The CardBoard
LMAO - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: LMAO (/thread-9486.html)


LMAO - BobK - 07-27-2015

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_28545960/cals-rigid-academic-standards-pose-tough-challenge-athletics

So rigid at cal.  Too funny

Re: LMAO - Mick - 07-27-2015

I realize that the new minimum 3.0 threshold (not fully enforced until 2017) doesn't seem like much, but Yikes claims that it will eliminate 80% of all prospective players.  If that's true, what's Stanford's number?  5%?

Re: LMAO - 82lsju - 07-27-2015

the article says

The new standards begin to go into effect this fall, when 40 percent of the incoming athletes must have a 3.0 GPA or better. That number climbs to 60 percent next year and to 80 percent in 2017.

If this is not for each sport, and the wording of "incoming athletes" is unclear, they can have a lot of football and basketball players with a GPA <3.0 and still meet the requirement for 40%, 60% and 80% of all incoming athletes as I would guess that their athletes outside of football and basketball generally have a GPA over 3.0

Re: LMAO - CTcard - 07-27-2015

It is true that we have heard over and over from our friends in the east bay that "this time is different - this time we really are going to fix the grad rates and admit academically capable kids, etc., etc." And the proper response remains to believe it's fixed when we see it's fixed.

However, this effort does appear to be more real than most. There was an effort to define some real admissions standards - which is one part of the battle. As always, the devil is in the details. I certainly noted the same thing that 82lsju noted.
"The new standards begin to go into effect this fall, when 40 percent of the incoming athletes must have a 3.0 GPA or better."
That wording sounds to careful for it to be "of each sport" - but I guess we'll see.

Re: LMAO - Papa John - 07-27-2015

C.al is requiring that, eventually, the vast majority of its athletes are eligible according to UC (i.e. systemwide) requirements. The GPA is just a part of the eligibility equation. If you are not a special action admit (e.g. scholarship athlete, musical talent, amazing dancer, child of a big donor), then meeting minimum UC requirements gets you into a UC campus, just not necessarily your first choice.

And the requirements apply equally to each sport:

Quote:This means that by the 2017-18 academic year at least 80% of athletic admissions for each varsity sport will be realized through normal review, with a minimum high school grade-point average of 3.0.

http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/committees/aepe/student-athlete_admissions_policy_approved.pdf

This was actually approved by the Berkeley Academic Senate back in the fall, but I guess it's news now because not much else is going on in college sports.

Sorry to be a party pooper, but I don't take joy in athletes failing to graduate from college, even if the college is Stanford's archrival. So I'm happy to see that C.al is taking serious and productive action in response to its utter neglect of athletes under the previous athletic director. I hope that every one of C.al's football and basketball players graduate and I hope that Stanford wins Big Game for at least another 30 years in a row.

Re: LMAO - chicard - 07-27-2015

(07-27-2015, 06:31 PM)Mick link Wrote:I realize that the new minimum 3.0 threshold (not fully enforced until 2017) doesn't seem like much, but Yikes claims that it will eliminate 80% of all prospective players.  If that's true, what's Stanford's number?  5%?

At least in the last ~10 years I've been following this, I don't recall ever hearing of a football/basketball recruit getting into Stanford with less than a 3.0.  And given that the other sports get even less of a break from admissions, it's doubtful it happens elsewhere. 

Re: LMAO - Hulk01 - 07-28-2015

The gpa expert here, I believe, is Slide.  Post Willingham, the lowest entering gpa I'm aware of was a 3.1.

Re: LMAO - winflop - 07-28-2015

(07-27-2015, 10:20 PM)Papa John link Wrote:Sorry to be a party pooper, but I don't take joy in athletes failing to graduate from college, even if the college is Stanford's archrival. So I'm happy to see that C.al is taking serious and productive action in response to its utter neglect of athletes under the previous athletic director. I hope that every one of C.al's football and basketball players graduate and I hope that Stanford wins Big Game for at least another 30 years in a row.

Agree 100%.  The Low APR is largely the result of admissions standards for scholarship athletes that do not set the students up for success.

