[quote]
Consider two would-be college basketball players. One scored 850 on his SATs and had a high school grade point average of 2.75; the other scored 975 and had a GPA of 3.2. But the former enrolls at a university where his SAT is within 150 points of the average for all students at the institution. The latters test score, though higher, puts him more than 300 points below those for the average freshman who will be sitting alongside him in class.</p>
<p>Which one is at more of a disadvantage academically in college? Are colleges doing a disservice to athletes if they have markedly different admissions standards for them than for other students? Or, as many sports officials argue, should colleges be held accountable more for the ultimate academic performance of their athletes on the way out (e.g., do they graduate?) than for their credentials on the way in?</p>
<p>Questions like those have arisen periodically about big-time college athletics, and they are likely to to be raised anew by an investigative report published Sunday by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The package of articles is based on a year-long review of information submitted as part of the National Collegiate Athletic Associations accreditation-like certification process by more than 50 public universities that play big-time football or basketball. As part of that process, colleges provide a wide range of information and data, including, typically, on the admission of athletes.
<p>So, for example, UCLA's mid-50 Reading SAT is 570-690; mid-50 Math is 600-720. Let's guess the average Reading is 620, Math 660, making the average R+M 1280. That would mean the average athlete at UCLA would have an SAT of 1050. </p>
<p>And notice there are a lot of athletes at UCLA dragging the whole schools average scores down. The average non-athlete has better than a 1280 SAT.</p>
<p>These schools claim that they can get their unqualified athletes to "graduate." Yeah, graduate after taking fifteen courses in Underwater Basket Weaving where their tutors did all the work.</p>
<p>And then go on to a great career in sales or marketing or places where their people skills, coupled with the confidence they gained while playing team sports and their experience in working successfully in teams, while stand them in good stead for a lifetime. </p>
<p>The AJC story missed the important stats - 1) how did the athletes' entering scores compare with those of entering students of the same race and class, and 2) how did their graduation rates compare? One might be surprised by the results (I know most folks would in looking at the Big 10 schools.)</p>
<p>Mini's point about race and class is particularly important. I have some personal experience with inner city coaches who are genuinely concerned with preparing kids to succeed in the world and constantly stress the idea that very few are going to make money in basketball, but that basketball can be a vehicle to get a college education and thereby get better employment opportunities. They constantly push their kids to get good grades in school, but just roll their eyes at the SAT, which they view as just another unfair barrier to success for inner city kids. One very intelligent, successful member of this group even expressed the opinion that the qualification score on the SAT was raised was the conscious purpose of lowering the number of black students who would get scholarships, thereby allowing more whites to get athletic scholarships.</p>
<p>I don't subscribe to the latter view, but do agree that (although my own kids are very good testers) the SAT is basically garbage--particularly when used to prevent a disadvantaged athlete from getting a chance to succeed.</p>
<p>I'm not impressed by their graduation rates, because some athletes take sham courses in sham majors, and when they take real courses, their tutors do the work. I ask you, how is someone who had a 400 SAT Reading able to pass freshman English? The kid has spent 18 years not being able to read and write, and suddenly, magically, in three months he can?</p>
<p>""basketball can be a vehicle to get a college education and thereby get better employment opportunities. "</p>
<p>They're not <em>getting</em> a college education. Some are getting a college degree, but most are not getting a college education."</p>
<p>On one level, you are right; it is the degree that opens doors (or more precisely, the lack of a degree that closes doors.</p>
<p>But on another level, I'm curious--how many of these boys do you know? Do you know anything about their experiences (in college or otherwise) and aspirations?</p>
<p>In any event, I will readily concede that many of these boys will not succeed (not surprising, given their backgrounds). But some will, despite low SAT scores, and the rules sometimes give them NO chance.</p>
<p>mini - I agree completely. Many of these kids are getting a chance they would not otherwise have. Their talents are opening doors for them.
Your SAT score is not your IQ. Stop trying to make that connection.</p>
<p>One could imagine the UCLA admissions committee choosing to admit some students who didn't have the numbers, but who seemed academically promising for some other reasons. But this is not what is happening here. These students are not at all academically promising-- they simply have good jumpshots or can run the 40 yard dash fast.</p>
<p>If UCLA wants to take a chance and admit some marginal-seeming applicants, they ought to pick ones who appear to have ACADEMIC potential. And if they want to run minor league basketball and football teams, they should pay the players. They should not be pretending to combine these programs.</p>
<p>"These students are not at all academically promising-- they simply have good jumpshots or can run the 40 yard dash fast. If UCLA wants to take a chance and admit some marginal-seeming applicants, they ought to pick ones who appear to have ACADEMIC potential."</p>
<p>In addition to issues of cultural bias, I would observe that a person who is recruited to play basketball at a school like UCLA is truly extraordinary, having demonstrated the ability to reach the pinnacle of a highly competitive world, almost universally by dint of hard work as well as natural ability. The upside for such a person is likely to be greater than that of someone who simply has demonstrated the ability to take standardized tests (which, of course, demonstrates nothing other than the ability to take standardized tests).</p>
<p>Let's not fixate on standardized tests. These are not cases of students who don't test well; they have crummy SATs, but they also have lousy high school GPAs.</p>
<p>And let's abandon the pretense that top basketball recruits are admitted to UCLA as part of a policy of admitting applicants with extraordinary talent and achievements. The best 17-year-old singer in the United States isn't getting into UCLA with 1050 SATs and a 2.0 GPA. The best hockey player with those stats won't be admitted, because UCLA has no hockey team. Even the best basketball player with those stats won't be admitted if he has suffered a career-ending injury, though he obviously has equally demonstrated the ability to reach the pinnacle of a highly competitive world by dint of hard work and natural ability. </p>
<p>Nope. The basketball players are admitted as part of UCLA's plan to field a basketball team. That's all. Academics and past achievements have nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>"I'm not impressed by their graduation rates, because some athletes take sham courses in sham majors, and when they take real courses, their tutors do the work. I ask you, how is someone who had a 400 SAT Reading able to pass freshman English? The kid has spent 18 years not being able to read and write, and suddenly, magically, in three months he can?"</p>
<p>It is quite possible. My daughter (a recruited athlete) managed a 3.8 gpa or so in a very demanding and competitive prep school and got 1500/2400 on her SATs. Athletes often bring a great work ethic, confidence, and or course competitiveness that serves them very well.</p>
<p>Some kids are not good test takers and there is no one magic number, whether SAT or ACT or GPA or probably even IQ, that, judged in isolation, tells the whole story about a person and his or her potential.</p>
<p>Let's not forget that it's the football and basketball teams that bring in cash so that a college/Uni can field all of those non-revenue sports!</p>
<p>
[quote]
And notice there are a lot of athletes at UCLA dragging the whole schools average scores down.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There aren't that many recruited athletes (as a % of matriculating Frosh) to make a dent in UCLA's SAT scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There aren't that many recruited athletes (as a % of matriculating Frosh) to make a dent in UCLA's SAT scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. Football and basketball recruits number less than about 45 students per class. UCLA's freshman class has what, 6,500 students? Even with SAT scores of 0, those recruits wouldn't make a knick, let alone a dent.</p>
<p>No one is being hurt by the current practice. These highly talented athletes get a shot at a good education, and definitely some worldly and valuable experience even without the diploma. The rest of the student body and all of its alumni and community benefit to a much greater extent.</p>