Prop 48: Finally Leveling the Playing Field

Can you remember what boosted you into the most prestigious HBCU in America? I can and it wasn't my grade point average.

I was a slacker in high school and breezed through four years off pure talent, smarts, and luck, not hard work and studying. Although I went to two of the best academic high schools in the Chicago area, my 2.6 GPA was not what it could have been.

It seems like yesterday when it was a month before the test that would determine my future earning potential-the ACT. This was around the same time high school phenomenon Kevin Garnett took the ACT about three times and got no higher than a 17.

I wound up getting a 23 on my ACT, good enough to get accepted to every HBCU that I applied to. Garnett wound up going straight to the league.

Standardized tests, which some say are biased, should not be the main determiners of freshman eligibility for student-athletes and how they will fair in college.

So what gave the NCAA the audacity almost 20 years ago to put Proposition 48 in place-a rule that stigmatizes incoming student-athletes by basing their eligibility on grade-point averages and standardized test scores such as the SAT and ACT?

I have no idea, but I am pleased to be informed that the NCAA, after all this time, is finally considering changing the requirements to a sliding scale which focuses more on grade point average instead of standardized test scores.

One of the main issues concerning Proposition 48 is the fact that it has affected lower-income students more than anyone else. In fact, studies have shown that these same low-income students have produced lower test scores but are often good athletes who have the most to gain by attending college.

Howard University's women's soccer coach Michelle Street believes that the old rules are too restrictive and hinder certain types of people.

" I have not had to use the scale because most of my players come from middle income families," Street said. "Their test scores are usually pretty good."

Some Howard student-athletes voiced strong displeasure with the rules. Donovan Burton of the football team feels that the current standardized scale is too restrictive also.

" I understand you have to have grades, but some people just are not book smart," Burton said.

Furthermore, he added that the rule could be racially and financially biased because athletics play an important role in black males attending college.

" In the hood, public school teachers pass you anyway, and there's hardly any work load," Burton said. "This is our way to school."

Burton's opinion can be justified by common sense.

The worse your high school education, in most cases, then the worse you will do on a standardized test.

Starting forward, Kyle Williams of the men's basketball squad spoke out also.

" The NCAA implements ways to keep whites in collegiate athletics such as the three second lane, and the three-point line, because they know black athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster," Williams said. "Besides that, most predominantly black high schools don't work you hard anyway."

The new rules would give students, such as me, who do not do well on standardized tests a chance to participate in collegiate athletics if they worked hard in high school. So is the proposal of a rule change negative or positive overall?

Williams thinks the rule changes are positive because, "as far as athletics, there are millions of kids trying to get scholarships, and there must be a system of weeding people out… The SAT is biased anyway."

Furthermore, a sliding scale would insure that a good person and good athlete can get into school and their future won't be based off just one test. Now graduates will be smarter, and will have a good educational background when they come to college.

The NCAA is finally basing college admission less on your income and standardized test, and more on your GPA, which is a better determiner of how you will fair in college.

The rest of the story
By Les Flanagan
Published: Friday, September 20, 2002