 |
|
     
|
 Academic Reform Trending In Right Direction - May 06, 2008
posted by: Josh
If you're a regular reader of the Double-A Zone, you'll know that academic reform has been the hallmark of Myles Brand's presidency at the NCAA. He has regularly said that his number one hope is that initiatives like the Academic Progress Rate (APR) and Graduation Success Rate (GSR) aid inspire a behavioral shift in intercollegiate athletics. If the fourth year of APR data serves as an accurate indicator, behavior is certainly changing. The overall APR, which measures student-athlete performance based on eligibility and retention, rose slightly, with increases in both eligibility and retention and a decrease in the number of student-athletes leaving school while academically ineligible. A squad-size adjustment, which was in place until teams accumulated four full years of APR data, was eliminated this year for most teams. Because of the departure of the squad-size adjustment, general consensus was that penalties would be significantly higher than the 218 teams from 123 institutions that appear on the penalty list. About 3.5 percent of 6,272 Division I teams will receive penalties. There is a lot of good news in this year's data, including the increased performance of baseball and football programs. On the flip side, men's basketball is still not at an acceptable level and a great deal of work remains in that sport. The numbers reveal that more kids are returning to finish their degrees than ever before. In fact, since the reform structure was implemented, more than 4,000 student-athletes have earned a graduation bonus point for their institutions because they returned to finish their schooling after leaving early. There's a reason that individuals like Vince Young, Kevin Durant and Jeff Green have decided to go back to school while earning millions in the professional ranks. For the skeptics who believe the penalties are soft, look at the 26 teams that have entered the historical phase of the structure this year. Those programs have failed to change their behavior and will face restricted scholarships, recruiting and practice time. If the academic performance of those teams doesn't get better, the penalties will become more severe. Next year, postseason bans will be in the mix and along with the scholarship reductions, those penalties are as strong as the ones doled out for major infractions cases. The overall APR data is encouraging and in my opinion, add legitimacy to the entire enterprise of intercollegiate athletics. Programs cannot ignore the responsibilities student-athletes have in the classroom and if they do, they will soon find themselves without the means to win on the fields of play. For more information about the APR data, click here to read Michelle Hosick's story on NCAA.org. 
CommentsJosh: Isn't an APR of 925, which equals roughly a 60 percent GSR, seem a bit low? I would think one could reasonably expect more than 6 in 10 athletes to graduate, especially given the academic resources dedicated solely to athletes. Are plans in place to raise the APR cut-off from 925 in future years? I personally believe that 60 percent is low...and would like to see it higher in the future. But we have to remember that student-athletes graduate at a better clip than those in the regular student body. The other thing to remember is that most of our teams are WELL above 925, and that number is used as a MINIMUM benchmark. The benchmark of 925 was selected because it equated with a 50 percent graduation rate, which NCAA presidents and other reform-minded groups such as the Knight Commission believed to be a legitimate expectation for student-athletes to meet. At the time, graduation rates were calculated by the federal methodology, which does not take transfers in good academic standing into account. Since then, the NCAA has gone to the more accurate Graduation Success Rate, which does in fact account for transfers. In short, a 925 APR projects to a 50 percent rate under the federal methodology, but a 60 percent Graduation Success Rate, which is more accurate. If it is true that NCAA presidents (I assume that means university presidents) and reform organizations believe that graduating 50-60% of athletes is a "legitimate expectation," shame on them. Research literature on retention clearly shows that the more involved a student is with the university (e.g., clubs, student leadership, service groups, etc.), the more likely they will persist through graduation. Given the incredible link athletes have to their universities and the academic resources devoted solely to them, why wouldn't we expect them to graduate at rates higher than the general student body. Perhaps a more meaningful comparison would be to compare graduation rates of athletes to students involved in time intensive activities like music, theater, band, or student government. Post a Comment |
  
Doesn't an APR of 925, which equals roughly a 60 percent GSR, seem a bit low? Are plans in place to raise the APR cut-off from 925 in future years?
- Sam
   
|
