Academic fraud hypo

[PoppyHart]

Would you go for this proposal?:

A school can only admit a athlete/student whose SAT/ACT score is within 10% of the average score of admitted students?

Edit: Obviously, you can go above 10%.

 

[goodroc]

this is a joke right?

 

[PoppyHart]

this is a joke right?

why?

I'm looking for your reasoning.

 

[dasher]

No. I wouldn't go for that. 10% is too tight a window.

 

[PoppyHart]

No. I wouldn't go for that. 10% is too tight a window.

Fair point. 20%?

 

[jdubs30]

Fair point. 20%?

Schools would just adjust it enough to get the players they want in. Seems kind of pointless to me.

 

[PoppyHart]

Schools would just adjust it enough to get the players they want in. Seems kind of pointless to me.

You think a scho0l with 1500-5000 incoming students is gong to adjust scores each year to comply with 30 athletes (BB + FB)?

Academic fraud is rampant. It happens at great schools (UNC), average schools (Minn) and crappy schools (FSU). (This list is obviously not exhaustive)

So, how do we stop it? Academics should be the priority, bar NONE.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Such a rule could backfire. It would favor schools with poor academic standards. (I am of course assuming that most athletes will have lower scores). Duke would only get a few players who met their 10% window. So it would take an elite academic school off the radar of most kids and send them to poorer academic schools. Probably not a great message or precedent. On the other hand, it would probably just increase the cheating infrastructure put in place by agents and Nike.

 

[jdubs30]

You think a scho0l with 1500-5000 incoming students is gong to adjust scores each year to comply with 30 athletes (BB + FB)?

Academic fraud is rampant. It happens at great schools (UNC), average schools (Minn) and crappy schools (FSU). (This list is obviously not exhaustive)

So, how do we stop it? Academics should be the priority, bar NONE.

I meant they would adjust the percentage.

You couldn't make a universal rule of "20%" then have both Duke and St. John's comply with it, so I assume each school would have their own set percentage; my point was if school set their own percentage, they would just adjust it so they get their players in

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Test scores and academic scores are about 50% of the criteria schools look at. The rest is who you are, what you have done, do you bring something unique and interesting to the school and are you likely to contribute to the campus in a positive manner. Some schools don't even use SATs. Imagine if Jodie Foster or Emma Watson had bad test scores. Should their schools not have been able to admit them.

 

[cuseatduke]

You think a scho0l with 1500-5000 incoming students is gong to adjust scores each year to comply with 30 athletes (BB + FB)?

Academic fraud is rampant. It happens at great schools (UNC), average schools (Minn) and crappy schools (FSU). (This list is obviously not exhaustive)

So, how do we stop it? Academics should be the priority, bar NONE.

I'm curious as to why you think a student with a lower test score or high school GPA cannot contribute positively to a University.

Academics are not and should not be the ONLY priority at a place of higher education. I think you've been socially conditioned to believe that. Why is it any less valid if a great basketball player comes to a university to learn to play basketball better? A university is there to provide education. Why is education in basketball completely invalid? What if they are from a disadvantaged upbringing or have a learning disability, and can't do better on a standardized test? Why does that mean they still can't contribute positively to a university? Universities are for-profit enterprises and should do whatever they can to maximize their brand value. Having great sports teams generally contributes positively to this brand value. Why do you think fraud happens everywhere? Maybe great sports helps universities? Do you REALLY think having a few "sub-par" students who excel in other areas in life will "cheapen" the value of your education that much? Really?

I'm really curious how people like you think about this stuff. It seems very narrow-minded of me. I personally believe a university should teach whatever the hell it wants to help people succeed in life, and moreover it should act in its own self-interest and maximize its value. If Julius peppers doesnt care for 1400s Literature, I do not give a . I'll go and continue to study Math and Economics. He is training to be a professional athlete, so let him learn those skills. He doesnt care about "academics" because 1400s Lit provides him zero marginal value. Who cares.

 

[Cowtown]

Such a rule could backfire. It would favor schools with poor academic standards. (I am of course assuming that most athletes will have lower scores). Duke would only get a few players who met their 10% window. So it would take an elite academic school off the radar of most kids and send them to poorer academic schools. Probably not a great message or precedent. On the other hand, it would probably just increase the cheating infrastructure put in place by agents and Nike.

Probably true, however it might signal the end of the pretext involved around most "elite athletic programs" with the "one-and-dones" heading to Mountain Valley State, et al.

But the truth is that such a rule would cost the high profile programs too much money, so it'll never happen.

