Football and basketball are about the money, not the academics. If you let players enter the NFL and NBA draft right out of high school, I have no problem with this.
NCAA drastically bumps up academic standards...but did they do it the right way?
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
Are you serious? A pre-med major has to take multiple organic chemistry classes, its not like its a walk in the park. It's true, there aren't a ton of chem or engineering majors on conference all-academics lists...but I don't think you will find very many engineers who work 40 hours a week and go to class as well.
If you insist on being so pedantic, then fine. Graham Hatch, a starting guard for Wichita State, made the Academic All American team in 2011 with a 3.73 GPA in CHEMISTRY.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
"Are you serious?" A pre-med major consists of taking a number of fairly low level undergraduate courses to prepare you for medical school. A chemistry major requires far more in depth courses in that field as well as far more high-level math classes including calculus.
It isn't "pedantic" at all given that you can apparently only come up with one person who has done so in recent history. And he was an academic all-American to boot. I'm also guessing he will never play in the NBA.
Let's face facts. Most top ranked college basketball players have majors in fields like phys ed or communications and frequently don't graduate. They would be much better off not playing sports at all so they could spend the necessary time doing what they should be doing.
It isn't "pedantic" at all given that you can apparently only come up with one person who has done so in recent history. And he was an academic all-American to boot. I'm also guessing he will never play in the NBA.
Let's face facts. Most top ranked college basketball players have majors in fields like phys ed or communications and frequently don't graduate. They would be much better off not playing sports at all so they could spend the necessary time doing what they should be doing.
I can't speak for the curriculum anywhere else. I dated an OSU pre-med all throughout college, and spent many a friday night prepping her for OCHEM 400s. It is a complicated major.
There are over 320 division 1 schools, each with 10-12 players on basketball scholarship. Of those thousands of thousands of student athletes, I'm sure you can find more than one chemistry major, and hundreds who are in fairly demanding programs. I'm only paid to write about one of those colleges. I'm not digging through the rest.
There are over 320 division 1 schools, each with 10-12 players on basketball scholarship. Of those thousands of thousands of student athletes, I'm sure you can find more than one chemistry major, and hundreds who are in fairly demanding programs. I'm only paid to write about one of those colleges. I'm not digging through the rest.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I think a 3.0 GPA is a better standard, and fairer to student athletes.
I also think a larger problem is that college is the main way to get into the pro leagues. There should be more alternative "ins" to get to the pros. If that were the cases some problems with student athletics would decrease, I predict.
I also think a larger problem is that college is the main way to get into the pro leagues. There should be more alternative "ins" to get to the pros. If that were the cases some problems with student athletics would decrease, I predict.
I think, unquestionably, the way the NCAA governs non-revenue sports is one of their biggest problems. I've interviewed several Big Ten wrestlers about this and got similar responses. I've spent a lot of time over the last two months trying to understand what counts as a partial scholarship and which restrictions go where, and I can't figure it out yet.
Would people feel the same way about an exceptional musician? Would you keep an ace musician out of your school because their english marks were bad? What about a debater?
It is worth nothing that 1) member schools are allowed to set higher standards (and many do), and individual colleges within a school can also set different standards. Just because the NCAA says you can play for Virgina doesn't mean Virgina has to let you major in engineering.
Maybe? I think the pool of legitimate "one and done" athletes is very very small, maybe a dozen or so a year. I think it is reasonable to expect them to make a jump from 2.0 to 2.3, since the benefits of being eligible are so high. Maybe you're right though.
This is really only the issue with the NFL. Going directly the pros isn't an option even if it was allowed...the gap between HS and Professional is too great, both physically (Ray Lewis would murder a 18 year old) and tactically.
Baseball and Basketball prospects have perfectly legitimate alternative methods of getting to the NBA. They can declare for the NBA D-League, where they might make 25-30,000. They can also play overseas, where they could make a lot more money but wouldn't play as often. The college basketball game is more aligned, tactically, than EuroBasket or the D-League, but if students want to get paid right away, they are more than welcome to ply their craft there.
If the NCAA excludes enough players, the NFL could do its own minor league.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Good point, although I wonder if the NCAA worries about revenue loss if the entertainment choices were: a nearly professional football league, professional football, and the NCAA. But it'd need actual endorsement from the NFL I think. Semi-pro football rarely feeds talent to the NFL. Probably nothing would change without NFL endorsement, and probably that would never happen.
The NFL is counting on the NCAA as its developmental league. If the NCAA decides to exclude enough talent, the NFL will have to do something.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I think the owners would agree with that. It would decrease player walkouts from negotiations if a lot of potential scabs are available.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
My answer wasnt serious DT, but was being offered to illustrate how bad Forms suggestion actually was.
Or perhaps the answer is he doesnt know.
I was actually pre-med my first year at University of Arkansas, and the track involved a lot more than just 'low-level undergrad courses'. Its certainly not some liberal arts major.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Did the curriculum involve calculus, higher-level math, or senior-level chemistry courses?
wilycoyote
King
Why would you need calculus for chemistry? (I am not claiming you are wrong, I just don't understand it.) I guess there was that one day when we learned about exponential decay and how it related to the half-life of a radioactive element, but is there more? I can see differential equations being necessary, though.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
You can't study differential equations without first learning calculus.
And as far as the importance of calculus in chemistry is concerned, there are numerous articles on the internet about just that.
Pre-med is very much a "soft science" major because it lacks much of the depth of other majors. It is virtually useless as a major except that many people think they have a better shot at getting into med school due to being about to keep up a higher GPA than they otherwise would. And if they do, whatever they learned in pre-med is quickly eclipsed by the medicine courses. They would typically be much better off getting a BS in biology, chemistry, or even physics.
And as far as the importance of calculus in chemistry is concerned, there are numerous articles on the internet about just that.
Pre-med is very much a "soft science" major because it lacks much of the depth of other majors. It is virtually useless as a major except that many people think they have a better shot at getting into med school due to being about to keep up a higher GPA than they otherwise would. And if they do, whatever they learned in pre-med is quickly eclipsed by the medicine courses. They would typically be much better off getting a BS in biology, chemistry, or even physics.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Here is an example of a pre-med curriculum I found from University of Louisville (just the first one I found googling 'pre-med curriculum'). https://louisville.edu/medschool/postbacpremed/earning-your-certificate/curriculum-1/curriculum
Just a sample, but it seems mostly Chemistry and does contain calculus. I dunno Form, I think you're full of crap on this one.
EDIT: Took a little more time to look at a few other colleges/unis. Every one had quite a bit of chemistry and all included calculus.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I think a pre-med program criticism is going to be totally based on specific programs at specific schools, but it is true that a medical school will take all types of degrees for entrance.
It is roughly about three to four semesters of a broad variety of hard science and math courses and then whatever else interests (plus the usual humanities).
I don't think saying "usually" cuts it as a specific criticism of the degree.
It is roughly about three to four semesters of a broad variety of hard science and math courses and then whatever else interests (plus the usual humanities).
I don't think saying "usually" cuts it as a specific criticism of the degree.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
The argument is NOT about the depth of any particular aspect of the major, its about how much work it requires. Plenty of courses and majors may not be considered to have the depth of others, but many require just as much work (and time).
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
It is actually about both, since you can't really effectively separate them except in a few unusual cases. For instance, there would be no way that a football or basketball player on scholarship at Ga Tech will ever be an architecture major due to the sheer number of hours it requires each week to do all the drawings.
This is why those who are really only in college to "major" in getting into the NFL or the NBA typically pick fields such as phys ed and communications. You can always tell which majors are the least demanding and the most favorable to the athletic department at any college by looking at what the majority of the football and basketball team have selected.
This is why those who are really only in college to "major" in getting into the NFL or the NBA typically pick fields such as phys ed and communications. You can always tell which majors are the least demanding and the most favorable to the athletic department at any college by looking at what the majority of the football and basketball team have selected.
warpus
In pork I trust
An exceptional musician would end up going to some sort of a university that has a good music program, right? I don't think music programs look at English marks too much when going through applicants - the musician's music marks and portfolio would be far more important.
My point is that if an athlete tried to get into that program, the standards used to evaluate his application into the program shouldn't be different than that of the exceptional musician or debater.
So yeah, I guess my answer to your question is yes. If there's a musician applying to a program where English marks are important - and his English marks suck - then he shouldn't be admitted just because he's an amazing musician.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
Heh med students are usually really bad at physics and math. Too bad there is always a doctor shortage so they have to let them pass.
Similar threads
