SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Girls Varsity Soccer Lost In Conversion

Lost In Conversion

South Carolina public school student-athletes are at a severe disadvantage when their grade point averages are converted at the National Eligibility Center. The NCAA Clearinghouse or NCAA Eligibility Center is used to certify the academic and
amateur credentials of all college-bound student-athletes who wish to compete in NCAA Division I or II athletics.

Imagine two South Carolina track athletes walking up to the starting line and getting ready to race for the 100 meter state championship. Student-athlete Jones attends Private High School and student athlete Smith attends Public High School. Throughout the track season, each of these track stars has mimicked each other with respect to their 100 meter times and everyone in the stadium is ready for an epic race. However, the governing body suddenly halts the start of the race and draws a separate starting line for racer Jones from Private High, a starting line that is 33 to 40 meters down the track ahead of racer Smith. Now, the race can begin!

Anyone reading the above scenario is surely grimacing at the thought of such an unfair advantage and we are all saying to ourselves “this cannot happen, this must be a joke”. Unfortunately, with respect to the S.C. Uniform Grading Scale and its conversion at the National Eligibility Center, there is no punch line and there is no joke. The fact is; South Carolina public school student-athletes are at a severe disadvantage when their grades are converted at the National Eligibility Center.

The South Carolina general assembly directed the State Board of Education to develop a uniform grading scale in an effort to even the playing field with respect to S.C. sponsored academic scholarship opportunities. However, the playing field for student-athletes has been dramatically altered and the end result is an unjust system that eliminates many public school student-athletes from participating in Division 1 or Division 2 athletics, eliminates student-athletes from attending Division 1 or Division 2 colleges and universities, and severely hinders the student-athlete opportunities to obtain athletic scholarships.

In an effort to illustrate this point, we will use the above fictional student-athletes as a reference. Students Jones and Smith will each take 1 core course from each core academic category (Math, English, Social Science, and Physical Science) and both students in these scenarios are enrolled in an honors program.

Scenario #1

Students Jones and Smith receive identical final grades of 75% for their respective work and the workload for each student is identical. In addition, each student in this scenario has achieved a combined SAT score of 620.

Under the Private High School standard 10 point grading policy, student-athlete Jones earns a grade point average of 3.0 and the NCAA Eligibility Center conversion is 3.0 GPA (75% = 2.0 GPA + 1.0 Honor Credit = 3.0 GPA).

Under the S.C Uniform Grading Scale, student-athlete Smith earns a grade point average of 2.22. However, student-athlete Smith’s GPA conversion at the NCAA Eligibility Center is 1.0 GPA (75% = 1.0 + 0.0 Honor Credit = 1.0 GPA)

As a result, student-athlete Smith from Public High is not eligible to compete in Division 1 or Division 2 athletics and is not eligible for any athletic scholarships. Student-athlete Jones from Private High will be eligible for Division 1 or Division 2 athletics and athletic scholarships.

Scenario #2

Students Jones and Smith receive identical final grades of 92% for their respective work and the workload for each student is identical.

Under the Private High standard 10 point grading policy, student-athlete Jones earns a grade point average of 5.0 and the NCAA Eligibility Center conversion is 5.0 GPA (92% = 4.0 GPA + 1.0 Honor Credit = 5.0 GPA).

Under the S.C Uniform Grading Scale, student-athlete Smith earns a grade point average of 4.37. However, student-athlete Smith’s GPA conversion at the NCAA Eligibility Center is 3.0 GPA (92% = 3.0 + 0.0 Honor Credit = 3.0 GPA).

In this scenario, students Smith and Jones are both eligible for Division 2 athletics. However, in order to be eligible for Division 1 athletics, Student Smith from Public High must have a cumulative SAT score of 620 as opposed to student Jones from Private High who only needs to obtain an SAT score of 400. This is due to the Division 1 GPA test score and GPA sliding scale.

