All CSP Institutions

NESCAC Institutions All CSP Institutions 0.300

0.200

0.100

0.010 0.000 -0.016 -0.017 -0.017 -0.035 -0.025 -0.032 -0.025 -0.031 -0.059 -0.055 -0.100 -0.101 -0.126 -0.138 -0.200 -0.192 Differencein GPA points(4.0 Scale) -0.232

-0.300

-0.400 Male Recruited Male Non- Female Recruited Female Non- Male Recruited Male Non- Female Recruited Female Non- Athletes Recruited Athletes Recruited Athletes Recruited Athletes Recruited Athletes Athletes Athletes Athletes

NESCAC Observed Difference in 2-Year GPA between Athletes and Non-Athletes Negative Values indicate that averages NESCAC Calculated Underperformance for Athletes for Athletes are lower than averages for ALL CSP Observed Difference in 2-Year GPA between Athletes and Non-Athletes Non-Athletes ALL CSP Calculated Underperformance for Athletes

23 24 Part II: Overview of 2006-07 Entering Cohort NESCAC vs. All CSP Institutions

25 Table 2.1 provides a list of all CSP participating institutions along with the total number of students in the 2006-07 cohort on whom they submitted data. A complete data file was received from 77 institutions, with a total of over 43,000 enrolled students.

Ten institutions joined the project this year and most submitted the previous data file along with the new data submissions. Those institutions are bolded in Table 2.1.

26 Table 2.1: Participating CSP Institutions, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1 # of # of # of Institution Name Students Institution Name Students Institution Name Students in Cohort in Cohort in Cohort Albion College 522 Haverford College 320 St. Olaf College 831 Allegheny College 611 Hiram College 335 SUNY - Geneseo 1462 Amherst College 455 Hobart and William Smith Colleges 603 SUNY - New Paltz 1901 Austin College 432 Hope College 875 Susquehanna University 590 Bates College 509 Illinois College 354 Sweet Briar College 213 Beloit College 391 Illinois Wesleyan University 591 The University of Texas at Dallas 2145 Hamilton College 484 Juniata College 408 Thomas More College 188 Bridgewater College 490 Kenyon College 469 Transylvania University 311 Bryn Mawr College 373 Lawrence University 306 Trinity College 635 California Institute of Technology 225 Macalester College 523 Trinity University 699 Carleton College 513 Middlebury College 683 Tufts University 1334 Centre College 338 Millsaps College 297 Union College 578 Claremont McKenna College 309 Moravian College 486 University of Minnesota Morris 481 Clark University 639 Mount Holyoke College 659 University of Puget Sound 777 Colby College 528 Muhlenberg College 619 Ursinus College 423 College of Saint Benedict 541 Oberlin College 764 Vassar College 673 Connecticut College 524 Occidental College 525 Washington & Jefferson College 487 Denison University 603 Pomona College 387 Washington and Lee University 450 Earlham College 328 Rhodes College 472 Waynesburg College 401 Emory & Henry College 318 Rockford College 290 Wellesley College 621 Franklin & Marshall College 552 Saint John’s University 506 Wesleyan University 790 Goucher College 510 Sewanee: The University of the South 428 Westminster College (MO) 310 Guilford College 477 Skidmore College 712 Whitman College 410 Hamilton College 543 Smith College 823 Williams College 543 Hampden-Sydney College 371 Southwestern University 377 Wittenberg University 647 Hartwick College 528 St. Lawrence University 646

27 Table 2.2 provides an overview of the students in the 2006-07 cohort in NESCAC, with a breakdown by gender for non-athletes and athletes (recruited and non-recruited). This cohort is comprised of all full-time undergraduate students, including transfers, whose first matriculation in NESCAC occurred after July 1, 2006, but no later than June 30, 2007.

28 Table 2.2: Overview of 2006-07 Cohort NESCAC, Year 1

N % of Total Cohort All Students 7028 100 Male 3350 48 Female 3678 52

Non-Athletes 4807 % of Non-Athletes 68

Male 2079 43 30 Female 2728 57 39

Athletes 2221 % of Athletes 32 Male 1271 57 18 Female 950 43 14

Male Athletes 1271 % of Male Athletes 18

Recruited Male 918 72 13 Athletes Non-Recruited 353 28 5 Male Athletes

Female Athletes 950 % of Female Athletes 14

Recruited 648 68 9 Female Athletes Non-Recruited 302 32 4 Female Athletes

29 Figure 2.1 presents the racial/ethnic composition of athletes and non-athletes in NESCAC and at all CSP participating institutions. The racial/ethnic percentages displayed are within groups of athletes and non-athletes, so bars for each of the four student groups sum to 100 (subject to rounding error). Data aggregated from all CSP institutions are represented with green bars throughout this report.

