Tech has the smartest football team in the nation.

[TechSBP]

yeah shame on Duke and Stanford especially. Shows how much they are cheating and still losing.

Can't make this clear enough: private schools are not in the survey. There are plenty of reasons to bash dook. Unfortunately, this is not one of them because they are pansy New Jersey prep school for kids who didn't get into an ivy league, and accordingly, were too scared to provide data.

 

[GTMensLax&SoccerD1Soon!]

Can't make this clear enough: private schools are not in the survey. There are plenty of reasons to bash dook. Unfortunately, this is not one of them because they are pansy New Jersey prep school for kids who didn't get into an ivy league, and accordingly, were too scared to provide data.

New Jersey? Are you retarded? Try Durham, North Carolina Buddy...

Ohh and FYI Stanford is in California...

 

[BuzzCzar]

We are all taking this from a positive view.

The negative spin is that GT has a greater difference between FB players and the general student population. Of course this is consistent with other schools with high standards and makes sense in that the more "average" the general student population is, the easier it should be to get athletes closer to that average.

uh, the fact that about 0% of the team does not meet Tech's basic entrance minimums speaks VOLUMES. There is no negative in having very smart students.

The fact the the athletes are held to some basic minimum standard that noone goes below is a far different thing than letting in 80% of your team below the schools stated minimum requirements.

One shows allowance for special skills (slightly lower scores); the other shows a blatant disregard for the "student" athletes future.

also keep in mind that Tech's minimum requirements are significantly higher than most school's. Including higher than Georgie's, of course

since the mission of the school is to provide a balanced environment where a student can learn not just about studies but about life, means that the overall welfare of the student might be best served by NOT having the top SAT-scoring admits enter, but instead provide a balance of geography, international students, male/female ratios (we wish), economically depressed area students, culturally under-represented like Native American or Ennui, etc.

However, to achieve that Tech still requires some minimum standard below which almost noone can get in. As opposed to having virtually your entire football team fall below those requirement, which shows a pattern of student abuse - HOW CAN THE STUDENT BE EXPECTED TO DO WELL IN SCHOOL, IF HE/SHE IS BELOW THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF STUDENT?

the fact that the difference in SAT scores between athletes and non-athlete students at Tech can also, in part, be attributed to the fact that the student is an athlete and not that they are not smart. by that i mean 2 factors:
1. they know that they dont need as high a score. this, by itself, would mean that they statistically score lower than they would if they need higher scores. established fact in Ed Psych.
2. instead of studying for the SAT, they are working out, watching film, practicing, etc.

the graph in that article tells it all!
graph

 

[AllAmericanBuzz]

New Jersey? Are you retarded? Try Durham, North Carolina Buddy...

Ohh and FYI Stanford is in California...

I'm 99.999% sure that the previous post was a joke...like saying that Emory is a prep school for New Yorkers who couldn't get into an Ivy League school. It has more to do with the origin of the students than the location of the campus.

 

[RaiderJacket]

No where in the article did it mention the incredible amount of time it takes to be a SA. Your day begins around 7:30am with mandatory breakfast. Classes until the afternoon, followed by team meetings, taping and practice prep, and then 3 hours of practice. After practice there is injury treatment if necessary, some light weightlifting to maintain the off season gains, and dinner. Then comes the team and position meetings and film study. After all that, you go to study hall/tutoring to prepare for the next days of classes and tests. Mandatory curfew is usually around 10:45pm. Every minute of every day is accounted for during the season. There is some down time on Sundays and in the offseason but the grind is pretty much the same as you really hit the workouts hard getting ready to whip your opponents next season! The load is not much less for high school athletes these days. Anyone that can keep that schedule and graduate is a prize for recruiters after college. I know there other areas of college life that are demanding but not like that of a SA IMO.

 

[wrek]

....the overall welfare of the student might be best served by NOT having the top SAT-scoring admits enter, but instead provide a balance of geography, international students, male/female ratios (we wish), economically depressed area students, culturally under-represented like Native American or Ennui, etc.

