SAVANNAH, Ga. -- Student-athletes who transfer to NCAA institutions from two-year schools graduate at a lower rate than both non-transfers and four-year transfers, and some institutions are taking steps to change their admissions processes as a result.

The Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet discussed the trend at its February 11-13 meeting in Savannah, Georgia.

NCAA research staff presented information from a survey of Division I athletics administrators to the transfer issues ad hoc group, which was formed to discuss and devise best practices for improving the academic performance of transfer student-athletes.

The survey found that while most institutions have not changed policies regarding the evaluation and admissions process for two-year transfers as a direct result of the Academic Performance Program, some have made general changes, including increased academic support for two-year transfers.

The survey also revealed a strong majority of administrators who believe that two-year transfers struggle to meet progress-toward-degree requirements – many require remedial coursework to succeed at a four-year institution.

With that in mind, working-group members discussed possibly providing additional support for two-year transfers, including extra time to meet requirements such as progress toward degree and creating academic core curriculum standards, perhaps including requirements for types and numbers of courses. The discussions included a meeting with representatives of the two-year and four-year college communities, including junior college association leaders and a longtime academic advisor at a two-year college. The group discussed the mission of the junior colleges, particularly in different states across the country, and how different missions might play into any models and guidelines developed by the NCAA.

Cabinet members said the discussions with the representatives from two-year institutions were helpful, and the group hopes that further collaboration between the two-year college community and the cabinet will be as helpful, particularly through the NCAA Two-Year College Relations panel.

Many of the cabinet subcommittees spent time identifying issues that should be carried over to the work of the new governance bodies formed by the reorganization of Division I. The reorganization takes effect in September, and the work of the current AEC Cabinet will be split among different groups, including cabinets on academics, recruiting, amateurism, and student-athlete awards, benefits and financial aid.

For example, the cabinet’s recruiting subcommittee identified student-athlete reinstatement cases involving recruiting violations as a priority for the new Recruiting Cabinet. The subcommittee will explore who should be held accountable for such violations and hopes to obtain information regarding the violation and penalty trends.

The AEC Cabinet’s agents and amateurism subcommittee identified the increase in the trend of student-athletes using "advisors" by student-athletes in some high-profile sports. The financial aid subcommittee identified multiple-year awards and individual financial aid limits among issues to review further.

Possible issues for the Academics Cabinet include nontraditional coursework (specifically distance learning, correspondence and online courses) and best practices regarding institutional standards for and acceptance of transfer student-athletes.

Legislative concerns

The AEC Cabinet also considered several legislative items, including a change of position on proposed legislation that would prohibit two-year transfers from obtaining credit for non-traditional courses taken at an institution other than their enrolled institution. After meeting with representatives from the National Association for Athletics Academic Advisors, the continuing eligibility subcommittee recommended the cabinet support Proposal No. 07-67 because the online courses taken outside the two-year institution may be of questionable quality.

The cabinet also sponsored an amendment to change the proposal’s effective date to August 1, 2009, for student-athletes first enrolling in a collegiate institution on or after August 1, 2009.

The cabinet also wants to delay the effective date of Proposal No. 07-66,  relating to requiring two-year college transfers, who were non-qualifiers, to have successfully completed six semester or eight quarter hours of English and three semester or four quarter hours of math at the two-year college that are transferable to the certifying institution. The recommendation was to change the effective date to August 1, 2009, for student-athletes first enrolling in a collegiate institution on or after August 1, 2009. Both delays will help inform the two-year college community.

Additionally, cabinet members voted to support several other legislative proposals that are in the comment/amendment period, including those dealing with men's basketball evaluations, notifying North American institutions (such as those in Canada with intercollegiate sports programs) when a coach would like to recruit a currently enrolled student-athlete, and complimentary ticket benefits for non-traditional families.

The cabinet also voted to sponsor for the 2008-09 cycle a proposal requiring student-athletes to complete the amateurism portion of the Eligibility Center questionnaire before they can make an official visit to a campus. The change is anticipated to make eventual certification of student-athletes more efficient.

Other highlights

AEC Cabinet

February 9-11/Savannah, Georgia

•         Directed the staff to grant an initial-eligibility waiver through the academic intercept process for prospective student-athletes who graduated from high school before 2007 but delayed enrollment until after August 1, 2008, if such a student-athlete met the initial-eligibility requirements in place at the time of graduation.

•         Adopted guidelines for prospects who reclassify (that is, repeat a grade) during high school, including a position that waivers will generally be favorably considered when the reclassification was due to circumstances outside the student-athlete’s control (for example, health or financial issues, a family move, natural disasters).

•         Revised the prospective student-athlete academic review process to include a review of records if a student-athlete repeats courses at a different high school that significantly boost a student-athlete’s grade-point average. The issue will be considered further in the future to see if limits on the number of repeated courses are appropriate.