10-29-2014, 04:50 PM
Cal ups their standards
10-29-2014, 08:44 PM
I actually had to check to make sure this wasn't published on April 1.
It is almost unbelievable that the standards were so low for so long. Hard to imagine a HS student with a sub 3.0 GPA entering UCB and participating in all of the activities required to excel in Pac-12 football could realistically survive in that sink or swim environment.
It is almost unbelievable that the standards were so low for so long. Hard to imagine a HS student with a sub 3.0 GPA entering UCB and participating in all of the activities required to excel in Pac-12 football could realistically survive in that sink or swim environment.
I actually had to check to make sure this wasn't published on April 1.
It is almost unbelievable that the standards were so low for so long. Hard to imagine a HS student with a sub 3.0 GPA entering UCB and participating in all of the activities required to excel in Pac-12 football could realistically survive in that sink or swim environment.
It is almost unbelievable that the standards were so low for so long. Hard to imagine a HS student with a sub 3.0 GPA entering UCB and participating in all of the activities required to excel in Pac-12 football could realistically survive in that sink or swim environment.
Wow. These people don't get it. More than half their recruits currently have less than a B average average and these guys are proud of cutting that to 20%. Since that 20% will probably be reserved for the most physically talented, they are the ones that the team looks up to. This is not the way to change the culture to one that values academic achievement.
For all the other applicants, 3.0 is the absolute minimum. Good luck getting in with a B average if you don't have some very special qualifications. Most of the kids getting in, at least from our town, are way above that level with significant extracurriculars. How are the C students supposed to compete for a passing grade with a room full of A- and above students? This policy is just planning for failure by 20% before they even get started. If the rest of the bunch is just barely above 3.0, a large percentage of them will fail too. They will be "Low APR U" forever.
For all the other applicants, 3.0 is the absolute minimum. Good luck getting in with a B average if you don't have some very special qualifications. Most of the kids getting in, at least from our town, are way above that level with significant extracurriculars. How are the C students supposed to compete for a passing grade with a room full of A- and above students? This policy is just planning for failure by 20% before they even get started. If the rest of the bunch is just barely above 3.0, a large percentage of them will fail too. They will be "Low APR U" forever.
Wow. These people don't get it. More than half their recruits currently have less than a B average average and these guys are proud of cutting that to 20%. Since that 20% will probably be reserved for the most physically talented, they are the ones that the team looks up to. This is not the way to change the culture to one that values academic achievement.
For all the other applicants, 3.0 is the absolute minimum. Good luck getting in with a B average if you don't have some very special qualifications. Most of the kids getting in, at least from our town, are way above that level with significant extracurriculars. How are the C students supposed to compete for a passing grade with a room full of A- and above students? This policy is just planning for failure by 20% before they even get started. If the rest of the bunch is just barely above 3.0, a large percentage of them will fail too. They will be "Low APR U" forever.
For all the other applicants, 3.0 is the absolute minimum. Good luck getting in with a B average if you don't have some very special qualifications. Most of the kids getting in, at least from our town, are way above that level with significant extracurriculars. How are the C students supposed to compete for a passing grade with a room full of A- and above students? This policy is just planning for failure by 20% before they even get started. If the rest of the bunch is just barely above 3.0, a large percentage of them will fail too. They will be "Low APR U" forever.
10-29-2014, 09:36 PM
I find it deplorable that they are insisting on only a B average when the average GPA for a C.al student is 4.18.
http://admission.universityofcalifornia....index.html
There is a gargantuan gap between the qualifications of their typical students and the qualifications of even those football players who meet their low goals. It is impossible to deny that there is a double standard.
http://admission.universityofcalifornia....index.html
There is a gargantuan gap between the qualifications of their typical students and the qualifications of even those football players who meet their low goals. It is impossible to deny that there is a double standard.
I find it deplorable that they are insisting on only a B average when the average GPA for a C.al student is 4.18.
http://admission.universityofcalifornia....index.html
There is a gargantuan gap between the qualifications of their typical students and the qualifications of even those football players who meet their low goals. It is impossible to deny that there is a double standard.
http://admission.universityofcalifornia....index.html
There is a gargantuan gap between the qualifications of their typical students and the qualifications of even those football players who meet their low goals. It is impossible to deny that there is a double standard.
