NCAA drastically bumps up academic standards...but did they do it the right way?

[downtown]

Fairly big news in the US sports world that might interest you guys..

First, some general background. The NCAA is the organization that runs US college sports. More than 300 colleges participate at the highest level of competition, called Division 1. In order to participate in NCAA sanctioned sports, student-athletes must meet certain criteria, including academic benchmarks.

Currently, the min. universal standard is pretty low. A student must have at least a 2.0 GPA in their "core classes" of HS (4 years of english, 3 of math, etc), and get at least a 20 on their ACT. If their GPA is higher, their min ACT score an be lower.

Starting in 2016, the NCAA will raise the standards. The min. GPA is now 2.3 (2.5 for Junior College transfers), and students must pass 10 of their 16 core classes by the start of their senior year of high school (so they cant take english 10, 11 and 12 all at once). The NCAA has done a study and found that over 1/3 of all football players, over 40% of all basketball players, and 15% of all athletes period, will not meet these standards.

(background on this issue can be found here http://www.landgrantholyland.com/20...cademic-standards-college-football-basketball)

While I don't think anybody would disagree with the goal, this does lead to a few questions:
1) a 2.3 GPA and a 20 on your ACT (the new benchmark) is still not ready to do college work. If thats the goal, shouldn't the benchmark be even higher?
2) Can we really increase performance by just changing the standards? This was one of the major criticisms of NCLB...the public education system is still horribly unfair and broken, and NCAA student athletes, at least for football and basketball, come primarily from the most screwed up school districts.
3) over one third of football players and over 40% of basketball players would miss this benchmark. Does this create a huge incentive to cheat now?

What do you think? Some say that sports can be one of the only paths to college for students in some of these particularly broken districts, and raising the bar like this could freeze even more poor kids out of school. Others think that a 2.3 GPA, 19 ACT score kid has no business in a college classroom...

 

[JohnRM]

I think there will be added emphasis for high schools to shift resources toward ensuring prominent athletes exceed these standards while other students remain left behind, because they don't make the school look good. And yes, there will be more cheating and with faculty help. We already have that problem now.

 

[Kozmos]

I've never really seen the connection sports have with academia, except perhaps for the faculty of kinesiology. Sports scholarships just seem like a terribad idea to me. I mean, here in Croatia we still have sports competition and tournaments between colleges and high schools but its just for fun.

As for screwed up schools, we have those too, but even those who go to technical schools and want to succeed will succeed. (everyone has to take our equivalent of SATs in the end)

 

[Formaldehyde]

Let's make it a 3.0 average and be above the median point in the ACTs or SATs of all entering freshmen. College scholarships shouldn't be wasted on those who aren't really qualified to take advantage of them.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

2) Can we really increase performance by just changing the standards? This was one of the major criticisms of NCLB...the public education system is still horribly unfair and broken, and NCAA student athletes, at least for football and basketball, come primarily from the most screwed up school districts.

Yeah, fix those schools instead of handing out sport scholarships (know not gonne happen because of the profit). In any case, I object to a normative relation between sport scholarships and poor schools.

 

[downtown]

I've never really seen the connection sports have with academia, except perhaps for the faculty of kinesiology. Sports scholarships just seem like a terribad idea to me. I mean, here in Croatia we still have sports competition and tournaments between colleges and high schools but its just for fun.

As for screwed up schools, we have those too, but even those who go to technical schools and want to succeed will succeed. (everyone has to take our equivalent of SATs in the end)

We do it because football and basketball are more than a billion dollar industry in the US. These games raise a ton of money for colleges, lots of which trickle down to academic programs. It's a corrupt system, but it's too big to really kill at this point. All we can do is try to make it more fair and just.

Let's make it a 3.0 average and be above the median point in the ACTs or SATs of all entering freshmen. College scholarships shouldn't be wasted on those who aren't really qualified to take advantage of them.

Now that just seems silly, that isn't the standard for any other kind of scholarship. If somebody is an elite Cello player, no reputable school is going to turn the kid down because they have a 2.8 GPA. I think that goes for any kind of particular skill based scholarship.

That would lock out almost every poor kid from college sports.

 

[downtown]

Yeah, fix those schools instead of handing out sport scholarships (know not gonne happen because of the profit). In any case, I object to a normative relation between sport scholarships and poor schools.

