To the Editor:
I write in response to Gerald S. Gurney’s article entitled “Stop Lowering the Bar for College Athletes” (The Chronicle, April 10).
Academic reform over the past 10 years has produced substantive and tangible changes on NCAA Division I campuses. Academic-reform initiatives have increased academic standards, generated immediate and innovative measurement standards, and addressed accountability by penalizing underperforming teams.
The NCAA develops rules and policies to ensure the academic commitment of student-athletes and to increase the likelihood they will earn degrees. The governing bodies of the NCAA have worked to ensure that academic regulations are data-driven, and ultimately, they are approved by presidents and chancellors who serve on the Division I Board of Directors. It is important to remember, though, that these are minimum academic standards meant to apply to a very diverse group of institutions across the nation. They are not designed to replace institutional admissions criteria.
In 2003 the NCAA changed its initial eligibility rules based on data indicating that grade-point average in a set of core academic classes is a strong predictor of academic success, and that standardized-test scores are best examined in combination with this core grade-point average rather than as a stand-alone criterion. In addition, curriculum standards were increased to require completion of 16 core courses during high school.
Since these changes, average incoming profiles of student-athletes are equal to or higher than those at any time since 1994, when national data were first collected. NCAA student-athletes annually outperform their student-body counterparts in graduation rates, usually by several percentage points in almost all demographic categories. Although we have only one year of graduation data related to the initial eligibility changes of 2003, the outcomes for the 2003 cohort are very promising. Looking specifically at African-American student-athletes in the 2003 cohort, there were 400 more African-American student-athletes and 300 more African-American graduates compared with the 2002 (or any previous) cohort. In addition, the graduation success rate for African-American student-athletes increased significantly in men’s basketball (three points) and the Football Bowl Subdivision (five points). If these trends continue, it will be difficult to argue that the 2003 reforms did not have exactly the impacts they were intended to have—to maximize graduation rates while minimizing adverse impacts on minority and low-income students.
By all measures, NCAA academic-reform efforts have been successful. That being said, the NCAA and its member institutions are committed to continued evaluation and review of academic standards. Fully understanding the data regarding student-athlete academic progress and using them to create appropriate legislative recommendations provide the best opportunity to develop standards consistent with the education mission and values of the NCAA and its members.
Carolyn Callahan
Chair, NCAA Division I Academic Cabinet
Commonwealth Professor in Education and Faculty Athletics Representative
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Va.