10-29-2014, 11:19 PM
B.earinsider: "Isn't this similar to what the the school I wish I had gotten into requires?" Well, no.
10-30-2014, 05:19 AM
Not everyone can be Stanford. Rather than ripping Cal for trying to raise standards, how about saving the complaining for schools that literally have no standards, or would scoff at what Cal has done?
The idea is the 80% will create a culture that will help the 20%. And Cal 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.
Cal just got a commitment from a 4 star DL with a 3.6 GPA from Georgia, who chose Cal for its academics. This suggests Stanford and Cal 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.Â
Finally, I'm sure nobody wants Cal 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.
The idea is the 80% will create a culture that will help the 20%. And Cal 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.
Cal just got a commitment from a 4 star DL with a 3.6 GPA from Georgia, who chose Cal for its academics. This suggests Stanford and Cal 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.Â
Finally, I'm sure nobody wants Cal 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.
Not everyone can be Stanford. Rather than ripping Cal for trying to raise standards, how about saving the complaining for schools that literally have no standards, or would scoff at what Cal has done?
The idea is the 80% will create a culture that will help the 20%. And Cal 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.
Cal just got a commitment from a 4 star DL with a 3.6 GPA from Georgia, who chose Cal for its academics. This suggests Stanford and Cal 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.Â
Finally, I'm sure nobody wants Cal 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.
The idea is the 80% will create a culture that will help the 20%. And Cal 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.
Cal just got a commitment from a 4 star DL with a 3.6 GPA from Georgia, who chose Cal for its academics. This suggests Stanford and Cal 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.Â
Finally, I'm sure nobody wants Cal 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.
10-30-2014, 06:13 AM
(10-30-2014, 05:19 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote: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?
I agree with the sentiment. It's a good move that c.a.l. is finally doing something beyond claiming that the new coach will fix everything - and everything is all the fault of the last coach.
Of course a key is making the academic situation not necessarily a function of the coach of the moment.
Quote:And Low APR U is re-doubling it's efforts to provide academic support and monitor academic progress.Â
Isn't that what UNC was doing?
Snark aside, it is a real concern. I don't think there are many division 1 schools where there is a lack of academic help for football/basketball players. So, at that point what does re-doubling efforts mean? It often means something I don't like very much.
Quote: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.
That would be Russel Ude I guess. He's four star on Rivals and three star everywhere else - but does have a very good offer list and would appear to be a good pickup. However, he apparently does not have an offer from Stanford, so that would be hard to describe as a head to head win for c.a.l. over Stanford.
It certainly seems as if c.a.l. and Stanford should be big recruiting rivals, and over and over we have seen the prediction that this would now become true. So far it hasn't happened. We'll see.
Quote: Quenton Meeks is another guy being recruited by both schools
Didn't he help corner the orange juice market?
(10-30-2014, 05:19 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote: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?
I agree with the sentiment. It's a good move that c.a.l. is finally doing something beyond claiming that the new coach will fix everything - and everything is all the fault of the last coach.
Of course a key is making the academic situation not necessarily a function of the coach of the moment.
Quote:And Low APR U is re-doubling it's efforts to provide academic support and monitor academic progress.Â
Isn't that what UNC was doing?
Snark aside, it is a real concern. I don't think there are many division 1 schools where there is a lack of academic help for football/basketball players. So, at that point what does re-doubling efforts mean? It often means something I don't like very much.
Quote: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.
That would be Russel Ude I guess. He's four star on Rivals and three star everywhere else - but does have a very good offer list and would appear to be a good pickup. However, he apparently does not have an offer from Stanford, so that would be hard to describe as a head to head win for c.a.l. over Stanford.
It certainly seems as if c.a.l. and Stanford should be big recruiting rivals, and over and over we have seen the prediction that this would now become true. So far it hasn't happened. We'll see.
Quote: Quenton Meeks is another guy being recruited by both schools
Didn't he help corner the orange juice market?
10-30-2014, 06:31 AM
(10-30-2014, 05:19 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote: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?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.
