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

[Formaldehyde]

Don't get me started on the completely artificial "shortage" of doctors deliberately created by the AMA. But I digress...

 

[Chairman Meow]

Heh med students are usually really bad at physics and math. Too bad there is always a doctor shortage so they have to let them pass.

When I was a TA, the professor I worked for joked that we were saving the American health care system one C at a time.

 

[kochman]

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...

Baby steps toward being ready for college...
Until colleges in the USA stop being football/basketball factories, what do we expect? Actually wanting academic performance?

 

[wilycoyote]

I don't really see why this matters. Everyone gets what they want. Schools make money off the backs on the kids, making the scholarship money back 1000 times. The kids get to do what they want. If they want to go to class they can, if not, they don't really need to. You can say this takes scholarships away from academically successful kids, but I don't think that is the case due to the economic benefit to the schools in all of this.

 

[GoodGame]

I don't really see why this matters. Everyone gets what they want. Schools make money off the backs on the kids, making the scholarship money back 1000 times. The kids get to do what they want. If they want to go to class they can, if not, they don't really need to. You can say this takes scholarships away from academically successful kids, but I don't think that is the case due to the economic benefit to the schools in all of this.

Money pretty much is the root of all evil, as we can allege in the Sandusky scandal.
Sandusky probably would have been on trial many years ago if state funding, alumni spending, and NCAA college football were not so intertwined.

To a certain extent, I can agree that one's GPA is one's own business, so if you want to do the minimum and get the minimum than do so, but it does make a mockery of the student athlete concept in which the sports complements being a student, not justifies it. The minimum of a 2.0 GPA isn't going to get one much in life occupationally though. A 3.0 GPA isn't necessarily very competitive either, but it's a reasonable trade with being a competitive athlete.

That's why I think there should be more emphasis on feeder leagues instead of riding off of the college system.

 

[downtown]

I am interviewing one of the leading US professors of urban education on the NCAA later this week. If you have any questions you'd like me to ask, just lemme know.

 

[Core Imposter]

You know I remember these sorts of debates on academic requirements for athletes FORTY years ago.

Nothing is going to change. If you raise the bar, the coaches will get have the teachers raise the grades. Thats always been the way it works. When I was in school I saw football players on the field that only came to class about once a week.

It is just a whole lot worse now than it used to be.

 

[kochman]

I don't really see why this matters. Everyone gets what they want. Schools make money off the backs on the kids, making the scholarship money back 1000 times. The kids get to do what they want. If they want to go to class they can, if not, they don't really need to. You can say this takes scholarships away from academically successful kids, but I don't think that is the case due to the economic benefit to the schools in all of this.

Well, the example that is set, and the standards, set up poor expectations, etc...
So, kids learn, screw school, I'll just hoop it up all day, and quit school as soon as I get a contract...

Then they get injured, or whatever... career over, no education... the could have beens...

 

[say1988]

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.

100% this.

Let's face facts. Most top ranked college basketball players have majors in fields like phys ed or communications and frequently don't graduate. They would be much better off not playing sports at all so they could spend the necessary time doing what they should be doing.

Depends. A lot (namely those with a serious shot at going pro) would likely be better off going the baseball route and playing professionally right out of highschool, they don't waste time on token academics and get paid. Assuming there were competitive leagues and the scouting, which there isn't.

Would people feel the same way about an exceptional musician? Would you keep an ace musician out of your school because their english marks were bad? What about a debater?

If the individual is an English major, yes. If it is a music major (in a performance based program), academic standards are likely lower with more weight on demonstrating their skills. As that is what is relevant to the program.
Applicants should be held to the same standard as other applicants to the program they are applying for.

 

[downtown]

It is just a whole lot worse now than it used to be.

I'm not totally sure about that. I've been doing some research for our website on UChicago and college football at the turn of the century, and the Harvards, Yales, Chicagos, etc have been struggling with this stuff since the 1900s.

