South Carolina has lowered the scores necessary for students to pass HS courses. The reason for legislative action on this matter? - pressure from Clemson and the University of South Carolina. Apparently, neighboring states, NC and Georgia in particular, had lower standards for passing courses necessary for graduation from HS. Accordingly, the state universities in these neighboring states, who required HS degrees even from those "students" who would be playing college football or basketball, could admit more "marginal" students than could the major universities in South Carolina. No longer. The SC legislature has done away with this gross injustice and put its flagship universities on an even playing field with their vaunted peers to the north and west. How long will we allow the sham of college athletics to continue in this way?
shameful
- Thread starter Aging Booster
- Start date
Just as long as the money continues to flow to the NCAA and individual school administrators.
Paying college athletes only exacerbates the problem by bringing more money into the conversation and furthering the differences between scholarship athletes and other students. We need to reverse the trend that is making college athletes something different, even less, than all other students. No special admissions. No extra funds beyond scholarship money. No special tutoring. No special dormitories. Same standards for everyone. Only then can we put college athletics back in its proper place.
But I think the only people who really care at all about putting college athletics back to whatever is its proper place is just a small group of fans who will continue to watch/support, anyway. The schools, networks, NCAA, etc. have no incentive. In fact, their incentive is 100% opposite. Money talks.
I won't disagree out of hand but it would change the landscape dramatically. With so much revenue then directed to such a small collective, and the players probably and rightfully upset, a small wealthy individual or groups will establish meaningful minor leagues for FB and BB. I cannot understand why it hasn't happened yet.
If it ever does, that will really lower the college quality and kill off much of the revenue. But, the players would finally return to student athletes with low expectations of going pro.
Exactly. This is what should happen. As a college professor, I can tell you that there are many, many students in colleges today - and not just lower tier colleges - who really have no business being there. Scholarship athletes at many schools are among them. If they want to play football or basketball and not be real students, they should play in a minor league system, as baseball players do. Let college be for students; and college sports be for college students. Our academic leaders have to insist upon this and tell the networks and big $$$ interests (NFL, NBA) that colleges are sick of being their lackeys. This is an academic issue, first and foremost.
But they are different than most other students. They have a pretty unique skill that is highly sought after and can be utilized to bring value ($$) to the university. And they should be recognized as such - whether its special dorms or even stipends. I pay my grad students a stipend because they bring value to the university by helping me get grants. Football players can bring in as much or more value. The question is whether that is a good thing. I go back and forth on this.
So, let's say you deny admission to the kids you are complaining about who are only there to play sports.... what would happen? Would their lives improve? I'm guessing no. At least by going to college (even if for a short time) they get to be around a different environment that might spur them on to do different (hopefully better) things with their lives. But maybe not, in which case you are no worse than where you started.
Would it be better for the universities? Probably not. Big time college sports is part of the culture at many of these places. As a student at Northwestern, I felt it enhanced my experience there (and I was there in the pre-Barnett days). It would reduce revenue for the school. It would reduce alumni pride and donations.
I'm not saying there aren't problems - some of which perhaps can be fixed and others that probably never can. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. All that said, I agree strongly that the athlete should be expected to be a student or else they are getting cheated and that at some point, the standards for admission have to be high enough so that there is even a chance that kid will make the most of it.
Except that for a lot of (potential) college athletes, the opportunity to play a sport on scholarship is a type of affirmative action. A leg up so to speak. Should this happen in a different format (minor league as xyzbobxyz says)? Perhaps. Certainly the Pros benefit from the current system--a free feeder system. Right now, too many people are benefiting from the system monetarily. They just want to keep the spigot flowing, regardless of the downside.
Don't live in Plato's world of ideal types. In this real world we occupy, things are never as clear. Universities are places of higher education, sure. They are also the main route to the NFL and NBA for some. That's how the world really is, not how Plato's ideal might portray it.
*shrug* As long as those of us who attend U for a quality education get that quality education, I'm not sure why it bothers some of us that others who attend are in an "unpaid internship" (to borrow a very apt analogy already mentioned, above, by Fitz51).
Universities have proven for decades they can fulfill both roles simultaneously.
p.s. OP, are you implying that you believe all NU's football and basketball players would be admitted to the university if they were not quality athletes? Do you believe there is not a separate standard for them than for the "average" NU applicant? A case of 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone,' perhaps....
