← Pushing Against Status Quo, NCAA Leader Faces Resistance

NCAA’s Eligibility Standards Miss the Mark, Researcher Says

January 9, 2012, 3:22 pm

While many Division I members have balked at new rules allowing multiyear scholarships and extra money for athletes, several substantive academic changes have gone through with relatively little resistance. Chief among them are policies keeping low-performing men’s basketball teams out of the NCAA tournament and stiffened initial-eligibility and transfer requirements.

In October, the NCAA passed a measure requiring incoming athletes to have a minimum 2.3 grade-point average to be eligible to play their first year (they previously needed a 2.0). NCAA leaders see the new rule as a “game-changer,” according to Todd Petr, the association’s managing director of research, and Todd Paskus, its principal research scientist. They will lead a discussion at this year’s NCAA Scholarly Colloquium on Tuesday looking at the effects of academic reform on college sports. “This policy ramps up academic expectations both on teams and individuals,” Mr. Petr says.

If the new rules were applied to the current class, some 15 percent of all athletes would have had to take an academic “redshirt” year. The policy would have an even more profound effect in football and men’s basketball: Thirty-five percent of football players and 43 percent of men’s basketball players in this year’s class would have had to sit out their first year of competition, if the rules were applied to them.

Although the NCAA raised the minimum grade-point average required for first-year competition, it kept in place its sliding scale for admissions. That allows students with extremely low standardized-test scores to be admitted, so long as their high-school grade-point averages are correspondingly much higher. At least one researcher says that is a big mistake.

Gerald S. Gurney, an assistant professor of adult and higher education and former head of academic services for athletes at the University of Oklahoma, says the sliding scale—which was introduced in 2003 as a way of opening up access to higher education—has contributed to a rise in the acceptance of students unable to do college-level work. That has put extra pressure on academic services’ staffs to keep them eligible, he says, and in some cases has contributed to academic fraud in big-time sports.

On Tuesday, Gurney will present findings from research he did with Carla A. Winters, an academic counselor in the Sooners’ athletic department, comparing specially admitted athletes at Oklahoma who would have been eligible under pre-2003 NCAA rules, which required a minimum SAT score of 820 or ACT score of 17, to those who attained eligibility under the new standards with lower entrance-test scores, offset by higher high-school grades.

Looking at 109 students over a three-year period, the sliding scale allowed a far less-academically-qualified set of athletes to be admitted. In fact, 10 percent more specially admitted players came in with severe learning disabilities, when compared to the specially admitted athletes who matriculated just before the NCAA’s change in standard.

“The bottom line is, the lower you go in test scores, the worse students are in basic reading skills,” says Gurney. “Is it the role of four-year institutions to teach students how to read?”

NCAA officials say standardized test scores, on the whole, have gone up since the introduction of the sliding scale, and that overall graduation rates in Division I—in particular those of African-American men’s basketball and football players—continue to rise. (Both have increased between three and five percentage points since 2003.)

NCAA research indicates that high-school grades are a much better predictor of college-level success than are test scores. And very few students score so poorly on the SAT. Of 25,000 entering freshmen in 2009-10, a total of 81 athletes scored below a 700 combined on the SAT.

“The group Gerry is claiming to be worried about represents about one-third of one percent nationally of all student-athletes,” says Petr.

Even if the numbers are small, Gurney says ill-prepared athletes can cause big problems for athletic programs—something he has seen first-hand.

“When you’re having to deal face-face with these athletes who have such severe difficulties—they can’t write, they can’t read—yet they have to get eligible, it’s the only thing they care about, that’s their ticket to future,” he says. “They’re so pressured, they have to cheat. Or fail.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

Rezishka

UAE like all other Moslem nations is intollerant of democratic voices. That is all.
Guest

I agree that each decision to extend the benefits of education to a wider or even a different audience is accompanied by an obligation to identify and respond to the needs of that group. In one sense, however, the increased need for remedial facilities created by a decision to educate the underclass is not logically different from the obligation to invest more in recreational and social infrastructure created by a decision to educate the elite. Good education identifies the contextual needs of the students and meets them to the extent possible.

However, I’m not sure I agree that these decisions necessarily imply higher tuition. I see other layers at which the problem can also be addressed.

- First, is resource reallocation. Are we allocating outsize levels of “contextual support” to one group (perhaps athletics) and too little to another (perhaps the socially disadvantaged)? Most institutions would probably benefit from an open-eyed assessment of its current resource allocations.

- Second, you mentioned publics so I will use them as the example. The impact of public funding is twice that of tuition. Taxpayers pay at least $16,000 per student per year (more based on most models) while students pay about $7,500. Public support is declining for several reasons. To counter this trend we need effective arguments that the benefits of public higher education exceed the costs. These arguments need to be based on facts but we don’t have facts. In their place, we offer overworked anecdotes and vague unsupportable claims. The only way to build compelling arguments about benefits is to create, gather, and analyze metrics at which we now only guess. Armed with economically sound arguments related to employment, crime, public assistance, etc. college presidents might be more effective in dealing with legislatures. Yes, some of our elected officials are ideologues who cannot be reached by facts. At the state level, however, economic facts are exactly what drives most legislative decisions, especially once the posturing is over (exceptions such as New York, New Jersey, & Illinois noted).

