Student Athlete SAT Scores Report

Honyocker

Gophers-In Good or Bad Times
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Report: Athletes' test scores lag behind class
Biggest gap found between football players, students at the Univ. of Fla.
The Associated Press
updated 5:55 p.m. CT, Sun., Dec. 28, 2008

ATLANTA, Ga. - Football and men's basketball players are averaging hundreds of points less on their college entrance exams than their classmates, according to a newspaper's study of 54 public universities.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution review found the biggest gap between football players and students occurred at the University of Florida, where players scored 346 points lower than the school's overall student body.

Football players averaged 220 points lower on the SAT than their classmates — and men's basketball players average seven points less than football players, the paper reported.

The paper reviewed 54 public universities, including the members of the six Bowl Championship Series conferences — the Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC and ACC — and other schools whose teams finished the 2007-08 season ranked among the football or men's basketball top 25.

Best average SAT score at Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech's football players had the nation's best average SAT score average, 1,028 of a possible 1,600, and best average high school GPA, 3.39 of a possible 4.0 in the core curriculum.

But Tech's football players still scored 315 SAT points lower on average than their classmates.

"If you're going to mount a competitive program in Division I-A, and our institution is committed to do that, some flexibility in admissions of athletes is going to take place," Tom Lifka, chairman of the committee that handles athlete admissions at UCLA, told the newspapers. "Every institution I know in the country operates in the same way. It may or may not be a good thing, but that's the way it is."

UCLA has won more NCAA championships in all sports than any other school and had the biggest gap between the average SAT scores of athletes in all sports and its overall student body, at 247 points.

Critics say athletes who arrive on campus unprepared to compete academically get shuffled off to easy majors and unchallenging courses and don't receive much of an education.

"The problem is there's a huge world of Mickey Mouse courses and special curriculums that athletes are steered into," Murray Sperber, a visiting professor in the University of California's graduate school of education, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "The problem is there are many athletes graduating from schools who are semiliterate."

Data culled from reports to NCAA
The Journal-Constitution obtained the test scores and other academic data from reports each major college athletics department is required to file with the NCAA. That governing body considers the reports confidential but the newspaper obtained them under state public record laws.

The reports are required once every decade and the Journal-Constitution requested the data from the most recent report filed by each school.

Many schools routinely used a special admissions process to admit athletes who did not meet the normal entrance requirements. More than half of scholarship athletes at the University of Georgia, the University of Wisconsin, Clemson University, UCLA, Rutgers University, Texas A&M University and LSU were special admits.

"If the university says they'd help us meet team needs, that's as important as finding an oboist for the orchestra," said Nancy McDuff, the University of Georgia's associate vice president for admissions and enrollment management.

NCAA President Myles Brand said the question isn't whether athletes are as qualified when they enroll but their potential for success.

"What you are really looking for is whether the student-athletes who are being accepted have the capability of graduating from that institution with the academic support they have available," Brand said.

FOOTBALL SAT SCORES:

THE TOP 10
School, Average
Georgia Tech, 1028
Oregon State, 997
Michigan, 997
Virginia, 993
Purdue, 974
Indiana, 973
Hawaii, 968
California, 967
Colorado, 966
Iowa, 964

THE BOTTOM 10
School, Average
Oklahoma State, 878
Louisville, 878
Memphis, 890
Florida, 890
Texas Tech, 901
Arkansas, 910
Texas A&M, 911
Mississippi State, 911
Washington State, 916
Michigan State, 917


SAT Scores for Individual Schools including Minnesota:
Athlete SAT Scores
 

Did that article say anything we didn't already know? And this notion that we're doing some great disservice to kids who are shuffled into easier classes. WTF. These are our educated people with this poor logic? Did they ever stop to wonder what these kids might be doing if they weren't exposed to even that level of education. they make it sound like they'd be doctors or something. I'm pretty sure their path in life has been positively affected by even that less than optimal education. do only the best and brightest deserve a hand up? Who are we?
 

In other news, water is wet, and the sky is blue.

