<p>;) these athletes are exceptions… isn’t that how they are getting offers? :)</p>
<p>I disagree, with the notion of looking at academics by assessing roster majors. Studies have shown, this demonstrates schools are cutting corners to keep from succumbing to pressure of loss of scholarships that the 40 -60- 80 rule created. </p>
<p>(The rule change of 2003 intended to improve athletes’ graduation rates.)</p>
<p>The NCAA went one step further… beyond increasing demands for progress toward a degree, the NCAA reduced requirements for incoming athletes to be eligible to play as freshmen. </p>
<p>Couple increased pressure on compliance/academic advising by placing eyes on the scholarship loss with keeping their jobs. Only education of the athlete loses.</p>
<p>Did you see where Stanford’s student newspaper posted all the easy A classes?
[Stanford</a> athletes had access to list of ‘easy’ courses | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/03/09/1046687/]Stanford”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/03/09/1046687/)</p>
<p>No list like this circulates in the ivy halls? ;)</p>
<p>How do you think Kyle Bailey would answer?
[Final</a> Four run a special time for UConn’s Bailey - Monday, Apr. 4, 2011](<a href=“http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Final+Four+run+a+special+time+for+UConn’s+Bailey&articleId=7d8699a0-a4f7-443a-8c99-d8b48888eaf1]Final”>http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Final+Four+run+a+special+time+for+UConn’s+Bailey&articleId=7d8699a0-a4f7-443a-8c99-d8b48888eaf1)
;)</p>