11/21/24
March 09, 2011
Stanford Gave Athletes Easy Class List: Stanford is no longer giving athletes a list of easy classes after it attracted media attention. The list from the school's Athletic Academic Resource Center included a drama class in Beginning Improvising, another in Social Dances of North America and a sociology class on Interpersonal Relations. The classes were "always chock-full of athletes and very easy A's," said Kira Maker, a soccer player who used the list her freshman year.
Now, they will just have to post it on Facebook instead of having it given to them.
I'm sure this list will survive and be passed along.
posted by Bonkers at 06:34 PM on March 09, 2011
We had lists like that. Tons of 'em. Hell, the student/professor ranking guide could be easily translated into a list of choice electives. And then there was the course guide itself. It's not a mystery that "Math in Poetry" is not going to be too taxing. Or well-attended.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:47 PM on March 09, 2011
Yeah, probably not too hard for a student at any college to know what classes are easy. "Math for non-majors" anyone?
posted by dviking at 07:56 PM on March 09, 2011
Though this list isn't shocking, I did take what one would thing a jock class- History of Rock & Roll. Lecture hall of about 150 students, of which 1/2 were athletes first day of class. By the time midquarter came around, most of the athletes had dropped the class and was down to about 50 students in general. Turned out that while the class was very interesting and I learned a helluva lot, you actually had to study for the test and know specific facts about artists you don't learn on MTV or TMZ. That, or the study of delta blues is not exactly what people were expecting (even if it only was a few lectures).
posted by jmd82 at 08:35 PM on March 09, 2011
I'm taking a history of rock and roll class right now. Best class I've taken in two and a half years. Not at all a blow off class.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:31 PM on March 09, 2011
One had to stay current on the blow off class list, as often word would get out and professors would attempt to correct the situation. I was in an Art Appreciation class, that I actually wanted to take, where the instructor made a point on the first day of telling everyone that her class was going to be different than it had in the past. Tests would be given, and we would be expected to know the difference between Picasso, Rousseau and Monet.
Oddly, the class was down at least 30% on the second day.
posted by dviking at 01:12 AM on March 10, 2011
As someone with no personal experience of the American college system, I remember having "Rocks for Jocks" explained to me about a decade ago.
posted by etagloh at 01:16 AM on March 10, 2011
This really isnt new. Stanford is just dumb for making a hardcopy. This is something your coach should just tell you.
posted by Debo270 at 09:40 AM on March 10, 2011
It's not new, and it's not a jock thing. College kids have been looking for guts for a long time. You have to wonder -- college-bound kids are supposed to be the smart ones, and yet they mostly seem to willfully squander their educational opportunities, which strikes me as exceptionally stupid. The goal is to have fun and avoid working any harder than you absolutely must, rather than take advantage of this opportunity and make something of yourself. But it is both stupid and reprehensible for a university athletic department to encourage it.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:56 AM on March 10, 2011
For every real-world job where expertise and education are called upon, there are two jobs where the only requirements are social skills and a keen understanding of the pecking order. You don't learn that in class; I reckon it's exceptionally stupid to squander the social opportunities that sloth brings the average college student. Work avoidance is a recipe for success. Just ask your boss.
posted by Hugh Janus at 10:34 AM on March 10, 2011
lbb, I agree with what you're saying, and in the case of someone making a college career of this type of behavior I would say you're correct.
For many the temptation was to look for an easy class as a way to balance out a tough semester. Got calc, biology and a tough language class? Maybe taking a fluff class that satisfies a general ed credit is a good idea.
posted by dviking at 05:43 PM on March 10, 2011
lbb, I agree with what you're saying, and in the case of someone making a college career of this type of behavior I would say you're correct.
We called those "econ majors" ;-)
"Rise over run...wait..."
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:40 PM on March 10, 2011
University is good preparation for... more university. Unless you want to be an academic, does anyone actually look at your subject by subject results for undergraduate courses, or even what you studied?
Scorecards also don't explain or show what you have really learned. In other words, they don't measure "education" as a transformative or learning experience, just whether you attended and/or passed a few assessment tasks.
/Parent of a tertiary and a secondary student hops off his soapbox.
posted by owlhouse at 11:41 PM on March 10, 2011
"Rise over run...wait..."
What does slope of a line have to do with any of this.
Anyone here who has ever attended college knows what the easy classes were. I wasnt the only football player in my "intro to acting class". The prof was no dummy either. He knew all the jocks didnt want to actually be in any of the plays or musicals the class put on, but he knew we were good at building sets for him and setting up the stage and stuff.
posted by Debo270 at 09:35 AM on March 11, 2011
University is good preparation for... more university.
True, but the subjects you take can make you more -- or less -- useful in whatever career you pursue. If I'd realized I was going to be writing computer books, I would not have dropped my minor in computer science. I had to learn all that stuff on my own.
As I think about all the stuff I could have learned in college, I cringe at the idea some athletes on a full ride are taking easy classes that have nothing to do with their goals.
posted by rcade at 09:58 AM on March 11, 2011
Personally I have no trouble with the idea of some classes being a bit easier. I am proud to say I got six credits on my records for a class in intramural officiating. And that class was a haven for football players. Highlight of the semester was watching as the teacher couldn't believe that Marcel Shipp had never played baseball as a kid, only to have one of the other football players shout out "But you should see him run with a football!". The class, which is no longer offered at UMass, was in the school of education and was originally meant for people who wanted to be phys ed teachers.
I see nothing wrong with there being a few classes that the athletes take during their sporting season (which I am sure it isn't limited to and is hard for winter sports that span both semesters) and even for non-athletes that can be there to boost their GPA a bit. It is also nice to be able to get your credits in and not have every class be a make or break class in your schedule. What I do wonder about is how schools can say that a player is on the path to graduation as is required by the NCAA if they are taking classes made up of nothing but intramural officiating (3 credits), basket weaving (3 credits), geology 101 (or as we called it Rocks for Jocks, 3 credits) and Simpsons in Film (3 credits)?
posted by Demophon at 01:56 PM on March 11, 2011
I guess it's now clear that back in the pre-Harbaugh days when Stanford was having a tough time competing with USC on the gridiron, it was because they were being out danced by Matt Leinart.