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.Â
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.
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.Â
(10-30-2014, 05:19 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote: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?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.
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.Â
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.
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.Â
10-30-2014, 06:32 AM
I +1'ed CTCard if only for the Trading Places reference.(It was actually "Beeks" in the movie, however.)
I don't think we're expecting "everyone" to be Stanford. I don't expect FSU or Miami or any SEC school to have Stanford's standards. Does UCB want to be compared to those schools or to Stanford and the Ivy's? A university which purports to have some of the highest standards in the world and whose alumni regularly claim superiority to Stanford should be prepared to back up the words with action. Either UCB is incredibly rigorous and difficult to graduate from and therefore the athletic program is participating in academic fraud because clearly the students admitted are ill equipped to succeed, or it really isn't as hard as all the UCB alumni claim to get a diploma from THE #1 public school in the world.
Quote:Not everyone can be Stanford.
I don't think we're expecting "everyone" to be Stanford. I don't expect FSU or Miami or any SEC school to have Stanford's standards. Does UCB want to be compared to those schools or to Stanford and the Ivy's? A university which purports to have some of the highest standards in the world and whose alumni regularly claim superiority to Stanford should be prepared to back up the words with action. Either UCB is incredibly rigorous and difficult to graduate from and therefore the athletic program is participating in academic fraud because clearly the students admitted are ill equipped to succeed, or it really isn't as hard as all the UCB alumni claim to get a diploma from THE #1 public school in the world.
I +1'ed CTCard if only for the Trading Places reference.(It was actually "Beeks" in the movie, however.)
I don't think we're expecting "everyone" to be Stanford. I don't expect FSU or Miami or any SEC school to have Stanford's standards. Does UCB want to be compared to those schools or to Stanford and the Ivy's? A university which purports to have some of the highest standards in the world and whose alumni regularly claim superiority to Stanford should be prepared to back up the words with action. Either UCB is incredibly rigorous and difficult to graduate from and therefore the athletic program is participating in academic fraud because clearly the students admitted are ill equipped to succeed, or it really isn't as hard as all the UCB alumni claim to get a diploma from THE #1 public school in the world.
Quote:Not everyone can be Stanford.
I don't think we're expecting "everyone" to be Stanford. I don't expect FSU or Miami or any SEC school to have Stanford's standards. Does UCB want to be compared to those schools or to Stanford and the Ivy's? A university which purports to have some of the highest standards in the world and whose alumni regularly claim superiority to Stanford should be prepared to back up the words with action. Either UCB is incredibly rigorous and difficult to graduate from and therefore the athletic program is participating in academic fraud because clearly the students admitted are ill equipped to succeed, or it really isn't as hard as all the UCB alumni claim to get a diploma from THE #1 public school in the world.
10-30-2014, 06:38 AM
Quote: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.
Even Stanford doesn't meet that standard. I don't have the latest numbers, but in the past I've seen a healthy discount between the Stanford basketball and football team vs. the overall student body. Just like there's credit given to student with exceptional achievement in art, music, social service and other extracurriculars, I'm fine giving some academic lenience to athletes. But the minimum requirements should be that the student is able to participate fully in the intellectual life of the college. Otherwise, you end up with a sports program completely divorced from the overall university mission which is an abomination, in my opinion.
Quote: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.
Even Stanford doesn't meet that standard. I don't have the latest numbers, but in the past I've seen a healthy discount between the Stanford basketball and football team vs. the overall student body. Just like there's credit given to student with exceptional achievement in art, music, social service and other extracurriculars, I'm fine giving some academic lenience to athletes. But the minimum requirements should be that the student is able to participate fully in the intellectual life of the college. Otherwise, you end up with a sports program completely divorced from the overall university mission which is an abomination, in my opinion.
10-30-2014, 06:56 AM
(10-30-2014, 06:32 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I +1'ed CTCard if only for the Trading Places reference.(It was actually "Beeks" in the movie, however.)
Yeah well, sometimes you gotta make a reach.
And certainly I wasn't the only one with that flashback first seeing his name.
(10-30-2014, 06:32 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I +1'ed CTCard if only for the Trading Places reference.(It was actually "Beeks" in the movie, however.)