*shrug* As long as those of us who attend U for a quality education get that quality education, I'm not sure why it bothers some of us that others who attend are in an "unpaid internship" (to borrow a very apt analogy already mentioned, above, by Fitz51).
Universities have proven for decades they can fulfill both roles simultaneously.
p.s. OP, are you implying that you believe all NU's football and basketball players would be admitted to the university if they were not quality athletes? Do you believe there is not a separate standard for them than for the "average" NU applicant? A case of 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone,' perhaps....
Last edited:
Too many are benefiting but not those generating the revenue, at least not portionally.
I can't remember--didn't Plato play defensive end for UCLA?
Your argument is, essentially, that it's OK to have a separate class of athletes admitted under the guise of providing higher education to entertain the masses ... for free. And under the system you say has worked for decades, it doesn't matter if these athletes get an education while they're there or healthcare when they leave.
Some of these players can't read.
Nice Plato reference, though.
Only if you look at it from the perspective of the masses.
If you look at it from the perspective of the players, it's an internship, a means to an end...the end of professional football/basketball (or a means to another end: a college education, paid for by others).
If you look at it from the perspective of the players' parents, it is both a means to an end and an opportunity to take advantage of of something that might otherwise be unaffordable and/or unavailable.
If you look at it from the perspective of the university, it's either a business opportunity or a way of adding diversity (socio-economic, racial, cultural, geographical, physical, intellectual, however you want to define that word) to what might otherwise be a relatively homogeneous population of students.
Back to the players, though: for them, which is it? Is it a good deal, or a bad deal (the "education while they're there or healthcare when they leave" question you inferred)? Well, for some players, it's a hugely good deal; a multi-million dollar good deal. For far more, those who didn't expect to get to the NFL/NBA anyway but just wanted to play/pay their way through college, it's also a pretty good deal (not dissimilar to the one made by any other student who works his or her way through college with a full-time job). For some in between, those who hoped to get to the NFL/NBA but didn't, it's a bust...kind of like playing the lottery and losing. So, short answer is, it's a mixed bag. It could certainly be made a better deal, yes. But it could also be far worse (and has been, in the past).
...
If you look at it from the perspective of the masses, though, yep, it's just entertainment.
Last edited:
Thanks for engaging with me in a thoughtful way.
The NCAA estimates that of all college football players, 1.6 percent go pro. The percentage in men's basketball is 1.1 percent. So if the only way this "internship" pays off is with the prospect of a job, that's an awful internship. My handle is a reference to my job. Even the most exploitative internships in journalism do better than 1 out of 100 getting a job there or ANYWHERE in the industry. And then you add in the physical danger of playing football -- and we can argue about how dangerous it is, but mostly everyone agrees there's at least some danger.
I'm honestly a hypocrite on this -- even if you hold that Northwestern is "doing it right," whatever that means, we're playing teams and profiting from TV money created mostly by larger programs, some of which operate this way.
The NCAA estimates that of all college football players, 1.6 percent go pro. The percentage in men's basketball is 1.1 percent. So if the only way this "internship" pays off is with the prospect of a job, that's an awful internship. My handle is a reference to my job. Even the most exploitative internships in journalism do better than 1 out of 100 getting a job there or ANYWHERE in the industry. And then you add in the physical danger of playing football -- and we can argue about how dangerous it is, but mostly everyone agrees there's at least some danger.
I'm honestly a hypocrite on this -- even if you hold that Northwestern is "doing it right," whatever that means, we're playing teams and profiting from TV money created mostly by larger programs, some of which operate this way.
In reality though, it can be internship for a number of other jobs besides just being a pro athlete. College athletes make a lot of contacts and are treated with hero status in communities that I am positive must open some doors.
It really is my pleasure; this is a very interesting topic.
So the NCAA estimates 1.6 of every 100 college football players go pro. But there's a hidden denominator. What percentage of all players entered college with the realistic goal of going pro?
I mean, a lot (a LOT) of college football players come into a team knowing that they don't have a realistic chance beyond college, they just feel blessed to be included at the college level. So what are the subset of college players who did expect to make the pros?