30 Figure 2.1: Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Distribution by Athletic Participation NESCAC and All CSP Institutions, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

78 80

71 69 70

60 56

30 Percentage of Students (%) Students of Percentage

20 16 14

10 9 10 7 7 8 8 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 2 2 3 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 Nonresident Alien American Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Other/Unknown Indian/Alaskan Islander Native

Non-Athletes (NESCAC) Athletes (NESCAC) Non-Athletes (All Institutions) Athletes (All Institutions)

31 Figure 2.2 examines the racial/ethnic composition of athletes in greater detail, comparing the percentages of recruited and non-recruited athletes at NESCAC institutions and at all CSP participating institutions. The racial/ethnic percentages displayed are within groups of athletes, so bars for each of the four student groups sum to 100 (subject to rounding error).

32 Figure 2.2: Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Athletes by Recruited Status NESCAC and All CSP Institutions, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

90 81 80 75 71 70 62 60

30 Percentage of Students (%) Students of Percentage 18 20 15 10 10 6 7 6 7 5 5 5 4 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 Nonresident Alien American Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Other/Unknown Indian/Alaskan Islander Native

Non-Recruited Athletes (NESCAC) Recruited Athletes (NESCAC) Non-Recruited Athletes (All Institutions) Recruited Athletes (All Institutions)

33 Figure 2.3 compares various student groups at NESCAC institutions to those at all CSP participating institutions using the average percentile class rank. The percentile class rank re-expresses the GPA ranking on a scale from 0 to 100. A student group with a percentile class rank of 55, for example, has a group average GPA that is above the GPAs of 55% of students and below that of 45% of students in that institution’s cohort. The use of percentile class rank provides a common scale for all institutions in the study, irrespective of the scales they use for reporting grades and the numbers of students in their cohorts.

In general, the average percentile class rank for female students is higher than for males regardless of athletic status. The horizontal line across groups of bars represents the average of the percentile class rank for the aggregate of all males and females in NESCAC.

For all CSP institutions, the average class rank for female students is at the 54th percentile at the end of the first year of college, whereas the average class rank for male students is at the 45th percentile. The difference between males and females is statistically significant (p < .001) at 9 percentile points. The difference between male athletes and male non-athletes is at 8 percentile points, and the difference between female athletes and female non-athletes at 3 percentile points, and both are also statistically significant (p < .001).

Because of the large number of students in the College Sports Project database (N ~ 42,000 students) it is not surprising that most differences are statistically significant. Questions of practical significance are subject to interpretation.

34 Figure 2.3: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for the First-Year College GPA NESCAC and All CSP Participants, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

60 57 54 55 54 52 52 50 51 50 48 48 50 44 45 45 42 43 39 40 38 37 35

Average Percentile Class Rank (%) 20

10 (4799) (2218) (2077) (1271) (918) (2722) (947) (645) (302) (31597) (11274) (12098) (6434) (4818) (1616) (19499) (4840) (3331) (1509) 0 (353) Non-Athletes Athletes Male Non- Male Athletes Recruited Non-Recruited Female Non- Female Recruited Non-Recruited Athletes Male Athletes Male Athletes Athletes Athletes Female Female Athletes Athletes

( ) = Number of Students in Category

NESCAC All Institutions All Men at NESCAC All Women at NESCAC

35 Figure 2.4 compares the average percentile class rank of GPAs for male athletes and non-athletes with their female counterparts for NESCAC institutions and for all CSP institutions.

Longitudinal data for this cohort will be collected and reported in future years.

36 Figure 2.4: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank by Athletic Participation and by Gender NESCAC vs. All CSP Institutions, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

60 57 55

50 51 50 48 48

39 40 38

30 Average Percentile Class Rank (%) 20

9) ) 7) 2) 098) 34) 72 47) 2 4 949 840 07 9 1 (4 (2 (1271) (2 ( (1 (6 ( 0 NESCAC, Year 1 All Institutions, Year 1 NESCAC, Year 2 All Institutions, Year 2 ( ) = Number of Students in Category

Male Non-Athletes Male Athletes Female Non-Athletes Female Athletes

37 Figure 2.5 compares average percentile class rank for recruited and non-recruited male athletes with their female counterparts for NESCAC institutions and for all CSP institutions.