Yeah well, sometimes you gotta make a reach.
And certainly I wasn't the only one with that flashback first seeing his name.
10-30-2014, 10:15 AM
(10-30-2014, 06:38 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Not so.Quote: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.
Even Stanford doesn't meet that standard. I don't have the latest numbers, but in the past I've seen a healthy discount between the Stanford basketball and football team vs. the overall student body. Just like there's credit given to student with exceptional achievement in art, music, social service and other extracurriculars, I'm fine giving some academic lenience to athletes. But the minimum requirements should be that the student is able to participate fully in the intellectual life of the college. Otherwise, you end up with a sports program completely divorced from the overall university mission which is an abomination, in my opinion.
Stanford makes it clear that having high extracurricular achievements is a significant part of its admissions policy. It can give credit to a football player in the same way it gives credit to a writer or a musician or anyone else who has outstanding talent. This is why, going back to Fred, every Stanford admit is rated in two categories. Everyone at Stanford has relatively high GPA and test scores and those who are a little less high also must have outstanding extracurricular achievements--which can come in any field.
At C.al, the gap between the typical student and their football players is enormous--not slight--and the same consideration is not granted to all other forms of talent. C.al does not lower its standards to a 3.0 (or less in 25% of the cases) in order to attract talent in any other area besides select athletics teams. It does not have a drama department stuffed with actors recruited with B averages, or a symphony filled with performers recruited with B averages, or a debate team with debaters recruited with B averages. No, the C.al policy is that certain athletes can have grossly different admissions standards than other students who have equal talent and equal academic credentials. The reform lessons the injustice but leaves the double standard in place.
This is unworthy of an institution that seeks to be the world's most prestigious public university. I think you will find, moreover, that many C.al faculty would agree.
(10-30-2014, 06:38 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Not so.Quote: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.
Even Stanford doesn't meet that standard. I don't have the latest numbers, but in the past I've seen a healthy discount between the Stanford basketball and football team vs. the overall student body. Just like there's credit given to student with exceptional achievement in art, music, social service and other extracurriculars, I'm fine giving some academic lenience to athletes. But the minimum requirements should be that the student is able to participate fully in the intellectual life of the college. Otherwise, you end up with a sports program completely divorced from the overall university mission which is an abomination, in my opinion.
Stanford makes it clear that having high extracurricular achievements is a significant part of its admissions policy. It can give credit to a football player in the same way it gives credit to a writer or a musician or anyone else who has outstanding talent. This is why, going back to Fred, every Stanford admit is rated in two categories. Everyone at Stanford has relatively high GPA and test scores and those who are a little less high also must have outstanding extracurricular achievements--which can come in any field.
At C.al, the gap between the typical student and their football players is enormous--not slight--and the same consideration is not granted to all other forms of talent. C.al does not lower its standards to a 3.0 (or less in 25% of the cases) in order to attract talent in any other area besides select athletics teams. It does not have a drama department stuffed with actors recruited with B averages, or a symphony filled with performers recruited with B averages, or a debate team with debaters recruited with B averages. No, the C.al policy is that certain athletes can have grossly different admissions standards than other students who have equal talent and equal academic credentials. The reform lessons the injustice but leaves the double standard in place.
This is unworthy of an institution that seeks to be the world's most prestigious public university. I think you will find, moreover, that many C.al faculty would agree.
10-30-2014, 10:36 AM
Let's not get all high and mighty. Our drama and music students have GPAs and SATs in line with the rest of our student body. Our football and basketball players do not (but they're closer than other schools!). You're not getting in to Stanford with a 1350 and a 3.7 unless you run a 4.4 40 or your dad donated a building.
Let's not get all high and mighty. Our drama and music students have GPAs and SATs in line with the rest of our student body. Our football and basketball players do not (but they're closer than other schools!). You're not getting in to Stanford with a 1350 and a 3.7 unless you run a 4.4 40 or your dad donated a building.
10-30-2014, 11:04 AM
MBB 3 players in Grad school and one after graduating in three years.
WBB 16 of last 18 players with 4.0 or better and I couldn't find infoon the other 2.