In case you guys are still interested, I interviewed Dr. Glorida Ladson-Billings, one of the leading US education professors about the NCAA and academic standards. The interview is here:

http://www.landgrantholyland.com/20...ics-core-gpa-change-2016-penn-state-sanctions

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't know enough about the particulars of a 2.0 VS a 2.3 as it pertains to being ready for collegework. A 2.0 is a C-average and a 2.3 is slightly higher than C but lower than B. As a kid who's between 3 and a 4, and sometimes I worry whether I'll be ready for college

As such, I can't really tell you whether the NCAA made a good change or not, but once I give my comments, maybe you guys will know what I would think if I knew about it

Its common sense to me that a person prepping for the NFL or NCAA would take an "Easier" major. I have no issues here. I also have no issues with them not being "The Best" in their respective fields, but still getting a scholarship for sports. It helps the school and it helps the kid.

That said, I'm cool with minimum standards that at least ensure the kid is actually doing his stuff in college and not merely there for sports and that's it. if its just going to be for sports, it shouldn't be connected to the college IMO.

I'm sure there's really more to it than GPA that determines whether you are "Ready" for college work. You might have a great senior year, so even if you did poorly for your first three years, you might have gotten better since then. You might have had a "Decent" first three years but caught senioritis but you'd still probably be ready. Or exc.

So I don't really know what the standards should be. But I'm fine with them existing. Even as a smart kid who clears 3.0 easy, that still seems like a high standard.

 

[GoodGame]

My experience is that while minimum standards are usually somewhere between a 2.0 and a 2.5 (for military, college transfers, etc..), if grades are a measure of competition then you'll want at least a 3.3. and probably at least a 3.75 for something very nerdy.

 

[downtown]

I'm sure there's really more to it than GPA that determines whether you are "Ready" for college work. You might have a great senior year, so even if you did poorly for your first three years, you might have gotten better since then. You might have had a "Decent" first three years but caught senioritis but you'd still probably be ready. Or exc.
.

Yeah, the NCAA uses other variables as well. There is a sliding GPA/ACT-SAT chart, where a student needs a min benchmark in both. The lower the GPA, the higher the required ACT. If your GPA is above a 3.0, you basically just need to write your name on the test. If you have the min allowed GPA, your ACT score must be higher (I think it was a 21 in 2007).

The NCAA also has a clearinghouse to make sure that students are taking real HS classes. The GPA requirements only pertain to the "core" classes (english, 3 credits of math, 2 of science, etc), so theoretically, a student could have a 1.8 high school GPA and still be able to play college football, so long as he maintains a 73 average in english and algerbra II, or something.

My experience is that while minimum standards are usually somewhere between a 2.0 and a 2.5 (for military, college transfers, etc..), if grades are a measure of competition then you'll want at least a 3.3. and probably at least a 3.75 for something very nerdy.

You're adorable.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah, the NCAA uses other variables as well. There is a sliding GPA/ACT-SAT chart, where a student needs a min benchmark in both. The lower the GPA, the higher the required ACT. If your GPA is above a 3.0, you basically just need to write your name on the test. If you have the min allowed GPA, your ACT score must be higher (I think it was a 21 in 2007).

The NCAA also has a clearinghouse to make sure that students are taking real HS classes. The GPA requirements only pertain to the "core" classes (english, 3 credits of math, 2 of science, etc), so theoretically, a student could have a 1.8 high school GPA and still be able to play college football, so long as he maintains a 73 average in english and algerbra II, or something.

OK. I'm not really sure the SAT is a great standard either. I found that the main difficulty in the SAT was the simple endurance aspect. I don't have a low attention span by any means, but dang, I was completely done before that test was done. I got a 1760, which I'm told is pretty good, but I'm gonna take it again anyway.

The SAT more seems to test more how good your concentration is and how much common sense you have than anything else.

The ACT, on the other hand, I found much harder. The English section was hard only because (I believe this is accurate but it might have been across the street) our school was dumb enough to be doing some project with a jackhammer that day. But the science and math (Trig) stuff was hard regardless.)