I don't know what that denominator is. My guess would be, somewhere between 10% and 25%. But it could be larger. I'd be willing to bet money that it's well less than half. For the purpose of this argument, let's say it would fall in a range between 10% and 40%. In other words, most college football players are in college to either (1) get a free education while playing the game they love, or (2) working their way through college, their work being the game of football (which they may no longer love, but do anyway, for the scholarship). In short, most are there for the education, it's just football that opened the door for them (financially or academically or both). Back to the central point, though, which is this:
1.6 in 100 is a very low percentage. It's nothing close to being as bad as betting your future on the lottery, but it's still a bad bet. And that's the number you think you're seeing at first blush when the NCAA says "only 1.6% of college players make the pros." But that's not the real issue, if most of them never planned to go pro anyway. So look at the smaller, more realistic, denominators: 1.6 in 10 (16%) is a fair, if unlikely, shake at a huge payoff. 1.6 in 25 (between 6% and 7%) is not too bad, given the size of the winnings if you make it. 1.6 in 40 (4%) kinda sucks, even for the big $$ payout.
Another angle: divide the football players into three groups:
Just saying.
It's a complicated issue, and deserves a bigger response than just that. But that is an element of it.
Thanks again, JournCat, for the ongoing discussion.
p.s. Didn't get to read TheC's response until I'd finished writing mine. But he brings up a great point. You gotta bring 1.6% up to, what? 2.5%? 4%? If you include a (desired, alternate, whatever) career in media or other fields opened up to you purely based on the fame and contacts you made while playing. It's another good point to consider.
So the NCAA estimates 1.6 of every 100 college football players go pro. But there's a hidden denominator. What percentage of all players entered college with the realistic goal of going pro?
I mean, a lot (a LOT) of college football players come into a team knowing that they don't have a realistic chance beyond college, they just feel blessed to be included at the college level. So what are the subset of college players who did expect to make the pros?
I don't know what that denominator is. My guess would be, somewhere between 10% and 25%. But it could be larger. I'd be willing to bet money that it's well less than half. For the purpose of this argument, let's say it would fall in a range between 10% and 40%. In other words, most college football players are in college to either (1) get a free education while playing the game they love, or (2) working their way through college, their work being the game of football (which they may no longer love, but do anyway, for the scholarship). In short, most are there for the education, it's just football that opened the door for them (financially or academically or both). Back to the central point, though, which is this:
1.6 in 100 is a very low percentage. It's nothing close to being as bad as betting your future on the lottery, but it's still a bad bet. And that's the number you think you're seeing at first blush when the NCAA says "only 1.6% of college players make the pros." But that's not the real issue, if most of them never planned to go pro anyway. So look at the smaller, more realistic, denominators: 1.6 in 10 (16%) is a fair, if unlikely, shake at a huge payoff. 1.6 in 25 (between 6% and 7%) is not too bad, given the size of the winnings if you make it. 1.6 in 40 (4%) kinda sucks, even for the big $$ payout.
Another angle: divide the football players into three groups:
- 1.6% win the lottery. It was certainly "all worth it" for them.
- Somewhere between 60% and 90% get the education they were after, working hard for it. It was worth it to them, just as for many other young folks who work their way through college.
- The remaining 8.4% to 38.4% gambled and lost. Did they get the consolation prize of a college degree in the process? That's largely up to them. Some didn't bother, for sure.
Just saying.
It's a complicated issue, and deserves a bigger response than just that. But that is an element of it.
Thanks again, JournCat, for the ongoing discussion.
p.s. Didn't get to read TheC's response until I'd finished writing mine. But he brings up a great point. You gotta bring 1.6% up to, what? 2.5%? 4%? If you include a (desired, alternate, whatever) career in media or other fields opened up to you purely based on the fame and contacts you made while playing. It's another good point to consider.
Last edited:
One other thought. That 1.6% figure seems intuitively to include all football programs at every level of the college game. Yale? Yep. Furman? Uh-huh. Vol State Community College? Of course.
Or maybe it includes only the 128 teams of the FCS. Seems low for that population of schools, but I don't know, so it's possible.
Here's the follow-on point: if you include all those schools as well (whether the 128 FCS or the 700-800 at all levels), the number of college players who have NO expectation of a pro career also shifts up. Dramatically. That 60% to 90% range I was using above? That was pretty much focused on programs like NU and the Vols...not the Citadel and Harvard and Cumberland. Include all colleges at all levels, and it's quite possible that 95% or more of all college football players had no expectation of going pro in football. At all. Makes the 1.6% who make it look rather different, doesn't it?