The point about cal is I read their boards and often when a possible recruit is mentioned someone will post "but does he/she have the grades". The AD at cal is a joke, period.Â
WBB 16 of last 18 players with 4.0 or better and I couldn't find infoon the other 2.
The point about cal is I read their boards and often when a possible recruit is mentioned someone will post "but does he/she have the grades". The AD at cal is a joke, period.Â
MBB 3 players in Grad school and one after graduating in three years.
WBB 16 of last 18 players with 4.0 or better and I couldn't find infoon the other 2.
The point about cal is I read their boards and often when a possible recruit is mentioned someone will post "but does he/she have the grades". The AD at cal is a joke, period.Â
WBB 16 of last 18 players with 4.0 or better and I couldn't find infoon the other 2.
The point about cal is I read their boards and often when a possible recruit is mentioned someone will post "but does he/she have the grades". The AD at cal is a joke, period.Â
Some thoughts...
This is a step in the right direction. I fully support the notion of admitting a handful of student-athletes who do not meet the threshold that has been established for the majority. The poster guy for that is Russell White. He is one of the best examples of why deserving guys without fabulous transcripts should be admitted. Of all the footballers who have passed through UC, he is my favorite because of what he did off the field. In essence, he came to school as a football player and he left as a graduate who clearly understood the value of a UC education. Â
The problem in the past is that far too many undeserving guys were admitted.
This change in policy will meet both criteria that I believe in...
80% of admissions (20 of 25) should be guys who have demonstrated they can meet the rigorous standards of B.erkeley.
20% of the admissions (5 per year) should be guys who struggled in HS but have demonstrated they can make it at UC with the support of the Academic Center.
Instead of the usual, "we will get better" nonsense that we have been subjected to for God knows how many years, Chancellor Dirks is taking steps to address the problem.
Good for him and good for UC.Â
Hopefully, the academic embarrassments of the past are finally over...
This is a step in the right direction. I fully support the notion of admitting a handful of student-athletes who do not meet the threshold that has been established for the majority. The poster guy for that is Russell White. He is one of the best examples of why deserving guys without fabulous transcripts should be admitted. Of all the footballers who have passed through UC, he is my favorite because of what he did off the field. In essence, he came to school as a football player and he left as a graduate who clearly understood the value of a UC education. Â
The problem in the past is that far too many undeserving guys were admitted.
This change in policy will meet both criteria that I believe in...
80% of admissions (20 of 25) should be guys who have demonstrated they can meet the rigorous standards of B.erkeley.
20% of the admissions (5 per year) should be guys who struggled in HS but have demonstrated they can make it at UC with the support of the Academic Center.
Instead of the usual, "we will get better" nonsense that we have been subjected to for God knows how many years, Chancellor Dirks is taking steps to address the problem.
Good for him and good for UC.Â
Hopefully, the academic embarrassments of the past are finally over...
Some thoughts...
This is a step in the right direction. I fully support the notion of admitting a handful of student-athletes who do not meet the threshold that has been established for the majority. The poster guy for that is Russell White. He is one of the best examples of why deserving guys without fabulous transcripts should be admitted. Of all the footballers who have passed through UC, he is my favorite because of what he did off the field. In essence, he came to school as a football player and he left as a graduate who clearly understood the value of a UC education. Â
The problem in the past is that far too many undeserving guys were admitted.
This change in policy will meet both criteria that I believe in...
80% of admissions (20 of 25) should be guys who have demonstrated they can meet the rigorous standards of B.erkeley.
20% of the admissions (5 per year) should be guys who struggled in HS but have demonstrated they can make it at UC with the support of the Academic Center.
Instead of the usual, "we will get better" nonsense that we have been subjected to for God knows how many years, Chancellor Dirks is taking steps to address the problem.
Good for him and good for UC.Â
Hopefully, the academic embarrassments of the past are finally over...
This is a step in the right direction. I fully support the notion of admitting a handful of student-athletes who do not meet the threshold that has been established for the majority. The poster guy for that is Russell White. He is one of the best examples of why deserving guys without fabulous transcripts should be admitted. Of all the footballers who have passed through UC, he is my favorite because of what he did off the field. In essence, he came to school as a football player and he left as a graduate who clearly understood the value of a UC education. Â
The problem in the past is that far too many undeserving guys were admitted.
