<p>If a college admits a student with a verbal SAT in the 400’s, then I’d like to see that college also educate them. Throwing them into a classroom designed for students >100 points higher isn’t fair, and neither is a sham class.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see a curriculum designed around their interests that incorporated some standards of general education. One could actually have sports as an academic major if it involved learning skills that could be useful later on. Sports is a giant industry that many of these athletes will be employed in one way or another. One could teach math skills in a business management format, or even personal investment. Some of these students will have huge earnings in their younger years, but may not know how to manage that money and save some of it for when they are older and can not play sports. They might be more interested in reading and writing about current events, covering a sports event, or something that they are interested in instead of reading about another topic. Public speaking, communications, teaching, coaching, are other classes that could be appealing. </p>
<p>Getting a verbal score of 400 didn’t happen overnight. Many of these athletes spent hours in school doing sports instead of other activities that may have raised that score ( reading for pleasure, taking advanced classes). If they are admitted with these skills, then that is the starting point to further their education. </p>
Well after the dust settles on the UNC fraud story, the sham will continue at other schools as long as there is no viable football minor league outside of college football.</p>
<p>From the “The Principles of Accreditation:” by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SAC), UNCs accreditation agency:</p>
<p>“The governing board is free from undue influence from political, religious, or other external bodies and protects the institution from such influence.”</p>
<p>“The institution demonstrates that each educational program for which academic credit is awarded is approved by the faculty and the administration.”</p>
<p>“The institution publishes requirements for its undergraduate programs, including its general education components. These requirements conform to commonly accepted standards and practices for degree programs.”</p>
<p>From the New York Times:</p>
<p>“These were classes that involved no interaction with a faculty member, required no class attendance or course work other than a single paper, and resulted in consistently high grades that Crowder awarded without reading the papers or otherwise evaluating their true quality.”</p>
<p>The UNC shadow classes were in violation of SACs accreditation principles because the actual class requirements were different from the classes requirements which were published and agreed upon by the faculty. UNC accreditation should be placed under probation by SACs. The NCAA is banned from influencing coursework and degree requirements at UNC by SACs. If only athletes were allowed to take the paper classes then the NCAA could use the impermissible benefit rule to penalize UNC, but since other students were allowed to take these courses this rule may not apply.</p>
<p>They didn’t follow the instructions of the teachers in their classrooms, apparently. Some students were moved out of real classes into phony versions of the real class, or into other phony classes, because of complaints from professors that the students were lazy and disruptive. </p>
<p>One example of a teacher who found some student-athletes disruptive;
<p>I’d rather colleges not cynically enroll athletes who can’t do college work. Between 2004 and 2012, UNC admitted 34 football or basketball players with SATs below 400 or ACTs below 16. Those are students who can barely read. Remediation for a student at that abysmal level is a long and time-consuming task. They’re not writing college papers, because they can’t. </p>
<p>And if UNC has suddenly discovered a passion for educating students who had terrible K-12 educations, how about choosing some who want to go to class and who are willing to spend the many hours outside of class, with tutors, that they need to reach the level they should have been at, instead of athletes who don’t have time to do that, and who blow off class and cheat on their homework?</p>
<p>What about federal student loans and state and federal grants that were undoubtedly paying for some of these classes for the students who were not on full athletic scholarships? </p>
<p>I’d like to see a viable minor league for football (like in baseball) where players who have no business being in college can still pursue a football career. Why are non-profit institutes of higher learning the only clearing house for vetting players for the multi-billion dollar NFL entertainment industry???</p>
<p>The third investigation into this already went thru the accreditation issues via the SAC, which did sign off on these classes. Make of that what you will</p>
<p>I also agree that we either need to acknowledge these are athletes being trained for lucrative or otherwise athletic careers, or a minor league. Or both. </p>
Then the SAC should reopen the case, since it made its earlier ruling with incomplete information. Now it has more details from the newly released Wainstein Report. </p>
<p>The phony classes were accredited classes in the sense that there were approved curricula for these classes. The problem was the corrupt AFAM department, and the corrupt athletic department, which conspired to offer pretend versions of real classes. Sometimes they’d take an athlete who was failing in the real class, and put him or her in a pretend section of the real class. </p>
<p>Oldmom, we have to take care not to stereotype the athletes as hapless victims. The harm is that such stereotypes mark them as intellectually inferior and incapable; which to some of us sounds a lot like paternalistic racism. Which might also be characterized as a benevolent antebellum plantation. Sure, there likely were many players in the UNC shadow classes who just couldn’t do the work, whether because of poor K-12 preparation or simple lack of ability. But it is misguided to believe that all low-achievement players come from the dregs of our society. I’ll bet most of these guys had opportunities which many ordinary Black students didn’t have. A lot of folks in the Black community are tired of reading about athletes who waste scholarships, while other struggling students work hard to make it in school, at times having to drop out for lack of funds.</p>
<p>Here’s one such player who caused a bit of a stir in Washington State. He was by no means underprivileged economically. And he clearly is no dummy. Yet he too willingly took advantage of a no-work class in high school and was given a false grade just to keep him eligible for a college basketball scholarship. He bragged about the star treatment on his social media page, text message etc.</p>
<p>Why don’t universities simply establish a College of Athletics, just like they already have a College of Arts & Sciences and a College of Engineering. Then everyone can stop pretending the the Big Money college sports emperor is wearing clothes.</p>
<p>Because the College of Engineering and the College of Arts and Sciences are not going to accredit courses in Going To Football Practice, Playing in the Big Game or Watching Game Films, that’s why.</p>
<p>I agree with this. I think it’s delusional to think a business major is primarily academic. Colleges and universities in this country serve more than an academic purpose. We have design schools and dance conservatories. Business and marketing majors. Sports is a fine career. Why pretend it’s the bogeyman. </p>
<p>As for the SAC and accreditation, maybe the investigation needs to be into the SAC as well as unc. </p>
<p>Oh, and to be clear, the third investigation was the governors report commissioned by unc befor the wainstein report. In the governors reports, the accreditation issue was looked into closely. It was not an investigation by the SAC which accredited the classes more than once, I believe. </p>
<p>The issue here then becomes the fact that more than half the classes were taken by students who were not athletes. They might have, must have, known these were “underwater basket weaving” classes, but they took them on good faith the credits would count. </p>
<p>I agree with you about business majors. They are almost worthless. But they require students to do the kind of work normally demanded by academic classes: reading, writing, problem sets. </p>
<p>If the argument is that business majors are easy majors that require not much academic work, and therefore we should also allow majors that require NO academic work, I say, we have to draw the line somewhere, and if we can’t draw the line to eliminate these questionable business majors, at least we can eliminate classes that are in no sense classes. If UNC gave out degrees for playing football, why wouldn’t they give degrees to the gardeners who maintain the campus and the janitors who maintain the buildings? After all, hoeing and mopping are backbreaking and time consuming too. After all, UNC probably hires good, skilled janitors and gardeners.</p>