Head Scratcher

.

Welcome aboard the HSBBW dswann!

Maybe this will help answer your question...

Thank you... Yes your probably right. It must be frustating for the kids who have made the sacrafices to excell in the classroom and on the field.

.

Yule get some answers dswann...hang in there with care!

Welcome to the HSBBW.
Good question. yes, have seen many blue chip players on the field not be blue chip in the classroom and still get really nice scholarships.

Lot has changed in the recruiting philosophy due to new rules, but I belive on the D1 level a coach will go with a winner on the field because of the academic support, but do know that the player still has to be eligible and accepted by admissions. Most schools want student athletes, not athlete students.

He may still get an offer, a real blue chipper high on the radar might never set foot on the college field, with hopes he will get drafted high but a good marketing tool for the program. That's the difference between football,basketball and baseball, you do not have to go to college to go pro.

There is no such thing as watered down course work, just easier degrees to pursue.

I'm certain your right regarding the pursuit of an easier degree to stay elegible. What I'm not certain about is why a coach would risk the limited amout of scholarships avaiable to a program on a player with a suspect academic history .

With respect to admissions, how does a player with say a 3.0 and weak SAT or ACT scores get a pass to programs like USC and Stanford. Especially with the amount of time a coach will require of the player for conditioning and practice.

I just don't see how the strong academic players make it, let alone the weak.

My son and I went to a junior day for a top 30 school that had much lower admissions standards for its baseball players than for other freshmen -- i.e., 200 to 300 points less than the average SAT score. (This probably was the case for other sports there, too.) The school had a state-of-the art study facility with many, many required study hall hours each week. Every athlete had to turn in his cell phone before entering study hall and didn't get it back until he left. The perimeter of the large study space was filled with about a dozen offices staffed by tutors who were at the athletes' beck and call every hour of study hall and who traveled with the team. Travel buses were equipped with study tables and desks and online notes were provided for classes that the athletes missed. Grade checks were done by the coaches each week and there were numerous other programs in place to help with academic accountability. Honestly, given all that academic support, I don't know how a mediocre student could help but make decent grades.

Excellent... It's starting to make a little more sense.

Does anyone here have such as son get on one of these teams with weak grades, I haven't heard of any? Don't be ashamed to admit Junior wasn't tops in his class, you all know about Pop up's son. From what I see on the large programs rosters, they don't need to recruit these guys, there are plenty of good student baseball players to chose from.

My son was never a stellar stuident in HS, but has done much better in college beacuse of all the academic help the schools have in place for athletes. If the player applies himself and takes advantage of the different programs, he has no excuse for not succeeding in the classroom.

Pfb that is true. The coaches at all colleges make students attend study halls especially if their marks are not good. One of the complaints about collegs players is that they get extra help not available to regular students. One college I heard about had 18 players get an F in 1 or more papers. Those guys bought forced mandatory study hall for 4 hours in the BB facility overseen by the coaching staff. I understand the good students were exempt. I am going to see if I can find out what happened after the 1st semester.
I know at my son's college study hall is not mandatory and I know he never attended. They usually only had a couple players that were at risk.

PF wasn't your son at Buffalo ?

My son was a good student however let’s just say he wasn’t someone that was going to be offered academic money.  We were told that if a player had a 3.0 GPA and an 1100 or better on his SAT’s they would be able to get a player admitted. I do know that some of the schools he looked at had an average of 1400 SAT as the minimum requirement for the general student body. Being an athlete certainly can/does help in the admittance process.

Most of the places we visited all had mandatory study groups for freshmen year. The following years a player can opt out of mandatory study hall if they are maintaining a certain GPA. Can't remember what the minimum GPA cut off was.

One high academic school told my son that the hardest part was getting admitted to a school. With all the academic support they offer the student athlete once they got on campus, they said you had to almost have to try to fail. (their words not mine)

.

quote:

Originally posted by dswann: I guess my questions would be 1. How does the University justify the signing.

Welcome!

Most 4 year schools are not either diploma factories, trade schools, or ruthlessly academically competitive.

For example, Many of the higher end CA UC's have claimed in print that they could fill their enrollments with nothing but 4.4 GPA's of a single ethnic group should they so choose...if they were going strictly off test scores and GPA. They choose not to. Why?

While admissions departments value academics they also understand the desire and need for the "college experience". While this may mean many things to many people, it may include music, art, sports, theater, alumni...things that may not be ruthlessly academic. The admissions departments actually look to fill a wide of perceived "univeristy needs", that may look like compromising standards to some, but they have a "Mix" they want to create.

