General Wood
Varsity Lurker
- Joined
- May 14, 2003
- Messages
- 208
Another article to ponder
- Thread starter General Wood
- Start date
bellyseries
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 4,229
Thanks, General Wood.
One of the elements in building academic quality in schools is money. Tax money.
It isn't the only element, but it's a biggie.
Next time you're at the golf club, look around and ask how the facilities compare to the facilities of your County High Schools.
Our money follows our hearts.
One of the elements in building academic quality in schools is money. Tax money.
It isn't the only element, but it's a biggie.
Next time you're at the golf club, look around and ask how the facilities compare to the facilities of your County High Schools.
Our money follows our hearts.
What will be interesting from that article will be to see if Clemson does indeed increase the academic qualifications for its athletes - especially football players. I don't think that is what baby Bowden has in mind. And as we have debated about Tech, given that NCSU, FSU and soon to be Miami and VT have some "academic leeway" this goal of increasing academics consistent with a top 20 public university is going to run smack dab into Bowden's desire to recruit SC high school players who can win.
Will be interesting to see if this is just window dressing or if they actually try to enact this.
Will be interesting to see if this is just window dressing or if they actually try to enact this.
ramblinwise1
beware the zealot
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 18,349
"...Clemson president James Barker's vision of becoming a top-20 public university by 2010."
JJacket
Declared dead for tax purposes.
- Joined
- May 20, 2003
- Messages
- 87,601
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Didn't know there were 20 other schools in South Carolina.Originally posted by ramblinwise1:
"...Clemson president James Barker's vision of becoming a top-20 public university by 2010."
getwrecked
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2001
- Messages
- 765
Y Jacket,
I'm not sure what you mean by "academic leeway". We have guys on our team - one who will start this year (and I'm not mentioning names) - who had a sub 900 SAT. Also, just a few weeks ago it was announced that some DT who was highly recruited could not get into Miami so he went to Rutgers instead.
I think "academic leeway" is relative, situational and in the eye of the beholder. All schools practice it to some extent, even our beloved GT.
I'm not sure what you mean by "academic leeway". We have guys on our team - one who will start this year (and I'm not mentioning names) - who had a sub 900 SAT. Also, just a few weeks ago it was announced that some DT who was highly recruited could not get into Miami so he went to Rutgers instead.
I think "academic leeway" is relative, situational and in the eye of the beholder. All schools practice it to some extent, even our beloved GT.
GTW
I sure agree it is relative - ACC as a conference doesn't accept non-qualifiers - schools like ECU can. So every conference/school has a relative degree of "leeway" they give the athletic department to bring kids in who are different than the norms used for admitting the rest of the student body - and as you say every school does this even GT.
My comment to "academic leeway" is exactly a relative comparison of my view of how different schools in the ACC are able to expand admission standards to get kids who are great FB players into the school - both the average that a recruiting class has and the minimum scores an admission department will let any individual athlete get in with.
I think you can see this with average SAT scores and whether a school can get JC transfers in. I don't have a link but if you look at average SAT scores for FB GT is a clear second in the ACC to Duke (and I don't doubt we have a kid with less than a 900 SAT). Wake is a clear third. There are then 2 groups behind it with UNC/UVA grouped together I think with MD and then a bottom triumverant of FSU/NCSU and I believe Clemson is still there. If Clemson has improved it is only recently.
If you look at who can get reasonable numbers of JC transfers in it pretty much follows that trend. Amato has built a significant portion of his key talent with JC transfers. FSU has used this route for years. And unless it has just recently changed Clemson has been able to get JCs in with reasonable frequency.
Off the top of my head I can only think of one OLineman who transfered into Tech on this time. We cannot use this as a route to restock the team and you don't see us talking about going wholesale to the JC ranks to replace the 10 kids who are no longer with us - as much as there would be a lot of logic to do this they just can't get in here or stay in here.
UNC has tried to take some risks this year with recruits and I think JCs but has gotten burned a bit with folks not making it in - but they have gotten more leeway than in the past.
I will admit I don't know a tremendous amount about Miami but I do know VT and they have significant leeway to get kids into school.
Sorry for the length but you have picked at what I think is THE real significant issue facing GT football and why I am not the most ardent supporter of the recent expansion. I adamately believe (and the data backs this up) that we have given the athletic department less leeway in recruiting than most (not all) institutions in the ACC and that at the same time we have set the schedule and conference up to be football factories. Throw is a stadium expansion and a fan base with high expectaions and an increasingly short fuse and you have a potentially combustable mix.
I am very worried about this contradiction.
I sure agree it is relative - ACC as a conference doesn't accept non-qualifiers - schools like ECU can. So every conference/school has a relative degree of "leeway" they give the athletic department to bring kids in who are different than the norms used for admitting the rest of the student body - and as you say every school does this even GT.