In all seriousness though, it's nice to see facts like this with quantifiable data. It's no secret that athletes and the general student population are held to different standards. The question is, other than those who say the word "scholar-athlete" with a straight face, does anybody really care? If they took away separate admittance standards for athletes, all the best college football and basketball would be played at jucos. Also, there are undoubtedly some guys who realize that they have been blessed with an opportunity to get a world-class education (one they wouldn't have received if not for their athletic ability), and actually buckle down and prepare themselves adequately for life after college/sports.
 

I don't see anything wrong with incorporating athletics into a student's overall admissions standing. The only thing telling here is that Florida is obviously pushing the envelope, and has probably gone too far. At a certain point a school goes from "icorporating athletics" to just plain exploiting students.
 

Stupid article due to the fact that people in my part of the state don't take the SAT since it's an East coast test...we do the ACT in the midwest...
 


Nobody will ever listen to my proposal:

Get rid of athletic scholarships entirely. Reinstate the genuine student-athlete.

125k people will still show up to watch Michigan vs. Ohio State. Only they will be watching college students, and not the farce we all know college sports to be.

Give me one good reason why we should have athletic scholarships. Just one. And don't give me some spiel about giving under-privileged kids a chance. Turn the athletic scholarships into awards for under-represented demographics for all I care.

Will the athletes be worse? Yeah. But who cares. If you can enjoy your 9 year old daughter's soccer game, you can watch D-1 sports played at a D-1AA level without losing sleep.

This proposal also has the fantastic result of making it clear to some lazy/delusional kids that sports will NOT provide for their future automatically.
 

Nobody will ever listen to my proposal:

Get rid of athletic scholarships entirely. Reinstate the genuine student-athlete.

125k people will still show up to watch Michigan vs. Ohio State. Only they will be watching college students, and not the farce we all know college sports to be.

Give me one good reason why we should have athletic scholarships. Just one. And don't give me some spiel about giving under-privileged kids a chance. Turn the athletic scholarships into awards for under-represented demographics for all I care.

Will the athletes be worse? Yeah. But who cares. If you can enjoy your 9 year old daughter's soccer game, you can watch D-1 sports played at a D-1AA level without losing sleep.

This proposal also has the fantastic result of making it clear to some lazy/delusional kids that sports will NOT provide for their future automatically.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

so...you don't mind killing the goose that lays the golden eggs??:mad::mad::mad:
 

Nobody will ever listen to my proposal:

Get rid of athletic scholarships entirely. Reinstate the genuine student-athlete.

125k people will still show up to watch Michigan vs. Ohio State. Only they will be watching college students, and not the farce we all know college sports to be.

Give me one good reason why we should have athletic scholarships. Just one. And don't give me some spiel about giving under-privileged kids a chance. Turn the athletic scholarships into awards for under-represented demographics for all I care.

Will the athletes be worse? Yeah. But who cares. If you can enjoy your 9 year old daughter's soccer game, you can watch D-1 sports played at a D-1AA level without losing sleep.

This proposal also has the fantastic result of making it clear to some lazy/delusional kids that sports will NOT provide for their future automatically.


Your idea, while being noble in thought is not very practical. Even with the scholarship, athletes are not fairly compensated when compared to the amount of revenue and publicity they bring to their perspective universities. If you were to remove the scholarship, your right their would be virtually no college sports but not for the reasons you believe. With the amount of time requirement these young people put in there would be no time to work and PAY for their education.

Let's look at this from a 10,000ft level. Sure some if not most of these young men may never have stepped foot in to a institution if not for sports but so what? Would we tell a student from a impoverised area that attends a crappy public school system to drop out because the education he is getting is worthless when compared to other students?
 

:so...you don't mind killing the goose that lays the golden eggs??

Don't you think the same number of people would be interested in their teams if all the kids were non-scholarship? The quality of play would drop a level, but so what? Would March Madness or the Rose Bowl be any less fun because it was played on a 1-AA talent-level? All the $$ would still be there. Do you think Penn State football and North Carolina fans (and sponsors!) would walk away because their teams didn't have 5 star recruits?
 



