Those that barely make it..............

[K2C Sooner]

I'm just wondering why so many, and I'm not just talking OU, can barely qualify for a scholarship out of high school and then magically get through four or five years of a tougher environment once in college?

Have any of you wondered the same? We really have very few that fall through the cracks.

My daughter went to Tulsa University. 3.8 grade average. She told me about the countless times a professor would team or group certain students together and the collective would all get the final score on a project or paper. Many times she was grouped with were football and basketball players that wouldn't even show up to work on the final project. She would do all the work and the so called "team" all received the grade.

I'm not trying to open a can of worms here, but I often wonder if this is the norm?

 

[CTOkie]

I witnessed such things at OU in the late 1960's.
The term "student athlete" has a hollow meaning to me.

 

[barkingwater2000]

Education at all levels has been dumbed down through the years. Remember, colleges want you to stay enrolled. