College admissions and rankings

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Sorry, I just prefer student athletes who can read.

You live in some fantasy world where you believe GT athletes are above reproach. You are wrong. We have some athletes every bit as lacking in academics as every factory. There isn’t that big a difference other than we can’t get the 5 stars to sign here yet. It will be funny how when Collins signs his first 5 star that GT fans will be here celebrating after bashing the factories all these years. I totally agree they cheat with bagmen and BS majors but GT is trying to sign the same players so academics are not an issue. All schools have given up on getting true student athletes. It’s the business model of our era, just like Dodd’s business model was to have older players.

 

[jacketup]

I’m simply offering an intellectual exercise.

There are two competing philosophies in higher education. One is that college is earned by exceptional students who excel in some way -high SATs, strong leadership history, athletic prowess, top grades, exceptional extracurricular activities etc. This sounds good in theory but it often leads to seeing students as commodities that enhance the reputation of the school. Thus, having a parent who can pay for a building on campus even qualifies the student as an asset. If the purpose of the student is to benefit the school, this becomes a slippery slope.

The second philosophy involves finding students with potential and teaching them —giving them life time experiences and skills. This approach seeks a more well rounded student body and tries to avoid patterns that either exploit the student or which perpetuate privilege.

A football program that fit into the second philosophy would be interested in “coaching players up,” teaching new skills, and finding players who are diamonds in the rough.

Admittedly there is not as sharpe of a distinction between the two philosophies of education but I needed to simplify to keep from writing several pages.

The thought exercise is to consider that rather than a student having a right to attend a particular school because they are a five star athlete (and thus also a commodity that a school “buys” for the enhancement of the school) simply consider that there are only so many slots available at a given school, just as there are caps on how many scholarships per class and caps on total numbers per program

There is are 3 philosophies, and none are what you state.

The first is getting a high ranking in US News. While schools deny that they care, they do, and they try to check those US News boxes. State schools have to satisfy the politicians, so they have some hurdles in doing so, but they try. Tech is chasing that ranking. Tech denies it.

The second philosophy is making money. That philosophy exists with for profit schools, but some state schools will chase the out of state tuition--- if their politicians will let them-- since it means denying in- state students.

The third philosophy is let them in and see who survives. This was the Tech philosophy until the last 20 years or so when US News rankings came about. Tech let in students with potential, but didn't care a whole lot about "teaching them —[or] giving them life time experiences and skills" to quote your post. Survival of the fittest--or the more diligent.

What Tech is currently doing is a blend between your first philosophy (gotta chase the ranking) and your second philosophy, but it is still about chasing that ranking. And that's what most "top ranked" schools are doing. Personally, I believe the US News rankings are BS. But it would take more bandwith to explain why. It doesn't matter, because the gullible public wants to believe them.

Anyway, your points about athletes and school reputatation aren't valid. Clemson has seen an increase in more qualified applicants as their football rankings have improved. The football program has improved the school. And it's not because Dabo has "coached them up." The Clemson model is completely counter to your position. As one school president said, the football program is the front porch of the school. It's what people see. And perception is more important than reality. Unfortunately.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

There is are 3 philosophies, and none are what you state.

The first is getting a high ranking in US News. While schools deny that they care, they do, and they try to check those US News boxes. State schools have to satisfy the politicians, so they have some hurdles in doing so, but they try. Tech is chasing that ranking. Tech denies it.

The second philosophy is making money. That philosophy exists with for profit schools, but some state schools will chase the out of state tuition--- if their politicians will let them-- since it means denying in- state students.

The third philosophy is let them in and see who survives. This was the Tech philosophy until the last 20 years or so when US News rankings came about. Tech let in students with potential, but didn't care a whole lot about "teaching them —[or] giving them life time experiences and skills" to quote your post. Survival of the fittest--or the more diligent.

What Tech is currently doing is a blend between your first philosophy (gotta chase the ranking) and your second philosophy, but it is still about chasing that ranking. And that's what most "top ranked" schools are doing. Personally, I believe the US News rankings are BS. But it would take more bandwith to explain why. It doesn't matter, because the gullible public wants to believe them.

Anyway, your points about athletes and school reputatation aren't valid. Clemson has seen an increase in more qualified applicants as their football rankings have improved. The football program has improved the school. And it's not because Dabo has "coached them up." The Clemson model is completely counter to your position. As one school president said, the football program is the front porch of the school. It's what people see. And perception is more important than reality. Unfortunately.

