When the NCAA released the results of the second year of its Division I Academic Performance Rate (APR) system earlier this spring, there was a lot of commentary on whether the reform measures were working. Some lauded the scores as an accurate snapshot of a program's dedication to academics. Others complained that the richer schools had an advantage and many nuances weren't working.

But what do the people in the trenches have to say about the latest APR scores? In January, the National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics (N4A) surveyed members for their views of the APR system. Overall, academic advisors said they support the program in general but find problems with some of its practical effects. Of the 132 respondents, 59 percent said the APR more accurately reflects a team's academic culture than does the federal graduation rate, but sample comments show counselors see the score as just a one-time snapshot. "The APR is 'rock bottom' eligibility and not a picture of a team's academic culture," said one respondent.

A major concern of academic advisors is that the system requires student-athletes to choose majors quickly and encourages easier majors. About 35 percent of those surveyed said the rules create fewer degree options for students, about 32 percent see no change, and 3.8 percent believe the rules create more options. Due to the 40-60-80 progression-toward-a-degree (PTD) rule, advisors also said the APR makes it difficult for students to change majors.

"More often than before, many of my student-athletes are looking for the 'easy' major so that they can remain eligible," one counselor wrote. Another added, "Students are getting stuck in majors in which they are not interested, and then they do not have the choice to change their major due to the PTD requirements. I believe this is an educational disservice."

When asked whether coaches at their institutions are trying harder to recruit student-athletes they think will academically succeed, 19 percent said yes, 32.6 percent said somewhat, and 27 percent said no. One survey respondent said, "There is still the pressure to bring in those 'impact' players who may be less academically prepared." Another complained that some coaches expect academic advisors to "work magic" once the athlete gets to campus.

Seventy-two percent of respondents said their academic support units received no more financial support as a result of the academic reform measures, and about a third said they work more hours now and feel more stress. Some complained that reporting scores to the NCAA takes time away from direct contact with student-athletes, and that coaches get financial incentives for improved academic performance while counselors do not.

But some schools are allotting more resources to academic support. After falling below the cut score in two sports, the University of Toledo developed an academic recovery plan as mandated by the NCAA. Mike Meade, Assistant Athletic Director for Academics and Student Life, says Toledo has put more money into two main areas: Tutoring for student-athletes, and helping to pay for summer school, especially for incoming first-year athletes who are considered at-risk.

Virgil Starks, Associate Athletic Director for Student Life at Auburn University, which touted its football team's March score in the top 10 percent nationally, says the school has extensively upgraded its academic-support program. "We have added more tutoring, supplemental staff, facilities, and summer school," he says. "Of course, that would all be cost-prohibitive for some institutions."

N4A President Sandy Meyer, Assistant Director of the Morgan Academic Support Center for Student-Athletes at Penn State University, says a final concern that came out of the surveys was the way the APR scores handle transfers. Members of the N4A feel strongly that transfers who leave in good standing should not harm their teams' scores.

For example, at Penn State, most teams Meyer works with did quite well—two even received perfect scores. But men's basketball was in the penalty range, hampered, she says, by a coaching change in the past year that resulted in several damaging transfers. "The athletes left here in good academic standing, but you don't get that point if they don't stay at your institution," Meyer says.

Kent State University's men's basketball team also struggled with points lost due to transfers, especially because of the nuances of the scoring. The previous spring, the school had released two men's basketball players to transfer, but one had a GPA of 1.96, just under the 2.0 needed for athletic eligibility, and the other lacked enough hours of coursework to remain eligible.

In both cases, had Kent State looked at their grades and course load, it could have insisted they attend summer school—and likely get their eligibility back—before being released to transfer. While the team still would have lost each athlete's retention point, they would have been 1 for 2 instead of 0 for 2.

"That won't happen again," says Laing Kennedy, Kent State's Director of Athletics. "It was a matter of timing. If we had released them in August instead of May, we would not have had a problem."

Some athletic departments are also attempting to change their culture. At Toledo, for example, Meade has developed a spreadsheet coaches can use to project overall team eligibility as the academic year progresses.

"I believe 'APR' has become a household word in our athletic department," Meade says. "It doesn't seem there's a meeting here where it doesn't come up."