Making the Grade: Helping or Hurting Minority Athletes?

For over fifty years there has been an ongoing debate about the minimum academic requirements a potential student athlete must meet in order to compete at the collegiate level. As Gerald Gurney writes in his article, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, the NCAA has fluctuated between lowering and raising the minimum requirements for incoming student athletes. As recently as 2003 the NCAA has made changes to its requirements and attempted to design the standards to be more accepting of athletes who may not perform as well on standardized tests. These changes to the standards were partially motivated by the NCAA's attempts to offer minority students increased access to higher education and opportunities to graduate. The NCAA Clearinghouse implemented a sliding scale for grade point average and standardized test scores while eliminating the minimum requirements of a 17 on the ACT and a score of 820 on the SAT.

Mr. Gurney argues that the NCAA has failed in its efforts to provide opportunities for minority student athletes. He explains that not only have the changes resulted in minimal increases in participation and graduation rates, the overall process has had adverse effects on institutions of higher education. What has resulted is a large number of students who qualify due to lowered test score requirements and these same students are entering college with inadequate skills to meet the demands of the rigorous academic course load they are sure to face. Mr. Gurney notes that this not only hurts the student, but the institution as well. Due to the increased number of student athletes who are entering college unprepared, institutions are having to pour money, time, and energy into academic support services.

Mr. Gurney's solution is to re-establish minimum eligibility standards for incoming athletes and utilize a minimum standardized test score. He recommends that the NCAA include an additional evaluative component that determines whether or not potential student athletes have the reading and mathematics abilities necessary to be successful in college. He campaigns for presidents and coaches alike to avoid putting the winning traditions of college programs at the forefront and instead think about the well being of the student athlete who may be a better fit for another institution.

In response to Mr. Gurney's article John Infante, Colorado State University, wrote and article that was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education where he explained that it is far too early in the process to determine if the changes made to the NCAA eligibility standards have had an effect on student athletes. The Academic Progress Rate (APR) has been designed as a measuring stick to assess a student athletes eligibility, retention, and progress towards graduation each academic term. Mr. Infante argues that the incoming class of 2005-2006 was the first class to be recruited with an eye on meeting APR standards. Thus the impact of the changes made in the most recent eligibility requirements will not be known until late 2011 after the data can be calculated from the 2005-2006 cohort.

Mr. Infante posits that Mr. Gurney jumped the gun in his assessment on the changes made to the eligibility requirements. He believes it will take another 11 to 14 years for the NCAA to complete its analysis on the eligibility requirements. He faults Mr. Gurney for labeling the project a flop midway through the process and adds that doing so places unreasonably high standards on the NCAA and its members.

As a former African-American student athlete this debate resonates with me. I must admit that my support for lowering academic eligibility requirements for incoming student athletes fluctuates like the Colorado weather. Often times I reflect on my personal experiences when I was a high school student trying to determine where I was going to attend college. I have never considered myself to be a great standardized test taker and more often than not my scores served to validate my beliefs. However, my success or lack thereof on standardized tests never carried over into my classroom performance. My high school GPA along with the development of the sliding scale allowed me to entertain the thought of enrolling at universities that would not have been available to me if I were judged on my test scores alone.

Another part of me believes that "lowering the bar" is never a good idea and sends the wrong message to student athletes. Throughout my career in athletics I observed many athletes who had little to no desire for learning and their performance in the classroom reflected this. Although I agree that some students struggle to learn the skills necessary to succeed in college, others suffer from a lack of desire to earn an education. My fear is that lowering the bar may increase the number of student athletes who have a strong desire to compete in athletics and a far less desire to pursue a degree. If my fear is, in fact, a reality then I believe the NCAA is doing more harm than good by providing opportunities to some athletes who have no desire to capitalize on them.