• 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!

WFU academic standards? Too tough to be competitive?

It's not the standards, it's the infrastructure. Using the Football Physics class as an example, I assume it is one class offered in one time slot. Any scheduling conflicts means that a student has to take another, presumably harder, class. Multiply that scenario by roughly half the football team every semester, and all of a sudden Wake becomes "harder" than Duke, Standford, Northwestern and the rest. Those schools have at least double the student population and the infrastructure to better hide 80+ football players.

Not saying that we have to go the UNC create-a-bogus department for athletes, but it's the limited class schedule not the standards that make athletics more difficult at Wake.
 
deaconhoops said:
It's not the standards, it's the infrastructure. Using the Football Physics class as an example, I assume it is one class offered in one time slot. Any scheduling conflicts means that a student has to take another, presumably harder, class. Multiply that scenario by roughly half the football team every semester, and all of a sudden Wake becomes "harder" than Duke, Standford, Northwestern and the rest. Those schools have at least double the student population and the infrastructure to better hide 80+ football players.

Not saying that we have to go the UNC create-a-bogus department for athletes, but it's the limited class schedule not the standards that make athletics more difficult at Wake.
Click to expand...

They have 8 semesters (sometimes 10, maybe even 14 if we count one summer session for four years) to complete physics. If they can't take it one semester they don't have to take a "harder" class. Apparently the Communications department offers PLENTY of classes for athletes to complete their degrees.

And, yes, there are little classes hidden here and there for athletes.
 
Don't know if this still holds true or not. Back in the mid '80's when I was roaming Wake's hallowed halls and my buddies from my NJ HS were at dook, it was said that it was tougher to get admitted to dook but more difficult to actually stay in school at Wake: "WFU"- We Flunk U out. :eek:

My frosh roommate in Kitchin was the Thomasville HS valedictorian and he flunked out after our soph year.
 
Nicknamed Football Physics. PHY 110 is really, really easy, especially if you have a mandatory study hall, it'd be hard to not get at least a B.
Click to expand...

AIR, that class was also known as 'Rocks and Stars 110', correct ?

Last Summer here someone posted a link to some recruiting net site having a posted message from a Duke assistant coach stating that an 850 SAT with a C+ HS average was their minimum requirements. A WAKE entry by an assistant stated we had a 900 SAT with a C+ HS average minimum.
 
HONDO2 said:
Last Summer here someone posted a link to some recruiting net site having a posted message from a Duke assistant coach stating that an 850 SAT with a C+ HS average was their minimum requirements. A WAKE entry by an assistant stated we had a 900 SAT with a C+ HS average minimum.
Click to expand...

Well then, I demand a US News recount:

10 dook
23 Wake
 
There is no problem with academic standards that could not be solved if the administration/AD wanted to solve it. More tutoring and support, some creative class scheduling to help athletes get the classes they need around practices etc., more summer school offerings, add one or two professors/instructors (similar to the Physics 110 story) in a few departments that are apparently attractive to athletes like Comms, Health and Sports Science, Marketing, and Sociology. All it takes is money and a willingness to realize that athletes ARE different from the rest of the population because of the demands put on their time by practice and game travel. They should be accommodated to a reasonable extent given the recognition and income they bring to the university. You can do all of that without devaluing a WFU degree or creating a fake Swahili department.

I took Physics 110 back in the 90s. The guy came in the first day - he was a PHD but looked like he was about 12 - and proceeded to start a lecture on how the metric system worked. Jackpot! That class plus Astronomy got me through Wake without having to set foot in a math class.
 
With some of the bigger private schools, its a lot easier to funnel athletes through large lectures with 50+ students then it is to do in a class of 20 at Wake. I think I had one lecture style class at Wake and maybe one other that was larger than 25.
 
Deacon923 said:
There is no problem with academic standards that could not be solved if the administration/AD wanted to solve it. More tutoring and support, some creative class scheduling to help athletes get the classes they need around practices etc., more summer school offerings, add one or two professors/instructors (similar to the Physics 110 story) in a few departments that are apparently attractive to athletes like Comms, Health and Sports Science, Marketing, and Sociology. All it takes is money and a willingness to realize that athletes ARE different from the rest of the population because of the demands put on their time by practice and game travel. They should be accommodated to a reasonable extent given the recognition and income they bring to the university. You can do all of that without devaluing a WFU degree or creating a fake Swahili department.

I took Physics 110 back in the 90s. The guy came in the first day - he was a PHD but looked like he was about 12 - and proceeded to start a lecture on how the metric system worked. Jackpot! That class plus Astronomy got me through Wake without having to set foot in a math class.
Click to expand...

You can lead a horse to water. . . .
 
Deacon923 said:
There is no problem with academic standards that could not be solved if the administration/AD wanted to solve it. More tutoring and support, some creative class scheduling to help athletes get the classes they need around practices etc., more summer school offerings, add one or two professors/instructors (similar to the Physics 110 story) in a few departments that are apparently attractive to athletes like Comms, Health and Sports Science, Marketing, and Sociology. All it takes is money and a willingness to realize that athletes ARE different from the rest of the population because of the demands put on their time by practice and game travel. They should be accommodated to a reasonable extent given the recognition and income they bring to the university. You can do all of that without devaluing a WFU degree or creating a fake Swahili department.

I took Physics 110 back in the 90s. The guy came in the first day - he was a PHD but looked like he was about 12 - and proceeded to start a lecture on how the metric system worked. Jackpot! That class plus Astronomy got me through Wake without having to set foot in a math class.
Click to expand...