The outcome of these comparisons will be the same if you were to compare any South Carolina public school student-athlete to any other private or public school student-athlete who is under a standard ten (10) point grading scale with weighted points for honors classes. The reasons for this disparity are simple; the S.C. uniform grading scale is a modified seven (7) point scale versus the ten (10) point scale found in most schools throughout the United States and Europe, and S.C. public schools do not provide any honors credit at the NCAA Eligibility Center.

Due to the fact that there are many nuances associated with grading scales throughout the country, and the world. The NCAA Edibility Center relies upon each individual school to submit their respective grading scales in order to determine a student-athletes eligibility. South Carolina public schools are restricted from sending any grading scale that differs from the Uniform Grading Scale which was developed for academic scholarships.

So now that we have identified the problem, what are some of the ways that we can improve the current system to ensure a more level playing field? First we must realize that the S.C. Board of Education will be reluctant to revise the current uniform grading policy by reverting back to a 10 point scale. Thus, one suggestion would be to develop a supplemental grading scale designed specifically for college-bound student-athletes who wish to compete in NCAA Division I or II athletics and require certification through the NCAA Edibility Center. The Supplemental Athletic Grading Scale would be available to pubic schools reporting to the NCAA Edibility Center for the sole purpose of equalizing the reported grade point averages of our NCAA Division I or II student-athletes.

First, I'm not sure what you mean about "reverting back to a 10-point scale." SC had no such scale, and nothing was uniform before the most recent mandate. I know of virtually no K-12 schools that has used a 10-point scale; that has been far more common in colleges—not in K-12 schooling.

When the uniform mandate came into effect, the high school where I taught had our "A" LOWERED one point, in fact. . .

Next, the entire scenario is insane. SC's "uniform" scale doesn't make anything equitable; that is Utopian thinking. And I was shocked when my daughter went through the NCAA system—that is also insane.

Student-athletes are at the mercy of some idiotic bureaucracy that is more about "show" than anything of value.

Your post is very important; we should be more equitable to student-athletes. . .but don't hold your breath.

The NCAA and most schools (K-12 and colleges/universities) are interested in "looking" academically tough while continuing the wink-wink, nod-nod approach to athletics/academics.

Sigh. . .

My family went through a huge debate over the 7 point scale back when I transferred from Bishop England to Wando. I was somewhat of a "slacker overachiever," meaning that as long as I had an A, 90-100, I could care less what number it actually was.

When I transferred, and not for any bad reason, my class at Wando was the first class to roll through on the 7 point scale. But instead of using a conversion formula to convert from BE's scale to the Public scale, they automatically slapped new labels on all of my grades and my gpa and rank dropped a good amount of numbers. Furthermore, they told me that the only thing I could do to fix it was to get BE to send over a transcript of just letter grades, at which point they would convert every A to a 96 numerical grade...putting their students at a great disadvantage to anyone coming in. It still doesn't make sense to me today...they could screw with me...or screw with their own students. A conversion formula takes like 5 minutes to come up with, and a program to do it, in basic Java, would be just as easy.

What was worse though was when I would be sitting in my Calculus class and get a test back with a 92 on it and a B+ on the page. But I could look next to me at the senior's page with the same score and s/he has an A on the page. I took the same test, got the same score...but don't get the same credit. Granted, this isn't a problem anymore because everyone's on the scale in public schools...but man did it suck while I was there.

These, of course, are all "high class" problems, but they illustrate how ridiculous the whole thing got.

But either way, a 7 point scale doesn't make any sense to me anyway. Every school, private or public, I went to in California and in Charleston, up until Wando, used the 90-100 scale (the 10 point scale). So what's the point in using a 7 point scale? Did someone just randomly spin a dial and pick a number?

adidaskitten86:

Before the Great Uniform Scale, I attended and then taught at a school that was 94-100, not 93-100. . .

All grading scales are ARBITRARY; yep, someone just made them up. And claiming that mandating a uniform scale makes all things equal is, well, silly. . .

It is human folly to pursue quantification and objectivity, but we persist. The real problem with such behavior is that ultimately these fruitless ventures do negatively impact children.

The SAT, GPA, and all such are and have always done more to negatively impact school than help.