This change in policy will meet both criteria that I believe in...
80% of admissions (20 of 25) should be guys who have demonstrated they can meet the rigorous standards of B.erkeley.
20% of the admissions (5 per year) should be guys who struggled in HS but have demonstrated they can make it at UC with the support of the Academic Center.
Instead of the usual, "we will get better" nonsense that we have been subjected to for God knows how many years, Chancellor Dirks is taking steps to address the problem.
Good for him and good for UC.Â
Hopefully, the academic embarrassments of the past are finally over...
10-30-2014, 11:32 AM
71Bear,
I like the 80/20 rule. My question is whether 3.0 HS GPA is the correct demarcation between the 80/20. In my experience, UCB alums are very proud of the rigor of the undergrad programs. Ignoring the fact that they wouldn't be admitted, if you met a non-athlete incoming freshman with a high school gpa of 3.1, do you think they are likely to succeed at UCB? Will that student likely contribute to the lively intellectual discourse among students? A single number doesn't fully define a student's potential, but I would venture that the average student with a low 3s GPA would sink at Stanford.
I like the 80/20 rule. My question is whether 3.0 HS GPA is the correct demarcation between the 80/20. In my experience, UCB alums are very proud of the rigor of the undergrad programs. Ignoring the fact that they wouldn't be admitted, if you met a non-athlete incoming freshman with a high school gpa of 3.1, do you think they are likely to succeed at UCB? Will that student likely contribute to the lively intellectual discourse among students? A single number doesn't fully define a student's potential, but I would venture that the average student with a low 3s GPA would sink at Stanford.
71Bear,
I like the 80/20 rule. My question is whether 3.0 HS GPA is the correct demarcation between the 80/20. In my experience, UCB alums are very proud of the rigor of the undergrad programs. Ignoring the fact that they wouldn't be admitted, if you met a non-athlete incoming freshman with a high school gpa of 3.1, do you think they are likely to succeed at UCB? Will that student likely contribute to the lively intellectual discourse among students? A single number doesn't fully define a student's potential, but I would venture that the average student with a low 3s GPA would sink at Stanford.
I like the 80/20 rule. My question is whether 3.0 HS GPA is the correct demarcation between the 80/20. In my experience, UCB alums are very proud of the rigor of the undergrad programs. Ignoring the fact that they wouldn't be admitted, if you met a non-athlete incoming freshman with a high school gpa of 3.1, do you think they are likely to succeed at UCB? Will that student likely contribute to the lively intellectual discourse among students? A single number doesn't fully define a student's potential, but I would venture that the average student with a low 3s GPA would sink at Stanford.
10-30-2014, 12:47 PM
FB...
A fair question...
I think the standard has to be set at a level that enables both academics and athletics to flourish. I'm not certain if 3.0 is the right number but it is certainly a good starting point. After the program has been in place for a number of years, we will be able to analyze whether 3.0 is the correct benchmark or too low (it certainly won't be proven to be too high, IMO). Then, it can be tweaked acordingly.
I expect grad rates for athletes to be within 5 points of the grad rates for the student body as a whole. Anything less is unacceptable.
A fair question...
I think the standard has to be set at a level that enables both academics and athletics to flourish. I'm not certain if 3.0 is the right number but it is certainly a good starting point. After the program has been in place for a number of years, we will be able to analyze whether 3.0 is the correct benchmark or too low (it certainly won't be proven to be too high, IMO). Then, it can be tweaked acordingly.
I expect grad rates for athletes to be within 5 points of the grad rates for the student body as a whole. Anything less is unacceptable.
FB...
A fair question...
I think the standard has to be set at a level that enables both academics and athletics to flourish. I'm not certain if 3.0 is the right number but it is certainly a good starting point. After the program has been in place for a number of years, we will be able to analyze whether 3.0 is the correct benchmark or too low (it certainly won't be proven to be too high, IMO). Then, it can be tweaked acordingly.
I expect grad rates for athletes to be within 5 points of the grad rates for the student body as a whole. Anything less is unacceptable.