My comment to "academic leeway" is exactly a relative comparison of my view of how different schools in the ACC are able to expand admission standards to get kids who are great FB players into the school - both the average that a recruiting class has and the minimum scores an admission department will let any individual athlete get in with.
I think you can see this with average SAT scores and whether a school can get JC transfers in. I don't have a link but if you look at average SAT scores for FB GT is a clear second in the ACC to Duke (and I don't doubt we have a kid with less than a 900 SAT). Wake is a clear third. There are then 2 groups behind it with UNC/UVA grouped together I think with MD and then a bottom triumverant of FSU/NCSU and I believe Clemson is still there. If Clemson has improved it is only recently.
If you look at who can get reasonable numbers of JC transfers in it pretty much follows that trend. Amato has built a significant portion of his key talent with JC transfers. FSU has used this route for years. And unless it has just recently changed Clemson has been able to get JCs in with reasonable frequency.
Off the top of my head I can only think of one OLineman who transfered into Tech on this time. We cannot use this as a route to restock the team and you don't see us talking about going wholesale to the JC ranks to replace the 10 kids who are no longer with us - as much as there would be a lot of logic to do this they just can't get in here or stay in here.
UNC has tried to take some risks this year with recruits and I think JCs but has gotten burned a bit with folks not making it in - but they have gotten more leeway than in the past.
I will admit I don't know a tremendous amount about Miami but I do know VT and they have significant leeway to get kids into school.
Sorry for the length but you have picked at what I think is THE real significant issue facing GT football and why I am not the most ardent supporter of the recent expansion. I adamately believe (and the data backs this up) that we have given the athletic department less leeway in recruiting than most (not all) institutions in the ACC and that at the same time we have set the schedule and conference up to be football factories. Throw is a stadium expansion and a fan base with high expectaions and an increasingly short fuse and you have a potentially combustable mix.
I am very worried about this contradiction.
Y Jacket, you make some good points but I think the most important issue is that the NCAA is changing the rules again. Getting players in won't be the problem, keeping them in will be. The progress towards a degree rules will probably kill all JC transfers everywhere for the simple reason that they will have to have enough hours to be 40% of the way towards their new degree program when they start school. How many JUCOs have that many credits that will transfer?
Couple of points about the new rules (at least my view of em)
1) The new rules will simply make it harder for Tech versus other schools such as NCSU, Clemson, FSU, VT etc. They make it easier to meet NCAA standards and get kids into school - with the supposed emphasis on keeping them on track to graduate (the key question here "graduate in what?"). Other schools have majors such as Clemson's Parks and Recreation major which give these kids ample opportunity to stay on track to graduate. We don't have those majors.
2) I don't necessarily agree with you that the new rules will "eliminate" JC transfers. They will make it more difficult but the issue will be what universities will allow transfer credits from these JCs.
At one end a school like ECU will be able to accept more transfer credits from JC students making it more likely they will still be able to take JCs. My bet is that NCSU and FSU in particular will make arrangements or find JCs from which the credits transfer readily into their schools in certain majors. It will require some up front planning and some increased motivation and diligence from the athlete but I don't believe it will shut this route out entirely. IMO kids will be sent to certain JCs which will be set up as feeder schools to the eventual home universities where the admissions dept already accepts the credits. IMO there will be less global recruiting of JC players except by those schools who have much more leeway.
Tech will be even more disadvantaged by this.
Net net, IMO the new rules comparatively disadvantage Tech even more.
1) The new rules will simply make it harder for Tech versus other schools such as NCSU, Clemson, FSU, VT etc. They make it easier to meet NCAA standards and get kids into school - with the supposed emphasis on keeping them on track to graduate (the key question here "graduate in what?"). Other schools have majors such as Clemson's Parks and Recreation major which give these kids ample opportunity to stay on track to graduate. We don't have those majors.
2) I don't necessarily agree with you that the new rules will "eliminate" JC transfers. They will make it more difficult but the issue will be what universities will allow transfer credits from these JCs.
At one end a school like ECU will be able to accept more transfer credits from JC students making it more likely they will still be able to take JCs. My bet is that NCSU and FSU in particular will make arrangements or find JCs from which the credits transfer readily into their schools in certain majors. It will require some up front planning and some increased motivation and diligence from the athlete but I don't believe it will shut this route out entirely. IMO kids will be sent to certain JCs which will be set up as feeder schools to the eventual home universities where the admissions dept already accepts the credits. IMO there will be less global recruiting of JC players except by those schools who have much more leeway.
Tech will be even more disadvantaged by this.
Net net, IMO the new rules comparatively disadvantage Tech even more.
You may be right, but I do think JUCOs will be severely cut back. Even at ECU not all credits will transfer in, and even if they do there won't be much room for error to keep them eligible. What I think will increase will be the number of kids enrolling early to get a headstart. Even if it's just summer session.
GTWreck - The ACC Area Sports Journal does a review each year of the academic credentials of all of the incoming recruits.
