<p>
[quote]
He/she fully knows that the NCAA data is totally outdated, it tacked student-athletes who came into Cal in the late 90s, yet he/she won't miss a chance to bash the school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, we all have the right to our own opinions, but we don't have the right to our own FACTS. And the NCAA facts clearly state that Cal's published graduation rates are low.</p>
<p>Now, I agree that the data is old, and mostly pre-Tedford data, and I even stated that explicitly. But, if nothing else, that just proves that the previous football coach (Holmoe) was shamefully bad. You then have to ask why did Cal hire such a bad coach? After all, not only did Cal have a football team (1-10 in 2001). But it was also a bad football team that CHEATED (was put on probation in 2002). Not only that, but even though it cheated, it STILL had a low graduation rate. Hey man, that's basically the trifecta right there. I would say that if you're going to cheat, and you're going to have a low graduation rate, you should at least win a lot of games. Cal couldn't even do that. That's sad. </p>
<p>Now I agree that getting rid of Holmoe and company was a very good thing. But we still can't sweep that under the rug. The fact remains that back in those days, the Cal football team was an utter mess. That's an inescapable conclusion from the facts. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Our current football grad rate is actually about 75-80%, with a large portion of those who don't graduate having gone to the NFL a few units short of graduating. Every senior from the last two years graduated , a handful went the NFL and the attrition rate the last few years was fairly low.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I, along with Sam Lee, would like to see published sources that state that the Cal graduation rate really is 75-80%. I work hard to find sources to back up my data. If you don't want with what I say, you can at least check out my sources and draw your own conclusion from the data. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Dismissing the team's GPA on the basis of major is ridiculous, the humanities and social sciences at Cal are no less challenging than most other majors. Some of the hardest courses on my curriculum were my humanities electives, as opposed to science and engineering classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then perhaps you could explain the presence of numerous studies that discuss in exquisite detail the different grading standards and grade inflation in technical vs. non-technical majors, not just at Cal, but nationwide. </p>
<p>I'll give you just a few snippets.</p>
<p>"Grades in humanities courses are notably higher than those in the social sciences, and both are higher than grades in the natural sciences. "</p>
<p><a href="http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i30/30b02401.htm%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i30/30b02401.htm</a></p>
<p>"Rine described the shock he felt during his three years on the Committee on Teaching from roughly 1998 to 2000 when he reviewed teaching records for large undergraduate classes, with more than 100 students, in which no one got less than an A-, year after year. At the time, Rine asked Associate Registrar Walter Wong to assemble some data looking at upper division and lower division grading in the physical sciences, biological sciences, social sciences, humanities and engineering, so that he could distinguish trends from anecdotal exceptions. The results were clear. "The physical sciences and engineering had rigorous grading standards roughly in line with the recommendations from 1976," stated Rine, "while the humanities and social sciences in many classes had all but given up on grades below a B, and in many courses below an A-,"</p>
<p><a href="http://ls.berkeley.edu/undergrad/colloquia/04-11.html%5B/url%5D">http://ls.berkeley.edu/undergrad/colloquia/04-11.html</a></p>
<p>"The Problem With Math and Science</p>
<p>Students in the sciences are the ones most likely to face grade deflation, Mansfield said.</p>
<p>"Science is harder and grades in the sciences generally lag behind humanities,” he said.</p>
<p>SUNY Binghamton senior Kristin Schmitt thinks she's experienced grade deflation in her biology and chemistry classes, "because I noticed most science majors tend to have lower GPAs.""</p>
<p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209076,00.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209076,00.html</a></p>
<p>"Grade inflation has proceeded more rapidly in the humanities than in the natural sciences, "</p>
<p><a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3651/is_199910/ai_n8871068%5B/url%5D">http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3651/is_199910/ai_n8871068</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
The all-academic selections are based on the academic year GPAs from last year as well. Expect many more entries from Cal on next year's team.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess we'll find out. But the fact remains that the 2006 All-Academic team were mostly players under the Tedford regime. You can't really blame Tom Holmoe for that. </p>
<p>But there seems to have been no upward progression. Every year, Cal has about 4-6 players on the All-Academic team (and about 8-10 total, including honorable mention), whether it was during Holmoe or during Tedford. There is no data that indicates that All-Academic selections have improved under Tedford. </p>
<p>If you have such data, then be all means, please present it.</p>