This figure will be updated with longitudinal data on this student cohort in future years of the College Sports Project, to examine how percentile class rank for these groups change throughout their college-going years.

38 Figure 2.5: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for Athletes by Recruited Status NESCAC vs. All CSP Institutions, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

60 54 52 50 50 45 45 43

40 37 35

30 AveragePercentile Class Rank (%) 20

) ) ) ) 31 09 53) 33 (15 (918) (3 (645 (302 (4818) (1616) ( 0 NESCAC, Year 1 All Institutions, Year 1 NESCAC, Year 2 All Institutions, Year 2

( ) = Number of Students in Category

Recruited Male Athletes Non-Recruited Male Athletes Recruited Female Athletes Non-Recruited Female Athletes

39 Figure 2.6 compares the average percentile class rank of GPAs for men’s teams at NESCAC institutions with the corresponding average at all CSP institutions. Only those sports with four or more students on the team in the 2006-07 cohort at NESCAC institutions are presented.

40 Figure 2.6: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for Men’s Sports NESCAC and All CSP Institutions, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

60 52 50 51 51 48 49 50 45 46 45 45 46 44 43 43 44 43 42 41 42 39 40 39 38 38 37 37 38 38 40 35 36 36 32 33 29 30 26

20 Average Percentile ClassRank(%)

10 (2) (2077) (99) (40) (97) (92) (243) (20) (81) (148) (23) (95) (41) (71) (51) (167) (168) (22) 0 (12098) (699) (446) (351) (158) (1816) (178) (158) (458) (48) (660) (62) (330) (291) (453) (541) (28) (93) r l f r h g is ll w l se e n n oor ry e al d Polo g ball ba nt tb cc uas mi n t Go ros q In tli se e s So ac S , Outdoo Cou ns Cr Foo L s ns Ten ck, k res -Athletes Ba s Men ns a Water n Me Ice Hockeys n W ns os n Mens SkiingMe ns Swim Me e s s Bask e Men s Tr Trac n M n M Me s Cr Me e Mens ale No Me Mens M M Mens Men

( ) = Number of Students in Category Sport not reported if 3 or fewer NESCAC All Institutions students in sport at institution

41 Figure 2.7 compares the average percentile class rank of GPAs for women’s teams at NESCAC institutions with the average at all CSP institutions. Only those sports with more than three students on the team in the 2006-07 cohort at NESCAC Institutions are shown.

42 Figure 2.7: Comparison of Percentile Class Tank for Women’s Teams NESCAC and All CSP Institutions, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

70 62 60 61 60 57 57 56 55 55 55 54 55 54 52 53 51 50 50 51 50 49 48 48 49 49 49 49 50 47 46 47 46 45 44 45 44 42 41 41 41 39 40 40 36 32 30

20 Average Percentile Class Rank (%) 10 (2722) (45) (81) (105) (8) (76) (12) (49) (88) (6) (43) (22) (7) (95) (27) (70) (41) (119) (136) (37) (4) (19499) (396) (373) (328) (306) (95) (77) (296) (19) (330) (51) (19) (606) (60) (436) (266) (423) (517) (361) (35) 0 (30) r f ll h w l y g s l try ey e in ling cer or l all e k Go tba i i c doo letes b cing n do ba s Sof Sk Sa So imming t Hoc s s , lley ns Rugby Ou ter Polo s Coun s Fen ld e Hock Sw ck a s mens Cr e c s a Vo o ns Lacrosse Track, I s Basket Fi Women ome n W s ns I me Women Womens Tennis s Tr ns W s Cro W Women WomensWomens Squa mens Women me ome Wo Women o me emale Non-Ath W F W men Wo Womens Wo o Women Women W

( ) = Number of Students in Category Sport not reported if 3 or fewer NESCAC All Institutions students in sport at institution

43 Figure 2.8 provides a comparison of the percentage of students who withdrew from NESCAC institutions and from all CSP institutions during the 2006-07 academic year.

44 Figure 2.8: Comparison of Percentage of Withdrawals by Athletic Status NESCAC vs. All CSP Institutions, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

5.28 4.98 5 4.72

4.12

Percentage of Withdrawn Students (%) Students Withdrawn of Percentage 1.28 1.35 1.13 1.02 1

0 All Students Athletes Non-Athletes Recruited Athletes

NESCAC All Institutions

45 Figure 2.9 provides comparisons of average combined SAT scores on a 1600-point scale by athletic status and by gender for NESCAC institutions and for all CSP institutions. For those students with only an ACT score available, a standard conversion available from the College Board was used to convert to equivalent SAT scores.