Heck, there have been years (just not lately, thanks Kiffin and Dooley) when as much as 20%-25% of the graduating class of Volunteer football players made the pros, either through the draft or by free agency. That's a lot higher than 1.6%. Which is how I glommed onto the possibility that the NCAA's figure comes from casting a very wide net deep into the waters of the smaller college athletic programs.
So we also need to be careful that we're comparing apples and apples. Things may be far less bad than the 8.4% to 38.4% "lottery losers" range I mentioned already....
Or maybe it includes only the 128 teams of the FCS. Seems low for that population of schools, but I don't know, so it's possible.
Here's the follow-on point: if you include all those schools as well (whether the 128 FCS or the 700-800 at all levels), the number of college players who have NO expectation of a pro career also shifts up. Dramatically. That 60% to 90% range I was using above? That was pretty much focused on programs like NU and the Vols...not the Citadel and Harvard and Cumberland. Include all colleges at all levels, and it's quite possible that 95% or more of all college football players had no expectation of going pro in football. At all. Makes the 1.6% who make it look rather different, doesn't it?
Heck, there have been years (just not lately, thanks Kiffin and Dooley) when as much as 20%-25% of the graduating class of Volunteer football players made the pros, either through the draft or by free agency. That's a lot higher than 1.6%. Which is how I glommed onto the possibility that the NCAA's figure comes from casting a very wide net deep into the waters of the smaller college athletic programs.
So we also need to be careful that we're comparing apples and apples. Things may be far less bad than the 8.4% to 38.4% "lottery losers" range I mentioned already....
Last edited:
Why is going pro the only determined successful outcome? I'm sure a lot also get into coaching or play pro ball overseas or other occupations related to their sport. Why can't colleges offer degrees in football where kids get credits for being on the team but then they also could take coaching related classes or broadcasting or talent evaluation etc.
I understand that you're aging, Aging, but I don't think scholarship athletes have ever been like normal students. If you only want to cheer for athletes who are "normal" students, you should probably focus your fandom on Division 3. (And I suspect that, even there, outstanding athletes get a break on admissions.)
Yeah, that's a good point, Windy City, and pretty much the one TheC was making a little bit above. It will change the math of the cost-benefit analysis significantly, if you include all career destinations and alternatives.
College sports is antithetical to the University mission. That said, I believe major college athletics are among the biggest reasons that American universities are among the best in the world. (Only Midwestern modesty precludes me from calling American universities "the best.")
In large part due to major college athletics, American graduates feel a connection to their alma mater in a way that is not felt elsewhere. This connection manifests itself in donations.
( I have no data to support this position. But it feels right. )
I think it depends on the program. At the big time programs such as OSU, Mich , ALA and the like, I would guess that the % that aspire to go Pro probably gets closer to 80-90% or better. Even at NU, the # is probably 25-35%. So I would guess that overall P5 recruits about 35% or more have dreams of going Pro. So that means that only 1 of 20 of the guys who want to go get to the NFL. Pretty poor odds but if you think that is bad, compare it to the NBA where only about 40 make it each year.
One more thought, this one striking a little closer to home for NU grads.
(1) What's the average ACT or SAT score of your football team's players? Your basketball team's players?
(2) Could you (assuming you did not get an athletic scholarship) have gotten into NU with that ACT/SAT score?
If the answer to (2) is "no," then NU is doing the same thing as South Carolina (and a LOT of other schools at all levels), just perhaps to a lesser degree. It's one long slippery slope; if you're on it, you're on it. No bragging about how you're not quite as low down the slide as others.
In other words, your football players may be more intellectually gifted than South Carolina's football players on average (I'm certain they are, and more academically gifted than the Vols' players to boot)...but if they're not as bright as everyone else who got into NU has to be, you are no more "doing it right" than anyone you point fingers at; just a little less blatantly "wrong."
Not trying to insult you, just keeping it real as we continue this fine discussion. *thumbsup*
(1) What's the average ACT or SAT score of your football team's players? Your basketball team's players?
(2) Could you (assuming you did not get an athletic scholarship) have gotten into NU with that ACT/SAT score?
If the answer to (2) is "no," then NU is doing the same thing as South Carolina (and a LOT of other schools at all levels), just perhaps to a lesser degree. It's one long slippery slope; if you're on it, you're on it. No bragging about how you're not quite as low down the slide as others.