Your first point was actually contained in the first philosophy I outlined. And I agree the US News rankings are BS. I was in academia so I know how the rankings get manipulated.

As to your last point, seeing the school improve because of the football team depends on what you mean by “improve.” Simply getting more academically ranked students does not in itself improve a school.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

You live in some fantasy world where you believe GT athletes are above reproach. You are wrong. We have some athletes every bit as lacking in academics as every factory. There isn’t that big a difference other than we can’t get the 5 stars to sign here yet. It will be funny how when Collins signs his first 5 star that GT fans will be here celebrating after bashing the factories all these years. I totally agree they cheat with bagmen and BS majors but GT is trying to sign the same players so academics are not an issue. All schools have given up on getting true student athletes. It’s the business model of our era, just like Dodd’s business model was to have older players.

CPJ had to fight like heck with the administration to eek out a few academic exceptions, something I am not aware of Georgia coaches having to do. And, by the way, these academic exceptions performed as well as the other students as a whole.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

That is exactly how it works now. There are only 85 football scholarships. Only 25 players can be signed per year. What you are proposing is the exact methodology that you are complaining about.

As to working as your "second philosophy", why do you think that you must concentrate on "diamonds in the rough"? There is no documented inverse correlation between a person's athletic ability and their academic ability. Calvin Johnson, who could be arguably considered the best athlete to ever play football at GT, scored a 41 on the Wonderlic test. Ezekiel Elliot was a four star recruit and he scored a 32 on the Wonderlic test. If there were an inverse correlation then those guys could not be well above average in intelligence and well above average in athletic ability.

Have no idea what your point is. I was not complaining at all about the 25/85 rule. I was suggesting that caping the number of five star recruits per class is no greater hardship on athletes wanting to play for a particular school than caping a class at 25.
Some people will get in and some will not. Happens every year.

I never suggested that great athletes were necessarily not smart academically. I was talking about balance in entering classes, which many academicians argue makes for a far better learning environment.

 

[RonJohn]

Have no idea what your point is. I was not complaining at all about the 25/85 rule. I was suggesting that caping the number of five star recruits per class is no greater hardship on athletes wanting to play for a particular school than caping a class at 25.
Some people will get in and some will not. Happens every year.

I never suggested that great athletes were necessarily not smart academically. I was talking about balance in entering classes, which many academicians argue makes for a far better learning environment.

So if you are not saying to limit the number of athletes (which is currently done), but only saying that there should be a limit on the number of 5 star athletes allowed at a school, how could that possibly be done? Who determines which athletes are 5 stars? Is it fair to athletes for private recruiting websites to determine what schools they are eligible to attend? What if there are 10 5 star athletes who made 1600 on the SAT and want to study engineering at GT? Do you tell those guys that they can't attend GT, even if they could gain acceptance without the athletic department? And an issue solely related to what you deem as a broken system: Do you not believe that the recruiting websites, who appear to have relationships with some programs, would not interfere with the ratings? I could easily see a handful of 3 and 4 star athletes being rated as 5 so that the athletes who would have been rated as 5 aren't subject to the limitations.

People do argue that diversity in college is important. What "diversity" are you promoting by limiting the number of students who were rated as 5 stars by privately operated entertainment media companies? 5 star athletes are diverse. There are intelligent and not-as-intelligent ones. There are different races. There are different economic backgrounds. There is no difference in the diversity of 5 star athletes vs 4 star, or 3 star athletes.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So if you are not saying to limit the number of athletes (which is currently done), but only saying that there should be a limit on the number of 5 star athletes allowed at a school, how could that possibly be done? Who determines which athletes are 5 stars? Is it fair to athletes for private recruiting websites to determine what schools they are eligible to attend? What if there are 10 5 star athletes who made 1600 on the SAT and want to study engineering at GT? Do you tell those guys that they can't attend GT, even if they could gain acceptance without the athletic department? And an issue solely related to what you deem as a broken system: Do you not believe that the recruiting websites, who appear to have relationships with some programs, would not interfere with the ratings? I could easily see a handful of 3 and 4 star athletes being rated as 5 so that the athletes who would have been rated as 5 aren't subject to the limitations.

People do argue that diversity in college is important. What "diversity" are you promoting by limiting the number of students who were rated as 5 stars by privately operated entertainment media companies? 5 star athletes are diverse. There are intelligent and not-as-intelligent ones. There are different races. There are different economic backgrounds. There is no difference in the diversity of 5 star athletes vs 4 star, or 3 star athletes.