Every school needs a few bored, disinterested students from France!

 

[lonestarjacket]

uh, the fact that about 0% of the team does not meet Tech's basic entrance minimums speaks VOLUMES. There is no negative in having very smart students.

The fact the the athletes are held to some basic minimum standard that noone goes below is a far different thing than letting in 80% of your team below the schools stated minimum requirements.

One shows allowance for special skills (slightly lower scores); the other shows a blatant disregard for the "student" athletes future.

also keep in mind that Tech's minimum requirements are significantly higher than most school's. Including higher than Georgie's, of course

since the mission of the school is to provide a balanced environment where a student can learn not just about studies but about life, means that the overall welfare of the student might be best served by NOT having the top SAT-scoring admits enter, but instead provide a balance of geography, international students, male/female ratios (we wish), economically depressed area students, culturally under-represented like Native American or Ennui, etc.

However, to achieve that Tech still requires some minimum standard below which almost noone can get in. As opposed to having virtually your entire football team fall below those requirement, which shows a pattern of student abuse - HOW CAN THE STUDENT BE EXPECTED TO DO WELL IN SCHOOL, IF HE/SHE IS BELOW THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF STUDENT?

the fact that the difference in SAT scores between athletes and non-athlete students at Tech can also, in part, be attributed to the fact that the student is an athlete and not that they are not smart. by that i mean 2 factors:
1. they know that they dont need as high a score. this, by itself, would mean that they statistically score lower than they would if they need higher scores. established fact in Ed Psych.
2. instead of studying for the SAT, they are working out, watching film, practicing, etc.

the graph in that article tells it all!
graph

uh, yeah, I thought I covered that here, Zippy.

Of course this is consistent with other schools with high standards and makes sense in that the more "average" the general student population is, the easier it should be to get athletes closer to that average.

Maybe you stopped reading early so you could commence to typing the long-winded response.

We all read the article and the rationalization of why athletes might be expected to score lower. It makes sense to a point but does not explain why football players are worse on average (not at GT necessarily, unwad the panties) than other student athletes with equal devotion to excel in their chosen sport.

P.S.
Not to get picky, but it is 9% of football players and freshman athletes at GT who were special admits. That's better than everyone on the graph but not better than 16 other schools reporting no special admits. Some of the schools with no special admits were probably because the admission criteria was already pretty low, MSU for example (either one.)

 

[mmbt0ne]

Every school needs a few bored, disinterested students from France!

They have that certain je ne sais quoi.

 

[lonestarjacket]

I think the main reason for the diff between athletes and the general student population is the fact that most athletes are in the management program. I'd like to see the numbers for the difference between athletes and management students.

I don't mean this as a slam on our management program. I think our management program is one of the best business programs in the country. So you management dudes, chill out.

Good point. I would bet it does close the gap considerably with the general freshman population.

It is similar to Hewitt's point of comparing graduation rates to students with similar socio-economic backgrounds.

 

[Rodzilla]

In regards to football scores vs. other athletes' scores, I don't think it's necessarily correct to say they have to be the same. I ran 3 years of indoor/outdoor track (Division 3) during my undergrad and really it was usually only a maximum of 2-3 hours of time commitment per day (our coach insisted that we be done with practice by 6 PM every day, showing up at 4:30; I'm counting track related time pre/post-practice like ice baths, shower, etc). I've never played organized football so I can't say for sure, but I would expect that their practice time commitment is about the same but there's a lot of other related time needed like film review, play review, etc.

I could (usually) easily spare 2-3 hours out of my day for track practice and still have time for excelling in classes, being heavily involved in my Fraternity, and having fun. However, I doubt I would have had the same amount of time had I been a football player.

 

[kirbee]

The data from Georgia Tech are for the freshman classes of 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Chan Gailey wins the National Championship!!!