Elite basketball players in the US are typically 1) black and 2) urban. These are the worst school districts in the US. Sports like water polo or gymnastics pull from almost a 100% suburban or wealthy pool of students, so those athletes are much more likely to meet the basic requirements.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If you want to give "poor kids" who already got gypped from getting a decent public school education special academic scholarships where they could concentrate on getting a college education, I'm all for it. But instead of winning matches for your alma mater and frequently not graduating due to the amount of time they have to spend playing sports, they need to spend the necessary time to get a real college education instead. And their ability to play sports shouldn't even enter into the selection process.

Let's end this obvious hypocrisy once and for all. Raising the bar up a bit certainly helps. But it doesn't really address the real issue.

 

[MobBoss]

Let's make it a 3.0 average and be above the median point in the ACTs or SATs of all entering freshmen. College scholarships shouldn't be wasted on those who aren't really qualified to take advantage of them.

While you are at it, make this the standard for federal grant money too. I mean, why not right? Federal money shouldnt be wasted on those not qualified to take advantage of it.

 

[downtown]

While you are at it, make this the standard for federal grant money too. I mean, why not right? Federal money shouldnt be wasted on those not qualified to take advantage of it.

While that would have the positive effect of shutting down every single for-profit college in the country, it would also shut most poor kids out of college. a 3.0 GPA isn't the cuttoff for being college ready *period*, unless perhaps if you set it up on a similar sliding scale that the NCAA uses. You can have a 2.7 GPA and be perfectly capable of doing college classwork.

 

[Verarde]

Good for them! We need higher standards of education across the board, including with our athletes.

 

[wilycoyote]

If a kid really wants to hit those marks, it doesn't matter how crappy their school is, they can study and succeed. Those benchmarks are very low and I am happy to see this change. One anecdote, my friend, who isn't THAT smart, was promised a car by his parents if he scored in the top five percent of the SAT (taken during his freshman year of high school). He studied his butt off for a year and achieved it. His parents had lied though, and he didn't get his car.

I think it will also tend to better prepare these kids for the responsibility of college, since it will require additional hard work to achieve it. My college team just had a very high profile player wash out because he wasn't mature enough for his newly found freedom that college students experience away from their families.

Cheating? Who cares? Should we legalize murder because we don't want to have to try to prevent it?

 

[JollyRoger]

The NCAA has been screwed up for years. I got a academic scholarship my freshman year and had to go through a ton of paperwork to be able to run cross country. They have severe scholarship limits for the sport and though I was good enough to be on the team (as one of the top 5 that would be counted in the team score), I wasn't good enough to justify my academic scholarship counting towards the limit.

 

[warpus]

In my opinion the standards to get into University should be the same, no matter if you're an athlete or not.

Want to get into chemistry? The standards to get in should be the same for everyone, those who can dunk and those who can not.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Has there ever been a scholarship basketball player who majored in chemistry?

 

[downtown]

Has there ever been a scholarship basketball player who majored in chemistry?

Ohio State's point guard, one of the best in the country, has a 3.8 GPA as a pre-med major. Their leading WR from a few years ago left the NFL after one year to pursue an MBA at Stanford.

Generally, if you are a legitimate NBA prospect, you are less likely to pursue a major that will take 40 hours a week. Thats true of just about any college student. There are plenty of student athletes who compete at a high level in the classroom AND in their sport.

I think you could probably find dozens of teams where every single player on their roster exceeded these minimums by a LOT. I think the squads most at risk with these rules are actually the Historically Black Colleges, not the big time programs.

 

[wilycoyote]

What about the Kentuckys? The schools that recruit a lot of one-and-dones, students that have no desire to attend class at all. I think they will be affected greatly as well.

 

[downtown]

What about the Kentuckys? The schools that recruit a lot of one-and-dones, students that have no desire to attend class at all. I think they will be affected greatly as well.

The changes in these requirements dont have anything to do with graduation rates, so as long as those one and dones can get a 2.3, Kentucky is fine. They face problems with the APR, although having a player drafter doesn't ding your APR rating.

 

[wilycoyote]

I'm talking about these athletes' HIGH SCHOOL results. I would think they would have less patience for their studies and be less likely to focus on meeting more stringent entrance requirements.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Ohio State's point guard, one of the best in the country, has a 3.8 GPA as a pre-med major.

So the answer would be "no"?