• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

New Academic Standards?

wakephan09 said:
The argument that I have heard -- though I don't necessarily agree with it -- is that Hatch has systematically reduced the number of permissible exceptions. That is why you'll hear people talk about the importance of the year 2006 in regard to changes in academic standards for athletics.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's the answer I was looking for when I started the thread, "standards" was just the wrong terminology I guess. Has there been any verification to that rumor?
 
Caturdayredux said:
This is exactly why college athletics are a farce. Does anyone really think an athlete who barely qualified is going to contribute anything worthwhile in the classroom at a place like Wake, Duke, Stanford, ND, Vandy, etc.? You have to be monumentally stupid to barely qualify. Forcing these kids to go to class benefits no one.
Click to expand...

this is such a shallow, harmful opinion about academics.
 
part of a liber arts education is gaining insight from all walks of life. you don't need to be a noble chemist to offer a different insight in to a sociological, philosophical, etc. discussion. to suggest that only the "best and brightest" (aka rich kids with sat tutors and private educations) have something to offer in a liberal arts curriculum leads to a very vapid education.
 
wakephan09 said:
The argument that I have heard -- though I don't necessarily agree with it -- is that Hatch has systematically reduced the number of permissible exceptions. That is why you'll hear people talk about the importance of the year 2006 in regard to changes in academic standards for athletics.
Click to expand...

That would seem to confirm some of the things that Grobe intimated.
 
deacphan said:
part of a liber arts education is gaining insight from all walks of life. you don't need to be a noble chemist to offer a different insight in to a sociological, philosophical, etc. discussion. to suggest that only the "best and brightest" (aka rich kids with sat tutors and private educations) have something to offer in a liberal arts curriculum leads to a very vapid education.
Click to expand...

But realistically, we know how much top athletes usually contribute in class.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Had a bunch of athletes in various classes while at Wake. Have to disagree with you here.
Click to expand...

We all went to class with athletes, Wake is too small to have not, and regarding their class input its a mixed bag, some athletes fit right in academically, and some not so much *cough cough Corben Bone *cough cough
 
Hell, looking back I sometimes wonder how much I added in terms of open discussion. I was much more of a go to class, get my work done, get out with a B type student. If the athletes are able to (with the assistance of academic support) do roughly the same, I don't see any problem with it. Having them on campus adds a lot outside of participating in classroom discussion. It's mutually beneficial.
 
bmoneydeac said:
Hell, looking back I sometimes wonder how much I added in terms of open discussion. I was much more of a go to class, get my work done, get out with a B type student. If the athletes are able to (with the assistance of academic support) do roughly the same, I don't see any problem with it. Having them on campus adds a lot outside of participating in classroom discussion. It's mutually beneficial.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think the "contributing to the class" stuff is being overrated here. 90% of what I learned was from the professors. Yeah there were crappy group projects and some good discussions here and there, but the wisdom of fellow 20 year olds wasn't really a big part of my education. I'm sure it depends a bit on the major though.
 
wakephan09 said:
That is not what an "exception" is, though. Many, if not most, athletes would not be admitted to Wake normally.
Click to expand...

Yea, it's my understanding that you're essentially dealing with 3-4 ranges or sets of "standards" here:
1) What Wake requires from "normal," non-athlete applicants to gain admission (e.g., KidA23);
2) What Wake requires from applicants who, upon admission, will be granted a full athletic scholarship (e.g., Shelton Mitchell);
3) What the NCAA requires in order to permit a member institution to grant an athletic scholarships to someone in bucket (2); and
4) Some unknown, impossible-to-confirm standard that exists between (2) and (3), which Hatch has made available to a limited number of applicants who satisfy (3), but aren't quite up to (2).

My understanding is that (4) has changed in one of two ways (if not both) since Hatch took over: the substantive and numerical thresholds for (4) are higher than they used to be (i.e., closer to (2)); or Wake coaches simply don't get as many "chances" to use (4) on an applicant as they used to.
 
bobknightfan said:
Maybe Wake Forest should get a corporate sponsor for the basketball team to help with the costs. Since we are located in Winston-Salem, we could be the "Krispy Kreme Wake Forest Deacons".

Seriously, since you seem to have no problem with lowering standards to win basketball games, let me ask you a question? How far would you be willing to bend over? We've talked about lower academic standards. What about criminal records? If a 4 or 5-star recruit was a felon, is he still OK to play basketball at WF? I guess what I'm asking is there any point in your mind at which integrity outweighs winning basketball games? Just wondering.....
Click to expand...

Um, all big time college programs have myriad corporate sponsorships, including Wake and Indiana.
 
stanley arnoux is one of the three or four brightest kids i met at wake

it doesn't do any good to call out smart athletes, but there are plenty of them, and plenty of dumb ones too

it's just far easier for a dumb athlete to get in than a dumb non-athlete
 
bobknightfan said:
Maybe Wake Forest should get a corporate sponsor for the basketball team to help with the costs. Since we are located in Winston-Salem, we could be the "Krispy Kreme Wake Forest Deacons".

Seriously, since you seem to have no problem with lowering standards to win basketball games, let me ask you a question? How far would you be willing to bend over? We've talked about lower academic standards. What about criminal records? If a 4 or 5-star recruit was a felon, is he still OK to play basketball at WF? I guess what I'm asking is there any point in your mind at which integrity outweighs winning basketball games? Just wondering.....
Click to expand...

Mike Helms was as dumb as a piece of furniture. But he had a sweet stroke. Let's not pretend exceptions haven't been made at Wake Forest for decades. But in Mike's defense, he did wait until after getting into Wake to start on that felony conviction.
 
TownieDeac said:
stanley arnoux is one of the three or four brightest kids i met at wake

it doesn't do any good to call out smart athletes, but there are plenty of them, and plenty of dumb ones too

it's just far easier for a dumb athlete to get in than a dumb non-athlete
Click to expand...

Who was the semi-recent Wake FB player who graduated early pre-med and went to Wake Med on full scholarship? I think he was a Fresh Deac
 
bfk, you can't be on your high horse. The gentleman brought a few guys in who were as pure as the driven snow.
 
The law school admitted a convicted felon the class after mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top