In other words, your football players may be more intellectually gifted than South Carolina's football players on average (I'm certain they are, and more academically gifted than the Vols' players to boot)...but if they're not as bright as everyone else who got into NU has to be, you are no more "doing it right" than anyone you point fingers at; just a little less blatantly "wrong."
Not trying to insult you, just keeping it real as we continue this fine discussion. *thumbsup*
Yeah, I agree Headhunter. At Bama right now, probably 80%+ of the players came to college hoping to end up in the pros. I mean, if you recruit nothing but 4* and 5* players, all of whom know they were among the best 300 in the nation in their high school class, there are going to be a LOT who have that goal.
On the other hand, maybe 30%-50% of those top tier schools' players DO get into the pros (drafted or free agent). So 40% who made it out of 80% who were trying for it...that's half. That's pretty good odds for a career of fame and (usually all too brief, sadly) fortune.
Again, gotta keep it to apples and apples. Too many unknowns right now in the math of our conversation.
Last edited:
I absolutely believe that physical education specific to a sport should be offered as a major. I don't think it's any difference than violin performance majors who, most likely, will never make a career out of performing on the violin. That job rarely exists, and rarely play pay is a living wage, except in the most major cities. ("what's the difference between a pizza and a percussion major?" " A pizza can feed a family of four.")
Between coaching, and scouting, and front office positions, and athletic department work, and unaffiliated training programs, and teaching gym class, a significant number of former college athletes enter the workforce with communications or recreation degrees, but work in the field specific or related to the sport they played.
Wouldn't expect anyone to take a cheap shot here. Heh, thanks for keeping it real.
Haughtiness is one of the perquisites of a degree from mighty NU.Wouldn't expect anyone to take a cheap shot here. Heh, thanks for keeping it real.
It is supposedly a perq of my alma mater as well, but it's one I choose not to exercise.
It has been a long time since I got any real information concerning NU's admission standards. However, way back when I last knew details of such things, NU did not have minimum required test scores for the ACT or SAT. They viewed an application as a body of work with those test scores being a part of the decision-making process. Lower test scores could be offset by a great deal of participation in extra-curricular activities. Or they could be offset by an aspect of their application which the university saw as beneficial. Geographical diversity and non-university scholarships are factored in here. That is how I got accepted, I had an ROTC scholarship so they factored in that the university was going to get full tuition paid by the government. I also was from Alabama which gave me points for geographical diversity.
Therefore, unless the university has changed their policies, then someone with the average test scores of one of our athletes who brought something else to the table such as similar extra-curriculars or similar financial advantage to the university would be let in.
Back in the late 90's (after we had become competitive), there was an article about average SAT scores ranking all of the Div 1 football teams by average SAT score for the players. NU was #2 behind Stanford.
My information is outdated and prone to be corrected but the short answer is that most of our players - if they had put their energy in high school into something else other than football which took as much time and effort - would have a very strong chance of getting accepted. The lack of "athletic department" majors and the extremely high legitimate graduation rate of the players tends to confirm this.
Yes, the players brought something other than academics to the table, certainly. They brought the chance of winning football games. Entirely understandable.
Some numbers that I didn't find hard to gather:
- The average NU SAT composite score this past academic year is 2170. The middle 50% (from 25th percentile to 75th) range from 2040 to 2300.
- The football team's SAT scores haven't been publicly reported in a while; most recently as I could find, in the early 1990s, NU's players had the 2nd-highest score of any football squad in the country (behind Stanford), at 1034. [this appears to be the same report you found]
The latter has possibly changed some in the past twenty years, but probably not all that much. Since not much else has changed in that time frame.
So hopefully those football players are bringing a WHOLE LOT of "body of work" to the university to offset those way lower scores.
To be clear: I am not passing judgment. I am not casting stones. All of this is entirely understandable and reasonable, from my perspective. Almost all schools with football or basketball programs do the same thing. I'm just saying, the OP and other folks in this thread should not think that NU is immune to the pressures of the modern realities of running a competitive university program.
http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/Northwestern-SAT-scores-GPA
https://news.google.com/newspapers?
nid=1320&dat=19931230&id=7bozAAAAIBAJ&sjid=feoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2394,9092723&hl=en
Last edited:
VFL 82 said,
"In other words, your football players may be more intellectually gifted than South Carolina's football players on average (I'm certain they are, and more academically gifted than the Vols' players to boot)...but if they're not as bright as everyone else who got into NU has to be, you are no more "doing it right" than anyone you point fingers at; just a little less blatantly "wrong.""