Sports programs, and good ones are also "justified" as they increase university profile, create and foster school spirit/pride, and foster giving by wealthy alumni who want to be connected with a winner and have time, energy, $ to spend. A single suptstar at a high school can produce many millions for the school in ticket/product sales and "giving".

While it is controversial, athletes may fit into a school need other than 4.3 students. When you consider that many athletes get academic support (so should be likely to succeeed) and fill a niche...it is arguably understandable that scome schools bend for athletes. (Some don't as well)

44
.

One poster in another thread gave a breakdown on the students SATs at Harvard. The SATs were a wide range of scores and some were well below the perceived levels.
I know when my son was being recruited that an 800 SAT on the old scale was minimum and a 2.o on the 4.0 was accepted. It was up to the college and O44 is right. They try to create a wide diversity of students and it is not always about SATs and GPA. Maybe they know what many don't.

In my neck of the woods the local paper honors academic excellence by publishing the athletes GPA. To have your name published as well as your GPA, the minimum GPA is 3.0. The paper honors athletes once in the fall and once in the spring.

During the course of the year the local media will make note of exceptional athletes and the schools pursuing them. A number of athletes could be admitted on their academic merits, many would not. And without exception, quite a few are admitted because of their atheletic ability. My son would probably fall into that group. Infield08 response was awesome and knwoing that a program will actively be involed in his education will certainly help in future decisions. Frankly I was unaware that this level of support was available to athletes.

In college I had a room mate who was a math genius, but was a disaster in virtually every other subject. He graduated when he was ninteen, A masters at twenty and a Phd at twenty two. He recieved tremendous support from the University. Probably not a strectch for a large program to offer the same support to the prolific scorer, gifted running back or the kid who's throwing in the mid 90's. The admission concessions academically are probably a business decision. Will this kid get us a conference title, bowl game bid or maybe a national title. If the player with a litle support from a top school can earn degree in exchange for his efforts on the field. I'm good.

Bobblehead, does that mean my son has a chance to get into Harvard? I wonder how much their admission application fee is? I was under the impression they only took geniuses, and it helped if they were loaded.

quote:

For example, Many of the higher end CA UC's have claimed in print that they could fill their enrollments with nothing but 4.4 GPA's of a single ethnic group should they so choose...if they were going strictly off test scores and GPA. They choose not to. Why?

While admissions departments value academics they also understand the desire and need for the "college experience". While this may mean many things to many people, it may include music, art, sports, theater, alumni...things that may not be ruthlessly academic. The admissions departments actually look to fill a wide of perceived "univeristy needs", that may look like compromising standards to some, but they have a "Mix" they want to create.

These are all very good reasons why students are admitted as they are but I am pretty sure someone could come up with just as many counter-veiling (sp) reasons why it is not a good idea to lower academic requirements for athletes.

One interesting stat ESPN keeps hyping is the number of black D1 football coaches. We hear all the time how diversity is important for the University and how many of these institutions attempt to enforce this constraint on their admissions department. When the rubber meets the road however (e.g., hiring practices for football coaches) it would seem they have different standards. Given that there seems to be so many double-standards, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with athletes catching a break with their test scores.

As far as athletes getting special attention that the general student body does not receive, I don't have a problem with that either. During the season, many classes are missed and in general the time spent outside of class preparing for the sport is enormous. It only seems approriate imho that they make some accomodations for the student-athlete (e.g., tudors, study halls, etc).

No offense, but I detect a note of sour grapes in the original post.

There are many forms of special admissions. Some are affirmative action or "diversity" oriented, some are sports oriented, some may be arts oriented, some may be the children of rich donors/alumni.

If someone's special talents help them overcome shortcomings in other areas, I don't see the problem. It's no different from the kid who excels academically but has no outside interests; he too wants you to look only at his strengths and not his weaknesses. Or maybe you have a kid who is not the strongest baseball player who is bitter because someone with more ability, but lesser academics, is getting the leg up on him.

In the final analysis, it's their university and they'll run it as they see fit, not necessarily how any of us might want them to for our own selfish reasons.

Believe you me, they had better cut the mustard academically when they get there, though.

The Ivies and Stanford will not take a poor student no matter how good of a player they are. A great baseball player with a GPA of 3.0-3.5 on a 4.0 scale, and an SAT of around 1000-1200 on a 1600 scale is about as low as they would go. And that student had better have been challenging himself in HS with a tough coarse-load and/or many worthwhile extra-curriculars. These schools are still academics first, sports second.

