|
Post by tonythegator on Jan 5, 2010 12:09:33 GMT -5
I agree with GD, here. College is a learning institution, first. All athletes should be able to read and write before they can be admitted, and there should be a minimum required SAT score for them to pass in order to play. It is a shame that the system has come down to this, where athletic ability is more important than a real education that will benefit these athletes in the future.
|
|
|
Post by athens on Jan 5, 2010 12:32:17 GMT -5
So someone who is more intellectually gifted by God is more deserving of a good life than someone who is not? There are just as many screw-ups who are smart as screw-ups who aren't smart. Does a really smart kid who screws around in high school and is still able to get a 1400 (old scoring style) on his SAT deserve to get an education more than someone who is not as intellectually gifted but busts his butt to get a 1200? \ You're acting like doing well in school is preordained based on your genes. It's not. It's hard work. Some kids are born with a slight advantage in mental acuity. It doesn't matter. If you work hard the majority of people will succeed in school. That's total BS. You know as well as I do that many people are not as blessed intellectually as others. I know personally because I wasted my God given intelligence when I was in high school and *&$%ed off all the time. Did super on all the tests (SAT's, etc.) but had a GPA of about 2.7 because I didn't try a lot. There's no way I deserved a college education more than someone who wasn't as smart and busted his ass to get a 2.7 and decent SAT scores.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate Joe on Jan 5, 2010 12:41:00 GMT -5
"Later, Cody was talking about being on track to graduate in May and said he still needed two more classes. Somebody asked him what his degree was in. He paused, stammered for a few seconds, looked up and smiled and then muttered something under his breath.
“I keep forgetting it … consumer science, I think,” Cody said."
Alabama's Terrence Cody espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/7861/comedy-hour-with-mount-cody
|
|
|
Post by BTB07 on Jan 5, 2010 12:46:55 GMT -5
The most disappointing thing is the kids who get the opportunity to go to college based on their athletic ability and do nothing with that opportunity (in terms of academics). It is a chance, and by majoring in things they will not use (because of its ease) is what is really hurting this entire process.
They should be student-athletes, but the amount of money that big football programs generate the Universities are willing to make these exceptions.
The kid who maybe isn't as smart, or didn't work as hard in H.S. should take advantage of the opportunity their athletic ability gave them. Wasting the chance is the real shame.
|
|
|
Post by athens on Jan 5, 2010 12:55:18 GMT -5
The most disappointing thing is the kids who get the opportunity to go to college based on their athletic ability and do nothing with that opportunity (in terms of academics). It is a chance, and by majoring in things they will not use (because of its ease) is what is really hurting this entire process. They should be student-athletes, but the amount of money that big football programs generate the Universities are willing to make these exceptions. The kid who maybe isn't as smart, or didn't work as hard in H.S. should take advantage of the opportunity their athletic ability gave them. Wasting the chance is the real shame. Exactly...
|
|
|
Post by gatordynasty on Jan 5, 2010 13:07:31 GMT -5
\ You're acting like doing well in school is preordained based on your genes. It's not. It's hard work. Some kids are born with a slight advantage in mental acuity. It doesn't matter. If you work hard the majority of people will succeed in school. That's total BS. You know as well as I do that many people are not as blessed intellectually as others. I know personally because I wasted my God given intelligence when I was in high school and *&$%ed off all the time. Did super on all the tests (SAT's, etc.) but had a GPA of about 2.7 because I didn't try a lot. There's no way I deserved a college education more than someone who wasn't as smart and busted his ass to get a 2.7 and decent SAT scores. Did you just prove my point? You didn't try and didn't deserve to go to college because you didn't try, yet someone who did the same thing does as long as they are fast? And no not all people are born with the same ability. That's not the issue. The point is whether or not people can succeed in school with hard work even if they aren't naturally as gifted as others. I'm not talking about handicapped people. I'm talking about normal students. And the point is they can. It's a question of effort. Someone who is not willing to put forth the effort to do at least average in school does not belong in college. Yet schools are accepting kids who can't read or write. That is not right.