 

[OttoMets]

I'm curious as to why you think a student with a lower test score or high school GPA cannot contribute positively to a University.

Academics are not and should not be the ONLY priority at a place of higher education. I think you've been socially conditioned to believe that. Why is it any less valid if a great basketball player comes to a university to learn to play basketball better? A university is there to provide education. Why is education in basketball completely invalid? What if they are from a disadvantaged upbringing or have a learning disability, and can't do better on a standardized test? Why does that mean they still can't contribute positively to a university? Universities are for-profit enterprises and should do whatever they can to maximize their brand value. Having great sports teams generally contributes positively to this brand value. Why do you think fraud happens everywhere? Maybe great sports helps universities? Do you REALLY think having a few "sub-par" students who excel in other areas in life will "cheapen" the value of your education that much? Really?

I'm really curious how people like you think about this stuff. It seems very narrow-minded of me. I personally believe a university should teach whatever the hell it wants to help people succeed in life, and moreover it should act in its own self-interest and maximize its value. If Julius peppers doesnt care for 1400s Literature, I do not give a . I'll go and continue to study Math and Economics. He is training to be a professional athlete, so let him learn those skills. He doesnt care about "academics" because 1400s Lit provides him zero marginal value. Who cares.

Bit of a straw man there - nobody here claimed that applicants with "lower" grades or test scores can't be positive additions to a university community. Also, it's far from narrow-minded to suggest that academic institutions adhere to standards that prioritize academic merits. That's the idea.

Still, as Houston points out, the unintended consequences of such a rule would create a mess. Southern directional state schools would take in the best talent, mainly to the detriment of ACC and Big Ten schools.

 

[stuckinbig11]

So the schools with the worst academics would get a disproportionate share of the best players?

 

[cto]

Would you go for this proposal?:

A school can only admit a athlete/student whose SAT/ACT score is within 10% of the average score of admitted students?

Edit: Obviously, you can go above 10%.

THe Ivies are pretty close to this. Of the BCS schools, Stanford is the only one that comes close. Not Duke, not Vandy, not Northwestern. Stanford actually comes close to not admitting athletes who fall outside this.

 

[billsin01]

Would you go for this proposal?:

A school can only admit a athlete/student whose SAT/ACT score is within 10% of the average score of admitted students?

Edit: Obviously, you can go above 10%.

Pretty easy answer, IMO -- drop academic requirements altogether. Here's the hypothetical: A kid in a bad neighborhood with a terrible educational background and even worse high school transcript is really good at basketball. Do we want him playing basketball somewhere, hopefully making at least nominal academic progress toward a degree and working to improve his game with the goal of at least playing professionally somewhere? Or do we want to just tell him, "sorry, you're not smart enough to play with the future brain surgeons on our hoops team."?

I see it as a no-brainer. Let a coach admit whomever he wants but make an earnest effort to hold those kids accountable for making decent academic progress toward a degree. If it doesn't happen then an administration can make a decision -- stick with the coach who appears to care more about hoops or make a change to someone more responsible for the players he brings in.

I literally couldn't be judging less -- couldn't care less if these kids are cheating on every test or not. At the end of the day, excluding kids based on SATs and academic record makes no sense, particularly since it doesn't exactly weed out the miscreants from the group.

 

[bpo57]

THe Ivies are pretty close to this. Of the BCS schools, Stanford is the only one that comes close. Not Duke, not Vandy, not Northwestern. Stanford actually comes close to not admitting athletes who fall outside this.

You're right about Stanford. I am aware of a kid from our town that was a nationally ranked (top five in the country) cross country runner and he barely got into Stanford despite very strong SATs/grades. And I hear they are just as tough with the major sports as well. That's what makes their success on the football field so remarkable.

 

[OrangeAl]

Would you go for this proposal?:

A school can only admit a athlete/student whose SAT/ACT score is within 10% of the average score of admitted students?

Edit: Obviously, you can go above 10%.

What are you trying to do, make Rutgers a national powerhouse?

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

You're right about Stanford. I am aware of a kid from our town that was a nationally ranked (top five in the country) cross country runner and he barely got into Stanford despite very strong SATs/grades. And I hear they are just as tough with the major sports as well. That's what makes their success on the football field so remarkable.

There was just a report which showed that there are made up classes and majors at Stanford too, unfortunately. NOt saying that even the majority of kids take them, but they are there, evidently.

