<p>On the five year issue, it is not unusual for football players in particular to redshirt, in effect giving them five years.</p>
<p>On the DIII issues, many schools cheat, disguising athletic scholarships as merit aid.</p>
<p>GMT. Mary Willingham has been proven to be a liar. The report being referenced discussed this. When you talk about willingham be aware that the African American students group at UNC consider her borderline racist. </p>
<p>Emm1. You can say what you want about Dean Smith, but a man who did as much as he did to promote true integration and refused racism when he did, the way he did, where he did, changed the world for the better. No he wasn’t a perfect man, but he was a great man when it mattered. </p>
<p>Mary Willingham has NOT been proven to be a liar. Indeed, her allegations that students were steered into phony classes have been backed up by this report.</p>
<p>She plagiarized her graduate work. That’s reprehensible, but her revelations about athletes taking fake classes are true.</p>
<p>Mary Willingham is an opportunistic plagiarist who illegally released private student records she illegally accessed. All she wants is to sell her book. She could not care less about the students. She is a scandal monger and cheater. </p>
<p>@CardinalFang. If you actually read the report like you claim, you would see how discredited she is. Read the report. It’s not flattering to UNC, but you are talking sound bites from Espn. </p>
<p>
Really? You mean the solution was not to reject “student athletes” who were completely unqualified to do college-level work and instead direct them to appropriate institutions where they might learn enough to get a job someday? Silly me, I thought that was the answer.</p>
<p>The new policy at unc, by the way, is that all athletic scholarships are good forever. If you go pro and blow out your knee, you come back and finish your degree whenever you can for free. In perpetuity. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every single word of that might be correct. That doesn’t mean what she said about UNC and its athletes was untrue. She said that student athletes were unprepared, weren’t doing the work for their classes, and were funneled into shadow classes that didn’t have any requirements. All of those things are also asserted in the report.</p>
<p>What that Willingham said is refuted by the report? Please provide cites, with page numbers.</p>
<p>Here’s an example of how the athletes completely blew off any academics. Two athletes were in the same “paper class,” where both were supposed to write a paper as their entire class requirement. On Supplemental page 45, Exhibit CW-SUPPL0000056, we have Debby Crowder mad at them because they submitted the identical paper. She believes that neither of them wrote the paper in question, but all she does is ask each one to submit a new paper. She doesn’t, notably, say that either of them have to write these new papers. Reading between the lines, she’s asking them to steal better.</p>
<p>I grieve over this situation. This is a big stain on UNC’s reputation, no two ways about it. The faculty senate must be livid, as it appears that these shadow/dummy courses were basically put in place by an administrative assistant with complicity by a corrupt administration.</p>
<p>An athletics director at the institution that employs me has requested that the admissions floor (set by faculty vote) be dropped for athletes. The NCAA guidelines allow for students with a ridiculously low SAT score to be admitted. NCAA academic guidelines are a total joke. The timing of these resolutions will ensure than faculty will not comply. We simply can’t admit “students” with a M/CR combined SAT of 700. They can’t do the work, period, no matter how much “support” they get from tutors.</p>
<p>They aren’t athletic scholarships if they aren’t being used by an athlete, and someone who has already turned pro is no longer a collegiate athlete. The school can give them another type of scholarship if it wants to, but not an athletic one.</p>
<p>Players have 5 years of eligibility, and 6 years to play 5, so stretching a degree is not a problem but the school is not going to get more scholarships. If the school is going to have one athlete on scholarship for 5 or 6 years, well, that means they are going to have one fewer scholarship to offer a new student. If students can’t read, how are they taking SAT/ACT tests to meet eligibility? If Miss Mary was finding many students who couldn’t read each year, she should have had a sit down with the recruiting staff and admissions and asked how that was happening, perhaps reported the issue to the NCAA compliance officer. Maybe these non-readers should have been majoring in art or dance or other majors that didn’t have so much reading. Maybe Miss Mary should have arranged for readers for them, not developed classes that don’t require reading if she was just trying to help.</p>
<p>I’m not going to.go thru the report for you Mary willingham is a fraud, a cheat, a liar, and a racist. I’m saddened by the .1% of grades that were potentially compromised by Crowder s belief she was helping kids with learning disabilities. I’m sad that 46 % of those .1% of grades went to athletes. Of course, as Wainstein reports, there is no way to know if some students papers were not just fine. The other over 50% of students were not athletes. It’s not an athletic scandal so much as a departmental issue. Please note: these investigations have been going on.since 2011. The only thing I hadn’t known about was the unfortunate length of time and the wide number of students involved from.so many different departments. </p>
