D-III Academics

Check into a great DIII example...Washington University in St. Louis. Outstanding academics.

quote:

Originally posted by Fungo:
Many here talk about the academic strengths in the NCAA D-3 schools. I fail to understand the "higher academics" perception of D-3 schools that prevails here on the HSBBW. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't D-3 an NCAA athletic classification that has no connection to a school's academics? Maybe I'd be more impressed if the school's name were used instead of a generic "D-3" label (or maybe not). If the D-3 is that much stronger academically, why do people prove their qualifications with their claim of being educated from well known, high profile (usually D-1) colleges.
Fungo

Great question!

The are in fact many elite academic D3's however. As noted, D3 is only referring to which division of sports a college chooses to participate in even though many of these D3's have more students than some of the D1 schools that come to mind. I'll name a few off the top of my head and guess they all rank higher academically than most schools in the SEC for example. On the other hand, Vanderbilt is a school with an elite academic reputation from the SEC yet has a low student body population which is smaller than many D3's. Rice falls into the same category. Thus, some D3's have D1 student body numbers and some D1's are more like D3's academically. I believe Wake Forest is also in this category (low student count, high academics). Some D1 schools like Stanford and the IVY league have few peers academically.

1) MIT
2) Johns Hopkins (ironically competes in D1 LaCrosse)
3) Emory
4) University of Chicago

Other people can help me fill out the list. There are no universal rules obviously.

google search "nerdy nine" and "cerebral league"

Williams,
Amherst,
Pomona Pitzer,
Cal Tech,
Rhodes,
Trinity College,
Trinity University
Tufts,
DePauw.
Some common denominators:
Students are in the top 10% of their high school classes with SAT's in the 1300 plus range. Every student is there for the academics.
Very small class size, like 12-18 students per class,
Professors in every class. No TA's. Every professor is well paid and accessible at most any time.
Because of the small class size, the student has to be in class every day. You don't get lost. You cannot get lost. If you are not in class, the professor knows it. Class participation is a part of most every grade
Academic requirements are rigid with the student and professor knowing what is required day to day, and the student being required to be prepared each and every class.
These are a few of the elements of an education at an elite DIII.

I think a lot of it is because many of the top D3 programs in the country are also some of the finest schools in the country, particularly when you are talking about liberal arts colleges, where the focus is on undergraduate teaching with small classes and close professor/student relationships. Then you add to that the lower time commitment of D3 baseball, which allows students more time to focus on academics. Those combinations are exactly why some students who could otherwise play D1 choose not to pursue D1 and play D3 instead.

Schools in the northeast that are good examples are the NESCAC schools like Trinity, Tufts, Williams, Amherst; Centennial like Johns Hopkins, Haverford, Franklin & Marshall, and schools such as TCNJ. Basically, most of the top LAC colleges in the nation would be D3 programs. The quality of the baseball programs varies, but the academics are excellent. There are many who feel you get a better undergraduate education at these smaller LAC's than at top universities, including the ivies, where the top teachers are in the graduate schools, not the undergraduate. There have been studies that show that professors at many of the top universities in the country send their kids in disproportionate numbers to these smaller schools in greater numbers than they do to the type of institutions they teach in themselves. Of course, there is a wide range of academic quality in D3's. But here in the northeast, where a lot of the discussion of D3 probably originates on this site, there is just a big number of really fine schools with good D3 programs.

In the Northwest you have George Fox (Oregon, current assit. coach at Oregon State Pat Bailey used to be head coach at George Fox, they have a new guy also great coach, Linfield is in that conference(scott Brosius former MLB player) coaches, Portland has Lewis and clark all great D3. george Fox won the D3 world series a few years ago. Great schools, great academics.

And I was going to add a lot of these private schools the classes are all 4units. so the students take 16 units a semester, and graduate in four years. the reason they can be 16 units is because they are small class size, and there is mandatory participation (lots of it, small group discussions)

quote:

If the D-3 is that much stronger academically, why do people prove their qualifications with their claim of being educated from well known, high profile (usually D-1) colleges.

The question and the premise is based on a generalization that most people consider reasonable. Yet, when one looks at the substance of what consistitutes the prevelence of D3 schools, it is a high level of academics. For the most part, D3 schools are smaller <3,000 students and as such the "masses" may not know them by name or reputation.

For the average American they know what the TV tell's them. So if Big U is on TV it must be good. Unfortunatly that is the world we live in.

The same is true relative to BB. If it is D1 it is clearly better, right? I would suggest that very few have people have ever been to any kind of game other than their local big time D1, national or regional level program.

I would suggest, the quality of a school is what your kid gets from the experience. The measure of a school can not be measured by any kind of rating rather it is the experience and the person that we as a society get from any given school. That being said, time will tell whether a school delivers, whether it is a "high academic" D3, or a well known public D1.

