sandgk
Watson, Crick & A Twist
And therein lies my biggest beef with this whole APR / Grad Rate issue.Methomps Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks
Should schools attempt to graduate 100% of entrants? Of course. Should they expect to? Not in a rational world.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I believe the passing mark represents graduating 50% of student-athletes. That shouldn't be an unreal expectation.
Set a target, no matter how low and you do the one thing the NCAA is meant to be against -- you debase the degree. It is a thin end of the wedge issue, but it is there.
Frankly, I have always held that the primary goal of a college is to teach, to educate and to uphold academic standards. That should be true for all the students, be they athletically gifted or not. Effectively requiring a set graduation rate undercuts those efforts in many ways, some obvious, some quite subtle. Undercut, nonetheless they are.
Most insidious in the NCAA math is the assumption that a school has failed if a student elects to leave to pursue a professional career. Tell that to Bill Gates please.
Ah yes, the law of unintended consequences.Buckeyeskickbuttocks -- This system the NCAA is using stands to punish prospective college students for the misdeeds of current students. It makes no sense. But, then, it is the NCAA.
And what precisely was it that the NCAA was (at root) trying to fix. Why fix nothing less than having students get little or no education at all. Ergo, we shall prove that they are getting educated by demanding quantifiable improvement in the graduation rate. This will lead to some bizarre choices in the coming years at other schools. Thankfully the path Tressel et al have chosen to lead seems to hew closer to the core mission of a school of higher learning.
Upvote
0