 

[schlaufuchs]

OK. I'm not really sure the SAT is a great standard either. I found that the main difficulty in the SAT was the simple endurance aspect. I don't have a low attention span by any means, but dang, I was completely done before that test was done. I got a 1760, which I'm told is pretty good, but I'm gonna take it again anyway.

The SAT more seems to test more how good your concentration is and how much common sense you have than anything else.

The SAT is literally designed to test how good you are at taking tests. Most of the strategies in it revolve around when to guess and when not to (although I heard the anti-guessing parts of the grading have been removed since I took it). Every multiple choice question features an obvious choice (which is always wrong), a bs answer (definitely wrong) and two tougher choices. The questions are always written in intentionally misleading manners (usually to coincide with/get you to automatically pick the easy answer), etc. The SAT is about preparation, practice, and training. The actual subject matter is very easy. Really its purpose is to see how determined you are to succeed at something that is very important for getting in college, as anybody can get a high (or perfect) score with proper preparation.

As for scores, 1700-1900 is about average. Anything over 2000 is good.

 

[downtown]

Actually, a 1500 is the national average for the SAT, and the national average for the ACT is about a 21. Y'all have to remember, a LOT of people take these tests.

I think a GPA/test score of your choice is a perfectly reasonable measure to ballpark if somebody is capable of doing *college level work*. That means the ability to pass a typical class at Bowling Green or Western Illinois, not necisarrily a leading Land Grant or your favorite private school. If somebody is scoring below a C- average on core classwork, and scores below average on a test that only really goes up to 10th grade, how would you argue they are academically ready for advanced coursework, especially in a style that is very different from the handholdy style of HS?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Here are the acceptance/rejection graphs for Bowling Green and Ohio State in 2011:





While the scores for Ohio State are slightly higher, the only other real difference seems to be that more people are rejected due to the sheer number of those who wish admittance. That Ohio State can be far more selective on that basis. It also shows that many people apply to Ohio State who have no problem getting in, but they decide to attend some other college.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Actually, a 1500 is the national average for the SAT, and the national average for the ACT is about a 21. Y'all have to remember, a LOT of people take these tests.

I think a GPA/test score of your choice is a perfectly reasonable measure to ballpark if somebody is capable of doing *college level work*. That means the ability to pass a typical class at Bowling Green or Western Illinois, not necisarrily a leading Land Grant or your favorite private school. If somebody is scoring below a C- average on core classwork, and scores below average on a test that only really goes up to 10th grade, how would you argue they are academically ready for advanced coursework, especially in a style that is very different from the handholdy style of HS?

Well, 1700-1900 is the average for people going to good but not great schools on academic merit alone. Most people going to a school like UCSC get a number somewhere in there.

 

[downtown]

According to BGSU's website, the 25th-75th percentile for ACT scores are 19-24. For Ohio State, it's a 26-30.

That isn't a slight difference. The top 25% of all students at BGSU would be fringe candidates at OSU-Columbus. Given the fact that OSU is the size of a small city, I'm sure there are hundreds of students, if not thousands, who have sub 23 ACTs, especially since the university is open enrollment for anybody who spends 3 quarters at a branch campus...but out of 50K, that shouldn't move the needle that much.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the NCAA and min. standards though.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The SAT is literally designed to test how good you are at taking tests. Most of the strategies in it revolve around when to guess and when not to (although I heard the anti-guessing parts of the grading have been removed since I took it). Every multiple choice question features an obvious choice (which is always wrong), a bs answer (definitely wrong) and two tougher choices. The questions are always written in intentionally misleading manners (usually to coincide with/get you to automatically pick the easy answer), etc. The SAT is about preparation, practice, and training. The actual subject matter is very easy. Really its purpose is to see how determined you are to succeed at something that is very important for getting in college, as anybody can get a high (or perfect) score with proper preparation.

As for scores, 1700-1900 is about average. Anything over 2000 is good.

I thought on the "Easy" level questions the obvious answer was correct?

I read that after taking the test though. I didn't know anything about that when I first took it.

Also, you still lose 1/4 of a point for guessing wrong on the SAT, unless they removed it this year (I took it last Fall.)

The ACT has no anti-guess mechanic though.