[81alum]

Not everyone can be Stanford.  Rather than ripping Low APR U for trying to raise standards, how about saving the complaining for schools that literally have no standards, or would scoff at what Low APR U has done?

The idea is the 80% will create a culture that will help the 20%.  And Low APR U is re-doubling it's efforts to provide academic support and monitor academic progress.  It is a fact that the Chancellor wants the academic performance of athletes to improve. When the head of an organization places priority on something it usually gets done.

Low APR U just got a commitment from a 4 star DL with a 3.6 GPA from Georgia, who chose Low APR U for its academics.  This suggests Stanford and Low APR U are going to have many more head-to-head recruiting battles in the future for academic-minded recruits.  Quenton Meeks is another guy being recruited by both schools, as was Jack Dreyer. 

Finally, I'm sure nobody wants Low APR U raising its standards so high that it can't land enough good athletes to make the football program competitive.  An empty CMS is going to cost CA tax payers.

There is truth in what you say, and I am a bit chagrined.  Of course I support the C.al Academic Senate for attempted to make a horrible situation a little bit less horrible.  In a sense, this is a good story--the faculty of the institution are trying to straighten out a situation that the administration there as allowed to develop.

But I had not realized how pathetically low C.al's standards for athletes had apparently fallen.  I have a child who will soon by applying to colleges, and C.al is phenomenally hard to get into.  Their gpa requirements taken alone are, in fact, as high as Stanford's, although their admissions overall is not as selective (very little attention to extracurriculars, letters of recommendation, etc.)  The average frosh at C.al had a 4.0 and took several AP classes and got As in them, and the average SAT was nearly 2100.  Any normal student with a 3.0 gpa would not have the slightest chance of getting in to C.al.  They would have difficulties getting into most UC campuses, and would be about average for CSU admissions--and could not make it in to some CSU campuses (SLO, for example.)

And so the fact that it is considered a "reform" that 3/4 of their athletes have to have B averages (be eligible for CSU admissions) is sickening from the standpoint of equity in admissions.  The remark that not everyone can be a Stanford is true--but everyone should have the same admissions standards for athletes and non-athletes.  Universities which are less selective overall should feel free to have proportionately lower standards for athletes--matching whatever they do for the general student body.  If C.al wants to be a prestigious academic institution (as it should), then it needs to lose its double standard. 

[81alum]

Not everyone can be Stanford.  Rather than ripping Low APR U for trying to raise standards, how about saving the complaining for schools that literally have no standards, or would scoff at what Low APR U has done?

The idea is the 80% will create a culture that will help the 20%.  And Low APR U is re-doubling it's efforts to provide academic support and monitor academic progress.  It is a fact that the Chancellor wants the academic performance of athletes to improve. When the head of an organization places priority on something it usually gets done.

Low APR U just got a commitment from a 4 star DL with a 3.6 GPA from Georgia, who chose Low APR U for its academics.  This suggests Stanford and Low APR U are going to have many more head-to-head recruiting battles in the future for academic-minded recruits.  Quenton Meeks is another guy being recruited by both schools, as was Jack Dreyer. 

Finally, I'm sure nobody wants Low APR U raising its standards so high that it can't land enough good athletes to make the football program competitive.  An empty CMS is going to cost CA tax payers.

There is truth in what you say, and I am a bit chagrined.  Of course I support the C.al Academic Senate for attempted to make a horrible situation a little bit less horrible.  In a sense, this is a good story--the faculty of the institution are trying to straighten out a situation that the administration there as allowed to develop.

But I had not realized how pathetically low C.al's standards for athletes had apparently fallen.  I have a child who will soon by applying to colleges, and C.al is phenomenally hard to get into.  Their gpa requirements taken alone are, in fact, as high as Stanford's, although their admissions overall is not as selective (very little attention to extracurriculars, letters of recommendation, etc.)  The average frosh at C.al had a 4.0 and took several AP classes and got As in them, and the average SAT was nearly 2100.  Any normal student with a 3.0 gpa would not have the slightest chance of getting in to C.al.  They would have difficulties getting into most UC campuses, and would be about average for CSU admissions--and could not make it in to some CSU campuses (SLO, for example.)

And so the fact that it is considered a "reform" that 3/4 of their athletes have to have B averages (be eligible for CSU admissions) is sickening from the standpoint of equity in admissions.  The remark that not everyone can be a Stanford is true--but everyone should have the same admissions standards for athletes and non-athletes.  Universities which are less selective overall should feel free to have proportionately lower standards for athletes--matching whatever they do for the general student body.  If C.al wants to be a prestigious academic institution (as it should), then it needs to lose its double standard.