The last 2 years, GT has ranked 2nd, behind Duke, for avg. SAT/ACT score. In addition, for the last 2 years in a row, GT and Duke were the only schools in the ACC who had every signee qualified.
In addition, they recently reported on the last 8 years of incoming signees. You guessed it, GT ranked #2 in avg SAT/ACT. To put it in their words, the rankings went Duke and GT, followed by big drop to the next 4 (I believe Wake, UVA, UNC, and MD, but don't quote me on that).
While we may have a player or 2 that is below the avg, the facts back up the statement that GT has significantly higher academic qualifications for its signees.
It has also been widely reported that Duke has just recently lower their football player requirements, to the same level of their basketball players.
Look for GT to have the highest req's in the ACC now.
The last 2 years, GT has ranked 2nd, behind Duke, for avg. SAT/ACT score. In addition, for the last 2 years in a row, GT and Duke were the only schools in the ACC who had every signee qualified.
In addition, they recently reported on the last 8 years of incoming signees. You guessed it, GT ranked #2 in avg SAT/ACT. To put it in their words, the rankings went Duke and GT, followed by big drop to the next 4 (I believe Wake, UVA, UNC, and MD, but don't quote me on that).
While we may have a player or 2 that is below the avg, the facts back up the statement that GT has significantly higher academic qualifications for its signees.
It has also been widely reported that Duke has just recently lower their football player requirements, to the same level of their basketball players.
Look for GT to have the highest req's in the ACC now.
ramblinwise1
beware the zealot
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 18,349
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Besides, since there won't be non qualifier recruits anymore, they won't even go to JC in the first place. Now they can go to UGAg direct because the SAT min won't disqualify them. Hargrove must be in a panic right now.
BarrelORum
Mediocre Poster
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 16,266
The biggest problem we have is the overall attitude of our school towards ALL students. Hell I think the 60% stated is better than the rest of the student body.
Georgia Tech has ALWAYS held the "Highest Fail-out Rate" in the country stat like a Red Badge of Courage. People are actually proud of this!!! This is our problem. This is not something to be proud of, it's a Damn Embaressment!!! Except the majority of the academic folks cannot get their head out of their ass long enough to see this.
When I first came to Tech, I sat down in a big room with a bunch of other students and was told "Look to your left, and look to your right, one of those two people will not be here in 2 years."
I can appreciate everyone really placing a lot of emphasis on a Tech degree because it is hard to obtain compared to other schools, HOWEVER, isn't it high time GT stopped with the attitude that "we're better because we fail kids"? It starts at the top with Clough.
Georgia Tech has ALWAYS held the "Highest Fail-out Rate" in the country stat like a Red Badge of Courage. People are actually proud of this!!! This is our problem. This is not something to be proud of, it's a Damn Embaressment!!! Except the majority of the academic folks cannot get their head out of their ass long enough to see this.
When I first came to Tech, I sat down in a big room with a bunch of other students and was told "Look to your left, and look to your right, one of those two people will not be here in 2 years."
I can appreciate everyone really placing a lot of emphasis on a Tech degree because it is hard to obtain compared to other schools, HOWEVER, isn't it high time GT stopped with the attitude that "we're better because we fail kids"? It starts at the top with Clough.
ramblinwise1
beware the zealot
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 18,349
BOR, it will be a hard paradigm to shift. Tech prides itself on being an academic boot camp. Its a depression era mentality still firmly ingrained.
Great point about our "boot camp" mentality. I don't know why we can't have a better grad rate if we're selective on admissions. I have a son interested in engineering, and I can tell you I'm not excited about sending him to Tech. Part of it is the out of state tuition, but I'm also concerned about him in that environment. He's a smart kid, but sometimes stubborn about what he thinks is important and what isnt'. I can just see him with some Tech profs, think oil and water.
I have been thinking about that boot camp mentality as well. An interesting coralary is the Darden Graduate Business School at UVA where I went for my MBA (yea closet snob too). But when I went there it was known for being incredibly tough among B schools - we even had a couple of classes on Saturday and were known for requiring first year students to essentially stay at the school from 8:30 until 9 or 10 at night - real boot camp mentality. Actually started hurting the school as the rankings were sabatoged by the students who were not happy compared to their friends at Harvard, etc. and Darden slipped from top 10 to top 25 before they switched their paradigm. Their ranking has returned I think to top 10 or 12 but it was a long road back.
Now Tech has certainly not slipped in the rankings but I think that Darden is an example of the fact that you can relax the boot camp and not ruin the product. The issue for GT is that they cannot be as selective as Darden so they will always be some washout - just not sure it needs to be the same look left and right story I got a few (OK a lot of years) before BOR.
Now Tech has certainly not slipped in the rankings but I think that Darden is an example of the fact that you can relax the boot camp and not ruin the product. The issue for GT is that they cannot be as selective as Darden so they will always be some washout - just not sure it needs to be the same look left and right story I got a few (OK a lot of years) before BOR.