Your first paragraph: was not saying that at all.

Second paragraph: working toward diversity involves lots of micro-decisions, usually played out in terms of quotas. Harvard, for instance has done this twice in recent history (not offered for public consumption) that first involved limiting the number of qualified females to keep classes from being predominantly female, and later restricting Asian students to keep classes from being predominantly Asian. Earlier quota decisions involved including a certain number of students from the South, Midwest, and West etc.

One could argue, understandably, that the shift in a few students here or there is just a token gesture but research shows these small shifts can actually make a difference. The point with athletes is subtle but not without precedence. An athlete who is a five star athlete, wined and dined by the big factories, could have a substantially different attitude toward college than an athlete who had to scrap for a place and feels fortunate to be on campus. Caping the number of five star athletes, and even four star, per class could pay huge dividends. But, as stated in an earlier post, schools in the NCAA would have to be more honest about the purpose of an education and whether it is for the benefit of the student or the benefit of the school.

 

[orientalnc]

A friend here in Oriental was formerly the provost at App State. He said the university could immediately see an increase in applications from top high school students after the football team won championships. But, especially after beating Michigan. Also, donations to the foundation increased. So, the question of why the university cares about football is easy to answer.

 

[4shotB]

A friend here in Oriental was formerly the provost at App State. He said the university could immediately see an increase in applications from top high school students after the football team won championships. But, especially after beating Michigan. Also, donations to the foundation increased. So, the question of why the university cares about football is easy to answer.

I would imagine that the ROI is better for the low to mid tier academic schools than at Tech or Stanford or equivalent. I think if you look at the transformation of the University of Alabama as a result of their sucess under CNS their football ROI appears to be justified (it's been a few years since I looked at the report on this so I am going on memory here). However, why does GT need to increase the number of qualified applicants vis a vis success on the field of play? Already the cream of the crop students are turned away so why attract more other than to say your acceptance rate is decreasing? Perhaps this is why Tech's admin side has been apparently indifferent over the years to what happens within the athletic department.

 

[orientalnc]

I would imagine that the ROI is better for the low to mid tier academic schools than at Tech or Stanford or equivalent. I think if you look at the transformation of the University of Alabama as a result of their sucess under CNS their football ROI appears to be justified (it's been a few years since I looked at the report on this so I am going on memory here). However, why does GT need to increase the number of qualified applicants vis a vis success on the field of play? Already the cream of the crop students are turned away so why attract more other than to say your acceptance rate is decreasing? Perhaps this is why Tech's admin side has been apparently indifferent over the years to what happens within the athletic department.

I agree with this 100%, but perhaps donations would increase substantially with more success in football. I believe GT is more like Stanford or Cal Berkley than UCLA because the reputation of the university is tied to something other than sports.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

A friend here in Oriental was formerly the provost at App State. He said the university could immediately see an increase in applications from top high school students after the football team won championships. But, especially after beating Michigan. Also, donations to the foundation increased. So, the question of why the university cares about football is easy to answer.

All that is true but it is beside the point.

 

[orientalnc]

All that is true but it is beside the point.

I am not so sure. If Alabama knows that they are attracting more high achieving students and foundation donations because of the football team's success, why wouldn't they be more forgiving of marginally qualified star football player's weaknesses than they would some other random applicant? This doesn't require much of a stretch. As you stated, those 25 football player admissions represent a tiny portion of the almost 10,000 annual admissions. Their 2020 freshman class included 42.3% with a 4.0 GPA in high school. I am not going to argue that football has made Bama a top academic school, but it has made it significantly better.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

CPJ had to fight like heck with the administration to eek out a few academic exceptions, something I am not aware of Georgia coaches having to do. And, by the way, these academic exceptions performed as well as the other students as a whole.

That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about athletes getting admitted into GT who would have no shot if they had to be admitted thru the regular process. Exceptions are even worse than those meeting the minimum NCAA requirements. It’s all a scam to make money. I get it. But to act as if GT is any different than the factories when it comes to admitting people who wouldn’t get admitted thru regular admission is just funny. The only difference is they get higher rated players to sign. Collins is working on that. If you want to be honest and fair then GT should use the same academic standards they use to admit athletes and apply it to everyone. As was noted earlier their is a huge gap between test scores and GPA between athletes and the regular student body. I wonder why? It’s called money. And GT cares about money.

