11/24/24
December 30, 2009
Admissions exemptions benefit athletes: We've always thought this, but AP reports an NCAA study shows most schools give some additional weight to athletes who may not meet a school's academic standards for admission.
I'm not 100% sure I'm okay with this practice but I do think if the 'we care about what an athlete does while in college' and monitoring of graduation rates are reasonably realistic than it probably is.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:45 PM on December 30, 2009
Duh....the fact that we have college athletes that read/write at grade school levels should have been the first clue.
posted by dviking at 02:25 PM on December 30, 2009
From the article: Texas was one of seven schools that reported no use of special admissions, instead describing "holistic" standards that consider each applicant individually rather than relying on minimum test scores and grade-point averages
I'm calling bullshit on that. Texas has a "Top 10% Rule" which grants automatic acceptance to any student in the top 10% of their high school class. This makes it almost impossible for other students to get in. If I make the assumption that most incoming athletes weren't in the top 10%, then special admissions were used for most.. (fully aware that not 100% of athletes aren't in their top 10%, just saying most aren't).
My daughter was at the 13% level in her school (never mind that it was a top tier recognized school, which means that a student at the 25% level probably is in the top 10% at other schools) and was denied admittance to her preferred program at UT. I'm not too upset, as her second choice for colleges is quite a bit less expensive.
posted by dviking at 02:39 PM on December 30, 2009
That is a pretty dumb system that Texas has, dviking. Law firms sometimes do that as well. They will hire the top 10% at any school as if the amount of work required to get in the top 10% at every school is the same. I don't know why schools don't want to take a look at each student and make a decision like that. Too much work maybe. I guess that's why I don't mind this. If schools let in athletes that don't meet their minimum standards and then have to make sure they graduate to meet NCAA requirements, it seems like the whole minimum standards stuff is ridiculous anyway.
posted by bperk at 03:42 PM on December 30, 2009
Texas is finally doing away with the top 10 rule, but for the purposes of this survey it was still in place.
I think initially it was designed to give minorities a shot at UT, but the end result was that it lowered the overall academic standing of UT, and was a form of reverse discrimination. My daughter with a 3.6 and very high SAT's can't get in, but the kid with much lower stats from the border town gets in. (not sure it matters which Texas border you use)
posted by dviking at 04:00 PM on December 30, 2009
The far more important statistic to look at is graduation rates among athletes in any given sport. This is a more accurate measure of a program's educational effectiveness. The red-shirt year can be used with academically marginal players in order for them to take remedial and "make-up" courses in areas of weakness. I have no problem with schools that do this; my big complaint lies with programs that take advantage of the one-and-done players who want to enter the NBA draft. Many of these kids would have no hope of admission to a school were it not for their athletic skills.
My own experience is with my son, an athlete in high school but not in college. He was the anchor man (dead last) of the top 10% in his high school graduating class, and did above average in the SATs. He was accepted to 6 of the 7 colleges to which he applied (the 7th put him on the waiting list) and chose Penn State. He's now a junior, and he has maintained about a 3.3 GPA so far. His choice of Penn State was made in part because of their athletic programs, even though he would not be playing, and because he knew their athletes graduated at a high rate. To him it meant that he would be at a quality school that did not take undue advantage of the rules.
posted by Howard_T at 05:25 PM on December 30, 2009
This really doesn't bother me. When I was applying to colleges, I got into a very good school solely because my extra curriculars and letters of recommendation. MY GPA was about a 3.3 and SAT 1260, which while not bad, is not spectacular in the least and under normal circumstances, would not have got into said school. While I got admitted for work outside of the classroom, I don't begrudge an athlete's acceptance for work- albeit different than mine- outside of the classroom either. It is a widely held expectation that activities outside (including athletics that won't make the school's team) of the classroom help a student get into college. Why should athletics be no different?
posted by jmd82 at 11:09 PM on December 30, 2009
jmd82...does your opinion change if we're talking about a 2.0 student that scored 700 on the SAT, and his only activity is football? 2.0 and 700 are the base NCAA guidelines, and the "special admissions" can bypass those.
To clarify my earlier statements about UT, my daughter was able to go to UT, just wasn't guaranteed placement in the program she wanted. Rather than risk that, or change majors, she choose another university. What I found odd was that far more prestigious school like TCU, SMU and Baylor all accepted her, yet UT didn't due to the rule that required them to take the Top 10% first. Then it came down to finances...
posted by dviking at 11:57 PM on December 30, 2009
Let's face the facts. It is not about smarts, it's about how much money the school can make from sports exposure. If the kid can run a football, it really doesn't matter how smart or stupid he is. Not all colleges are guilty of this. But look at Alabama if you want to see the guilt. That's just one of many.
posted by Doehead at 08:21 AM on December 31, 2009
jmd82...does your opinion change if we're talking about a 2.0 student that scored 700 on the SAT
I see where you're coming from, but coming from UGA, I hold no illusions that academics always comes first. It probably makes me a homer or something, but I don't mind as long as the academics are still there for the students who want them. Also consider that at some universities like UGA and UT, students go there because the athletics departments rock, in particular football and sometimes basketball.
I'm not a fan of the 10% rule though and see your point. I work on the administration side of high schools, and as you point out, 10% at one school may be 25% at another, and often times it can be worse than that.
posted by jmd82 at 11:14 AM on December 31, 2009
dviking, that was the old Prop. 48 figures. The new ones, from 2008, are sliding-scale:
400 SAT (verbal + math) or 37 ACT requires 3.55 SAT for Division 1 freshman eligibility. 700 SAT or 57 ACT requires 2.80 SAT. 2.00 GPA requires 1010 SAT or 86 ACT.
Division 2 has a minimum SAT score of 820 or ACT of 68.
I guess the freshman football SAT scores shouldn't scare me, but compared to all freshmen, it's not a good sign.
posted by jjzucal at 12:33 PM on December 31, 2009
thanks for the update...those numbers are still very low.
posted by dviking at 06:14 PM on December 31, 2009
In other news, sun comes up in the morning.