The horizontal blue and red lines represent the average SAT scores for all males and all females in NESCAC institutions.

46 Figure 2.9: Comparison of Average SATCR + SATM Scores (1600-Point Scale) NESCAC vs. All CSP Participating Institutions, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

1600

1500

1384 1400 1364 1348 1349 1341 1313 1316 1308 1303 1293 1300 1266 1262 1246 1257 1233 1202 1212 1194 1190 1200 1173

1100

Average SAT Score scale)(1600-pt 1000

900 (4573) (2123) (1986) (1230) (883) (347) (2587) (893) (599) (294) 800 (28529) (10786) (10904) (6172) (4630) (1542) (17625) (4614) (3162) (1452) Non-Athletes Athletes Male Non- Male Athletes Recruited Non-Recruited Female Non- Female Recruited Non-Recruited Athletes Male Athletes Male Athletes Athletes Athletes Female Female Athletes Athletes ( ) = Number of Students in Category

Average not reported if 3 or NESCAC All Institutions All Men at NESCAC All Women at NESCAC fewer students in category

47 Figure 2.10 provides comparisons of average high school percentile class rank by athletic status and by gender for NESCAC institutions and for all CSP institutions.

High school class rank was estimated using data submitted in the form of HS Class Rank by Decile by assigning the midpoint of each decile to all students in that decile.

Note that high school class ranks are not reported for many students, so that the student counts are much lower than those for the previous figure.

48 Figure 2.10: Comparison of Average HS Percentile Class Rank by Gender and Athletic Status NESCAC vs. All CSP Institutions, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

100

91 90 90 90 90 89 89 90 88 86 85 84 85 83 83 81 79 80 78 77 76

75 73 72

70 Average HS Percentile Class Rank (%)

65 (1924) (719) (783) (367) (249) (118) (1141) (352) (232) 60 (17086) (6243) (6266) (3528) (2818) (710) (10820) (2715) (1969) (120) (746) Non-Athletes Athletes Male Non- Male Athletes Recruited Non-recruited Female Non- Female Recruited Non-Recruited Athletes Male Athletes Male Athletes Athletes Athletes Female Female Athletes Athletes

NESCAC All Institutions ( ) = Number of Students in Category Average not reported if 3 or fewer students in category

49 50 Part III Overview of 2006-07 Entering Cohort Hamilton College vs. NESCAC

51 Table 3.1 provides an overview of the students in the 2006-07 cohort at Hamilton College, with a breakdown by gender for non-athletes and athletes (recruited and non-recruited). This cohort is comprised of all full-time undergraduate students, including transfers, whose first matriculation at Hamilton College occurred after July 1, 2006, but no later than June 30, 2007.

At most institutions the number of non-recruited athletes is relatively small, lessening the confidence that the comparisons for this group will remain consistent in future data collections.

52 Table 3.1: Overview of 2006-07 Cohort Hamilton College, Year 1

N % of Total Cohort All Students 543 100 Male 252 46 Female 291 54

Non-Athletes 331 % of Non-Athletes 61

Male 132 40 24 Female 199 60 37

Athletes 212 % of Athletes 39 Male 120 57 22 Female 92 43 17

Male Athletes 120 % of Male Athletes 22

Recruited Male 86 72 16 Athletes Non-Recruited 34 28 6 Male Athletes

Female Athletes 92 % of Female Athletes 17

Recruited 46 50 8 Female Athletes Non-Recruited 46 50 8 Female Athletes

53 Figure 3.1 presents the racial/ethnic composition of athletes and non-athletes at Hamilton College and at NESCAC institutions. The racial/ethnic percentages displayed are within groups of athletes and non-athletes, so bars for each of the four student groups sum to 100 (subject to rounding error). Data aggregated from NESCAC institutions are represented with green bars throughout this report.

54 Figure 3.1: Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Distribution by Athletic Participation Hamilton College and NESCAC, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

81 80

71 70 62

60 56

30 Percentage of Students (%) Students of Percentage

20 17 16 14

10 10 9 10 7 6 7 5 4 5 4 2 3 3 3 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Nonresident Alien American Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Other/Unknown Indian/Alaskan Islander Native

Non-Athletes (Hamilton College) Athletes (Hamilton College) Non-Athletes (NESCAC) Athletes (NESCAC)

55 Figure 3.2 examines the racial/ethnic composition of athletes in greater detail, comparing the percentages of recruited and non-recruited athletes at Hamilton College and at NESCAC institutions. The racial/ethnic percentages displayed are within groups of athletes, so bars for each of the four student groups sum to 100 (subject to rounding error).