<p>From the CNN link in post #99
This is from CNN’s research, not Mary Willingham’s
</p>
<p>Clemson
</p>
<p>Fresno State
</p>
<p>LSU
</p>
<p>Shocking to have a verbal SAT score in the 400’s. Maybe these “students” should have taken the TOEFL.</p>
<p>I’m amused by your minimizing, poetgrl. In the worst year, there were 160 enrollments by football players in these phony courses, and about 35 enrollments by men’s basketball. That’s not a few bad apples. That’s an entire rotten barrel. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two of the tutors besides Willingham admitted they wrote portions of papers for their students: Jennifer Wiley and Witney Read. Both said that the athletes they were writing papers for were incapable of writing their own papers. Jan Boxhill also admitted to writing portions of students’ papers.</p>
<p>The experts looked at 150 submitted papers. On average, they were terrible. A large proportion were either plagiarized, or largely filled with quotations, with no original work.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly, some of the papers were fine. Most of the papers the experts saw were not fine.</p>
<p>For those who want to know what the NCAA minimum academic requirements are, see <a href=“NCAA Academic Requirements for College Athletes”>http://www.athleticscholarships.net/academic-requirements.htm</a> and <a href=“http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2011-12_Quick_Reference_Sheet.pdf”>http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2011-12_Quick_Reference_Sheet.pdf</a> . Note that the ACT score is the sum of the four sections, not the usual composite.</p>
<p>Note that not all four year schools need to lower their admission standards significantly for recruited athletes. For example, Mississippi public universities auto-admit Mississippi residents (not just athletes) who meet the NCAA minimum academic requirements. Out-of-state standards for automatic admission are slightly higher, but both in-state and out-of-state applicants may be admitted on review if they do not meet automatic admission criteria. See <a href=“http://www.admissions.msstate.edu/freshman/requirements.php”>http://www.admissions.msstate.edu/freshman/requirements.php</a></p>
<p>Thanks GMT. I agree. </p>
<p>@cardinalfang. A total of 15 basketball players took these classes over 18 years. A total of 123 football players took one or more over 18 years. A total of 46 Olympic athletes took these courses over 18 years. I can’t recall the number for women’s bball. 7 or 8? </p>
<p>I’m horrified by the fact of 18 years and the rest. </p>
<p>But I’m not stupid. </p>
<p>Umich had 238 or so independent studies classes offered ONLY to athletes. Etc…</p>
<p>No school has ever undergone this kind of scrutiny, voluntarily. The fact that it was African American diaspora studies saddens me even more deeply. </p>
<p>That said, please feel free to grind your axe !!!</p>
<p>I don’t feel proud of this, but it’s been out there since 2011. It’s not a new story to me. I’m tired of it. </p>
<p>Wow. In that CNN report, UNC admits that they admitted, in the relevant time frame, 341 athletes under the special talent exemption where the special talent was playing a sport. Of them, 34 scored less than 400 on the SAT verbal. We don’t need Willingham to tell us that a student with that score can’t read at a college level, or even a high school level. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did you get those numbers? The report says that 3100 or more students took the classes, and about half were athletes. That’s difficult to square with the numbers you present.</p>
<p>You can click on each school to get CNN’s compilation of athlete stats:
<a href=“CNN Analysis: Some college athletes play like adults, read like fifth-graders”>http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/01/us/college-scores/index.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cant quote from.my.phone. I.Will be back at my computer on Monday. I have to work. I will pull quotes from the Weinstein report on Monday or Tuesday evening if im still interested. </p>
<p>Ah-- I found the relevant quote, poetgrl. You misremembered what the report said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, there were 15 men’s basketball players who used paper classes to push their GPA over 2.0 for one or more semesters. That’s not the total of men’s basketball players who took one or more of these phony classes, however. Other basketball players took the phony classes to illicitly reduce their course load by replacing real courses with shams.</p>
<p>No. You’re right. I was looking at a different number. But enrollments doesn’t mean students. It means enrollments. The number of students in the class. So if you get to the findings section in.the report, around page 31 depending on your device, you will see the breakdown of the number of students and the number of enrollments. Not.the same number at all. Apparently some students took a lot of.these classes and some less. Which.was the number I.was looking at. Or not. I don’t have my normal tech. There’s a further breakdown in.the nineties between athletes and other students. I’m sorry I cant pull.the cities. It’s frustrating. I know</p>