A fair question...
I think the standard has to be set at a level that enables both academics and athletics to flourish. I'm not certain if 3.0 is the right number but it is certainly a good starting point. After the program has been in place for a number of years, we will be able to analyze whether 3.0 is the correct benchmark or too low (it certainly won't be proven to be too high, IMO). Then, it can be tweaked acordingly.
I expect grad rates for athletes to be within 5 points of the grad rates for the student body as a whole. Anything less is unacceptable.
When you look deeper you see a different story than Ca.l has trumpeted in years and crisis' of the past.Â
The administration as a WHOLE is weighing in on academics, setting a more stringent policy and identifying graduation rates as an all school issue. This is critical - expecting a coach to instill an academic culture in his locker room is a fools hope particularly if you fire them for losing, give them raises for winning and only give lip service to academics the week it's in the news. In the past Ca.l's adminstration treated their poor showing as an issue requiring a quick fix or to be spun for damage control. All the talk meant nothing until the administration weighed in - and now they finally have.
There are signs this is more than lip service and I'd feel hypocritical damning it out of hand. I'm going to applaud the recent announcement even as I adopt a wait and see attitude. (Not that anyone remotely connected to Ca.l gives a darn what I think.)
The administration as a WHOLE is weighing in on academics, setting a more stringent policy and identifying graduation rates as an all school issue. This is critical - expecting a coach to instill an academic culture in his locker room is a fools hope particularly if you fire them for losing, give them raises for winning and only give lip service to academics the week it's in the news. In the past Ca.l's adminstration treated their poor showing as an issue requiring a quick fix or to be spun for damage control. All the talk meant nothing until the administration weighed in - and now they finally have.
There are signs this is more than lip service and I'd feel hypocritical damning it out of hand. I'm going to applaud the recent announcement even as I adopt a wait and see attitude. (Not that anyone remotely connected to Ca.l gives a darn what I think.)
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2014, 02:14 PM by Leftcoast.)
When you look deeper you see a different story than Ca.l has trumpeted in years and crisis' of the past.Â
The administration as a WHOLE is weighing in on academics, setting a more stringent policy and identifying graduation rates as an all school issue. This is critical - expecting a coach to instill an academic culture in his locker room is a fools hope particularly if you fire them for losing, give them raises for winning and only give lip service to academics the week it's in the news. In the past Ca.l's adminstration treated their poor showing as an issue requiring a quick fix or to be spun for damage control. All the talk meant nothing until the administration weighed in - and now they finally have.
There are signs this is more than lip service and I'd feel hypocritical damning it out of hand. I'm going to applaud the recent announcement even as I adopt a wait and see attitude. (Not that anyone remotely connected to Ca.l gives a darn what I think.)
The administration as a WHOLE is weighing in on academics, setting a more stringent policy and identifying graduation rates as an all school issue. This is critical - expecting a coach to instill an academic culture in his locker room is a fools hope particularly if you fire them for losing, give them raises for winning and only give lip service to academics the week it's in the news. In the past Ca.l's adminstration treated their poor showing as an issue requiring a quick fix or to be spun for damage control. All the talk meant nothing until the administration weighed in - and now they finally have.
There are signs this is more than lip service and I'd feel hypocritical damning it out of hand. I'm going to applaud the recent announcement even as I adopt a wait and see attitude. (Not that anyone remotely connected to Ca.l gives a darn what I think.)
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
10-30-2014, 02:04 PM
(10-30-2014, 10:36 AM)dabigv link Wrote:Let's not get all high and mighty. Our drama and music students have GPAs and SATs in line with the rest of our student body. Our football and basketball players do not (but they're closer than other schools!). You're not getting in to Stanford with a 1350 and a 3.7 unless you run a 4.4 40 or your dad donated a building.Hargadon initiated a rating system in which all applications were rated 1-5 on Scholastics and 1-5 on everything else--mainly extracurriculars. I presume that system or a similar system continues in use. Our football and basketball players do have GPAs and SATs in line with everyone else in the student body with an equivalent extra curricular score. It is very difficult to score a 5 in the non academic category--only a tiny number of the most elite athletes do so. That means that only a tiny number of our most elite athletes really can bend the bar on the academic score. For example, let's say in a given year you need a "8" to make the first cut at admissions. If you scored a 5 due to your football prowess then you would need a "3" on the academic scale. If you were not as desirable an athlete--say a "4", then you would need to be better on the academic scale at a "4." Let's say you are are a good athlete that the coaches wanted but not really elite--so that you only rate a "3" on extracurriculars based on your solid athletic achievements. Then you would need to blow away the academic scale at a "5". So athletes on the same team actually have different standards depending upon the evaluation of their whole application.