 

[realorange]

Pretty easy answer, IMO -- drop academic requirements altogether. Here's the hypothetical: A kid in a bad neighborhood with a terrible educational background and even worse high school transcript is really good at basketball. Do we want him playing basketball somewhere, hopefully making at least nominal academic progress toward a degree and working to improve his game with the goal of at least playing professionally somewhere? Or do we want to just tell him, "sorry, you're not smart enough to play with the future brain surgeons on our hoops team."?

I see it as a no-brainer. Let a coach admit whomever he wants but make an earnest effort to hold those kids accountable for making decent academic progress toward a degree. If it doesn't happen then an administration can make a decision -- stick with the coach who appears to care more about hoops or make a change to someone more responsible for the players he brings in.

I literally couldn't be judging less -- couldn't care less if these kids are cheating on every test or not. At the end of the day, excluding kids based on SATs and academic record makes no sense, particularly since it doesn't exactly weed out the miscreants from the group.

I think we had a towel chewer that did this many years ago in Las Vegas!

 

[billsin01]

I think we had a towel chewer that did this many years ago in Las Vegas!

Ahhh, yes and the world came tumbling down because of it. And no one respects a georgetown degree b/c of allen iverson. The point is that it's up to each athlete how seriously they take their education. So you can have a lacrosse player from Boys Latin with the requisite scores, a strong nuclear family and all the right activities. And that guy could be a complete coke fiend who spends most of his time in fights, cheating on tests, and generally being an a$$hat (not rare, by the way). And you could have a kid with an undiagnosed learning disability, no access to actual text books (common in Baltimore city schools), one parent who was on public assistance and perhaps had a substance abuse problem. That kid may want or learn -- or he may not and athletics are about his only way out. Is he somehow less deserving of a chance?

Denying kids a chance at bettering themselves strikes me as completely defeating the purpose of education in the first place.

And what's the cutoff -- SU lets kids in with sub-1000 SAT scores all the time. Who cares? Who does that possibly hurt? And a kid with a 900 SAT score is absolutely deserving but a kid with a 790 isn't?

It's all 100% arbitrary.

 

[OttoMets]

Ahhh, yes and the world came tumbling down because of it. And no one respects a georgetown degree b/c of allen iverson. The point is that it's up to each athlete how seriously they take their education. So you can have a lacrosse player from Boys Latin with the requisite scores, a strong nuclear family and all the right activities. And that guy could be a complete coke fiend who spends most of his time in fights, cheating on tests, and generally being an a$$hat (not rare, by the way). And you could have a kid with an undiagnosed learning disability, no access to actual text books (common in Baltimore city schools), one parent who was on public assistance and perhaps had a substance abuse problem. That kid may want or learn -- or he may not and athletics are about his only way out. Is he somehow less deserving of a chance?

Denying kids a chance at bettering themselves strikes me as completely defeating the purpose of education in the first place.

And what's the cutoff -- SU lets kids in with sub-1000 SAT scores all the time. Who cares? Who does that possibly hurt? And a kid with a 900 SAT score is absolutely deserving but a kid with a 790 isn't?

It's all 100% arbitrary.

Forcing Julius Peppers and hundreds like him into phony courses of study = denying kids a chance at bettering themselves, no?

The system needs standards. An SAT cut-off may not be the right one, but there are too many people willing to write off the importance of a strong education for all - including those with 99th-percentile athletic ability.

I've always wondered why "well-rounded" resumes and diversity of experience (including extra-curricular interests, a wide sampling of academic coursework, and athletic participation) are popularly cited as essential for two-parent kids with 1540 SAT scores, yet the idea that the athletically-gifted needn't be bothered to broaden horizons or challenge themselves with academic work outside of their wheelhouse is dismissed as a luxury, some sort of pointy-headed snobbery. (Not saying you're guilty of that, but it's something that comes up frequently in this and similar threads; the diminished expectation that many fans and pundits hold for athletes strikes me as terribly unfair and counterproductive.)

 

[billsin01]

Forcing Julius Peppers and hundreds like him into phony courses of study = denying kids a chance at bettering themselves, no?

The system needs standards. An SAT cut-off may not be the right one, but there are too many people willing to write off the importance of a strong education for all - including those with 99th-percentile athletic ability.

I've always wondered why "well-rounded" resumes and diversity of experience (including extra-curricular interests, a wide sampling of academic coursework, and athletic participation) are popularly cited as essential for two-parent kids with 1540 SAT scores, yet the idea that the athletically-gifted needn't be bothered to broaden horizons or challenge themselves with academic work outside of their wheelhouse is dismissed as a luxury, some sort of pointy-headed snobbery. (Not saying you're guilty of that, but it's something that comes up frequently in this and similar threads; the diminished expectation that many fans and pundits hold for athletes strikes me as terribly unfair and counterproductive.)