|
|
|
Post by gatordynasty on Jan 5, 2010 13:17:00 GMT -5
The most disappointing thing is the kids who get the opportunity to go to college based on their athletic ability and do nothing with that opportunity (in terms of academics). It is a chance, and by majoring in things they will not use (because of its ease) is what is really hurting this entire process. They should be student-athletes, but the amount of money that big football programs generate the Universities are willing to make these exceptions. The kid who maybe isn't as smart, or didn't work as hard in H.S. should take advantage of the opportunity their athletic ability gave them. Wasting the chance is the real shame. Exactly... I don't see exactly how that goes with what you're saying. I said in the beginning I was okay with certain exceptions, but there should be a limit. If a kid can barely read or write, how in the world could they take advantage of the opportunity they are given to begin with? I'm no where near saying all athletes should have the same SAT's and GPA's as the average of the student body. It shouldn't be in the bottom 25% of their high school class either though. If it is then you're just making a mockery of the student-athlete paradigm.
|
|
|
Post by tonythegator on Jan 5, 2010 13:19:11 GMT -5
And how do half of these guys remain academically eligible? I mean, to make it to their junior year, don't they have to pass basic course in English and Math? Is the minimum Math requirement still College Algebra? I'd like to see some scores on their tests. There has to be a massive amount of cheating going on to keep these idiots on the field.
|
|
|
Post by athens on Jan 5, 2010 13:20:56 GMT -5
I think you and I are thinking about the student type differently, but let's just go with your view. So does the time and effort the kid puts in on the practice field, in the weight room, and watching game film not count into the effort he has made? Because if so, you probably ought to find another favorite sport.
And don't say it's not fair. It works the same way for academics. If you have 2 students, one has a 3.9 GPA and scored a 1470 on the SAT and the second has 3.7 GPA and scored a 1420 on the SAT, but the second had numerous extra-curricular activities and community volunteer projects while the first did nothing of the sort, the second student with the lower GPA and SAT is usually going to be the first choice for the university. Other things do matter to universities, and it's not just in athletics.
|
|
|
Post by athens on Jan 5, 2010 13:26:00 GMT -5
And how do half of these guys remain academically eligible? I mean, to make it to their junior year, don't they have to pass basic course in English and Math? Is the minimum Math requirement still College Algebra? I'd like to see some scores on their tests. There has to be a massive amount of cheating going on to keep these idiots on the field. There is a class called Math Modeling that can be taken now, think of it as Algebra Lite. I took it when I first went back to school because I was worried about math after so many years away from the classroom. It was extremely easy, I believe I had somewhere around a 101 average. I took Algebra after because it is prefered for my degree.
|
|
|
Post by athens on Jan 5, 2010 13:38:59 GMT -5
I don't see exactly how that goes with what you're saying. I said in the beginning I was okay with certain exceptions, but there should be a limit. If a kid can barely read or write, how in the world could they take advantage of the opportunity they are given to begin with? I'm no where near saying all athletes should have the same SAT's and GPA's as the average of the student body. It shouldn't be in the bottom 25% of their high school class either though. If it is then you're just making a mockery of the student-athlete paradigm. Yeah, we're talking about different kids. I'm talking about someone who certainly didn't give his best effort in high school, but did moderately okay. Not someone who can't read and write. Someone who probably could have had a 3.5 if they had tried really hard but wound up with a 2.5 instead. BTW...Michael Oher started out with a 0.6 GPA and brought it up to 2.05 by high school graduation. He got it up to 2.5 by taking internet classes offered by BYU to replace earlier classes he had gotten D's and F's in. He graduated with a degree in criminal justice, making honor roll twice while at Ole Miss and had a 3.7 GPA. Tell me he didn't deserve a chance...
|
|
|
Post by gatordynasty on Jan 5, 2010 13:40:43 GMT -5
I think you and I are thinking about the student type differently, but let's just go with your view. So does the time and effort the kid puts in on the practice field, in the weight room, and watching game film not count into the effort he has made? Because if so, you probably ought to find another favorite sport. How in the world should that factor in to whether or not the kid gets into a learning institution? Of course that factors into whether or not he'll get into the minors or get signed by a pro or semi-pro team, but why should athletic ability get someone admission to a place of higher learning? That makes no sense. I don't know what the new numbers are like since the SAT changed,but if someone scored a 1470, no way in hell they are not getting into pretty much any college they choose. The only schools they might not waltz right into are CIT and MIT. That said, I never said other things don't matter. However when you turn away a hard working kid who got a 1270 on his SAT and a 3.6 GPA, and allow a kid with an 800 SAT and 2.5 GPA because he can run fast... yeah, that bothers me.
|
|
|
Post by gatordynasty on Jan 5, 2010 13:50:27 GMT -5
I don't see exactly how that goes with what you're saying. I said in the beginning I was okay with certain exceptions, but there should be a limit. If a kid can barely read or write, how in the world could they take advantage of the opportunity they are given to begin with? I'm no where near saying all athletes should have the same SAT's and GPA's as the average of the student body. It shouldn't be in the bottom 25% of their high school class either though. If it is then you're just making a mockery of the student-athlete paradigm. Yeah, we're talking about different kids. I'm talking about someone who certainly didn't give his best effort in high school, but did moderately okay. Not someone who can't read and write. Someone who probably could have had a 3.5 if they had tried really hard but wound up with a 2.5 instead. BTW...Michael Oher started out with a 0.6 GPA and brought it up to 2.05 by high school graduation. He got it up to 2.5 by taking internet classes offered by BYU to replace earlier classes he had gotten D's and F's in. He graduated with a degree in criminal justice, making honor roll twice while at Ole Miss and had a 3.7 GPA. Tell me he didn't deserve a chance... You're using an extreme example of a kid who was homeless and had no parents. No way would I say there should be absolutes in this. I'm okay with special circumstances. I don't like when people are slaves to the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. Plus in this example it doesn't seem like Oher slacked off. It seemed like he busted his ass off to improve his situation. I admire him for that. Maybe we're just coming from different places like you pointed out. I'm highly influenced by the special on FSU done by ESPN. The interviewed the tutor who was accused of cheating and she was explaining how she was just giving extra help because a lot of these kids couldn't read. I don't think it's quite as rare as your making it out to be. I'm not blaming any particular school either. I know UF is at fault too. In fact, I wonder how in the hell they can't keep certain kids or how they have academic casualties at all. How poor a student do you have to be for that to happen with the standards as low as they are?
|
|
|
Post by athens on Jan 5, 2010 13:50:41 GMT -5
I think you and I are thinking about the student type differently, but let's just go with your view. So does the time and effort the kid puts in on the practice field, in the weight room, and watching game film not count into the effort he has made? Because if so, you probably ought to find another favorite sport. How in the world should that factor in to whether or not the kid gets into a learning institution? 1. Again, how much money do they make for the university? This is no different than some rich guy getting his son into Harvard because he is a donating alumni, or someone getting into one of the service academies because his Dad is friends with a Congressman. 2. Okay put it another way. Same scenario, except instead the university has 1 full ride scholarship to offer. Does the one with higher intelligence automatically get it?
|
|
|
Post by gatordynasty on Jan 5, 2010 13:57:50 GMT -5
How in the world should that factor in to whether or not the kid gets into a learning institution? 1. Again, how much money do they make for the university? This is no different than some rich guy getting his son into Harvard because he is a donating alumni, or someone getting into one of the service academies because his Dad is friends with a Congressman. Do you think I think that's right? Don't understand the question here. I'm not even talking about scholarships to begin with. That's a whole other discussion. I'm talking about the simple fact of them getting into the school. If it's my choice, I'd take the kid who is a much better student and has the highest likelihood of working hard and making a contribution to society other than playing a game really well.
|
|
|
Post by athens on Jan 5, 2010 14:05:58 GMT -5
And Oher may be an extreme case but look at it from another perspective. Take football out of the equation. Does Ole Miss give Oher a second thought? Never in a million years. He got into Ole Miss because of football, plain and simple. But that doesn't mean he didn't deserve the chance and didn't make the most of it. And I guarantee you there were plenty of kids with better grades and test scores than Oher that started Ole Miss at the same time and have done absolutely nothing with their lives.