Don't you think the same number of people would be interested in their teams if all the kids were non-scholarship? The quality of play would drop a level, but so what? Would March Madness or the Rose Bowl be any less fun because it was played on a 1-AA talent-level? All the $$ would still be there. Do you think Penn State football and North Carolina fans (and sponsors!) would walk away because their teams didn't have 5 star recruits?[/QUOTE]


what do u think separates miac football (which i enjoy)...from big 10 or pac 10 or southeastern conference football... besides the caliber of the student in 'student-athlete'??

if the d1 college presidents and conference commissioners under the ncaa umbrella decided to pull the plug on big-time college football and basketball as we know it, then what do you think would happen??

1. fan interest/attendance at games would plummet
2. tv ratings would plummet
3. advertisers and other sponsors would disappear
4. donations to dear, old state u would take a huge hit (just look at the $$$ that flowed into northwestern when they went to the rose bowl in the mid '90's)
5. the proverbial 'window into the university' would become somewhat opague
6. apparel and other merchandise sales with the fans' favorite college written across the chest would disappear

remember...the university of chicago (an incredible academic juggernaut) dropped out of the big 10 more than a few decades ago...they are not exactly a household name in most parts of america, whereas their peers, such as stanford, are much better known...

what would ultimately happen, if your 'proposal' were to be enacted??...the nfl and nba would create their own 'minor league' programs, similar to what baseball and hockey have...

much of the current fan interest and $$$$ would flow in that drection...:mad::mad:
 


Don't you think the same number of people would be interested in their teams if all the kids were non-scholarship? The quality of play would drop a level, but so what? Would March Madness or the Rose Bowl be any less fun because it was played on a 1-AA talent-level? All the $$ would still be there. Do you think Penn State football and North Carolina fans (and sponsors!) would walk away because their teams didn't have 5 star recruits?[/QUOTE]


what do u think separates miac football (which i enjoy)...from big 10 or pac 10 or southeastern conference football... besides the caliber of the student in 'student-athlete'??

if the d1 college presidents and conference commissioners under the ncaa umbrella decided to pull the plug on big-time college football and basketball as we know it, then what do you think would happen??

1. fan interest/attendance at games would plummet
2. tv ratings would plummet
3. advertisers and other sponsors would disappear
4. donations to dear, old state u would take a huge hit (just look at the $$$ that flowed into northwestern when they went to the rose bowl in the mid '90's)
5. the proverbial 'window into the university' would become somewhat opague
6. apparel and other merchandise sales with the fans' favorite college written across the chest would disappear

remember...the university of chicago (an incredible academic juggernaut) dropped out of the big 10 more than a few decades ago...they are not exactly a household name in most parts of america, whereas their peers, such as stanford, are much better known...

what would ultimately happen, if your 'proposal' were to be enacted??...the nfl and nba would create their own 'minor league' programs, similar to what baseball and hockey have...

much of the current fan interest and $$$$ would flow in that drection...:mad::mad:

If that were true, you would have a strong argument.

But I don't think it is true. The big schools would still receive the same support, I"m convinced, especially if they continued to be comparatively superior. You make it sound as if revenue depends on the objective excellence of the athletes, and not the inherent draw of the university itself. I disagree strongly.

Alas, we'll never find out...
 

If that were true, you would have a strong argument.

But I don't think it is true. The big schools would still receive the same support, I"m convinced, especially if they continued to be comparatively superior. You make it sound as if revenue depends on the objective excellence of the athletes, and not the inherent draw of the university itself. I disagree strongly.

studwell,

if what you suggest...was 'true'...then i submit to you that the college presidents and conference commissioners would have implemented your proposal decades ago...:clap::clap::clap:

by doing so, they could have had the best of both worlds...true scholar-athletes who would neither compromise the academic standards nor embarass (in other ways) their respective universities/conferences...with no interruption to the tidal wave of cash flowing into the schools' coffers thru the bloated television contracts, bowl arrangements, conference/ncaa tournaments, merchandising arrangements, etc. etc.

do you think the miac is powerful enough, albeit with a smaller 'footprint'...to pull off having their own stand-alone miac-network cable tv station??