Does Marketing still require Accounting 1 and 2? Used to weed out quite a few regular students, much less athletes looking for something not as challenging. Back in the late '80's it was Communications and Sociology for most of the athletes. Too much anatomy in health and sports science.
 
Comm had more basketball players when I was in school, most of the football players were sociology
 
LOL at Wake not having programs designed for athletes. You guess can't be that naive...

And if you want to make the argument that Wake is too academically strenuous to compete than stop stealing money from your fanbase and the rest of the ACC, and move down to the SoCon or CAA or something.
 
When George Welsh went to Virginia he required 3 concessions from the administration:
1-drop the language requirement for admission.
2-General Studies major be started.
3-Unlimited exceptions for admission.
He told school he would keep players in line or they could be sent home.

Wake can certainly comply with 1 and 2 of that list.
 
BillBrasky said:
LOL at Wake not having programs designed for athletes. You guess can't be that naive...

And if you want to make the argument that Wake is too academically strenuous to compete than stop stealing money from your fanbase and the rest of the ACC, and move down to the SoCon or CAA or something.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is arguing that there are NO programs designed/favorable to athletes, just that there might not be enough and they might need to be managed better.

Agree with the second paragraph. Either compete or GTFO.
 
I don't think WFU is too academically strenuous to allow us to be competitive, but the admissions standards for athletes are higher than at other schools (not NCAA rules, obviously, just Wake's own personal rules). That doesn't mean we can't be competitive (we have been competitive), but it is one of a number of factors that makes it more difficult to recruit a kid to Wake. You can say that's LOWF, but if you don't acknowledge we have significant recruiting challenges, you've just got your head in the sand.

Look at some of the schools mentioned in this thread: Notre Dame, USC, Miami - all have a billion times more football tradition than Wake has. Not to mention, even though they may be "small private schools" the undergrad enrollment at Stanford is 60% higher than at Wake. Miami is twice our size. Vandy is much closer to us, and while they're pretty good right now, there's no evidence they will have sustained success.

Here are overall records of some of the schools mentioned in this thread from 2003-2012 seasons (10 year span):

Northwestern: 69-57
Stanford: 64-56
Wake: 60-63
Cuse: 47-74
Vandy: 44-77

We're actually holding our own with these "competitor" schools that have similar limited tradition and history of success.

Do I want to be better? Absolutely. But to not acknowledge that there are legitimate challenges to that progress or that we haven't made strides is ridiculous.
 
Good post matt....

What's your take on Rice the past 2 years....another Vandy/Duke come lately ?

I recall Tulane making a splash a few seasons ago with one of the Bowdens....he left and they faded.
 
I think the reason people are upset is because we've shown in the past that academics don't cripple our athletic programs. Stanford may be 64-56 in the last 10 years, but they've won double-digit games each of the last four seasons. Vandy is going to their third straight bowl game. Northwestern won ten games last year and has gone bowling in five of the last six seasons. Syracuse is a legit Top 10 team in basketball every year.

I think we all know Wake has its limitations, but the athletic department has been hammering the culture and academics issues hard every since we started losing. I'm sure we talked about how great it was to go to the Orange Bowl or play a few bball games as the #1 team in the country while having high academic standards, but we've greatly lagged behind a lot of tough academic schools the past 5 years or so in both major sports.

Also, I have a feeling 90% (at least) of Top 100 kids who qualify for other schools could qualify at Wake. Am I certain about that? Of course not. But if a certain current D-league player could get into Wake a few years ago, I'm sure we can get just about anyone in if they want to come here. Even if that standard was tightened after Dino was fired and Bz was brought in to clean things up (according to RW), I would still stick by that 90% number. No one wants to come here, though, and now we're starting to use those excuses a lot more often since it's become convenient and can't actually be challenged very easily.
 
Last edited:
Valedictorians flunk out of Wake. I bet most of us hit a brick wall our first semester. The idea that bringing in a few more "exceptions" will hurt the university is ludicrous. Maybe that's just more kids who will genuinely benefit from the Wake experience as opposed to rich kids from the best high schools getting another rubber stamp through life.
 
BillBrasky said:
LOL at Wake not having programs designed for athletes. You guess can't be that naive...

And if you want to make the argument that Wake is too academically strenuous to compete than stop stealing money from your fanbase and the rest of the ACC, and move down to the SoCon or CAA or something.
Click to expand...

It's not naivete, Brasky, it is reality. Sure there are majors at Wake that are pretty easy. But, there is simply no doubt that it is much, much harder to "hide" poor students at Wake Forest than it is at larger schools - especially at much larger, publice universities. There are lots of reasons, all of which have been discussed here ad nauseum.

It is also pretty well known that Wake is even harder than it might appear - that is, for whatever reason, the culture among professors and in the school in general, is not very forgiving from an academic standpoint. As someone pointed out, it has pretty much always been accepted among students and others 'in the know' that it is harder to get into Duke but harder to stay at Wake. That is one of those things that is hard to prove or quantify. Unless things have changed over the past few years, grade inflation has always managed to pass Wake Forest by. Thus we have nicknames like "Work Forest" and "We Flunk U". Those that did not attend Wake Forest tend to scoff at these types of characterizations - but they are real. And, to the extent athletes become aware of them, it likely makes it harder to recruit them. When choosing between two schools, what athlete wants to choose the one that is known to require a lot more work and simply be harder to stay eligible?

Given all that, there still is no reason we can't be competitive - there are plenty of positives about Wake Forest that help in recruiting as well. But, to try and say that the academic rigor of the University is not at least a factor in recruiting is to be disingenuous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top