NCAA drastically bumps up academic standards...but did they do it the right way?

[Formaldehyde]

According to BGSU's website, the 25th-75th percentile for ACT scores are 19-24. For Ohio State, it's a 26-30.

That isn't a slight difference. The top 25% of all students at BGSU would be fringe candidates at OSU-Columbus. Given the fact that OSU is the size of a small city, I'm sure there are hundreds of students, if not thousands, who have sub 23 ACTs, especially since the university is open enrollment for anybody who spends 3 quarters at a branch campus...but out of 50K, that shouldn't move the needle that much.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the NCAA and min. standards though.

Only, again, it isn't because OSU is such a great undergraduate college by comparison. It isn't. It is because they have a far greater demand to get in largely due to their reputation in sports.

Personally, I'd much rather go to any college where many of the classes don't look like this:



YMMV.

 

[madviking]

Just because the NCAA says you can play for Virgina doesn't mean Virgina has to let you major in engineering.

Awww thanks for the shout out, dt!

I think since this only applies to DI (from what I've seen) there could be a flight to the lesser programs. But those schools probably have less athletic funding to begin with... so the situation seems pretty chaotic.

But if schools are already setting high standards, and programs like Stanford, UCB, Michigan, and UVA can field competent to great teams despite their presumably high academic standards, I don't feel this is as crippling as the numbers in the OP suggest. The whatever percent of people who are going to be effected are likely to be mainly role players, of which they are a dime a dozen; there's an equally skilled 2.3 backup left tackle for any 2.0 backup left tackle. The big name players will probably just choose something easier to major in (Terrelle Pryor's major at Ohio St was, according to my sources, "exploration") since they are going to college as a means to go into the professional leagues.

 

[downtown]

Only, again, it isn't because OSU is such a great undergraduate college by comparison. It isn't. It is because they have a far greater demand to get in largely due to their reputation in sports.
.

Well, what metrics would you use to determine how good a undergraduate university is, if you're going to ignore selectivity, and academic bankground of students?

Yes, OSU has some huge lecture halls. You're going to find them at any school with more than 30,000 people. They aren't used for classes above the 200 level though...there aren't nearly enough huge halls. Even in my popular major that didn't require any lab equipment (Political Science), I never had a 300 or above level class with more than 40 people.

Having large class sizes doesn't make a school bad. It means it's big. Wisconsin and Texas have the same huge classes too...are they only better than Texas State and UW-Whitewater because of football?

 

[Verarde]

I agree with Formaldehyde. I would prefer a smaller school, with smaller class sizes. It would allow -me to get more quality attention from my professors, IMO.

 

[say1988]

It depends on the course and how it is structured.

First and second year history courses at my school had large (150-200 student) lectures but then we had smaller (30-40 student) tutorials where we went through readings and had discussions.
I think that is a great way to structure the courses to have efficiency and quality.

Same with the low level science courses, large lectures supported by small labs.

If you are interested in the subject I never found smaller lectures that much better for a relationship with the professors especially when most easily available for one on one discussions (and those that aren't usually couldn't give a damn about their students, just there for a paycheck or for research and only teaching out of necessity).

 

[uppi]

200 students is not so bad. My university has lecture halls with place for over 1000 students.

 

[say1988]

Yeah, my school is relative small, the largest classroom is about 250-300 seats. But the biggest point is that there are ways to compensate for a large lecture, such as smaller tutorials and availability of profs and/or TAs outside of class time.
Yes, it would be preferable to have everything done in a small class format, but in may cases that just isn't economically feasible.

 

[madviking]

All of my courses are 40-70 people since I skipped a lot of general requirements. They're fine.

 

[downtown]

If you want smaller classes, that's fine. In the US, you have plenty of choice between large research universities that may have larger class sizes, but larger course offerings and more distinguished faculty...or a smaller school that allows for a more intimate relationship with your instructors. Thats your call.

Being a small school doesn't make you "better". Forma just has this weird thing against Ohio State.

 

[madviking]

Behold, Julius Peppers' UNC transcript.

 

[Zelig]

I am interviewing one of the leading US professors of urban education on the NCAA later this week. If you have any questions you'd like me to ask, just lemme know.

I don't even know what this means.

Well, what metrics would you use to determine how good a undergraduate university is, if you're going to ignore selectivity, and academic bankground of students?

Rhodes Scholars per capita or undergrad research grants per capita both seem pretty good.

 

[downtown]

Madviking-what's crazy is that the NCAA didn't even pick up that stuff during their first investigation. That transcript was posted on an NC State fan message board, and then authenticated. I think another UNC investigation is going on now, and they're going to be in a LOT of trouble, especially given their reputation.

I don't even know what this means.

She's an authority on urban school research (schools in cities or schools that service primarily minority populations have different needs and challenges) and has published a book on critical race theory.

Rhodes Scholars per capita or undergrad research grants per capita both seem pretty good.

I'm not sure if this is easily tracked anywhere, although I know that the undergrad grants are part of some popular ranking formulas (not the US news one).

Some quick googling shows that a few completely random schools get Rhodes winners every year...ivy, ivy, ivy stanford, ivy, Montana state, ivy, etc

 

[madviking]

@dt: NCAA has a relatively large queue of ongoing investigations, and one of them is into the UNC program.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

Behold, Julius Peppers' UNC transcript.

Spoiler :

Isn't this nothing more than the result of the NFL and student athletes successfully relegating FBS football into the NFL farm system?

 

[madviking]

Isn't this nothing more than the result of the NFL and student athletes successfully relegating FBS football into the NFL farm system?

Yes, which is something the NCAA seems to stop according to the OP. Now that being said, UNC is under investigation for a whole ton of problems, not just Peppers in particular.