The "athletics were getting bad grades" MYTH

[Raider]

Northwestfresh, you are a fucking joke. You are an MSU alum, lurking around this board to be nothing but a little pot-stirring prick. At least guys like 2506 can get on here and openly talk smack, instead of sneaking around like a little bitch.

Your comparison of Brint to PR is a joke too.

 

[BDizzle]

I think the point about grades was that JOD was concerned that a number of key players would be ineligible for a national title game due to either GPA or lack of progress (they had dropped classes) Those could well have been the seniors who didn't graduate who were gone spring. In any event it was hard to tell from the emails whether they were more cocerned about the game, or clearly Engstroms response to finding out about the higher number.

I hesitate to point out most of these Kids are 5 years to begin with given the "good" ones red shirt.

2.8 GPA is concerning to me. There are many great students on the teams with much higher, meaning there are a fair number lower. Most of the meaningful degree programs (those that actually lead to a job or something that actually contributes to society) require a 2.5 to even apply at junior year. Grad school or professional schools would simply be out of the question for many. It would appear we have some in school strictly to play ball and directing their academics to simply maintain eligibility.

BW bright side aside if JOD et all were concerned and afraid of Engstroms reaction to the academic situation, idon't think it was myth. It is becoming apparent they were trying to fix a loy of problems.

2.8 is higher than the average for non student-athletes. So what does that say about regular students?

 

[PlayerRep]

In observing the criticisms of posters like Tokyo and Brint, I was reminded of words from a commencement address I attended recently. Tokyo and Brint are being builders in some respects and gathering/providing information and make a bit of a difference, but some posters just want to attack them.

"There's a divide, and it's getting bigger, between the builders and the critics, between the fighters and the spectators. When you turn on the news or venture into the blogosphere, what you see is that the naysayers have the power while the people who are on the front lines charting a new course or working to make things better weather constant criticism.

To put it in layman's terms, there are a lot of haters out there.

You will find that it is almost always more comfortable to sit on the sidelines and critique the builders from afar, but at the end of the day, the people who make a difference, the people who shape history, are not the haters."

 

[tnt]

2.8 is higher than the average for non student-athletes. So what does that say about regular students?

It says Montana's open enrollment policy to the Universities should be reevaluated. Too many are flunking out.

It says the Universities should get their hands off the Vo-tech schools and give them back to the High school districts instead of turning them into academic schools. We need trades not more liberal arts grads.

It says that the a large number of "University Graduate" have nothing to bitch about when they can't find a job.

It might also be noted that the "regular students" don't have a full time fund raising staff working to raise money for the college education nor do they have nearly seven figures being spent on upgraded "academic centers" with better computers facilities and tutors. (I'm not against the academic centers but we better see some improvement)

It might also be noted that Football scores are by far the lowest of all the teams., and yeah don't bore me with but their are "more of them" One flunk out like the BB team just had can skew the numbers pretty quuickly.

But again the point was JOD was the one most concerned about the drop...... It must be meaningful. I hope at least his main concern was not having several of the starters not available for a National championship game.

 

[UMGriz75]

2.8 is higher than the average for non student-athletes. So what does that say about regular students?

It says Montana's open enrollment policy to the Universities should be reevaluated. Too many are flunking out.

I think it means that Montana professors still grade on the curve, compared to the modern trend at major universities of grading "A-" if they show up, "A" if they "show up and seem to be trying."

I have had students who have transferred here from other, often prestigious, institutions comment/complain that they were surprised to learn that at UM they actually had to work just to get a "B", and I've heard the same "complaint" at MSU, and so it may be a "Montana" thing.

 

[kemajic]

It would appear we have some in school strictly to play ball and directing their academics to simply maintain eligibility.

What an enlightenment you provide! Of course, across NCAA football and basketball, this is common and how can you say it's bad? Many of these athletes start with this juvinile attitude (they're 18) and along the way, oops, they wind up with a degree, and as they mature and develop some reality after the eligibility is gone, maybe some advanced degrees and decent jobs and careers, sometimes based on the relationships they built during their athetic participation. Had they not had the athletic opportunity, where would these careers have led? Don't be so bloody naive.

 

[ilovethecats]

rotesst:

 

[SoCalGriz]

I really dont get the inferiority complex so many of you have over PR having some good inside information. I like the fact that he gives a legal side to some of the BS we have been hearing, which is more or less the same sort of conclusions the reporter in Havre came out with. Bottom line, I have come to realize most of what PR post is reliable. He states facts much like BW does and some of you are challenged by facts that go against your opinions, thus you attack back and call people jock sniffers. Whats up with that?

