Graduation rates for Division II scholarship student-athletes increased for the entering class of 1996, climbing to an all-time record of 52 percent -- a 2 percent increase from the 1995 entering class.

In addition, Division II student-athletes who receive athletically related financial aid widened the gap between themselves and their overall student bodies to 7 percent (52 percent vs. 45 percent). The student-athlete rate exceeded the overall student body rate by 5 percent in the 2002 study (50 percent vs. 45 percent).

The Division II entering class of 1996 was not subject to any new initial-eligibility standards that would directly explain the increase in graduation rates. Todd Petr, NCAA managing director for research, said the explanation may rest with different Division I standards and with a residual effect from earlier Divisions I and II changes regarding high-school core courses.

"While Division II standards did not change for the most recent study, Division I standards did," Petr said. "Although no proof is available, it is likely that Division II student-athletes generally arrived in college better-prepared academically as a result of meeting Division I Proposition 16 requirements."

The Proposition 16 requirements that became effective in 1996 required prospective Division I student-athletes to achieve higher high-school grade-point averages if they scored lower on standardized tests. Because initial eligibility is determined over a number of years and because prospects would have no way to know early on if they would choose a Division I or II institution, those with college athletics ambitions would have to assume that they would need to meet the more stringent Division I standards.

Division I rates also jumped 2 percent in the most recent study.

(Petr also said the most recent Division II rates could have been negatively affected, although to a lesser degree, by prospects who did not meet the Division I Prop 16 standards but who did meet the Division II standard -- at least an 820 SAT/68 sum ACT and at least a 2.000 GPA in 13 core courses.)

Petr said the other positive factor may have been a residual effect from core-course requirements that took effect in 1995 and 1996.

"Again, we don't have a way to prove that the increase from 11 to 13 required core courses had a specific, positive effect on the Division II rate," Petr said. "We do know, however, that the completion of a larger number of core courses is a good predictor of future graduation success, so it may have played a role."

Divisions I and II increased to a 13 core-course requirement in 1995, and Division I added a 14th core course for the 1996 entering class. Division I recently upped that requirement to 16 core courses for the entering class of 2008. At the 2003 Convention, Division II voted to increase its core-course requirement to 14, effective for the entering class of 2005.

Whatever the cause, the most recent graduation rate is the highest ever recorded for Division II student-athletes. The previous high was 50 percent for the 1995-96 entering class.

The gain was driven by an increase in the graduation rates of white student-athletes, who made up about 70 percent of the participants in the class. The graduation rate for white male athletes increased from 48 to 50 percent while the rate for white female student-athletes jumped to 64 percent from 61 percent.

Graduation rates for Division II black student-athletes actually dropped a point from the previous study, declining to 36 percent. While black females increased from 44 to 45 percent, black males dropped from 36 to 33 percent.

By sport, the highest rate measured for the 1996 class was for women's cross country and track, which showed a 61 percent graduation rate. The lowest was for football, 41 percent. The graduation rate for men's basketball was 43 percent; for women's basketball, it was 59 percent.

"This is a good overall report for Division II," said Division II Vice-President Mike Racy. "We have some positive movement here, and we may be able to build on it with the more demanding core-course requirements that will take effect over the next several years."

Racy also noted that Division II is nearing a decision on whether to proceed with a "graduation-success" report that would provide an alternate measure. The methodology for the current report, mandated by the federal Student-Right-to-Know Act, does not count incoming transfers, counts outgoing transfers as not having graduated and does not count student-athletes who do not receive athletically related aid.

The alternate study would account for those student-athletes. Pilot studies have shown that the student-athlete rate would increase about 10 percent using the "graduation-success" methodology.