[QUOTE=SaintCad]
What?! A student coming out of high school needs to score above a 4.0gpa and top scores on the SAT to even be considered for UCLA. USC, Berkeley, and even UCSB are similar. How many of the top athletes even come close to that? Oh, you meant the paper requirements? So how many high school students with a 3.0 and 1200 SAT score get in if you DON’T play football or basketball?
[/quote]
Listen, I used to work in admissions at an Ivy League college… not every successful applicant at said college had a 4.0 GPA. You mean to tell me that that’s not the case elsewhere?
Not only that, grade inflation is not just a collegiate phenomenon. There are kids with high GPAs that aren’t admitted because perhaps they didn’t do anything but go to school. A kid with a so-so GPA, great recommendations, an afterschool job and activities might get his or her spot. It’s about maximizing one’s educational opportunity. That’s how kids with high 4 GPAs get turned down by elite schools, and some kids with low 3s are admitted - maybe their school has very few honors, AP, or IB courses. When you look at the unweighted GPAs of the fall 2006 frosh class at UCLA, you’ll see that 20 percent of the class had GPAs between 3.7 and 3.3 (cite). That’s a lot of B students.
All the schools you mentioned are a in a particularly high strata of selectivity. You need to consider schools like Boise State, WVU, Auburn, and Arkansas, for example.
[QUOTE=SaintCad]
Ummmmm . . . immaterial. My point was that the schools pull in these athletes who are not academically ready with the intention of making (tax-free) money off them. In other words, the set up these athletes to fail to make $.
[/quote]
A lot of students are coming to college who are not academically ready.
[QUOTE=National Center for Education Statistics]
78 percent of higher
education institutions that enrolled freshmen offered at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course. One hundred percent of public two-year institutions and 94 percent of institutions with high minority enrollments offered remedial courses. Twenty-nine percent of first-time freshmen enrolled in at least one of these courses
in the fall of 1995.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not just football players. Your previous quote has your uncited claim that athletes are not given tutoring, but easier classes and professors are told to make up grades for these students. There are verifiable cases of this - see the University of Minnesota basketball scandal a few years back - but I have colleagues who have worked as counselors in Division I athletic programs. The UM scandal has increased oversight for tutoring programs everywhere. Again, at my university the athletes that I knew had mandatory tutoring and study hall hours, even if the student was doing fine in the course.
Don’t forget that there are walk-on players as well. Second, it’s doubtful that there is a central clearinghouse for full scholarship completion rates. Some “full” scholarships pay tuition, some pay board, some pay for everything and give stipends. I can tell you that in 2006, 56% of male athletes graduated within six years, compared to 58% of male students overall - that’s from the Department of Education and the NCAA. Given the restrictions on what NCAA eligible athletes can do to make money while in school, that seems like a reasonable comparison. As others have noted, non-athletes can earn money with their skills with no regulation. Jeremy Bloom, a University of Colorado football player, was also a champion skier and earned endorsements for his skiing to pay for school. He was declared ineligible by the NCAA, even when he stated that he would return the money. If he didn’t play a sport he could have kept the cash for himself, like every other college kid who works in the summer and plays in the school band, for instance.