 

[tnt]

2.8 is higher than the average for non student-athletes. So what does that say about regular students?

It says Montana's open enrollment policy to the Universities should be reevaluated. Too many are flunking out.

I think it means that Montana professors still grade on the curve, compared to the modern trend at major universities of grading "A-" if they show up, "A" if they "show up and seem to be trying."

I have had students who have transferred here from other, often prestigious, institutions comment/complain that they were surprised to learn that at UM they actually had to work just to get a "B", and I've heard the same "complaint" at MSU, and so it may be a "Montana" thing.

Its a modified curve, but you are right. What most folks fail to understand is the C is essentially a failing grade in most University Systems.

As far as those "just to play ball" that's the exception not the rule, when it starts to become the rule, its a problem. The fact is, College is a bunch easier that High School. lack of ability is rarley the reason for poor academics. As far as it being necessary to maintain a program, think again. Some of the most successful programs in the country have academic requirements well above the NCAA standards. Gonzaga still travels with their "homework proctor". The study tables are fixture at most good programs but are FEARED to be assigned to, not a perk.

 

[BWahlberg]

So per the same report:

UM undergrad population: 2.85 term gpa

And if you break it down by sport for cumulative gpa it goes:

Bball-M: 2.83
Bball-W: 3.35
Xc - M: 3.09
Xc - W: 3.65
Football: 2.8
Golf: 3.31
Soccer: 3.31
Tennis-M: 3.33
Tennis-W: 3.17
Track-M: 2.8
Track-W: 3.44
Volleyball: 3.29

It should be pointed out of course the Football has a much higer amount in their program, their grade report reflects 95 student athletes while basketball is each 15, cross country is 12 and 11. Soccer is higher at 28 and track is as 38 for men and 32 for women.

 

[UMGriz75]

It would appear we have some in school strictly to play ball and directing their academics to simply maintain eligibility.

What an enlightenment you provide! Of course, across NCAA football and basketball, this is common and how can you say it's bad? Many of these athletes start with this juvinile attitude (they're 18) and along the way, oops, they wind up with a degree, and as they mature and develop some reality after the eligibility is gone, maybe some advanced degrees and decent jobs and careers, sometimes based on the relationships they built during their athletic participation. Had they not had the athletic opportunity, where would these careers have led? Don't be so bloody naive.

I see a lot of students going to college just "buying time" to figure out what they want to do in life, take a few courses in different areas, hike, fish, date, etc. Playing sports is as legitimate as anything.

Be that as it may, approximately 77% of UM students that graduate take more than 4 years to do so. My understanding is that students involved in the varsity sports including football are about average. MSU is similar.

UM is selective in admissions; only 51% of those that apply are accepted, but 80% that are accepted attend. MSU accepts 60% of those that apply, but of those that are accepted, only 45% choose to attend.

 

[wbtfg]

UM is selective in admissions; only 51% of those that apply are accepted, but 80% that are accepted attend. MSU accepts 60% of those that apply, but of those that are accepted, only 45% choose to attend.

Where did you get that information? I just checked collegeboard.org and they indicate 94% of applicants are admitted, and 41% of those admitted end up enrolling.

44% of students at UM end up graduating withing 6 years.

As for MSU, collegeboard.org indicates a 60% admission rate with 45% of those admitted enrolling. MSU has a 47% graduation rate over 6 years.

Not sure I believe the the MSU admission rate, as MSU and UM have the exact same admission requirements - which aren't at all lofty.

 

[UMGriz75]

UM is selective in admissions; only 51% of those that apply are accepted, but 80% that are accepted attend. MSU accepts 60% of those that apply, but of those that are accepted, only 45% choose to attend.

Where did you get that information? I just checked collegeboard.org and they indicate 94% of applicants are admitted, and 41% of those admitted end up enrolling.

44% of students at UM end up graduating withing 6 years.

I used "collegeportraits.org."

http://www.collegeportraits.org/side_by_side/436/with/242" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.collegeportraits.org/MT/UM/undergrad_admissions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.collegeportraits.org/MT/MSU/undergrad_admissions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[UMGriz75]

According to the website, http://www.collegeportraits.org/MT/UM/undergrad_success" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of the typical UM freshman, only about 25% are actually able to graduate with their undergraduate degree right at 4 years; football players can look to have a low graduate "rate" and still be fairly typical students.

However, of the typical UM Freshman, over 60% obtain their undergraduate degree by the 6th year, meaning that nearly 40% take between 4 and 6 years to complete their requirements.

MSU has similar results.