Big 12 Graduation Rates [Archive]

PPHSfan

10-12-2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Titans
PP - what does that have to do with graduation rates?

Do I need to explain it again?

OK for instance.

Say you want to go to Baylor.

You have to apply to Baylor and be accepted. Baylor will look at your attendence records, talk to your counselors, references, etc. and weed out those students who they don't feel have any intention or making the grade or finishing school.

Now let's say you want to go to the University of Texas.

If you can pass the SAT, show proof of residence, fog a mirror, and pay the tuitiion....YOUR IN. Period.

Do you really need me to explain in further detail?

Titans

10-12-2004, 08:59 AM

AHHHH

So the graduation rate at UT is lower than Tech's because of the demographics, right?

Can you then explain why the graduation rate for North Carolina when Dean Smith was around was 100%?

When you finish doing that, please explain the difference between The University of North Carolina and the University of Texas' graduation rates for both schools?

Hupernikomen

10-12-2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by PPHSfan
It's fuzzy math.

State Universities are always going to have lower graduation rates. They have more students from a broader demographic. All you have to do to get accepted to a State University is pass the SAT. You don't have to apply and convince anyone that you intend to graduate.

He is talking about the athletes only.

Hupernikomen

10-12-2004, 09:03 AM

Yeah. It is very difficult for a student to play football and graduate in 4 years also. I suspect those percentages are based only on 4 years...

raider red 2000

10-12-2004, 09:17 AM

student athletes have 5 years to graduate from the college or university that they start at. for ex. if joe bob gets admitted to tech, makes a 4.0 for four years.....the he realizes that he hates lubbock.....transfers to a&m for a few classes....tech takes the hit. the kid didnt graduate form his original school in 5 years....i am not sure how it effects a&m though.

i also believe that private schools do better on graduation rates. as stated above, they screen better, but they also work harder to keep the kids there. if you or your parents are paying 25,000 a year to go to a private school, do you think that the private school wants to kick you out for bad grades.....i dont think so.

PPHSfan

10-12-2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Titans
AHHHH

So the graduation rate at UT is lower than Tech's because of the demographics, right?

Can you then explain why the graduation rate for North Carolina when Dean Smith was around was 100%?

When you finish doing that, please explain the difference between The University of North Carolina and the University of Texas' graduation rates for both schools?

First of all, the thread starter asked for thoughts.

I gave mine.

If you don't agree with them, that is fine.

If you have your own thoughts then put them here.

So far I have not heard what YOUR thoughts are as to why they are the way they are.

Don't get me to do your thinking for you. Step up and tell us what YOU think.

KTJ

10-12-2004, 09:22 AM

First off, where is a link to this?

Second, backing up PP's argument-- Graduation rates do not take into account the numerous athletes who leave college early to go pro. The NCAA hates to do math so they just rather leave them off than to do a little multiplication and division.

Titans

10-12-2004, 09:40 AM

Contrary to your beliefs, I want to know why the graduation rate at say, OU is smaller than Texas Tech's? If demographics has something to say about it, then why accept questionable students? It's not that difficult.

UNC didn't accept questionable students, so why does OU, or any other public school for that matter.

BTW - one shouldn't put Baylor that high on one's list, although much higher than any of the state supported schools. Notre Dame is graduating students at nearly 93%.

That's my thoughts!

PPHSfan

10-12-2004, 09:42 AM

"Contrary to my beliefs" ?

You have made no argument. You have only argued.

PPHSfan

10-12-2004, 09:44 AM

The state sponsored schools have no choice in who the accept. I thought I made that point pretty clear more than once.

Titans

10-12-2004, 10:05 AM

The football graduation rate is so low at UT and OU compared to Tech and Kansas State, for example....

WHY?

Don't give me the acceptance bullcrap or the intent to graduate. Would it have anything to do with the type of kids they are getting as players? Could it be the expectations are more strenuous and many can't handle it?

WHY?