My thought on this is that lowering the academic standards for gifted athletes is not terribly different than lowering it for other students who have "Special circumstances".
For example, I could be wrong but if a student applied to NU with Test scores and grades similar to one of the football exceptions but this student was gifted in some way like fluent reading, writing and speaking in 10 languages including 7 alphabets and conversational in 20 others. I bet that kid gets in. I know that that example is ridiculous but so is the athletic talent of many P5 players. We watch on TV and think, "He should have made that catch" when in reality on our best day we couldn't move that fast on a bicycle, jump that high from a diving board of catch anything moving that fast with out breaking a finger." These guys are in the top .1% of human physical ability.
The difficulty comes not in compromising admission standards but in compromising educational standards. These kids deserve to master a functional level of math, reading, writing and social/ political understanding.
"In other words, your football players may be more intellectually gifted than South Carolina's football players on average (I'm certain they are, and more academically gifted than the Vols' players to boot)...but if they're not as bright as everyone else who got into NU has to be, you are no more "doing it right" than anyone you point fingers at; just a little less blatantly "wrong.""
My thought on this is that lowering the academic standards for gifted athletes is not terribly different than lowering it for other students who have "Special circumstances".
For example, I could be wrong but if a student applied to NU with Test scores and grades similar to one of the football exceptions but this student was gifted in some way like fluent reading, writing and speaking in 10 languages including 7 alphabets and conversational in 20 others. I bet that kid gets in. I know that that example is ridiculous but so is the athletic talent of many P5 players. We watch on TV and think, "He should have made that catch" when in reality on our best day we couldn't move that fast on a bicycle, jump that high from a diving board of catch anything moving that fast with out breaking a finger." These guys are in the top .1% of human physical ability.
The difficulty comes not in compromising admission standards but in compromising educational standards. These kids deserve to master a functional level of math, reading, writing and social/ political understanding.
Yes, things have changed some. SAT scores only went up to 1600 when the 1034 number was reported and they did not have all of the amazingly convoluted math that universities now have to boost their reported averages. So putting the modern numbers next to the 1990s number makes no sense.
Major reforms have been attempted several times in the last 120 years and the money was always too big back then. Now? It's much larger--gigantic now--and the only way you will see real reform is when the price of keeping up with the Joneses forces the Group of Five to drop down into FCS. Alumni of those schools will be PO'd and demand that somebody reign in all of this excess. Hell, present-day players have fountains in their locker rooms, purely for aesthetics. Northwestern used to have a locker room just with nails and hooks in the wall.
Ah, didn't know that. Thanks. So if the max composite SAT score went from 1600 in the early 1990s to 2400 today (50% increase), let's give the football players a 50% boost as the best available approximation of where they might be currently (why will NU not report this publicly?). So they'd have an average, today, in the 1500s. Compare that with the 25th percentile of the student population at large (2040), or the average student (2170).
Again, not casting aspersions. Just pointing out that it is easy to scoff at South Carolina in the OP's reading of a recent article, when in fact NU makes similar exceptions to their own standards when it comes to big-time, big-money athletics.
Last edited:
NU has consistently graduated between 98% and 100% of the scholarship athletes on its football team - tops in the country over the last 20 years, I believe. One would be hard pressed to say these young men do not belong in the university. Moreover, old SAT scores are not only irrelevant for the reason Glidecat points out, but also because SAT scores have been recalibrated at least twice in the last 30 years. SAT scores have declined every year but one or two since 1975, even with the recalibration. In part this is attributable to a larger segment of society taking the tests as college becomes what HS used to be in the '40s and '50s, but it is also attributable to poorer HS educations, a de-emphasis on reading comprehension and reasoning skills, especially deductive reasoning, and more recently, the effects of teaching to standardized tests and the roles of computers in emphasizing facts rather than thinking. As a result, the powers that be have recalibrated the scoring of the test so that the scores appear better than they really are. A 700 in 2007 would be about a 600, or lower, in 1975. Parents and students do not like to hear this, but it is true. A much better indicator of relative value is the percentile rank, not the point score. NU does not have to be ashamed of what it does with student-athletes. It is one of the very good guys. As for the work put in by scholarship athletes, I wonder how different it is from scholarship students in music, or those who must work as part of their financial aid package. What of cheerleaders, student government officers, and even fraternity officers. I do not demean the effort and workload of our student-athletes, but they are hardly unique on the campus for having pursuits that take alot of time.By the way, those who think me too old to know what I am talking about had better reconsider the moniker - it is aging, not aged - and I have taught on a Division I college campus for the last 20 years.
