Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Top 50 GA GT signees
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Madison Grant" data-source="post: 520282" data-attributes="member: 823"><p>Well, first off you're quoting a post that is not even arguing the same thing you are. You are quoting a post that is arguing the curriculum is harder once admitted, and you are arguing lax admission standards. You do realize that's two separate arguments.</p><p></p><p>You are arguing they 'work around admission standards'. Well, every school works around its admission standards for regular students in order to admit athletes, even Tech. So are you saying Stanford lets a <strong>large</strong> number of exceptions in? 5 out of their top 7 rated recruits with Ivy offers doesn't seem like a ton of exceptions to me. Doesn't Tech let a handful of exceptions in? How poor can the academics of the exceptions be? If the difference is school A lets 4 exceptions in that are better football talent than the 4 exceptions for school B, there is no unfair advantage in admissions for school A. They are just better recruiters.</p><p></p><p>Honestly, the 'Tech is harder because of the curriculum' is a better argument than admissions. Yes, you went to Stanford, and yes, you posted a very informative article. Thanks. But neither you nor your article get into specifics that <em>prove </em>Stanford is more lax on its admissions for even certain select SAs than Tech is. And arguing that Stanford does all these extra things or is quoted as saying they "treat their athletes as special needs students" doesn't prove that Tech isn't putting an equal effort into helping its athletes through school. In fact, I think you're selling short the job Paul Johnson and Todd Stansbury have done in order to have the academic support, emphasis and focus in place to raise graduation rates so high. Fact is, there is no evidence at all beyond people's stubborn excuse-making that Georgia Tech is harder to recruit to than Stanford based on admissions.</p><p></p><p>In terms of the curriculum, even others on here have argued that the problem is it is limiting, not necessarily harder. Tech's focus on math and science make it harder for a kid whose intellectual strength is verbal. It could also be that a kid who is strong in spatial and mathematical reasoning but not as adept verbally fits better at Tech than Stanford. And athletic males tend to be more math/science oriented than verbal.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Madison Grant, post: 520282, member: 823"] Well, first off you're quoting a post that is not even arguing the same thing you are. You are quoting a post that is arguing the curriculum is harder once admitted, and you are arguing lax admission standards. You do realize that's two separate arguments. You are arguing they 'work around admission standards'. Well, every school works around its admission standards for regular students in order to admit athletes, even Tech. So are you saying Stanford lets a [B]large[/B] number of exceptions in? 5 out of their top 7 rated recruits with Ivy offers doesn't seem like a ton of exceptions to me. Doesn't Tech let a handful of exceptions in? How poor can the academics of the exceptions be? If the difference is school A lets 4 exceptions in that are better football talent than the 4 exceptions for school B, there is no unfair advantage in admissions for school A. They are just better recruiters. Honestly, the 'Tech is harder because of the curriculum' is a better argument than admissions. Yes, you went to Stanford, and yes, you posted a very informative article. Thanks. But neither you nor your article get into specifics that [I]prove [/I]Stanford is more lax on its admissions for even certain select SAs than Tech is. And arguing that Stanford does all these extra things or is quoted as saying they "treat their athletes as special needs students" doesn't prove that Tech isn't putting an equal effort into helping its athletes through school. In fact, I think you're selling short the job Paul Johnson and Todd Stansbury have done in order to have the academic support, emphasis and focus in place to raise graduation rates so high. Fact is, there is no evidence at all beyond people's stubborn excuse-making that Georgia Tech is harder to recruit to than Stanford based on admissions. In terms of the curriculum, even others on here have argued that the problem is it is limiting, not necessarily harder. Tech's focus on math and science make it harder for a kid whose intellectual strength is verbal. It could also be that a kid who is strong in spatial and mathematical reasoning but not as adept verbally fits better at Tech than Stanford. And athletic males tend to be more math/science oriented than verbal. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Top 50 GA GT signees
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top