Taking this back to U.S. News, they make these silly claims not because they are elitist but because they are ignorant. Only good metrics will show that it takes different resources to educate different types of students and that doing so is a public good. My personal opinion is that the greatest public ROI is realized when we remove a young member of the underclass from public assistance and place him or her in a career, even if it is based on a two-year degree, and even if we all had to work harder than usual to help this person become proficient and graduate. The elite will take care of themselves and members of the vast middle-group already have resources targeted at them.
commserver

My daughter is a member of the class of 2013 at Williams. She went to a very selective and competive HS. She wasn’t in the top 10% of her class of around 190. That shows how competitive it was to get into Williams.

She is with students who are from just as competitive schools.

She is already talking about graduation.
11182967

So the question is, “Why does USNWR continue to get away with what most of us have known to be a patently misrepresentative set of parameters for its institution rankings?” The answer may lie in part to the political leanings of its owners/editors. But in a larger sense, the answer is that these rankings, like the anachronism of the official measures of retention and graduation rates, are not accidental. They serve the interests of the most traditional and influential institutions whose very influence depends in part on their continuance. And the only students and parents who can afford to pay anywhere near full freight at these places are those already in positions of power. The rankings are part of a racket promoted by the elite gang to maintain and enhance their position.

So what to do? The only way to combat this sort of thing is to come up with defensible alternative forms of evaluation and then promoting them to the public in every way possible. The truth is that the large majority of college graduates did not go and will not be going to the snooty expensive joints. And prominent exceptions not withstanding, most of the people who do the mportant work in our country did not go to one of these schools. It’s time we provided the analytical and research framework within which these people can stand up and proclaim the value of their educational institutions and the educations they received and thumb their noses at the snobs. Can we help? them–and us?intellectual and
Unemployed_Northeastern

Tell her to keep the eyes on the prize – I’ve run across several Williams grads with non-humanities majors who are temping in Boston as cold-callers for little more than retail wages. That being said, take heart from a grad of a mid-pack NESCAC school – Williams is one of maybe five or six liberal arts colleges in the Northeast where decent employers recruit on campus, and one of maybe three liberal arts colleges that where non-connected grads have a shot at Wall Street or management consulting. Your daughter is far better off than most, but the battle is not yet won.
11301717

If there were meaningful academic standards at the high school level, with administrators and parents willing to live with the consequences, this might not be an issue. But I can’t imagine parents of high school students with poor academic performance being willing to give up the thrill of living vicariously through their children’s accomplishments on the football field or basketball court.
arrive2__net

Redshirting freshman year may increase the sports programs cost but it may not be all bad for typical freshman athletes…if the extra year upgrades their learning skills, and perhaps puts them on notice that, yes, grades are serious.

I don’t like the idea of increasing the GPA requirement from 2.0 to 2.3, because it seems to me that if 2.0 is passing for regular students, it’s only fair that it should apply to all. Maybe the NCAA has some research to backup the requirement for a 2.3 though.

The extra year may be bad for students who would be eligible for pro draft early, since it will take them an extra year to get the game experience and public notice they may need. A year delay may also expose them to a greater, longer risk of career-ending injuries.

I wonder how this affects the balance between the NCAA and the NJCAA. Maybe more student athletes would seek NJCAA schools instead of having to redshirt freshman year in NCAA.

Bart Schuster
OnlineGraduateSchool.tripod.com
Twitter.com/arrive2_net
old nassau’67

A few comparisons between the above-mentioned GPA/Test Scores required of NCAA athletes and the GPA/Test Scores of the average OU 2011 freshman.

1. In October, the NCAA passed a measure requiring incoming athletes to have a minimum 2.3 grade-point average to be eligible to play their first year(they previously needed a 2.0).
(From the ou.edu website: Average High School GPA for the 2011 Freshman class: 3.63)

2.”…specially admitted athletes at Oklahoma who would have been eligible under pre-2003 NCAA rules, which required a minimum SAT score of 820 or ACT score of 17, to those who attained eligibility under the new standards with lower entrance-test scores…”
(From the ou.edu website). “Admission Criteria. (resident) ACT score of at least 24/SAT score of at least 1090 ….(non-resident) (ACT score of at least 26/SAT score of at least 1170.

Little wonder “Thirty-five percent of football players and 43 percent of men’s basketball players in this year’s class would have had to sit out their first year of competition, if the rules were applied to them.”
22280998

If these incoming athletes can not read and write, what were those in K-12 doing?

As many of the very expensive and very good athletic support programs demonstrate, these students are nor dumb. They have just been denied an education.