Last edited:
Heh, I absolutely do not believe that you don't know what you're talking about, Aging, and I'm more on your side than against when it comes to being ahem, let's not say old, let's say experienced in life.
Still, there is little to no logical difference between the exceptions made by NU for football and basketball players, and those made by South Carolina...or Ohio State...or UCLA...or Alabama.
One previous poster pointed out that the admissions officers of the better universities today, including NU, take a "whole person" approach to selecting among candidates, and craft a class with a mixture of talents, abilities and perspectives. Believe me, I heard that approach briefed again and again as my wife and I took our daughters on tours of possible universities, including Penn, Duke, Vandy, Johns Hopkins...the list was long. That's all to the good. You can safely bet good money that the dean of admissions at South Carolina would likely rattle off a very similar mantra in explaining his/her admissions practices.
And I'm all for including those student-athletes who--were they not athletes at all--would never get the first sniff as candidates. After all, we do not live in a Platonian ideal state, and running major athletic programs that give back to the school in many ways (prestige, alumnus and community loyalty, recruiting not just of future athletes but students in general, on and on) is simply smart, a way of keeping up with the competition.
Just saying, if you can't see the logical equivalence in the article you originally railed against, and NU's practices in recruiting athletes, you are missing a fairly obvious point. Fellow aging guy or not. *hat-tip*
Still, there is little to no logical difference between the exceptions made by NU for football and basketball players, and those made by South Carolina...or Ohio State...or UCLA...or Alabama.
One previous poster pointed out that the admissions officers of the better universities today, including NU, take a "whole person" approach to selecting among candidates, and craft a class with a mixture of talents, abilities and perspectives. Believe me, I heard that approach briefed again and again as my wife and I took our daughters on tours of possible universities, including Penn, Duke, Vandy, Johns Hopkins...the list was long. That's all to the good. You can safely bet good money that the dean of admissions at South Carolina would likely rattle off a very similar mantra in explaining his/her admissions practices.
And I'm all for including those student-athletes who--were they not athletes at all--would never get the first sniff as candidates. After all, we do not live in a Platonian ideal state, and running major athletic programs that give back to the school in many ways (prestige, alumnus and community loyalty, recruiting not just of future athletes but students in general, on and on) is simply smart, a way of keeping up with the competition.
Just saying, if you can't see the logical equivalence in the article you originally railed against, and NU's practices in recruiting athletes, you are missing a fairly obvious point. Fellow aging guy or not. *hat-tip*
Last edited:
When Alabama, OSU, South Carolina, or even UCLA gets within 10 percentage points of a 98% graduation rate for scholarship football players, you let me know. For that matter, let me know when Tennessee does as well. No logical difference? - the proof that there is can be found in the graduation rates.Heh, I absolutely do not believe that you don't know what you're talking about, Aging, and I'm more on your side than against when it comes to being ahem, experienced in life.
Still, there is little to no logical difference between the exceptions made by NU for football and basketball players, and those made by South Carolina...or Ohio State...or UCLA...or Alabama.
One previous poster pointed out that the admissions officers of the better universities today, including NU, take a "whole person" approach to selecting among candidates, and craft a class with a mixture of talents, abilities and perspectives. That's all to the good. You can safely bet good money that the dean of admissions at South Carolina would likely rattle off a very similar mantra in explaining his/her admissions practices.
And I'm all for including those student-athletes who--were they not athletes at all--would never get the first sniff as candidates. After all, we do not live in a Platonian ideal state, and running major athletic programs that give back to the school in many ways (prestige, alumnus and community loyalty, recruiting not just of future athletes but students in general, on and on) is simply smart, a way of keeping up with the competition.
Just saying, if you can't see the logical equivalence in the article you originally railed against, and NU's practices in recruiting athletes, you are missing a fairly obvious point. Fellow aging guy or not. *hat-tip*
