The changes to athlete eligibility requirements recently made by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) likely will be met with criticism. Opponents of the changes will argue that lower standardized test score requirements are symptomatic of the diverging standards by which athletes and the rest of the student body are judged. Those nay-sayers will be wrong. The NCAA's changes are meant to emphasize the "student" in "student athlete," and they do not harm universities unless the universities themselves allow them to.
The NCAA voted last week to lower the standardized test scores (namely SAT scores) that they require athletes to have in order to join an NCAA team and to increase the progress toward a degree an athlete is required to make to remain eligible. Under the old guidelines, NCAA athletes were required to get an SAT score of at least 820 with a GPA of at least 2.5. Lower GPAs were acceptable if the athlete's SAT score was higher. Under the new system, a combined score as low as 400 -- essentially being able to sign one's own name -- will qualify, so long as the athlete has a GPA of at least 3.55 in at least 14 core courses.
Combined with this easing of initial requirements is a toughening of the guidelines that must be met in order to maintain eligibility. Previously, student athletes had to complete 25 percent of degree courses by the start of third year, 50 percent by the start of fourth year and 75 percent by the start of fifth year. Those numbers have been bumped to 40 percent, 60 percent and 80 percent, respectively. In addition, an athlete's GPA must be 90 percent of what his institution requires for graduation by the start of second year, 95 percent by the start of third year and 100 percent by the start of fourth year.
A minimum SAT score of only 400 points is ridiculously low in comparison to scores received by most University applicants. An important caveat to the NCAA's decision is the requirement that students with low scores cannot be admitted unless those scores are accompanied by strong grades.
This change is meant to account for the so-called cultural bias inherent in standardized tests. Minorities and those at lower income levels, particularly in urban areas, typically do not perform as well on standardized tests as white or suburban test-takers. Allowing for lower scores, provided that grades are not equally abysmal, decreases the emphasis on a test for which students are demonstrated to be unequally prepared. There recently have been doubts about the usefulness of standardized tests as they currently are constructed -- the University of California system has even considered eliminating the SAT all together. Given this growing skepticism within the academic world and the arbitrary nature of the 820 cutoff, the NCAA's de-emphasis of the SAT is both timely and appropriate.
The decision to reduce the significance of the SAT in favor of grades does, however, present its own problems. With an increase in the significance of grades, there will likely be more pressure put on high schools to award higher grades in order to give their students a shot at college. This need not affect the academic standards held by a particular university; it simply puts more responsibility on colleges to know their applicants and make sure that they measure up to their specific standards.
Although the new standards may make it easier to establish eligibility, they do not compel universities to accept lower standards -- and they make it harder to maintain eligibility once in school. The higher standards for enrolled students are a giant step toward reaffirming the NCAA's commitment to educating its athletes -- a commitment that has been seen as wavering in recent years. The new guidelines will prevent athletes or coaches from treating college sports as a minor league arena. They also will punish schools that abuse the lower SAT standards by making students incapable of moving toward a degree ineligible.
The new standards still have to pass muster with the Division I board of directors. The board should approve the new changes. Rather than setting arbitrary scores necessary for admission, it allows individual schools to decide who should be admitted -- essentially allowing universities to consider athletic applications as "holistically" as they claim to consider other applications. Additionally, it emphasizes an athletes role and responsibility as a student, a shift in emphasis that should improve the credibility of the NCAA and its Division I schools.
(Megan Moyer's column appears Wednesdays in
The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at mmoyer@
cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
