<p>"Notre Dame, like every other football power, lowers its admissions standards for athletes. But even though the SAT average for Notre Dame football players — about 1048 — falls about 300 points below the average for the student body, it soars above the NCAA minimum. Stellar running backs with a combined SAT score of 600 and a B average in high school would be fair game for many other colleges. Academically competitive universities like Notre Dame, Stanford and Duke would be unlikely to consider them."</p>
<p>"It is obvious that top ranking academic institutions like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, UC Berkeley, Michigan, UCLA, and USC have to ease up on admissions policies for athletes if they want to compete in the hyper-commercialized, free-market industry college football has become. But it is educationally and morally unconscionable to throw athletes who are academically at risk into this industry as freshmen."</p>
<p>Unfortunately, for the most academically prominent public universities (a few of which dstark mentions above) and USC, the graduation data is far less impressive and perhaps this is what fuels part of the negative stereotype that some have towards the student-athlete population at the colleges that are highly ranked by USNWR and also have nationally competitive and relevant Division I sporting teams. </p>
<p>Graduation Rates for Football, Men's Basketball and Women's Basketball</p>
<p>52%, 33%, 71% UC Berkeley (All Students: 89% and all Student-Athletes: 76%)</p>
<p>68%, 80%, 71% U Virginia (All Students: 92% and all Student-Athletes: 76%)</p>
<p>56%, 40%, 92% UCLA (All Students: 89% and all Student-Athletes: 68%)</p>
<p>73%, 57%, 82% U Michigan (All Students: 87% and all Student-Athletes: 72%)</p>
<p>79%, 86%, 64% U North Carolina (All Students: 84% and all Student-Athletes: 66%)</p>
<p>57%, 29%, 62% USC (All Students: 84% and all Student-Athletes: 69%)</p>
<p>52% is embarrassing. Unfortunately, academic standards have taken a back seat to getting a team to the Rose Bowl. It seems that there are tradeoffs, but does it need to be? Some programs have successful winning programs and higher graduation/academic standards... Penn State and Michigan are two that come to mind. However, these programs have had the long term vision and leadership through coaching to make it happen.</p>
<p>You would think Berkeley basketball players would have a better graduation rate than they have. It's not like they are very good players or turn professional. :)</p>
<p>Hawkette- Have you ever heard the expression "Rocks for Jocks"? There ARE courses, even at the "academic" schools like Rice, Vandy etc. that are known as "easy passes" for athletes.</p>
<p>ohmadre,
The APR or Academic Progress Rates are not the same as graduation rates. I'm sure that the Ivies have good numbers and perhaps better vs their overall student bodies than Stanford, Duke, et al. I'd just like to see the stats in print, eg, on the NCAA website with everyone else. </p>
<p>MOWC,
I have definitely heard of those courses. There are easy classes at every college in the land...including the Ivies.</p>
<p>ucb,
I agree with you on the publics. I was a little stunned the first time that I saw them. I can see how such numbers would cast a lot of schools in a similar light. I'm just pretty sure, however, that that would not be an accurate application as the graduation numbers for student-athletes between Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame look pretty different vs UCB, U Virginia, UCLA, U Michigan, and U North Carolina.</p>
<p>Well of course you are never going to see ivy graduation rates because they are not published for the reason that they do not give scholarships. </p>
<p>APR may not be what you think it is. - It measures the rate at which athletes are progressing toward a degree based on the following criterion:</p>
<p>"Student-athletes entering college are required to complete 40 percent of their degree by the end of their second year, 60 percent by the end of year three, and 80 percent by the end of year four. " The old graduation rate numbers you see posted on NCAA website are for a six year period.</p>
<p>Its apples to apples, surely highly suggests graduation rates if not mirrors it and it at least gives you context. And these stats are in print on the NCAA website. </p>
<p>It would be a pain to do this with every school, but if you're curious, you can always look at the team roster in football and basketball for a particular school and see how many seniors you find there. If you made it to senior year at an Ivy, you're very likely to graduate. There are plenty of seniors on the football team at Harvard, even though in the absence of scholarships, bench-warmers don't always stick with the team for four years. We saw all those senior third-stringers on the field in garbage time against Yale this year. :)</p>
<p>"This will not help all the colleges but it certainly will help the high school student-athlete. With the sliding scale all but gone, as long as you maintain a 2.000 GPA and complete all your core classes, you will get into school. This doesn’t help the Stanfords and Georgia Techs of the world but it certainly helps college programs with minimum academic requirements. Schools such as Stanford, Georgia Tech and Notre Dame have higher academic standards for their student athletes to begin with. In fact, Stanford’s minimum academic requirement is a 3.0 GPA and 1100 SAT. </p>
<p>In the past, minorities in particular, have had issues with the standardized tests (SAT and ACT). Some believe these tests are culturally biased. Before, there was a sliding scale with a direct correlation between the student-athletes’ grade point averages and their standardized test scores. For instance, if a student-athlete had a core GPA of 2.000 then they had to score at least a 1010 on the SAT or a 22 on the ACT. If a student-athlete had a core GPA of 2.5, then they had to score an 820 or 17. </p>
<p>This new legislation could be potentially vital for the prospect(s) with a low GPA (2.000), even though they complete the required core classes, that don’t score well on the standardized test. As long as the necessary core classes are taken and passed, they will get into to college. Once they get into college, it is up to them, with the university’s support system, to make sure they do the required things to stay eligible. </p>
<p>This also could be detrimental to college football. There are many student-athletes who score poorly for a reason. Under the new reform, they will be admitted in college, even though they may not be able and ready to handle the academic work-load. That is why this system doesn’t work for Stanford, Notre Dame and other institutions. They raise their academic standards for a reason. These schools want to accept student-athletes that they know can handle their academics."</p>