As far as your other answer, the limit on the number of kids getting into public universities is usually pretty flexible. You have 85 kids on football scholarship. Out of about 33,000 students at UGA. I don't think that small number of places reserved at the university, scholarship or not, is changing whether another kid gets into the school or not.
|
|
|
Post by gatordynasty on Jan 5, 2010 14:19:22 GMT -5
And Oher may be an extreme case but look at it from another perspective. Take football out of the equation. Does Ole Miss give Oher a second thought? Never in a million years. He got into Ole Miss because of football, plain and simple. But that doesn't mean he didn't deserve the chance and didn't make the most of it. And I guarantee you there were plenty of kids with better grades and test scores than Oher that started Ole Miss at the same time and have done absolutely nothing with their lives. You're arguing on the basis of the positive results. What are the percentages of those who graduate from the money sports compared to those who are just students? I'd imagine it's a huge disparity. It's nice seeing success stories like that, but it's not the norm and doesn't mean it should the practice. Like I said, if CFB wants to be a semi-pro league then it should be, but I think it's a shame to call them student athletes and pretend like they care about academics when they clearly don't. That's true, but you posed the question if there is only one spot left. I was just answering it. I don't thing there is a major problem of students not getting into schools because of football players. In fact as a whole I think football is beneficial as it usually brings in money for scholarships for everyone. What I was discussing is where you draw the line. Currently I think it's to low. I think too many kids get in who don't belong there. If you're going to pretend they are student athletes, I think it's flat out dishonest to admit kids who can barely read and write their name.
|
|
|
Post by scuzz on Jan 5, 2010 17:05:35 GMT -5
If you want to do away with collegiate athletics that is a whole other discussion. But a player who brings prestige to the school through his physical ability deserves a scholarship just as much as a student who brings prestige to the school through his mental acuity. Don't forget that as well as some people being born physically more gifted than others, some people are born mentally more gifted than others. Why does someone with a mental gift deserve a better life than someone with a physical gift? So the prestige of a school should really be measured by it's athletic teams. I would guess that as sports fans we are aware of teams because of their success, but if you are not a sports fan having a good football team at a school does nothing for you. I think there is a self-fullfilling ego massage going on at schools who think they are better than they are because of their sports teams. Kids from Harvard & Yale end up as president of the USA. That's where the prestige is. Duke does it thru it's research people. Knowing something exists is much different than thinking it gives prestige. Sports programs are now expected for two reasons...(1) the demands of the alumni who want something to root for and (2) the money a big program can bring to the school. Money does not equal prestige.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2010 17:06:36 GMT -5
Keep taking your shots PJ, but make sure you flip out if I take a shot at Auburn. Par for the course here... ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png)
|
|
|
Post by scuzz on Jan 5, 2010 17:08:10 GMT -5
I don't see exactly how that goes with what you're saying. I said in the beginning I was okay with certain exceptions, but there should be a limit. If a kid can barely read or write, how in the world could they take advantage of the opportunity they are given to begin with? I'm no where near saying all athletes should have the same SAT's and GPA's as the average of the student body. It shouldn't be in the bottom 25% of their high school class either though. If it is then you're just making a mockery of the student-athlete paradigm. Yeah, we're talking about different kids. I'm talking about someone who certainly didn't give his best effort in high school, but did moderately okay. Not someone who can't read and write. Someone who probably could have had a 3.5 if they had tried really hard but wound up with a 2.5 instead. BTW...Michael Oher started out with a 0.6 GPA and brought it up to 2.05 by high school graduation. He got it up to 2.5 by taking internet classes offered by BYU to replace earlier classes he had gotten D's and F's in. He graduated with a degree in criminal justice, making honor roll twice while at Ole Miss and had a 3.7 GPA. Tell me he didn't deserve a chance... okay, where do you draw the line then...........?
|
|
|
Post by scuzz on Jan 5, 2010 17:11:45 GMT -5
There is a NCAA stat issued annually that grades how a school does with it's athletes regarding graguation and grades. I know a school falling below that standard in a sport can lose a scholarship.
I don't remember what it is called though.
I do know that Fresno State lost a Basketball scholarship because of the results. The results also are from a couple years prior so they often indicate a past coach.
