Making the Grades : Cal State L.A.’s Athletics Director Says the New Guidelines May Make It Harder for Minority Students to Compete.

I firmly believe in emphasizing academics for student-athletes and think the NCAA eligibility standards for incoming freshmen set by Proposition 48 are excellent ones.

The NCAA’s Proposition 48 requires incoming student-athletes to have attained a 2.0 grade-point average in high school core classes in addition to meeting minimum test scores of 700 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test or 17 on the American College Testing examination.

I believed in Proposition 48 when it went into effect in 1986 and still do today. What we have found through research and history is that Proposition 48 has helped in the academic success of freshman student-athletes.

But I think we need to take a closer look to see if the new standards set forth by Proposition 16 are what we want at this point in time.

Proposition 16, which will take effect in the 1995-96 academic year, requires a 700 SAT score or 17 ACT score but raises the minimum GPA to 2.5. A student, however, who has a GPA as low as 2.0 can offset that with a higher SAT or ACT score.

Proposition 16 also increases the number of required high school core classes from 11 to 13 (core classes, such as English or math, are mandatory for graduation from high school).

Division II schools such as Cal State L.A. and other CCAA schools will be exempt from the 2.5 minimum GPA requirement, but we are still bound by the increase in core classes.

Requiring a 700 score on the SAT is absolutely fair and equitable to all.

But when you start talking about a sliding scale, which Division I schools (the NCAA’s highest classification, such as UCLA, USC or Cal State Long Beach) will have, you need to look more carefully into whether the SAT is a culturally biased exam or not.

I think it’s fair having student-athletes prepare themselves with the 11 core classes in high school but I’m not so sure about requiring 13 classes for them to compete as freshmen.

It may disenfranchise student-athletes, not only the minorities, but also those individuals who just aren’t good in math. I think those are the ones it’s going to hurt.

Another area I think needs evaluation is monitoring the academic progress of student-athletes.

Recent NCAA legislation requires student-athletes entering their third year of college enrollment to have completed 25% of the course requirements in their major.

But we can’t just wait until the junior year and all of a sudden say: “Now you’re going to be taking all these courses that lead to a degree.” It has to start as soon as they come in as freshmen.

I think a model similar to the one we have at Cal State L.A. should be adopted by the NCAA. Our requirements are stricter than NCAA standards and other conference schools.

In addition to student-athletes passing 36 units per year, we require two-thirds of the classes to be toward general education or major core courses. We also require transfer students to maintain a 2.0 GPA in cumulative work. An athlete might be able to compete with a 1.6 cumulative average under NCAA rules, but we do not permit that here.

Our academic support system includes counseling, advisement, tutoring, progress checks and monitored study hall for student-athletes. The annual retention rate (number of students who stay in school) for our athletes is 84%. The team GPA of our athletes rose from 2.56 to 2.74 last year and is higher than that of the general student population.

The budget cuts in the California State University system have been very difficult for not just athletics, but all academic areas. We’ve had to make layoffs and other tough decisions. We’ve had to work harder on fund-raising efforts.

Despite tuition increases, we’ve dramatically increased our scholarship levels as well. For the first time in our history, the men’s and women’s basketball programs will be at the NCAA maximum of 10 full scholarships each.

I have always believed and supported equitable standards for each gender. I can go back to situations coaching at the high school level when the boys’ teams had practice gear and went on nice road trips and nothing was happening on the girls’ side.

I thought the girls should be in good practice gear, too, not because the boys had it but because they should be proud of what they do in representing the school. By going through established channels and justifying the need for these things, I was able to make some positive changes for the program.

I’ve tried to carry that way of thinking with me in working with people and understanding the real needs of each athletic program--men’s or women’s. I think that’s just plain good and fair leadership whether you’re male or female.