<p>I guess a 3.0 AND A 1100 sat score is enough to handle the academics at Stanford. :)</p>
<p>Stanford is the school of choice for the scholar-athlete. In the four classes entering the University from 1994 to 1997, the average freshman male athlete had logged a 3.73 high school GPA and a 1,215 SAT score, according to NCAA statistics. Female freshman athletes during the same period had a 3.87 GPA and a 1,151 SAT score. By comparison, the averages for all Division 1 schools combined were 2.97 and 997 for males and 3.29 and 1,007 for females. At Duke University, another school known for academics as well as athletics, incoming freshman male athletes had a 3.46 GPA and an SAT of 1,103, while females had a 3.51 grade-point and a 1,090 test score."</p>
<p>"Eric T. Westerfield, a former defensive lineman at Hamilton College, knows a thing or two about how to sack a quarterback. But as the Harvard football team’s defensive line coach and recruiting coordinator looks to replace the five members of his D-line who will graduate this spring, it’s not one recruit’s lack of explosion after the snap that’s giving him headaches. “This kid has a 3.8 GPA and a 1,270 on his SAT’s,” he says of a candidate in the “Crimson” category of his computer database, a top prospect. “You might get one or two like that in. [Another] one, a 1,230, 38th in a class of 286, same thing. We’ll tell him to retake his SAT’s.”</p>
<p>Ivy League rules prevent Harvard from accepting more than two football recruits in the top 15% of their class who don’t break 1,250. The competition for those two slots at the academic bottom of the Harvard football team, known as the first “band,” is fierce. “You’re not going to take a marginal player in the first band,” Westerfield says. “You only get two. It wouldn’t make sense.” But if the recruit can score just 20 points higher on the test, he suddenly looks a lot more likely to line up at scrimmage next year. Given his class rank, a 1,250 would push him past the cutoff for the second band, which gets seven slots. An improvement to 1,330 would have an even bigger effect on his chances, pushing him into band number three, from which Harvard can take 13 players. “If [this] kid’s a first-bander, we can’t take him,” Westerfield says. “If he’s a second-bander, we can. We’ll tell him that.”</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks the FB and BB coaches at the Ivies aren't as intense (and sometimes underhanded) w/ regard to recruiting as those at the power conf. haven't followed recruiting.</p>
<p>And while - yes, the Ivy coaches tend to be more hampered by academic reqs. than other top private universities - esp. in comparison to Duke BB which has surprisingly or not so surprisingly (depending on how you look at it) low standards, even that has begun to change (as evidenced by former Harvard BB coaches who have stated that Amaker has gotten a lot more leeway w/ regard to academics from the admin. regarding recruits).</p>
<p>
[quote]
At Duke University, another school known for academics as well as athletics, incoming freshman male athletes had a 3.46 GPA and an SAT of 1,103, while females had a 3.51 grade-point and a 1,090 test score."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Those are really pathetic numbers as an average. They include recruited athletes in many sports that have very high SATs. The money sports have to be well under 1000 to pull the averages that low.</p>
<p>And the average SAT for football players at Notre Dame is 1048? That's the average!?! (I really don't care about the SATs and graduation rates of fencers and field hockey players--that's really irrelevant to the whole discussion.) The Ivies would be nuts to go in that direction. I'm very skeptical about the idea of taking anybody with SATs below 1250 as it is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At Duke University, another school known for academics as well as athletics, incoming freshman male athletes had a 3.46 GPA and an SAT of 1,103, while females had a 3.51 grade-point and a 1,090 test score."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those are really pathetic numbers as an average. They include recruited athletes in many sports that have very high SATs. The money sports have to be well under 1000 to pull the averages that low.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>During a period in the '90's, the average SAT score for Duke men's BB was in the mid-**900's<a href="which%20was%20below%20half%20of%20the%20rest%20of%20the%20ACC%20teams">/b</a>.</p>
<p>And several years ago, Duke reduced the admission standards for FB in order to get more competitive.</p>
<p>As for the Ivies - well, Harvard in particular.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is also because Harvard is willing to consider players with a lower academic standing than previous staff members said they were allowed to. Harvard has also adopted aggressive recruiting tactics that skirt or, in some cases, may even violate National Collegiate Athletic Association rules.</p>
<p>Harvard’s efforts in basketball underscore the increasingly important role that success in high-profile sports plays at even the most elite universities. In the race to become competitive in basketball, Harvard’s new approach could tarnish the university’s sterling reputation.</p>
<p>Yale Coach James Jones said he had seen an academic change at Harvard. “It’s eye-opening because there seems to have been a drastic shift in restrictions and regulations with the Harvard admissions office,” he said.</p>
<p>“We don’t know how all this is going to come out, but we could not get involved with many of the kids that they are bringing in.”
<p>
[quote]
And several years ago, Duke reduced the admission standards for FB in order to get more competitive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This was my point. Universities are lowering admission standards for athletes to field a more competitive team. Universities don't like having a perpetual losing team no matter how smart the athletes. </p>
<p>The real question is why are good players often times poorer students? Perhaps specialization in skills?</p>
<p>"The real question is why are good players often times poorer students? Perhaps specialization in skills?"</p>
<p>I think sports ability is not closely linked to academic ability, and thus top athletes are found in all parts of the academic ability spectrum. Remember that when we're talking about the Ivies, Duke, etc., we're talking about only a tiny part of the academic spectrum--you wouldn't expect that many top athletes in that group in the first place, as with any other 0.5% of the spectrum.</p>