56 Figure 3.2: Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Athletes by Recruited Status Hamilton College and NESCAC, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

90 81 81

80 75

70 62 60

30 Percentage of Students (%) Students of Percentage

20 18 15 11 10 6 6 7 6 5 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Nonresident Alien American Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Other/Unknown Indian/Alaskan Islander Native

Non-Recruited Athletes (Hamilton College) Recruited Athletes (Hamilton College) Non-Recruited Athletes (NESCAC) Recruited Athletes (NESCAC)

57 Figure 3.3 compares various student groups at Hamilton College to those at NESCAC institutions using the average percentile class rank. The percentile class rank re-expresses the GPA ranking on a scale from 0 to 100. A student group with a percentile class rank of 55, for example, has a group average GPA that is above the GPAs of 55% of students and below that of 45% of students in that institution’s cohort. The use of percentile class rank provides a common scale for all institutions in the study, irrespective of the scales they use for reporting grades and the numbers of students in their cohorts.

58 Figure 3.3: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for the First-Year College GPA Hamilton College and NESCAC, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

59 60 57 55 54 54 55 54 50 50 48 48 50 45 45 43 42 42

40 37 38 35 33

Average Percentile Class Rank (%) 20

10 (331) (212) (132) (120) (86) (199) (92) (46) (46) (4799) (2218) (2077) (1271) (918) (353) (2722) (947) (645) (302) 0 (34) Non-Athletes Athletes Male Non- Male Athletes Recruited Non-Recruited Female Non- Female Recruited Non-Recruited Athletes Male Athletes Male Athletes Athletes Athletes Female Female Athletes Athletes

( ) = Number of Students in Category

Hamilton College NESCAC All Men at Hamilton College All Women at Hamilton College

59 Figure 3.4 compares the average percentile class rank of GPAs for athletes and non- athletes (within gender) at Hamilton College with their counterparts at NESCAC institutions.

Longitudinal data for this cohort will be collected and reported in future years.

60 Figure 3.4: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank by Athletic Participation and by Gender Hamilton College vs. NESCAC, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

60 57 54 55 50 50 50 48

40 37 38

30 Average Percentile Class Rank (%) 20

) ) ) 77) 22) 99 0 271 7 47) 32 1 (9 (1 (120) (1 (92) (2 ( (2 0 Hamilton College, Year 1 NESCAC, Year 1 Hamilton College, Year 2 NESCAC, Year 2

( ) = Number of Students in Category

Male Non-Athletes Male Athletes Female Non-Athletes Female Athletes

61 Figure 3.5 compares average percentile class rank of GPAs for recruited and non- recruited athletes (within gender) at Hamilton College to their counterparts at NESCAC institutions.

62 Figure 3.5: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for Athletes by Recruited Status Hamilton College vs. NESCAC, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

59 60 54

50 48 45 45 42

40 35 33

30 AveragePercentile Class Rank (%) 20

5) 2) 4) 64 (30 (86) (3 (46) (46) (918) (353) ( 0 Hamilton College, Year 1 NESCAC, Year 1 Hamilton College, Year 2 NESCAC, Year 2

( ) = Number of Students in Category

Recruited Male Athletes Non-Recruited Male Athletes Recruited Female Athletes Non-Recruited Female Athletes

63 Figure 3.6 compares the average percentile class rank of GPAs for men’s teams at Hamilton College with the corresponding average at NESCAC institutions. Only those sports with four or more students on the team in the 2006-07 cohort at Hamilton College are presented.

64 Figure 3.6: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for Men’s Sports Hamilton College and NESCAC, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

70 63

60 54 52 50 49 50 45 44 44 43 44 43 42 41 40 39 37 37 38 37 40 35 35 35 33 31 31 29 30 26 24 21 20 Average Percentile ClassRank(%)

10 (4) (132) (8) (8) (10) (20) (13) (11) (13) (5) (12) (6) (11) (9) (2077) (99) (40) (97) (92) (243) (20) (81) (148) (95) (41) (71) (51) (167) (168) 0 (3) r l r h is or ll w e e n e key do tbal Golf cc uas n ball tba o q I se ns cross So Outdoo ke ns Cr Fo e Hoc a S ns Ten k, -Athletes Ba L ns s ac k, n M s ns Me Me Me s Bas Men s Tr Trac Men n Me Mens Swimming e ale No Men Mens Ice M M Mens Mens Cross Country

( ) = Number of Students in Category Sport not reported if 3 or fewer Hamilton College NESCAC students in sport at institution

65 Figure 3.7 compares the average percentile class rank of GPAs for women’s teams at Hamilton College with the average at NESCAC institutions. Only those sports with more than three students on the team in the 2006-07 cohort at Hamilton College are shown.