Now, if this were in place only for athletes people would be right in saying that Stanford, too, has a double standard for athletes. But it is in place for everyone. Musicians, writers, political activists, thespians, science fair aficionados--you name it. They all earn points on extra curriculars and earning more or less raises or lowers the academic expectations. Most students at Stanford do NOT score "5" on the academic scale--the vast majority of students at Stanford are there in large measure as a result of outstanding extracurricular activities that are judged just as worthy as football or basketball.
(10-30-2014, 10:36 AM)dabigv link Wrote:Let's not get all high and mighty. Our drama and music students have GPAs and SATs in line with the rest of our student body. Our football and basketball players do not (but they're closer than other schools!). You're not getting in to Stanford with a 1350 and a 3.7 unless you run a 4.4 40 or your dad donated a building.Hargadon initiated a rating system in which all applications were rated 1-5 on Scholastics and 1-5 on everything else--mainly extracurriculars. I presume that system or a similar system continues in use. Our football and basketball players do have GPAs and SATs in line with everyone else in the student body with an equivalent extra curricular score. It is very difficult to score a 5 in the non academic category--only a tiny number of the most elite athletes do so. That means that only a tiny number of our most elite athletes really can bend the bar on the academic score. For example, let's say in a given year you need a "8" to make the first cut at admissions. If you scored a 5 due to your football prowess then you would need a "3" on the academic scale. If you were not as desirable an athlete--say a "4", then you would need to be better on the academic scale at a "4." Let's say you are are a good athlete that the coaches wanted but not really elite--so that you only rate a "3" on extracurriculars based on your solid athletic achievements. Then you would need to blow away the academic scale at a "5". So athletes on the same team actually have different standards depending upon the evaluation of their whole application.
Now, if this were in place only for athletes people would be right in saying that Stanford, too, has a double standard for athletes. But it is in place for everyone. Musicians, writers, political activists, thespians, science fair aficionados--you name it. They all earn points on extra curriculars and earning more or less raises or lowers the academic expectations. Most students at Stanford do NOT score "5" on the academic scale--the vast majority of students at Stanford are there in large measure as a result of outstanding extracurricular activities that are judged just as worthy as football or basketball.
10-30-2014, 02:27 PM
(10-30-2014, 02:04 PM)81alum link Wrote:That means that only a tiny number of our most elite athletes really can bend the bar on the academic score. ... Let's say you are are a good athlete that the coaches wanted but not really elite--so that you only rate a "3" on extracurriculars based on your solid athletic achievements. Then you would need to blow away the academic scale at a "5".Â
Obviously this needs to be said carefully, but I believe you have mistaken information on the typical, and range of, academic profiles of our men's football and basketball teams.
Now the current level of incoming standards, combined with the culture on the teams, seems to be entirely appropriate as players appear to be both graduating and doing well outside of their sports - at least as far as I can tell from outside. But that is not quite equal to the statement quoted above.
(10-30-2014, 02:04 PM)81alum link Wrote:That means that only a tiny number of our most elite athletes really can bend the bar on the academic score. ... Let's say you are are a good athlete that the coaches wanted but not really elite--so that you only rate a "3" on extracurriculars based on your solid athletic achievements. Then you would need to blow away the academic scale at a "5".Â
Obviously this needs to be said carefully, but I believe you have mistaken information on the typical, and range of, academic profiles of our men's football and basketball teams.
Now the current level of incoming standards, combined with the culture on the teams, seems to be entirely appropriate as players appear to be both graduating and doing well outside of their sports - at least as far as I can tell from outside. But that is not quite equal to the statement quoted above.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »