<p>A bit off topic…(and not wanting to turn this into a thread about paying athletes…)</p>
<p>Div 1 athletes have to commit a significant amount of time to their sport and are generating millions of dollars for the school. It seems a minor thing to give (some of) them full rides and academic support. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The economics of a Div 1 athlete, for the school, is very different from a standard undergrad student. In addition, if you’re going to actively recruit a borderline student, you should comment to giving them the academic support they need to be successful. </p>
<p>" In addition, if you’re going to actively recruit a borderline student, you should comment to giving them the academic support they need to be successful."</p>
<p>Well, some of us have moral qualms with the idea of recruiting “borderline” students just because they can do something stupid like throw a football. We don’t think football success is worth sacrificing academic standards <em>to that level</em> (and I say “to that level” specifically, so we don’t caught up in “but Ivy League schools make tradeoffs too!” - indeed they do, but not significantly so). Some of us think there is something not particularly admirable about colleges which value football success to that degree. </p>
<p>For many large universities football players represent approximately 1% of the total student body. Thus the effect of the football players on the academic quality of the student body in general is minimal. If a football program becomes successful then studies have shown that the number of applicants to that school increases. This can in turn cause the average ACT/SAT scores for the student body to rise which results in higher academic standards. </p>
<p>My NMSF daughter was recruited by Ole Miss and we are PROUD to say that she will be a Rebel in the Fall of 2015. She spent a month at their Summer College for High School Students and learned first hand what they had to offer. As an earlier poster mentioned, the Honors College is amazing. And our basis for comparison was our state flagship, the University of Michigan. Sometimes you need to look beyond the rankings. </p>
<p>And before we generalize all Rebel football players, don’t overlook standout linebacker Deterrian Shackelford who just won the Danny Wuerffel Trophy for exceptional community service. Shackleford also earned both his bachelors and his masters while on the team. </p>
<p>You are kidding yourself if you don’t think Ivy League schools don’t make tradeoffs. Back when Princeton had a #1 ranked lacrosse team, I knew a student who spent every fall semester off campus as a visitimg student so he would be academically eligible in the spring. They may make fewer tradeoffs, but they are there. You don’t get and retain the #1 squash ranking without bringing in the best squash players regardless of academics. </p>
Having a high graduation rate without professors slacking up on them does not necessitate being unable to compete against ranked college programs. Stanford, Notre Dame, and others have had top 5 ranked teams in recent years while still having a team with a high grad rate that could as whole handle the course work. Stanford football’s current GSR grad rate is listed as 99% at ncaa.org, which is higher than all the ivies. </p>
<p>Another important factor is whether a top ranked football player would choose that college, not just whether the college would reduce their standards enough to choose the player. Top ranked high school football players, who are among the best in the nation in their position, often hope to enter the NFL and favor colleges that will best help accomplish that goal. Colleges that compete in I-AA conferences, such as ivies, are at a strong disadvantage in this respect. </p>
<p>@ibad96,I can’t wait until you come back and tell us where you will be going to school with full scholarships that is challenging, that doesn’t have any 2.0 students, where you’ll be intellectually stimulated. I hope you realize that all those 4.0 student might look down on you for not having perfect grades and scores.</p>
<p>“You are kidding yourself if you don’t think Ivy League schools don’t make tradeoffs.”</p>
<p>Who has said they don’t make tradeoffs? This is an issue of degree. It is one thing to “stoop down” to get a student who would still qualify for most schools in the country; it is another thing entirely to “stoop down” to get to students who aren’t qualified to complete college work at all. </p>
<p>I don’t mean to offend, but I find it very kinda strange to see someone with a GPA under 3.0 attacking Ole Miss and their academics when 84% of admitted students have over a 3.0 GPA. Just saying…</p>
<p>Education is what you make out of it - the name on a degree can only take you so far in life. Students at Ivy League schools have immense drive and passion - if you put them in a directional state school, they’d probably still go very far in life. Undergraduate pedigree means even less when graduate school comes into play. </p>