I wonder how those compare with schools who have a great many exemptions?
|
|
|
Post by NCBulldawg on Jan 5, 2010 18:23:38 GMT -5
Hey, if you can't spell "Cat" when spotted the "C" and the "a", you shouldn't be on the football field, nor in school on a full scholarship. If you are about to graduate and you do not know what your major is, you shouldn't be able to "earn" your degree. Very sad, very... very... sad. Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate Joe on Jan 5, 2010 19:34:29 GMT -5
Keep taking your shots PJ, but make sure you flip out if I take a shot at Auburn. Par for the course here... ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) Which pot shot? The one where I posted the original article that came from the ALABAMA FOOTBALL Section at al.com..... or the ESPN interview with Cody where he says he doesn't know what degree he is getting in 5 months?
|
|
|
Post by wareagleray on Jan 5, 2010 19:47:06 GMT -5
Cody did not say that. He had to be joking.
*modified---read page 2 to see context
Um...I got nothing.
|
|
|
Post by NCBulldawg on Jan 5, 2010 20:15:52 GMT -5
By the way, my response is for all athletes at any school. Any application to anyone in this thread, if it applies, then I include them, too!
|
|
|
Post by dubldeac on Jan 6, 2010 19:45:39 GMT -5
What really is the purpose of college?
To prepare you as much as possible for your future career whatever you choose it to be.
So bringing these guys in, paying their way and training them to be the best FB players they can be is not inconsistent with the college's mission.
They don't expect the mathematicians to be anything other than passable in english and vice versa.
My sister went to Princeton and took courses called "Physics for Poets" and "Rocks for Jocks" because she was a political science major so why should it be any different anywhere else or in any other field?
I've had Teaching Assistants in some of my courses in college (theoretical calculus comes to mind) that could barely speak english (I could never understand them). But I bet that guy was a an absolute math whiz. How is that different than a guy like Percy Harvin? Both have exceptional skill in their areas and may be barely passable in some or all other areas.
The only issue I have with any of this is with academic fraud/cheating. My unintelligible TA and my sister were both expected to pass their degree requirements on their own. So too should these guys be expected do the work to pass the classes.
|
|
|
Post by dubldeac on Jan 6, 2010 19:55:08 GMT -5
let me put it another way:
does your school have a fine arts department? do you think they bring in all those dancers, musicians and actors (some who are on scholarship) to generate revenue for the school or to turn them into brilliant scientists?
no, they bring them in to become professional dancers, musicians, actors or dance teachers and acting teachers or music teachers.
how is bringing a football player into a college any different?
what exactly is higher learning? does it have to be math, science or english?
no. it's advanced instruction in whatever course area the college chooses to offer.
USC, Alabama, Texas, Georgia choose to offer advanced course training in collegiate athletics of all stripes. Temple and St. Johns do in basketball but choose not to in football. Just as BYU does not have a pre-med program per se. Or Georgia Tech emphasizes engineering and probably does not offer as wide array of courses in english and fine arts.
the only thing here that is inconsistent is the schools that force these kids to major in something other than physical education. Things like "consumer science...."
how is it different
|
|
|
Post by Pirate Joe on Jan 6, 2010 20:31:50 GMT -5
let me put it another way: does your school have a fine arts department? do you think they bring in all those dancers, musicians and actors (some who are on scholarship) to generate revenue for the school or to turn them into brilliant scientists? no, they bring them in to become professional dancers, musicians, actors or dance teachers and acting teachers or music teachers. how is bringing a football player into a college any different? what exactly is higher learning? does it have to be math, science or english? no. it's advanced instruction in whatever course area the college chooses to offer. USC, Alabama, Texas, Georgia choose to offer advanced course training in collegiate athletics of all stripes. Temple and St. Johns do in basketball but choose not to in football. Just as BYU does not have a pre-med program per se. Or Georgia Tech emphasizes engineering and probably does not offer as wide array of courses in english and fine arts. the only thing here that is inconsistent is the schools that force these kids to major in something other than physical education. Things like "consumer science...." how is it different My College son that I AM FUNDING ...turned down 9 acting scholarships ..... and well he is majoring in Government
|
|
|
Post by dubldeac on Jan 6, 2010 21:19:09 GMT -5
Can't say anything about that, PJ. I did the same thing to my dad 20 years ago. turned down significant money to good schools to chase my dreams. and he was nice enough to let me.
|
|
|
Post by dubldeac on Jan 6, 2010 21:22:33 GMT -5
acting and politics go hand in hand anyways so......
|
|