Re: LMAO - BostonCard - 07-28-2015

Instead of making fun of Cal, I think we ought to be applauding them for doing something they should have done ages ago, and that all school should do.  I gravely lament that collegiate athletics has become all about athletics and not about college, and that the "student" in "student athlete" was long ago relegated to token status.  I can't believe I'm saying this, but good for Cal if they follow through with it; we might even have to change the autocorrect feature.  Hopefully other schools will follow their lead.

BC

Re: LMAO - slide - 07-28-2015

(07-28-2015, 04:09 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:The gpa expert here, I believe, is Slide.  Post Willingham, the lowest entering gpa I'm aware of was a 3.1.
the two lowest reported I recall are a 3.1 and a 3.17 from Harvard-Westlake grads.  both had over 1300 (2-part SATs). 

Re: LMAO - CTcard - 07-28-2015

(07-28-2015, 04:53 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Instead of making fun of Low APR U, I think we ought to be applauding them for doing something they should have done ages ago, and that all school should do.


With the title, "LMAO" and with the words "too funny" in BobK's OP, there may some making fun of c.a.l. (which generically is always appropriate) - but I don't think that has been the overall tone of the thread.

As mentioned above, this time round sounds more serious and more appropriate than what we have seen from our east bay neighbors on this issue in the past. Nonetheless, success depends upon the seriousness and intentions of the folks doing the nuts and bolts implementation. I believe it is Terry [or maybe Stever Durrett?] who previously has reminded us how often we have heard from berkeleyites that "this time is different".  We should hold off on the congratulations until it is clear that something different has actually come to pass.



Re: LMAO - Mick - 07-28-2015

(07-28-2015, 04:57 AM)slide link Wrote:[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=12407.msg122851#msg122851 date=1438081769]
The gpa expert here, I believe, is Slide.  Post Willingham, the lowest entering gpa I'm aware of was a 3.1.
the two lowest reported I recall are a 3.1 and a 3.17 from Harvard-Westlake grads.  both had over 1300 (2-part SATs).
[/quote]

I can just imagine what the parents of the 3.9/4.5 weighted gpa 2250 SAT said when their little offspring didn't get into Stanford and those two did...

Re: LMAO - washingtonismoney - 07-28-2015

(07-28-2015, 01:43 PM)Mick link Wrote:I can just imagine what the parents of the 3.9/4.5 weighted gpa 2250 SAT said when their little offspring didn't get into Stanford and those two did...

"Did the check bounce?"

Re: LMAO - Bruce Wang - 07-28-2015

(07-28-2015, 01:43 PM)Mick link Wrote:I can just imagine what the parents of the 3.9/4.5 weighted gpa 2250 SAT said when their little offspring didn't get into Stanford and those two did...

Too bad my kid doesn't run a 4.4 40.

Re: LMAO - 81alum - 07-28-2015

I am glad that C.al is improving its admissions standards for athletes.  I generally think athletes should meet roughly the same admissions criteria as other students, given the nature of the university.

I took the humor to be that the critics of this change implied that C.al could not field a competitive football team if they actually had to use real students.    Also humorous is that they think raising the standard to 3.0 is rigorous.  The article that was just posted yesterday indicated that there are plenty of 4.0 students and better who don't make it in to C.al.  A 3.0, frankly, is grossly inferior compared with the school's normal standards.  I would not allow them to do too much chest beating now that they are moving up from standards that were nonexistent (or verged on the corrupt) to "standards" that for non-athletes would sit in the school's rejection zone.  What percentage of non athletes get admitted to C.al with a 3.0?

As a whole, according to C.al's public profile, 23 of C.al's admits had gpas lower than 3.0.  What do you want to bet that they were almost all athletes in two key sports?  10,901 admits had gpas of 4.0.  Not all accepted, of course, but that the "reform" in perspective, and shows how grotesque admissions for athletics at C.al had become.

Re: LMAO - BostonCard - 07-28-2015

(07-28-2015, 08:57 PM)81alum link Wrote:10,901 admits had gpas of 4.0.  Not all accepted, of course

Was that meant to be 10,901 applicants?  Because by definition, all admits were accepted, unless I missed something.

BC

Re: LMAO - Leftcoast - 07-28-2015

I believe not all ADMITS accepted their admission - ie some portion of C.al's admits matriculated elsewhere.

Re: LMAO - BostonCard - 07-29-2015

Ah, ok.  Somehow I interjected a 'were' into your message.  My bad.

BC