NCAA’s new standards call for higher test scores

NCAA’s new standards call for higher test scores

UCLA supports new rules despite criticism of policy

By Rashmi Nijagal

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) recently
came under attack for its new proposition to raise the standards
that would allow high school athletes to participate in Division I
college athletics.

However, the UCLA athletics department supports the new
standards completely.

"We have very high admissions standards. With our entering
freshmen class being the top students in California, the students
that we recruit need to be at least within yelling distance of the
other students," Judith Holland, senior association athletic
director at UCLA.

Proposition 16 strengthens the old standard, Proposition 48,
which required students to have at least a 700 on the SAT and a
grade point average of 2.0 in a core curriculum of 11 courses. The
new rule now raises the number of core classes to 13 and allows for
students with higher test scores to have lower grades.

Students with a 900 SAT score can have at least a 2.0 average,
however students with test scores of 700 must have at least a 2.5
average.

The proposition comes under attack for using test scores in
athletic eligibility standards. Research by independent
organizations, including the NCAA, has shown test scores to be
unreliable and biased. Opponents claim that many underprivileged
students, such as low-income whites and minority applicants, are
unfairly excluded from participation by these standards. However,
the NCAA still contends that the use of test scores is
necessary.

"The research that we have conducted indicate that test scores
and grade point average are a better indicator of preparedness (for
managing college life and college athletics) than using just the
grade point average," said Francis Canavan, group executive
director for public affairs for the NCAA.

The McIntosh Commission for Fair Play in Student-Athlete
Admissions is a major opponent of the NCAA’s use of test scores to
determine the eligibility of athletes. The commission, the first
outside group to analyze the NCAA’s research, issued a statement
concluding that even the NCAA’s findings confirm the fact that the
use of test scores in this manner is unjustified and that
Proposition 48 and 16 are based on a series of faulty premises and
inaccurate conclusions.

"It simply is not appropriate to use test scores to determine
eligibility," said Robert Schaeffer, member of the McIntosh
Commission and public education director of Fair Test ­ the
national center for fair and open testing. "It is biased because it
underpredicts the abilities of many females and people of color.
The NCAA’s own research shows that students who would otherwise be
successful playing sports and going to school are being excluded
from participating in sports under the current standards and even
more will be made ineligible under proposition 16."

However, Canavan asserts, standards of any kind are sure to
displease some people.

"With any national standard that applies to students there is
going to be the unintended effect of barring certain students who
could potentially be successful," he said. "Any standard will have
this effect but in the absence of any standard, there will be
exploitation of the student athlete."

At the NCAA’s annual convention in San Diego earlier this month,
members of the national college advisory committee voted in favor
of the new proposition even though they opted to withhold the new
standard’s implementation until August 1996, instead of
implementing the rule in August of this year.

"We were in support of Proposition 16 because we are always in
favor of strengthening academic requirements," Holland said.

Although UCLA athletes must meet the NCAA eligibility
requirement to play Division I athletics, UCLA requires athletes to
also meet university admissions policy standards which usually
places them above the NCAA requirement.

However, because UCLA maintains a purely competitive admissions
policy, it is possible for a student with lower scores and a lower
grade average to be admitted to the university.

A misconception is that the new standards will block students
from admission into a university. These standards only establish
whether or not the student can participate in Division I
intercollegiate athletics for their first year.

"This proposition does not stop the university from accepting
the student. If they do not meet the standards, they just can’t
play the first year," said Holland. "This really sends a message to
high school seniors to get their grades in order. Missing the first
year is not such a heavy price to pay."

Ultimately, it is the high school athletes who will feel the
impact of the NCAA’s new standards and some are ambivalent towards
the new proposition.

"Truthfully, I think that the standard shouldn’t be different
for a student athlete than any other student," said Louis Ramirez,
athletic director for Burmingham High School, in Van Nuys,
Calif.

"But, because of their situation, student athletes should be
able to get in with lower grades. A 900 on the SAT is probably too
high and these standards will probably change the color of the
teams and will hurt disadvantaged kids. Class grades are a much
more accurate measure of the student’s preparedness than the SAT,"
Ramirez said.

Despite the proposition coming under heavy fire, the NCAA doubts
that the new standard will be repealed.

"I think that it is very unlikely that the committee would
change their minds," said Canavan. "The convention this month was
to be the last time that they were going to vote on it and I don’t
think that they would want to go through it again."