Making the Grade

"Could you be chancellor full-time?"

"I'm not trying to be a horse's ass," says a straight-faced Jim Rogers, Nevada's higher education chancellor.

Not that anyone actually called Rogers, who's seated behind his desk and has just finished snacking on a few M&Ms, a horse's ass. It's just that lawyering to increase university entrance requirements from a 2.5 grade point average to a 3.0 next year—four years ahead of a 2001 university Regents agreement—has some folks thinking he's, well, a horse's ass.

"Regent (Linda) Howard told me to bring boxing gloves to (last Thursday's) Regents meeting," Rogers joked.

Not necessary, this time: Regents shelved the proposal until January 26.

The break will give Rogers time to hone his strategy.

That strategy's ultimate goal is this: world-class higher education. He envisions a three-tiered system with elite universities—the University of Nevada, Las Vegas as sort of a Sin City Stanford; the University of Nevada, Reno as, say, Rutgers West—vibrant state colleges (Nevada State College at Henderson?) and solid community colleges. To get there, the television mogul (he owns Sunbelt Communications and KVBC Channel 3) and ultra-philanthropist ($200 million to universities throughout the nation) is cajoling business leaders to open their wallets, adopt schools, get involved. He wants incentives-based scholarships. Stronger partnerships—student/faculty, higher ed/K-12, research, private. A Regents Academy for training purposes. For universities to be judged by retention and the degrees granted rather than enrollment. Radical changes, all. But it's the GPA proposal that's put a target on his ass.

"I'm a little shocked at the hue and cry," Rogers says. "People say I'm breaking a deal because this is supposed to happen in 2010. But we're doing everything based on the lowest common denominator. If this requirement affects, say, 200 kids out of 35,000, why are we bowing to the needs of the 200?"

According to published reports of the impact, some 459 freshmen wouldn't have earned admission in the current academic year.

Opponents' worries are the same as they were four years ago: The higher GPA requirement would lead to a mass exodus of students to the 41 states that use a mix of eligibility criteria and would disproportionately affect minority and lower-income students. During meetings in 2001, former state Assemblyman Wendell Williams charged that the proposal was meant to supply students to Nevada State College.

Rainier Spencer, founder and director of UNLV's Afro-American Studies Programs, supports expediting implementation of the higher GPA standard. His argument is the same as in 2001: Lower GPA standards consign students to mediocrity. Those who can't meet the standard can go to community colleges and, now, Nevada State College, then transfer to a university when they're eligible. Raise expectations, he says, and students will eventually meet them.

"The standard has been set, so the speeding up of the timetable is the only issue," Spencer says. "When this first came up, nobody knew what Nevada State College would be. Nevada State is apparently successful, so this is a perfect time for it. If people complain that the standards are unfair, that argument was done away with four years ago."

Proponents say the proposal is not about race or economics. According to published reports, there would be 1 percent differences in the number of black, white and Hispanic students with the new standard—6 percent to 5 percent, 13 percent to 12 percent and 58 percent to 59 percent, respectively. Like with any business looking for ways to improve, Rogers says, this is about allocating resources more effectively.

"At some point, we're going to have to stop remedial classes," he says, estimating that $3.1 million was spent in the last academic year. "When I graduated, I was not qualified to go to Princeton. Even if I were accepted, I probably wouldn't have had the money to go. Everyone deserves access to higher education, but it's not a right."

On its face, state public education superintendent Keith Rheault says the higher GPA standard is a good thing. It'll enhance the system's profile, he says, and make it more competitive. Better students attract better professors, who can procure more research funds ... da da da. But the devil is in the implementation.

"My only concerns would be that they allow time for students to make sure they qualify," he says. "Hopefully, they wouldn't change it for students that have interest this year and don't have time to adjust to meet the requirements. Secondly, that there be options for students to go to, to get there (the 3.0 GPA) eventually."

Of the Clark County School District's 11,194 graduates last year, 55 percent had a GPA of 3.0 or higher. If enacted, Rogers fears the new standard could spark grade inflation and students taking less-challenging courses, problems he isn't sure how to address. He is convinced that without more support at the base level of education—preschool, kindergarten, elementary—we'll continue to have mediocre public education and universities viewed as schools of last resort.

"We (higher education officials) didn't understand the importance of all-day kindergarten for all kids," he says. "We didn't support it (during the 2003 legislative session) and that was a mistake. There was a lack of communication on both sides. We need to stop being so territorial, seeing this as us vs. them. The private sector also has to realize that we have common interests and goals. That's why the private sector is involved with the (school district) superintendent search. Every major company should have a liaison to the school district. If you ask 100 millionaires in Vegas to name who is on the school board, they probably couldn't name two."

And if Regents balk on January 26? Rogers plans to put on those boxing gloves.

"I want this done next year," he says. "I didn't throw it out there as a bargaining tool."