No, you make an excellent point. My point is more that there is really no point in denying kids entrance to universities based on whatever random criteria schools decide to enforce. Tony Rice was Prop 48 and Holtz, supposedly, basically risked his job to get him int0 ND -- he then went on to stardom as a football player but did well in school, earned a degree and has led a very successful life beyond football. Does this speak to everyone? No, there are a lot of kids who simply don't care at all.

But my point is that if universities want to make the term student-athlete less of a joke, it's not about admission -- it's about academic requirements to remain eligible at the university.

The problem, of course, is that few schools -- SU included -- are likely to really take this seriously. Even Marrone's "character development program", while well-intentioned, won't encourage these kids to take a semester and go abroad to experience new cultures and force them to adapt to unfamiliar environments and meet new people, etc. I see that as a really valuable part of becoming a well-adjusted, self-aware adult, but these kids are told to become great people, while spending 75% of their waking hours engaged in football activities.

So, the point I'd argue, is that I agree with you on encouraging kids to make true progress towards a degree regardless of their pro prospects. The two things I don't agree with are:

-- That the NCAA can actually legislate a change in culture. To tha end it's up to the universities themselves to encourage true academic achievement even if it is programs geared specifically toward athletes in the big sports like baseball, football and hoops (schools they largely don't truly pursue this, even for non-revenue generating sports). and ...

-- Stop barring kids from school. Did it help winifred walton that he no longer had the opportunity to play hoops in college? Wouldn't everyone have been better served if he had been in this structured environment and at least making some nominal progress towards a degree of some sort? Did it really help anyone that Erick Barkley wasn't allowed to return to SJU after he wasn't drafted (I couldn't care less if he signed with an agent)? I don't know what will happen with Aquille Carr, the Seton Hall recruit accused of domestic violence, but I'd wager $100 that he's much better off on campus -- maybe with strict stipulations -- then fending for himself in East Baltimore next year.

My thought is get them into school and even if you only have a true success rate of maybe 10% (half still flame out and never make it; 40% cheat their way through for a few years and go pro), you're still doing far more good than you are harm.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

SU admitted about 40 to 50 students from a local HS in my area in last 3 years. The mean SAT for those admitted was 1230 and the range started as low as 980. Depending on the school within SU the SAT mean and range is different for those admitted. SATs are just one of at least three factors considered (GPA, extra-curicular). The SAT score is not a black and white standard for any college. Many colleges are dropping the SAT as a factor for determining acceptance.

 

[OttoMets]

...

But my point is that if universities want to make the term student-athlete less of a joke, it's not about admission -- it's about academic requirements to remain eligible at the university.
...
So, the point I'd argue, is that I agree with you on encouraging kids to make true progress towards a degree regardless of their pro prospects. The two things I don't agree with are:

-- That the NCAA can actually legislate a change in culture. To tha end it's up to the universities themselves to encourage true academic achievement even if it is programs geared specifically toward athletes in the big sports like baseball, football and hoops (schools they largely don't truly pursue this, even for non-revenue generating sports). and ...

-- Stop barring kids from school. Did it help winifred walton that he no longer had the opportunity to play hoops in college? Wouldn't everyone have been better served if he had been in this structured environment and at least making some nominal progress towards a degree of some sort? Did it really help anyone that Erick Barkley wasn't allowed to return to SJU after he wasn't drafted (I couldn't care less if he signed with an agent)? I don't know what will happen with Aquille Carr, the Seton Hall recruit accused of domestic violence, but I'd wager $100 that he's much better off on campus -- maybe with strict stipulations -- then fending for himself in East Baltimore next year.

My thought is get them into school and even if you only have a true success rate of maybe 10% (half still flame out and never make it; 40% cheat their way through for a few years and go pro), you're still doing far more good than you are harm.

Agree; and the NBA's bar on the straight-from-high-school set compounds the harm done by the NCAA's enthusiasm for preventing kids from returning to school. By and large, kids are better off in school than elsewhere. This, of course, assumes that the school has bought into the idea that kids ought to be in school, playing by the rules. (Derrick Rose probably isn't better off at Memphis than he is declaring for the draft immediately.)

Winfred Walton may not be the best poster boy for this -- whether or not he'd be better off in school, I'm sympathetic to any school who won't have a student who cheated on his SAT -- but the larger point is a good one: the NCAA has a random set of rules, enforced with caprice. The solution to this problem rests with university presidents.