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
No offense, but I detect a note of sour grapes in the original post.

There are many forms of special admissions. Some are affirmative action or "diversity" oriented, some are sports oriented, some may be arts oriented, some may be the children of rich donors/alumni.

If someone's special talents help them overcome shortcomings in other areas, I don't see the problem. It's no different from the kid who excels academically but has no outside interests; he too wants you to look only at his strengths and not his weaknesses. Or maybe you have a kid who is not the strongest baseball player who is bitter because someone with more ability, but lesser academics, is getting the leg up on him.

In the final analysis, it's their university and they'll run it as they see fit, not necessarily how any of us might want them to for our own selfish reasons.

Believe you me, they had better cut the mustard academically when they get there, though.

None taken.

With kids coming home for the holidays. I'm hearing of a few stories where really bright kids for whatever reason are struggling. Without playing a sport

At first it was a bit of a mystery,how players can handle the demands of school while playing a sport. Through the process. I can see how a player can succeed on both fronts. My may concern is to get the right fit for my son. With the bar not being set to high or low.

quote:

I'm hearing of a few stories where really bright kids for whatever reason are struggling. Without playing a sport

At first it was a bit of a mystery, how players can handle the demands of school while playing a sport. Through the process. I can see how a player can succeed on both fronts.

I know of quite a few top 10% high school students who struggled during their freshman year in college -- perhaps because they were enjoying their new-found freedom too much and didn't have Mom and Dad breathing down their neck. Quite a few of them actually did worse than mediocre student-athletes who enjoyed the academic support and accountability provided by their team.

I heard about one student who arrived as a college freshman with 30 credit hours already under his belt -- obviously a very smart guy -- but still managed to flunk 2 courses this fall. (Of course, it didn't help that he slept through many of his classes. )

I guess my point is, you can be an outstanding student who fails miserably when forced to manage your time without outside accountability, or you can be a mediocre student who succeeds in remarkable ways when there is academic structure in place.

Just remember the scholarship is not for 4 years but renewed each year at a time.
You don't get it done, you don't get the renewal.

The NCAA allows for a sliding scale, but each admissions office may have their own set of standards. I would imagine each situation is different.

quote:

Originally posted by Infield08:

quote:

I'm hearing of a few stories where really bright kids for whatever reason are struggling. Without playing a sport

At first it was a bit of a mystery, how players can handle the demands of school while playing a sport. Through the process. I can see how a player can succeed on both fronts.

I know of quite a few top 10% high school students who struggled during their freshman year in college -- perhaps because they were enjoying their new-found freedom too much and didn't have Mom and Dad breathing down their neck. Quite a few of them actually did worse than mediocre student-athletes who enjoyed the academic support and accountability provided by their team.

I heard about one student who arrived as a college freshman with 30 credit hours already under his belt -- obviously a very smart guy -- but still managed to flunk 2 courses this fall. (Of course, it didn't help that he slept through many of his classes. )

I guess my point is, you can be an outstanding student who fails miserably when forced to manage your time without outside accountability, or you can be a mediocre student who succeeds in remarkable ways when there is academic structure in place.

These are all good points (which I agree) but it is hard to generalize or prove the point with anecdotal evidence i.e., I know an athlete who did good and a good student who did bad, etc.

In general and imho, good students in high school are usually the good students in college. We can always find exceptions to every rule.

In my limited experience with college and sports however, I have found that being on the baseball team has helped my son in class for at least the reasons already stated in this thread. For starters, there is huge motivation to remain eligible. Moreover, by forcing these kids to attend study halls and watching over them, these coaches act as surrogate parents making sure things get done! What more could a parent ask for!

Pop Up there may be a chance.

Student diversity is considered good for everyone and in fact as I recall Harvard was mandated to bring in an academically diverse group of students and even had a lot of monjey for those who couldn't afford the cost. I think most universitties understand that marks do not tell the whole story. I am not sure what criteria they use but I was surprised at the low SATs and GPAs. If you are an academic geneous they as a grad student, treat you better than a prized football player. I have a friend who was friend who has been flow to Harvard , Yale and a couple other top colleges. He was wined and dined plus a huge academic offer from each. He is a grad student and they will go after the grad guys in abig way.