let me suggest one related challenge...please let me know the next time you see someone wearing a university of chicago baseball cap, sweatshirt, t-shirt, jacket, etc.

and i will let you know the next time i see a similar item being worn with stanford, cal, northwestern, vanderbilt, duke, baylor, georgia tech, etc. on the apparel item :D:D:D
 



studwell,

let me suggest one related challenge...please let me know the next time you see someone wearing a university of chicago baseball cap, sweatshirt, t-shirt, jacket, etc.

and i will let you know the next time i see a similar item being worn with stanford, cal, northwestern, vanderbilt, duke, baylor, georgia tech, etc. on the apparel item :D:D:D

:rolleyes:
 

studwell,

let me suggest one related challenge...please let me know the next time you see someone wearing a university of chicago baseball cap, sweatshirt, t-shirt, jacket, etc.

and i will let you know the next time i see a similar item being worn with stanford, cal, northwestern, vanderbilt, duke, baylor, georgia tech, etc. on the apparel item :D:D:D

:rolleyes:
 

studwell,

if what you suggest...was 'true'...then i submit to you that the college presidents and conference commissioners would have implemented your proposal decades ago...:clap::clap::clap:

by doing so, they could have had the best of both worlds...true scholar-athletes who would neither compromise the academic standards nor embarass (in other ways) their respective universities/conferences...with no interruption to the tidal wave of cash flowing into the schools' coffers thru the bloated television contracts, bowl arrangements, conference/ncaa tournaments, merchandising arrangements, etc. etc.

do you think the miac is powerful enough, albeit with a smaller 'footprint'...to pull off having their own stand-alone miac-network cable tv station??

let me suggest one related challenge...please let me know the next time you see someone wearing a university of chicago baseball cap, sweatshirt, t-shirt, jacket, etc.

and i will let you know the next time i see a similar item being worn with stanford, cal, northwestern, vanderbilt, duke, baylor, georgia tech, etc. on the apparel item :D:D:D


I don't have a dog in this fight, but I thought the statistics were interesting. The value of the American university system is the great job they do educating leaders of industry, technologists, artists, doctors, humanitarians, scientists, etc. It is an institution of higher learning.
I remember a conversation I had with Dr. Bruininks a couple years ago. He said some people would be amazed at how little intercollegiate athletics mean to the mission, finances and activities of a university. He said athletics do provide an important visable "portal" into the univeristy for a certain set of supporters and therefore it deserves some of his attention.
In retrospect, it would probably make sense to have another path for "high potential" athletes to take rather than try to shoe horn them into a system that does not fit their primary aspirations. Universities are academic institutions. But the current system is part of our culture and a change would meet tremendous resistance to people who identify the university primarily through its athletic endeavors. That young people do not buy hats and shirts because of the great researchers, industry leaders and scientific breakthroughs of a university probably says more about us and our values than it does about the university. That is just the way it is. The University of Chicago has DIII athletic programs with no athletic scholarships. True student athletes go there who must meet university academic standards. It is a great univeristy and they are very happy with their status in the academic world....even if they don't sell a lot of hats and tee shirts.
 

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I thought the statistics were interesting. The value of the American university system is the great job they do educating leaders of industry, technologists, artists, doctors, humanitarians, scientists, etc. It is an institution of higher learning.
I remember a conversation I had with Dr. Bruininks a couple years ago. He said some people would be amazed at how little intercollegiate athletics mean to the mission, finances and activities of a university. He said athletics do provide an important visable "portal" into the univeristy for a certain set of supporters and therefore it deserves some of his attention.
In retrospect, it would probably make sense to have another path for "high potential" athletes to take rather than try to shoe horn them into a system that does not fit their primary aspirations. Universities are academic institutions. But the current system is part of our culture and a change would meet tremendous resistance to people who identify the university primarily through its athletic endeavors. That young people do not buy hats and shirts because of the great researchers, industry leaders and scientific breakthroughs of a university probably says more about us and our values than it does about the university. That is just the way it is. The University of Chicago has DIII athletic programs with no athletic scholarships. True student athletes go there who must meet university academic standards. It is a great univeristy and they are very happy with their status in the academic world....even if they don't sell a lot of hats and tee shirts.