ILVBB let me confuse the discussion.

quote:

That being said, time will tell whether a school delivers, whether it is a "high academic" D3, or a well known public D1.

Are you saying this to perpetuate the perception that D-3's are academically on a higher level than a public D-1 and D-1s' reputation is just conjured up by the media?

quote:

The same is true relative to BB. If it is D1 it is clearly better, right? I would suggest that very few have people have ever been to any kind of game other than their local big time D1, national or regional level program

I have seen a very limited number of D-3 games and a few D-1 games. The number of games I have seen wouldn't begin to qualify me to comment on a comparison overall but rather on just the few teams I have seen. I will admit that I believe D-1 baseball is stronger than D-3 baseball based somewhat on those games I have seen. Is your comment meant to make me question my belief that D-1 baseball is better than D-3 baseball because my belief is unfounded. Sorry if I am making assumptions but it looks as if you're hinting at division equality in athletics ---- but --- D-3 superiority academically. Let me ask: If ALL D1 and D3's competed against each other athletically, what would the W-L indicate?

Not sure how you measure college academic accomplishments when those colleges are divided by the NCAA. ---- more difficult that establishing a W-L record in baseball.
Fungo

Perhaps it is b/c many D3 schools have a higher opinion of themselves than is reality?

Perhaps it is b/c the D3 athletic depts do not (in general) cause a financial drain on those schools that they are able to pour a greater percentage of money on academics.

Perhaps there are per capita just as many "good academic" and "bad academic" D3 schools are there are D1 schools.

Perhaps it is b/c a majority of D3 schools are private (thus "numbers driven")...and survive by choosing to keep their doors open by lax admission standards...or choose to attract students by virtue of a great academic reputation.

Just more food for thought.

JT, You should know this. Does setting the entrance bar higher (ACT SAT etc.) improve the academics of a college or does it just improve the "average" ACT, GPA, SAT, I.Q. the of the student body?

Fungo - I did not get the same read from IL VBB's comments that you were asking him about. He will probably respond, but I think the point he was making was actually that, whether it is academics or baseball, it is not safe to generalize. I would assume most poeple would recognize that most D1's would whoop most D3's collective butts in baseball, but, as has been discussed here in the past, there are top D3's who could and have competed with some D1 programs.

JT - I think when people are talking about choosing a D3 for academic reasons, they are talking about the stronger academic D3's, not D3's in general necessarily. As far as private D3's having lax admisssions standards, though, the schools that people are usually talking about when they refer to strong D3 academics have anything but lax admissions standards. The schools given as examples in posts above have some of the most stringent admissions standards in the country. Again, I think it is the segment of a total population that folks generally think about in terms of some of these discussions, and not the populations in total.

quote:

JT, You should know this. Does setting the entrance bar higher (ACT SAT etc.) improve the academics of a college or does it just improve the "average" ACT, GPA, SAT, I.Q. the of the student body?

I'm going to respond to this as well, as it is an interesting question and one that I have read about a lot recently related to my son's college search. One of the most commonly held points that I have seen is that the reason having a higher caliber of students (measured by grades, SAT's or whatever) raises academic standard is that professors can cover a higher level of material at a faster pace than they can if they have to slow down for students who are not able to comprehend material as quickly or thoroughly. That is why the Honors curriculums at large public schools are highly sought after by top students, for example, or why many students would choose to pay high tuition to attend a school that offers small classes, strong students and top notch teachers. This is a discussion that could go off in many directions with many different viewpoints, of course.

Casey, Thanks for the great input. One other question about your comment:

quote:

many students would choose to pay high tuition to attend a school that offers small classes, strong students and top notch teachers.

I wonder if colleges with the higher entrance requirements give out more academic aid per capita than a college with lower entrance requirements? For instance. A student with a 30 ACT would get substantial academic money at State U ---- would that same student get substantial academic money from Elite U or would they be considered an "average" student and have to pay full tuition??