Hupernikomen

10-12-2004, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by PPHSfan
The state sponsored schools have no choice in who the accept. I thought I made that point pretty clear more than once.

Of course state sponsored school have choice in who they accept. If you don't meet their requirements you don't get in.

LH Panther Mom

10-12-2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Hupernikomen
Of course state sponsored school have choice in who they accept. If you don't meet their requirements you don't get in.

For athletes, it seems there is a different set of requirements. There is no "top 10% of your class" mandate at UT if you are an athlete.

PPHSfan

10-12-2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Hupernikomen
Of course state sponsored school have choice in who they accept. If you don't meet their requirements you don't get in.

You know what I meant Hup. The only requirements for state sponsored schools are a passing SAT, a foggy mirror, and a tuition check.

punt

10-12-2004, 11:42 AM

When the elgibility has run out at ou that means an end to the drugs and women in a dorm room so many athletes leave. Occasionally one gets arrested and the jail time is too long for the person to return to ou. The type athlete ou seeks out for football is usually not the type that has any intention of obtaining a college degree. Things are somewhat better than in the Switzer days. Graduation rate was probably 15% then.

My 2 favorite teams are OSU and whoever is playing ou!!!!

Chief Woodman

10-12-2004, 11:49 AM

Here is something that I believe has more to do with this stat than anything else mentioned so far.

The athletes are given scholarships based on football talent, not academic ability. The bigger, more "Successful" football programs make money for the school. They realy are not intrested in educating the players. They are intrested in what the players can do for them and how much money they can make. MONEY TALKS!

Some of the smaller schools (Baylor) ARE more intrested in the person rather than the money the player can make for them.

As far as the state schools not having a choice in who they take- that is only true for students in general. No football player for Texas or OU made the team just because of their top 10% rating. They are on the team because the head coach CHOSE them. Nobody made the coach take them. If the team HAD to take them then many boys who love football but have little talent or size would be on the team.

PPHSfan

10-12-2004, 11:51 AM

I did not mean that the coaches had to take anyone. Why do yall keep trying to do a spin job on me here?

Chief Woodman

10-12-2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by PPHSfan
You know what I meant Hup. The only requirements for state sponsored schools are a passing SAT, a foggy mirror, and a tuition check.

Maybe for getting into the school but this is not true for making the team. This thread is about graduation rates for those who are in the athletic programs not students in general. The players are chosen and therefore the coach can reject anyone he does not want. There will be many others in line waiting to make the team.

On second thought this is not even true for students in general. I know several folks who's kids did not get into A&M despite having all three atributes you list.

Chief Woodman

10-12-2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by PPHSfan
I did not mean that the coaches had to take anyone. Why do yall keep trying to do a spin job on me here?

Nobody is doing a spin on you. You just made an illogical statement "The state sponsored schools have no choice in who the accept. I thought I made that point pretty clear more than once." No spin needed.

PPHSfan

10-12-2004, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Chief Woodman
Nobody is doing a spin on you. You just made an illogical statement "The state sponsored schools have no choice in who the accept. I thought I made that point pretty clear more than once." No spin needed.

You know that I was not talking about whether or not a coach had a choice as to who they could let on their team, but rather the requirements needed for admittance. And you know I was talking about students in general, but you tried to make it look as though I was being "illogical". What a cheap shot.

Chief Woodman

10-12-2004, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by PPHSfan
You know that I was not talking about whether or not a coach had a choice as to who they could let on their team, but rather the requirements needed for admittance. And you know I was talking about students in general, but you tried to make it look as though I was being "illogical". What a cheap shot.

Since we were talking about players graduation rates no other conclusion can be reached.

OK folks- was it me giving a cheap shot or is PPHS trying to spin his way out of what he said?

PPHSfan

10-12-2004, 12:13 PM

We ARE talking about the players. But that is a moot point. If Phil Bennett wants to recruite a player that has Heisman qualities but can't meet the strict academic standards at SMU he is out of luck. But if Bob Stoops want's to recruit the exact same player at his State Sponsored University, then as long as the kid can pass the SAT, fog up a mirror, and has a scholarship or a tuition check, then the Board of Regents can't tell him no way. Why is is so hard to understand the point I was making?

White&Crimson

10-12-2004, 12:14 PM

What exactly do you mean by "passing the SAT"? As far as I know there is no score that is considering "passing".
And as far as the general population at UT, it is somewhat difficult to get in if you are not in the top 10%. There has been talk of changing that rule because UT often has to pass up very qualified students because they are not in the top 10% of their class.
As for althletes, I do not know. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that strings are pulled to get them accepted into the university. They are catered to in many ways (the dorm lottery does not apply to them...if they want in a dorm, they get in, while everyone else stands a slim chance, they also have a special cafeteria just for them, etc).
As for low graduation rates, I think that Woodman may have a good point, I'm sure Baylor is more interested in how you are progressing academically than UT is.
Also throw into the mix that UT is a difficult school, I can't speak for the others, maybe they are just as difficult. But then again, it all depends on your major also and I'm not sure how challenging it is to get your "Sports Medicine" degree.

PPHSfan

10-12-2004, 12:15 PM

I use the term "pass the SAT" as a general term meaning "meeting NCAA standards".

Geez, you guys are nit picking.

sahen

10-12-2004, 06:46 PM

woohoo go baylor!...funny thing about that is if u turn that list around u arguably get the big 12 teams in order of rank (athletic program wise, not football wise).....lol...what does that tell u? good football players r dumb? no, i dont think so....its more like while they r playin football they dont have to try in school, everything is handed to them in that area, but once their elgibility runs out on a team they r left out to dry and they didnt get the basics needed to pass the upper level classes they need to graduate...so they dont...

big daddy russ

10-12-2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by White&Crimson
What exactly do you mean by "passing the SAT"? ...
You must score at least a 310, have excellent balance and speed, and superb vision.

White&Crimson

10-12-2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by big daddy russ
You must score at least a 310, have excellent balance and speed, and superb vision.

310 out of a possible 1600? :D

big daddy russ

10-12-2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by White&Crimson
310 out of a possible 1600? :D
Only if you meet all other requirements.

vet93

10-12-2004, 07:31 PM

I think that there are many factors involved and that some of the factors that cause a lower graduation rate are related to the success of the football team.

1. As a general rule (in other words it applies Most of the time) the teams that really emphasize football put more demands on their athletes and thus cause the 5 year graduation rate to be reduced.

2. The more successuful schools have a larger number of kids who are taking their game to the next level (NFL, CFL, etc....) These kids don't graduate within the 5 year period because they are out making a living playing football. How many kids from Baylor play at the next level? How many from OU?

3. There is a higher attrition rate at the high profile universities. The demands of major college football cause alot of these kids to drop out or go to a smaller university or drop out all together ....meaning they never graduate.

4. I agree with PPHSfan that many (not all) of the private schools do a better job of selecting student athletes (as opposed to pure football players) because their selection standards are higher and they refuse to admit the low performers (However, most schools to fudge their standards to some extent for athletes).

5. I also agree with some of the other posters that Private schools probably take better care of their students academically than do some of the high profile football dynasties. The high profile football programs are probably more likely to use up the players eligibilty and then drop them like a potato once they can no longer contribute.

These are some of the factors that come into play....certainly there are the Notre Dames and UNC's that buck the trend, but as a general rule the I think the above points hold true. By the way....would Dean Smith's graduation rates be as high if he had to deal with 125 scholarship athletes instead of 25. Big difference in numbers between football and basketball.

slpybear the bullfan

10-12-2004, 10:49 PM

Somebody needs to post....

a) a link to the NCAA numbers for athelete grad rates...

b) a link to typical entrance reqs for atheletes to Big 12 schools....

otherwise it is all just opinion...

...;) and mine is that For the 60 or so kids across the nation who will be drafted by the pros and make a long career of it... I wouldn't care about this.