Simply publishing the remedial courses that athlete and non-athlete students from various school systems must take would, at least, tell parents and taxpayers something. Actually billing them for this remedial work would be even better.
kgodwin

Did I miss something? How is forcing students to redshirt going to help anything? They’re still putting in all the same time practicing. They’ll probably get left home on road trips, but that’s about it. They’re still going to have to put in pretty much all of the same time they’d have to put in if they weren’t redshirting. This makes absolutely no sense to me…
jrtucker

Firstly, most universities are changing their admissions policies by evaluating the academic rigor high schools and not looking at ACT or SAT test scores as much for good reason. These high-stakes tests are merely predictors of success, but do not determine success. Like any other high-stakes test, it only measures a student’s ability in one exam, greatly reducing the reliability of the test scores. Additionally, these scores pose multiple validity issues, not with the content, but with the “issues” students bring into the testing environment. Relying solely on these scores does not paint a clear picture of a student’s academic ability, rather how well they can perform on one test on one day. Looking at the high school GPA allows a review of academic success over a period of time, including different modalities of learning, which ultimately shows the persistence and success of our diverse learners. Therefore, this system is actually in favor of our students, allowing them to demonstrate varying abilities. This generally perpetuates success, which is what educators should want.

Although the statistics provided hold a negative connotation towards student-athletes, this subgroup generally holds a higher GPA than a “normal” student. However, I do agree that student-athletes need to be held to a high standard and raising the minimum GPA requirements will make them put more efforts into their career path, rather than focusing on sports alone.

I truly have a problem with this statement:
“The bottom line is, the lower you go in test scores, the worse students are in basic reading skills,” says Gurney. “Is it the role of four-year institutions to teach students how to read?”

It is the responsibility of 4-year universities, or any post-secondary institution, to implement reading strategies into content areas. Sustained-silent reading, or independent reading, is only effective if the student’s are comprehending 99% of the material. That is, they could answer varying levels of comprehension questions and get 99% correct. However, professors require students to read large sums of their textbook independently prior to coming into class, don’t necessarily discuss the material, assess the material directly from the textbook, and expect students to understand it. This is seriously unfair, especially students with learning disabilities. Good professors incorporate reading strategies, like active reading, into their lectures (even though I strongly disagree with pure lectures as well). They teach vocabulary, active prior knowledge, and differentiate instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners. Good teachers understand how to teach reading and writing skills in conjunction and understand that good readers have the ability to be good writers and vice versa. So, the real issue is, is that professors should go through education courses to understand how to deliver material and teach it to students because at the end of the day, every teacher is a reading teacher, regardless of the discipline. These strategies MUST be taught because as students progress through education, the material becomes increasingly difficult and the learning gap widens. We must meet the needs of our diverse populations and that means teaching reading strategies, including study strategies, that will be most beneficial for specific content areas.

“When you’re having to deal face-face with these athletes who have such severe difficulties—they can’t write, they can’t read—yet they have to get eligible, it’s the only thing they care about, that’s their ticket to future,” he says. “They’re so pressured, they have to cheat. Or fail.”

Good teaching ,coupled with valid and reliable assessments, prevent cheating and failing. So maybe the problem does not lie within the student-athletes; after all, they are simply using the strategies they know. The larger problems lies within the inability (not all professors of course) to differentiate instruction and incorporate important reading strategies into his/her lessons. Professional development and effective evaluation systems need to be put into place so that we can encourage student success and properly evaluate student performance.
jrtucker

Forcing student-athletes to redshirt for academic purposes might actually be a good idea. Freshman, which is the population this change would effect the most, have a hard time transitioning from high school to college. If allowed to reshirt for academic purposes, they could gain a different understanding of the upcoming academic rigor and have a full year to learn how to balance their school work and athletics. Additionally, some student-athletes may not be developmentally ready for the coursework. This allows for maturity through difficult situations, without the stress of game performace.
kgodwin

I suppose a redshirting freshman is off the hook on game performance. I guess I’m just concerned because, in my experience, the students who took advantage of redshirting were anything but focused on academics. Those of us who were focused on academics didn’t want or need a redshirt year for academic reasons. And because, when it gets right down to it, redshirting doesn’t reduce your time commitments to the team substantially. It might reduce the pressure some, which in theory would make it easier to succeed in the classroom. I just don’t see that reduction in pressure having a whole lot of impact on classroom performance.

There was also a stigma associated with redshirting when I was playing. The folks who redshirted were doing so either because they weren’t good enough to play their first year, or because they were too fragile and got hurt. There was definite resentment from the rest of us because they were “free-loading” – they got an extra scholarship year, when the rest of us got kicked out after 4 years. An academic redshirt year, in some ways, actually ends up punishing the academically prepared athletes/rewarding the unprepared.
ageofknowledge

Before 1969, when the smelly state atheist Marxist hippies took over the American Education System and turned it into the failed modern liberal indoctrination system we see in ruins today, this certainly was not the case. In fact, it was the opposite. We called them student athletes and they performed both on and off the field.