right or wrong?

B

Buzzed

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
104
Is this guy right or wrong?


buzzwatch
Member
Posts: 14
(12/2/05 12:52 pm)
Reply Here we go again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again the old debate about admissions standards is slowly creeping up again now that recruiting is in full swing. For the final time, and for you visitors over at The Hive and Stingtalk, here are the admission standards for Tech athletes. These standards are different among sports and they greatly differ from the general student population. This info is all a matter of public record if someone would like to walk over to Tech and simply ask the folks in admissions to provide in writing what I am listing here. They have to provide the information to you, you just have to ask them for it.

Olympic sports (golf, tennis, track, volleyball, etc.) need to recruit student athletes with at least a 1080 on their SAT and a high school core GPA (minus home ec, health, PE) of 3.2. Football players only need a 2.55 GPA core GPA and the corresponding SAT or ACT test score on the NCAA sliding scale. This equates to an SAT score of 800 and an ACT score of 66.

Last week there was a "well researched" yet completely incorrect thread on Stingtalk about the admissions standards for Tech athletes. Ladies and gentleman, Dave Braine, Chan Gailey, Larry New all know what the admissions standards are for football players. They established these standards with the Hill in the Fall of 2002. You don't need a 900 on your SAT to be admitted into Tech. That is completely untrue and a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Paul Hewitt recruits under the same standards as Chan Gailey. I will wager any amount of money with anyone, anytime, anywhere that these are the admissions standards for Tech athletes. Chan can have in any given 4-5 year span up to as many as 20 players who don't even have to have a 2.55 core GPA with an 800 SAT. Can we please put to bed the argument about admissions standards as a crutch for why we can't win 8 football games every year?

To ramble on about calculus at Tech and needing 4 years of a higher math is an effort to change the point of the original argument, which is Tech athletes must have 1000-1100 SAT scores to get admitted into Tech. This is absolutely not true.
If it were true, and if every single Tech athlete has successfully completed 4 years of high school math, then why in the world does Georgia Tech offer 1 remedial algebra Math class, and 1 precalculus class? The answer is simple. They have to offer these classes for athletes to take because they do not possess the same SAT or ACT math scores as the regularly admitted general student population.
 
sounds like a disgruntled bitter person.

I would love to see us take 20 kids with 800 SAT's and 2.55 core GPA's and see how quickly the NCAA took scholarships away from us because they could not graduate.

Only 2/3 of normal Tech students graduate at Tech and the average SAT score is 1340 and GPA something like 3.75.

I smell an agenda.

anyway...I am liking this class more and more as I view the film..and it appears we have a shot of closing strong. Too bad the numbers will be limited by some misdoings in the academic governance area in the late 90's.
 
All I can say is that goes completely against quotes attributed to members of the football staff. If those are the rules, the coaches sure don't know it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
All I can say is that goes completely against quotes attributed to members of the football staff. If those are the rules, the coaches sure don't know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on guys. It seems no one is paying attention to the fact that we did not graduate players in the late 90's...amoung the worst in the country...and now there are NCAA rules that just took effect that take away scholarships if you go not graduate kids. I believe this kicks in with the 2003 recruiting class.

It does not matter if we set the bar at 2.0 GPA and 500 SAT...they would be gone in no time.

We do not have majors like:
Sports Studies
Physical Education
Family & Childhood Development
African-American History
Music Appreciation
Communications

There is some serious denial going on here.

I was a student-athlete at GT in the late 80's. I had a 3.6 GPA in high school (a competitive suburban Atlanta school) on a 4.0 system (none of the extra credit crap then)...and had an SAT well over 1000 on the old system (it would be 200 pts. higher today).

However, I barely cleared each year in the 15 quarters it took me to graduate despite all of the available tutoring. I majored in management...had a 1.7 at the end of my freshman year (min. req.) and hit each minimum req. until graduating with a 2.2 GPA.

GT is hard...with or without help..and there are VERY few classes that are easy...I know because I looked for them so I could keep my GPA up.

Additionally...many of the athletes that were in my freshman class did not make it past the 2nd year. I can name three that were in my freshman orientation (FASET) right of the top of my head...but I will not put their names down here.
 
Agree completely with hivered

Its not getting in as much as it is being able to get out. Even if we could let in any and all SA's and not worry about them making progress towards a degree (which we can not per NCAA), they know how hard Tech is and they don't want to have to deal with it. Except those rare exceptions of course, who want to be engineers and such.
 
He\'s wrong and your agenda is showing.

GT does NOT give as many exceptions as most schools. When an exception is given for admission to GT, the student-athlete MUST need it in only one of three key areas: GPA, test score or maths requirement. There are many, many schools with entire recruiting classes made up of exceptions. There are a tiny number of schools which give zero exceptions. GT skews much more toward this end of the spectrum.

You will never find facts and figures to back this up because schools don't publicize exceptions. However, they are given for legacies, students with special talents, and political reasons as well as for athletes.

How many threads will you start about this subject, and how many people have to tell you that our admissions standards and curricullum issues are real before you believe it?
 
If all you guys don't believe this - and I have no idea if he's right or wrong - why don't you do as he suggests, and ask them in admissions, or even at the AA?

If nothing else, he at least SOUNDS like he knows what he's talking about. The only 'agenda' I can see in his comments is to put to rest a debate that goes on, and on, and on....
 
Well, the coaches have answered this question several times. I'm not sure why it's still such a big question.
 
If the admissions office does supply this information, that's a very good question. Maybe this is a new policy this year.
 
Exactly golftango. We know that Thomas met NCAA minimums and had commited to Tech, so why was he denied either a visit or an opportunity to attend Tech if our requirements are the same as anybody elses? Some people are simply blinded by what they want to be true and ignore all evidence to the contrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top