Looking to the core of Fungo's question, the term DIII only has signficance in athletics. It does not refer to academics. Rather, the reference is the lack of scholarship aid for the student athletes.
If there was not a NCAA classification for athletics, there would we would not even talk about DIII vs DI, especially as it relates to academics.
As JT very properly points out, the term DIII does not equate to academics as there are stronger and weaker schools in academics at the DIII level, just as there are at the DI and DII level.
Even within schools, there are recognized stronger and weaker departments at DIII schools, DII and DI.
A strong comparison can be made between Rice and Trinity U(Tx.) There is a lot of information provided by those who do such things that supports the quality of education offered at each. Many of those describe how the academics and quality of education are similar. Rice did not offer s****r and you find Trinity has a nationally ranked DIII s****r program because it is the academic/athletic option for very good players, who might otherwise be at Rice.
With that said, you are not going to confuse baseball at Rice and Trinity. Both are very good but one is very good where scholarships are available and one is DIII.
While Trinity has players who could play for Rice, if they played 56. games, Trinity would be satisfied if they won 10. Rice probably would not be if Trinity won 10.
These schools offer very similar academics, top quality athletics, and are similar in size.
The classification of DI vs DIII is meaningful when you talk about them, but only on the
athletic field.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
Looking to the core of Fungo's question, the term DIII only has signficance in athletics. It does not refer to academics. Rather, the reference is the lack of scholarship aid for the student athletes.
If there was not a NCAA classification for athletics, there would we would not even talk about DIII vs DI, especially as it relates to academics.
As JT very properly points out, the term DIII does not equate to academics as there are stronger and weaker schools in academics at the DIII level, just as there are at the DI and DII level.
Even within schools, there are recognized stronger and weaker departments at DIII schools, DII and DI.
A strong comparison can be made between Rice and Trinity U(Tx.) There is a lot of information provided by those who do such things that supports the quality of education offered at each. Many of those describe how the academics and quality of education are similar. Rice did not offer s****r and you find Trinity has a nationally ranked DIII s****r program because it is the academic/athletic option for very good players, who might otherwise be at Rice.
With that said, you are not going to confuse baseball at Rice and Trinity. Both are very good but one is very good where scholarships are available and one is DIII.
While Trinity has players who could play for Rice, if they played 56. games, Trinity would be satisfied if they won 10. Rice probably would not be if Trinity won 10.
These schools offer very similar academics, top quality athletics, and are similar in size.
The classification of DI vs DIII is meaningful when you talk about them, but only on the
athletic field.

Perfectly stated! Remove the NCAA athletic classifaication then compare.

quote:

Originally posted by Fungo:
JT, You should know this. Does setting the entrance bar higher (ACT SAT etc.) improve the academics of a college or does it just improve the "average" ACT, GPA, SAT, I.Q. the of the student body?

Great question. As someone who has worked at both level of colleges...I think it does BOTH. Because the students coming in are of higher quality, the professors can crank up the intensity of the classes, without fear of numbers dropping (which in an enrollment driven school...will lead to pressure from the higher ups to increase retention).

casey...not ALL the D3's have lax standards...but some do...mainly b/c of financial issue.

Fungo...in terms of academic aid (or "discounting" the tuition)...this helps make D3 a least a little less expensive. However, discounting too much can lead to issues with the accrediting bodies. The school RANDOLPH COLLEGE (formerly known as Randolph Macon Women's College) went Co-ed and ran into accrediting issues b/c of the discounting tuition. In their case, it was not an academic issue, but more of a financial issue. Instead of relaxing standards, they voted to expand the college by going co-ed.

The challenge is that we are comparing two different groups of things that were grouped together using different criteria.

Imagine if we were to sort all of the vehicle at the San Francisco Airport parking lot. We might do a sort by color - so the Ford Mustang, the Chevy Pickup and the Honda Accord would all end up in a group of red cars. Or we might do a sort by acceleration - the Mustang would no longer be with the Chevy and the Honda but instead would be with the Porsche and the Corvette.

Well, athletic and academic levels are somewhat like color and acceleration. There are D3 and D1 schools that are excellent academically - and there are D3 schools and D1 schools that are far weaker academically. Schools like Trinity (Tx), Rice and Stanford happen to be both excellent academically and athletically. Schools like Pomona, Cal Tech, MIT, Harvard, Yale, and University of Chicago are all top notch academically and perhaps not as strong athletically.

D3 schools can have large endowments - which lead to large financial aid grants. I just visited Pomona with my daughter and so I happen to have information about their financial aid at my fingertips.

Pomona is "committed to both need-blind admissions and fully funded, need-based financial aid, the College reviews each applicant entirely on the basis of academic promise, then meets 100 percent of the demonstrated need of every student admitted."

They have $1.8B in the bank - in the top 50 endowments in the country. They are #6 in endowment per student.

08Son applied to D1, D2, and D3 schools - and got financial and merit aid packages from all three. Some packages were better than others - but it did not appear to be correlated to what level "D" they were at. There was some correlation to academic level of school - but even there, some schools simply have more money to give. (Those with large endowments are "fully funded" )

In terms of academic excellence once you are there, I firmly believe that there is a difference between schools at the very high end - but that you can get a great education at practically any university if you seek it out.

Probably the opposite is more where the difference lies - I think it would be very hard to get a bad education at a top academic school without flunking out but that there are places to hide and graduate without learning anything at bad schools.