 

[slugboy]

Admissions offices make exceptions for a lot of reasons. For example, Harvard will make exceptions for a talented actor or goalie or other factors that bring something else to the university. That doesn’t make them Texas A&M.
Going from “making exceptions” to “no different than the factories” and “all about money” is a massive leap. I don’t think it’s justified at all. It also lumps every student athlete into the same category.

 

[cthenrys]

I am not so sure. If Alabama knows that they are attracting more high achieving students and foundation donations because of the football team's success, why wouldn't they be more forgiving of marginally qualified star football player's weaknesses than they would some other random applicant? This doesn't require much of a stretch. As you stated, those 25 football player admissions represent a tiny portion of the almost 10,000 annual admissions. Their 2020 freshman class included 42.3% with a 4.0 GPA in high school. I am not going to argue that football has made Bama a top academic school, but it has made it significantly better.

I don’t really like that this is the case, but it is 100% true. The money they pay Saban, while ridiculous, has been fantastic investment. Bama is getting students shoe would have never considered going there from all over the country.
How relevant this is for GT, I’m not sure, but it sure works at a lot of places.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about athletes getting admitted into GT who would have no shot if they had to be admitted thru the regular process. Exceptions are even worse than those meeting the minimum NCAA requirements. It’s all a scam to make money. I get it. But to act as if GT is any different than the factories when it comes to admitting people who wouldn’t get admitted thru regular admission is just funny. The only difference is they get higher rated players to sign. Collins is working on that. If you want to be honest and fair then GT should use the same academic standards they use to admit athletes and apply it to everyone. As was noted earlier their is a huge gap between test scores and GPA between athletes and the regular student body. I wonder why? It’s called money. And GT cares about money.

But that’s not what we are talking about. I’ve looked closely at how students are admitted and, trust me, there is no one single set of criteria. If a school is honest about its goals of creating the best learning environment for the greatest variety of students, then there will be lots of differences in why one student gets accepted and another doesn’t.

I have no problem with academic exceptions in theory. If students graduate and become successful, then the school has done its job. If someone doesn’t graduate, and their only purpose was to be used by the school to make money, I have a big problem with that.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I am not so sure. If Alabama knows that they are attracting more high achieving students and foundation donations because of the football team's success, why wouldn't they be more forgiving of marginally qualified star football player's weaknesses than they would some other random applicant? This doesn't require much of a stretch. As you stated, those 25 football player admissions represent a tiny portion of the almost 10,000 annual admissions. Their 2020 freshman class included 42.3% with a 4.0 GPA in high school. I am not going to argue that football has made Bama a top academic school, but it has made it significantly better.

Better in what way? Does their student body reflect the diversity of the state population? Is the football program leveraging money to allow scholarships and grants to poor students who could not get in otherwise? There are lots of questions. More money and higher GPAs is not the measure of success.

The Ivys have gone through several generations of soul searching and still struggle with how to not perpetuate the power elite but truly give opportunity to those that the system often overlooks.

I remember a few years ago Harvard admitted a young woman who had no formal education and was “home schooled” in the cab of her parents long haul truck. She did well and helped broaden the perspective of other students.

 

[Root4GT]

But that’s not what we are talking about. I’ve looked closely at how students are admitted and, trust me, there is no one single set of criteria. If a school is honest about its goals of creating the best learning environment for the greatest variety of students, then there will be lots of differences in why one student gets accepted and another doesn’t.

I have no problem with academic exceptions in theory. If students graduate and become successful, then the school has done its job. If someone doesn’t graduate, and their only purpose was to be used by the school to make money, I have a big problem with that.

Curious as to why you view non graduating students who go on the great success as problematic? There are a lot of entrepreneurs who dropped out of college and did great things while making fortunes. Why are athletes any different?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Curious as to why you view non graduating students who go on the great success as problematic? There are a lot of entrepreneurs who dropped out of college and did great things while making fortunes. Why are athletes any different?

Google Jan Kemp. I’m talking about “students” who leave college not being any more qualified for a fulfilling life than they were prior to going to college.

 

[Root4GT]

Google Jan Kemp. I’m talking about “students” who leave college not being any more qualified for a fulfilling life than they were prior to going to college.

So you are against the ones who drop out. There were a lot of students who dropped out or flunked out back in the day at GT. Was GT wrong for accepting them? There always has been and always will be both students and athletes who attend college and don’t finish.