I know at my son's college there is no break for an athlete. The BB program puts on the study hall. You miss a class you miss it. My son was upset with the amount of classes he missed last year. This year he loaded the hardest classes in the fall semester and tried to avoid Fri classes.
When I visited the college in his soph year there were players who actually missed games because they couldn't miss a class. I saw some running to the locker room to try and get into the 2nd game of a DH series.
The breaks they got were from the coach if you needed it.

What I found during my experimental years in HS was that the lonliest girls were the pretty ones. Everyone was afraid to ask them out. You won't know until you try.

I agree with CD, most who do not do well do so because of new found freedom and poor time management, not because the do not understand the subject material.
My son's HC will only allow you out of study hall (required mandatory at his school first semester) if he feels that you deserve to be out. That's for everyone. Most work really hard so they can get out and never put back in, though many do return for the quiet and tutoring.
I am not so sure of the IVY league thing, you MUST be accepted before you have a place on the team. Yes, you can get by with lower requirements for sports.
Take a look at the SAT requirements at those schools, that is the level they learn at, if a 1600 SAT (example) is required, why would you think your 800 SAT student would have success. Why would you set your son up to possibly fail in the classroom?
My son's friend went to Duke, 4.5 GPA and a 1250 SAT years ago, and he said he had no clue half the time what they were teaching.

Send your son off to where he will have success in the classroom as well as on the field.
JMO.

I saw top academic kids in HS and college kill themselves because they thought they blew exams. I never stressed academic achievement but then I didn't have to. I tried to make sure my kids were grounded in sports and academics. One kid that hung himself because he thought he failed got thye highest mark in his class. That was so sad and a real tragjedy for his family. We stress our kids and ourselves out for what ? Nothing bothers my son even when he fails at something. Last season was a testamony to that. He was frustrated because no one could figure out what he was doing wrong.

quote:

I am not so sure of the IVY league thing, you MUST be accepted before you have a place on the team. Yes, you can get by with lower requirements for sports.

Take a look at the SAT requirements at those schools, that is the level they learn at, if a 1600 SAT (example) is required, why would you think your 800 SAT student would have success. Why would you set your son up to possibly fail in the classroom?

My son's friend went to Duke, 4.5 GPA and a 1250 SAT years ago, and he said he had no clue half the time what they were teaching.

Send your son off to where he will have success in the classroom as well as on the field.

Good points, TPM.

I was educated in public school, where rote learning was emphasized, and because I was in the top 5% of my class was admitted a high-academic D3, where I just about fell flat on my face because the emphasis was on critical thinking, symbolism, etc., and I had not been trained to think that way. I studied my buns off and struggled to make B's and C's, then after having a bad car accident midway through my sophomore year transferred to a more mainstream university, where I studied half as much and made the dean's list every semester.

While high academics are laudable, they are certainly not for everyone. I believe it's important that our children be encouraged to not bite off more than they can chew when they are choosing which college to attend. Otherwise, they may end up barely treading water -- and believe me, it's not a fun place to be.

Thank you all for your thoughts .... What a great forum. How does the saying go "We plan and God laughs"

Good post infield08.
GPA and test scores both have merit, and tells differnt things about each student.
As we all know SAT/ACT prep courses teach you how to figure out answers, not how to do the problems. That's the whole idea, not what you know, but how you go about figuring out the answer.
If you do not have that skill, you won't make it in the more prestigious institutions.
My son was recruited to some of the IVY league schools, good student, but no way would he have done well in that enviroment. While a very good student, his SAT/ACT reflected that he just didn't think the way a Harvard or Brown student did.

TPM, you have a valid point, my son's ex teammate got like an 1800 SAT score if I recall, almost double Pop up's son. No way would he go to an Ivy League school even if they accepted him.

1800 on the SAT means they are counting 3 parts and the max. would be 2400. That is similar to a 1200 on the two part test. Those numbers are probably on the lowest side of what they would even consider at an Ivie. You would have to have great baseball skill and have some other positive attributes.

I agree that being on the very low end of the acceptance scale could spell trouble and hardship during college. You have to find the fit that makes college a challenge, but not so much that it isn't a positive experience.

Traditional thinking would have your kid prep and re-take ACT's and SAT's, until he qualified for the best school out there.I think is setting him up for a big fall.

To be the big fish in the academic pond and enjoy the experience,play some bb, graduate and look towards a graduate program after some work experience. Sounds pretty good.

I stand corrected, the Harvard kid got 2100 on the 3 part SAT.