booster,

in one quote, highlighted above, you've perhaps summed up the greatest frustration of long-time gopher fans...including sid hartman and many on these message boards...:mad::mad::mad:

you've got guys sittin' at the top of the 'u' administration for decades...malcolm moos, c peter mcgrath, nils hasselmo, ken keller, bob bruiniks, et al...who, in their heart of hearts...believe that intercollegiate athletics ultimately mean very little:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

yeah...whatever...but if tubby decides to use 'goin home' as his cover to be in charlottsville by mid april, i will understand...

I must admit that i am proud of the u's many accomplishments and achievements away from the athletic fields of competition (see the two researchers who gained international recognition earlier this month for their advances in the field of medicine)...but why not try to excel in ALL fields, including athletics???:eek::eek::eek:
 

what i think is if a player sucks and doesn't play...we as students should be able to cut him since we're paying for him to sit at the end of the bench and not do a damn thing when's he's a senior...

*That is if it's a job like you all say...
 

Some Context Here

booster,

in one quote, highlighted above, you've perhaps summed up the greatest frustration of long-time gopher fans...including sid hartman and many on these message boards...:mad::mad::mad:

you've got guys sittin' at the top of the 'u' administration for decades...malcolm moos, c peter mcgrath, nils hasselmo, ken keller, bob bruiniks, et al...who, in their heart of hearts...believe that intercollegiate athletics ultimately mean very little:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

yeah...whatever...but if tubby decides to use 'goin home' as his cover to be in charlottsville by mid april, i will understand...

I must admit that i am proud of the u's many accomplishments and achievements away from the athletic fields of competition (see the two researchers who gained international recognition earlier this month for their advances in the field of medicine)...but why not try to excel in ALL fields, including athletics???:eek::eek::eek:

You must understand that the context of this conversation with Bruininks was about the many things they were accomplishing in the world of athletics at the time. He thanked me for recognizing the work that he and Maturi had done and how happy he was that they had hired tubby Smith. He then explained to me that some people have no idea of the many other things the university is doing that in the big picture of a university are more important.....and that all some people know about the university is athletics. He was explaining that it was important to develop the athletics portal into the university as opposed those who see athletics not on the radar screen of the mission of the university. He is more supportive of athletics than his predecessors. That is positive not negative.
 

If scholarships were dropped, the quality of play wouldn't just drop a little, it would plummet. The available talent would decrease, as without a scholarship to strive for, some would not bother to play football in the first place. Without scholarships, the only inherent advantage one school would have over another would be size - larger schools would a better chance of randomly having good athletes than a smaller one would. If 1/500 students is also a skilled athlete, a school with 40,000 students would expect to have 80 skilled athletes, while a school with 5,000 would expect to have only 10. But that numerical advantage would be miniscule compared to the advantage lost by not having scholarships,

I don't think we would see 100K+ people watching Ohio State and Michigan without scholarships, those huge stadia would begin to look pretty empty. It would make D-III schools likely more competitive, as they would be more able to recruit players.
 

Nobody will ever listen to my proposal:

Get rid of athletic scholarships entirely. Reinstate the genuine student-athlete.

125k people will still show up to watch Michigan vs. Ohio State. Only they will be watching college students, and not the farce we all know college sports to be.

Give me one good reason why we should have athletic scholarships. Just one. And don't give me some spiel about giving under-privileged kids a chance. Turn the athletic scholarships into awards for under-represented demographics for all I care.

Will the athletes be worse? Yeah. But who cares. If you can enjoy your 9 year old daughter's soccer game, you can watch D-1 sports played at a D-1AA level without losing sleep.

This proposal also has the fantastic result of making it clear to some lazy/delusional kids that sports will NOT provide for their future automatically.

This is the guy who got rid of football, frats and religous groups on campus (or tried) at Chicago. It looks like the views of his tenure as university president are mixed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maynard_Hutchins
 




Top Bottom