66 Figure 3.7: Comparison of Percentile Class Rank for Women’s Teams Hamilton College and NESCAC, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

80 76

70 64 62 60 61 57 57 60 55 53 54 54 52 51 51 50 49 47 47 50 46 45 45 42 41 38 38 40 32 28 28 30

20 Average Percentile Class Rank (%) 10 (199) (5) (8) (25) (4) (7) (7) (6) (7) (4) (9) (12) (15) 0 (2722) (45) (81) (105) (76) (49) (88) (43) (95) (27) (70) (3) (41) (119) (136) (3) (37) g r y w y e er n nis o tr ey s c sh k ke ua letes n ros Indo h etball immi , k s Cre Hoc Hoc ac Softball Sq s Ten At Cou L s ck - ld e ns Soc a Bas ss c o men e I ns Tr o Fi s ns Cr W s ns ome Women le Non ome W Women Womens Volleyball ome ome W Womens Sw Fema W mens W Women o Women Womens Track, Outdoor W

( ) = Number of Students in Category Sport not reported if 3 or fewer Hamilton College NESCAC students in sport at institution

67 Figure 3.8 provides a comparison of the percentage of students who withdrew from Hamilton College and from NESCAC institutions during the 2006-07 academic year.

68 Figure 3.8: Comparison of Percentage of Withdrawals by Athletic Status Hamilton College vs. NESCAC, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

4.5

3.93 4 3.68

3.5 3.3

3.03 3

2.5

1.5 1.35 1.28 1.13

Percentage of Withdrawn Students (%) Students Withdrawn of Percentage 1.02 1

0.5

0 All Students Athletes Non-Athletes Recruited Athletes

Hamilton College NESCAC

69 Figure 3.9 provides comparisons of average combined SAT scores on a 1600-point scale by athletic status and by gender for Hamilton College and for NESCAC institutions. For those students with only an ACT score available, a standard conversion available from the College Board was used to convert to equivalent SAT scores.

The horizontal blue and red lines represent the average SAT scores for all males and all females at Hamilton College.

70 Figure 3.9: Comparison of Average SATCR + SATM Scores (1600-Point Scale) Hamilton College vs. NESCAC, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

1600

1500

1384 1400 1364 1348 1349 1333 1340 1341 1316 1304 1313 1303 1308 1314 1292 1294 1289 1293 1276 1285 1300 1263

1200

1100

Average SAT Score scale)(1600-pt 1000

900 (327) (211) (130) (120) (86) (34) (197) (91) (45) (46) 800 (4573) (2123) (1986) (1230) (883) (347) (2587) (893) (599) (294) Non-Athletes Athletes Male Non- Male Athletes Recruited Non-Recruited Female Non- Female Recruited Non-Recruited Athletes Male Athletes Male Athletes Athletes Athletes Female Female Athletes Athletes ( ) = Number of Students in Category Average not reported if 3 or fewer students in category Hamilton College NESCAC All Men at Hamilton College All Women at Hamilton College

71 Figure 3.10 provides comparisons of average high school percentile class rank by athletic status and by gender for Hamilton College and for NESCAC institutions.

High school class rank was estimated using data submitted in the form of HS Class Rank by Decile by assigning the midpoint of each decile to all students in that decile.

Note that high school class ranks are not reported for many students, so that the student counts are much lower than those for the previous figure.

72 Figure 3.10: Comparison of Average HS Percentile Class Rank by Gender and Athletic Status Hamilton College vs. NESCAC, 2006-07 Cohort, Year 1

100

95 92 91 91 91 91 90 90 90 90 90 90 89 89 89 89 90 88 86 86 84 85 82

70 Average HS Percentile Class Rank (%)

65 (169) (70) (69) (28) (18) (10) (100) (42) (22) 60 (1924) (719) (783) (367) (249) (118) (1141) (352) (232) (20) (120) Non-Athletes Athletes Male Non- Male Athletes Recruited Non-recruited Female Non- Female Recruited Non-Recruited Athletes Male Athletes Male Athletes Athletes Athletes Female Female Athletes Athletes

Hamilton College NESCAC ( ) = Number of Students in Category Average not reported if 3 or fewer students in category