For all other students in sports programs... I would pay a lot of attention to the grad rate of prospective schools...

Bulldog_12

10-12-2004, 11:10 PM

Here is the link to the percentages that were posted earlier. Wether they are true or not I have no idea. And I swear this isnt a joke, this is where I found them. Funny website too though. Athlete Graduation Percentage (http://firemackbrown.com/)

AggieJohn

10-13-2004, 03:44 AM

it's so much higher at A&M than most schools because every football player, volleyball, baseball, tennis, and track player is an ag development major, it's the broadest major in the world

AggieJohn

10-13-2004, 03:45 AM

i'm so glad i can start a topic and turn around and let it grow over a day or so

Gilmer Buckeye

10-13-2004, 07:37 AM

I'm a UT alum. I remember a business law class I had (about 200 students in there). We were assigned seats and I couldn't see the professor because I was sitting behind two offensive linemen. I will say, though, that they were in attendance most of the time. The prof was an elderly gentleman who bordered on "jock worship" in terms of his veneration of the two players. It distracted the rest of us whenever he would engage in Longhorn-related dialogue with the players.

That's another thing about UT. It's not like Aggieland (that's good and also bad). There are no group rituals involving the whole student body. Tens of thousands of students go about their daily lives without realizing there even is a big-time major college football program in their midsts. There is no "Spirit of Longhornland."

I think I would agree with the theory that UT is a difficult school. It is also huge. It is easy to get lost in the crowd. If you are not somewhat intelligent and disciplined (i.e., not partying too much), you are not going to graduate regardless of whether you are an athlete or not.

Every time I look at that lineup of Big 12 schools, I realize how much I detest the Big 12. What are Texas and A&M doing in a league comprising the high plains wasteland of the Midwest?

Maybe Texas Tech belongs in the Big 12, but the Big 2 of Texas should have gone into the SEC when they had the chance.

Titans

10-13-2004, 08:18 AM

I agree:

Then Texas wouldn't be losing to OU 5 straight games by being absolutely EMBARASSED.

And Texas A/M - they're so high and mighty that they deserve their own conference.

Don't put those 2 schools above the rest. It's that kind of arrogance that makes people hate both UT and ATM.

BrahmaMom

10-13-2004, 08:51 AM

Athlete graduation rates vary by program. It doesn't matter who the $$ comes from, state or private, when you are talking athletes. Take a look at Rice's five year graduation rate for athletes--and yes, all schools take into account those that leave early to go pro--but that doesn't drop you 20+ percentage points, but about 1 point per athlete. It's where the coach puts the priorities and how well he select STUDENT-athletes. Private schools are more interested in turning out a degreed individual. Most will allow a player to finish his degree in the off season, with the school bearing the expense. And athletes have SIX years to get their degree according to the statistics they use for those graduation rates. Hunter Goodwin from Bellville, of the Minnesota Vikings, is a prime example of a guy who went pro, then finished out his degree in the off season. Priorities.

AggieJohn

10-13-2004, 08:53 AM

penn state's joe paterno has been know to bench players because they have been lagging in classes, not just because they aren't passing

AggieJohn

10-13-2004, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Gilmer Buckeye
There is no "Spirit of Longhornland."

Good thing there is, we already have rights on a song...

Gilmer Buckeye

10-13-2004, 09:26 AM

Don't blame me for the SEC only wanting those two schools to join. I think the Texas Legislature would get involved again if they ever threatened to walk out on the Big 12.

The Legislature, the late Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock and former Gov. Ann Richards are the only reasons Baylor was part of the Big 12 deal. And the Bears have been an em"bear"assment to themselves, their alumni and everyone else ever since.

There is something called the Permanent University Fund. Only UT and A&M benefit from it. It is in the Texas Constitution. The Legislature decided to make these two schools the elite ones a very long time ago. Neither I nor any of the other alumni of either two schools had anything to do with that.