Grade inflation

Beyond that, I would think most inner city kids who have neither the money nor the grades to get into college are the sort who really don't give a rat's behind about getting an education. Originally Posted by Doove

You are correct. See my post above your post.

Harvard has been well known for the Gentlemanly C, as well as 80% getting As or Bs.

Apparently not all Ivy League schools follow that model. Some are known for a strict bell curve approach across the entire letter (A-F) spectrum.

A minority student in Cleveland was beaten to near death by other students because he was getting good grades.
-------------------------------
My daughter got a scholarship do to her grades. The College counselor asked her if she had any minority friends because they would get a free ride. Over the last 2 years he said they only had 2 takers.

Now, how about the reviewers that list all encounters as "the best"?

Now, how about the reviewers that list all encounters as "the best"? Originally Posted by newalhobbyist

Could you imagine that?

"Sorry hun but we have a forced distribution here and of the last five women I've seen you really were only middle of the pack so you got a "C" - no hard feelings. You know if you really apply yourself I could see you moving up to a "B" next time...."

But then, i was an athlete who got paid to go to college, so what do i care? Originally Posted by Doove

( )

Besides, any money that comes in via alumni or sports marketing will most likely just get plowed back into the overall sports programs anyways. It won't go to finance some smart kids, white, black or hispanic, who can't otherwise afford to attend. Originally Posted by slackjawyokel

While I hate to find myself agreeing with WTF...it reminds me of some saying about blind hogs and acorns ...you, SJ are incorrect.

There are many more dollars that get spread across academic buildings, chairs for professors, and academic & need based scholorship programs. But most all of those donors still give to athletics also. And while they may take pride in their name on the academic building...they still spend most of their time in the stands.

You, of course, can not care about sports and give your money any way you please. But sports...particularly football and basketball...bring in much more money to academics than they cost.

My daughter got a scholarship do to her grades. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Uhh, it's due...not do.

All those smarts must have skipped a generation, huh?

You, of course, can not care about sports and give your money any way you please. But sports...particularly football and basketball...bring in much more money to academics than they cost. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Not to take us any further off topic (& I say this as a huge fan), but only about 20 schools in a given year directly "make money" on their athletic programs on an all in basis. All in meaning, all sports including the costs of grants and scholarships.

How much money does having a quality athletic program drive in donor dollars to academics? Pretty tough to measure and I'm certain it varies greatly by institution.

While I hate to find myself agreeing with WTF...it reminds me of some saying about blind hogs and acorns ...you, SJ are incorrect.

There are many more dollars that get spread across academic buildings, chairs for professors, and academic & need based scholorship programs. But most all of those donors still give to athletics also. And while they may take pride in their name on the academic building...they still spend most of their time in the stands.

You, of course, can not care about sports and give your money any way you please. But sports...particularly football and basketball...bring in much more money to academics than they cost. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

That could very well be the case in an area with college sports powerhouses, but here in Rochester NY college sports are not particularly strong. There is no Texas A&M equivalent up here.

Not to take us any further off topic (& I say this as a huge fan), but only about 20 schools in a given year directly "make money" on their athletic programs on an all in basis. All in meaning, all sports including the costs of grants and scholarships.

How much money does having a quality athletic program drive in donor dollars to academics? Pretty tough to measure and I'm certain it varies greatly by institution. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I think what RK meant was that football and mens basketball carry all the other sports on any given campus.

There might be only 20 places where they make enought to carry all other sports but most schools football and mens basketball program carry their own weight.

I think what RK meant was that football and mens basketball carry all the other sports on any given campus. Originally Posted by WTF

Nah, I said it the way I said it...and he understood it pretty much the way I was saying it.

How much money does having a quality athletic program drive in donor dollars to academics? Pretty tough to measure and I'm certain it varies greatly by institution. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

True enough. Hard to determine. But having been involved in university fund raising...in one form or another...for almost two and 1/2 decades...I can tell you that all giving improves significantly when the football program improves (or at least it is percieved it has improvement on the horizon)

That could very well be the case in an area with college sports powerhouses, but here in Rochester NY college sports are not particularly strong. There is no Texas A&M equivalent up here. Originally Posted by slackjawyokel

I can't help you there. This is Texas down here...and we live and breathe football. I have to admit my experience relates to local knowledge.

I think what RK meant was that football and mens basketball carry all the other sports on any given campus.

There might be only 20 places where they make enought to carry all other sports but most schools football and mens basketball program carry their own weight. Originally Posted by WTF

Sadly not true. In fact for most schools the biggest bleeder is actually FB because of their 85 or so scholarships & large staff.

..I can tell you that all giving improves significantly when the football program improves (or at least it is percieved it has improvement on the horizon)

. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Agreed. There are also important intangibles (also hard to measure) but a big one is attracting quality students. What do you think the mailroom at the admissions office at Butler University looks like this spring after their run to the Final Four in hoops?

A real simple way to fix this would be to standardize grading systems and definitions...but of course this would cede local control over education to the Feds, which I don't support. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Then you should be happy that a standardized grading system would only make education worse. I used to be in academia and I taught at a university. Here is what I see:

(1) The U.S. now only really stands out in graduate education, although undergraduate education is still very good. Secondary education is terrible. In my opinion a good part of the reason is that students compete for grades, not education. At the university level, the material covered in a course is given in the course catalog and instructors have the freedom to do whatever they want to meet the objectives of the course. This is even more evident at the graduate level where courses are really informal. In high schools, by contrast, teachers have little say in much of anything. I owe my decision to even go to college to a couple of teachers who bent the rules and essentially let me study on my own and show up if needed to ask a question. Otherwise, school was really boring and I can't say anything I know could be attributed to anything my high school teachers did right. Teachers are hired to teach. Let them run the classes to meet their students needs. Maybe they would be more creative and actually make subjectsinteresting.

(2) Ditch the grading system or at least reduce it to really corse intervals, like A, B, C, D, F (without the +/- refinements.) That would eliminate competing for a number istead of learning something. Ban electronically scored tests. Those don't test much of anything.

For the most part I think admissions directors and employers do a pretty good job of sifting thru all the bullshit and calibrating candidates.

That depends on what you mean by that. An Ivy League
school, for example gets more well qualified applicants it could ever admit. They basically decide on who to admit based on other factors. State schools admit students based on minimum GPA and SAT/ACT scores in which having a low GPA can be offset by a high SAT score. They have to admit anyone who meets the requirements specified in the course catalog for that year. There isn't much to do in the way of deciding.

That said, the message to parents out there should be to get calibrated with current standards yourself so you can steer your children appropriately. Competition is fierce. What was "good enough" in your day to get into/get a scholarship to/etc/ probably isn't.

Not letting religious nut parents influence the curriculum would also help a lot. So would allowing school districts to choose their own books instead of letting the state do it. The state school boards (Texas, in particular) leave too much control in too few hands, so publishing companies lobby them heavily. I could go on and on, but I really don't see the point. As long as going to school is treated as competition for points (which will be forever) instead of an education, the education will get worse.

I think one opinion of mine probably needed to be stated, and I apologize that I haven't been quick to the draw on this thread. A lot has happened since I last checked it.

Going back to the scholarship issue, I think that the money is largely wasted on the kids with very poor grades. I know very well that survival comes before grades. I also understand that those kids should be given a chance. However, this is absolutely not the way to do it. I would not expect anyone who almost failed all of high school to flourish in college. The knowledge base just isn't there. I would be singing a different song if they put those kids through a transition program before throwing them into the college atmosphere. I know that this is only one person, but the girl I knew was almost illiterate. She did not belong there. At least not without some transitional learning to prepare her for it.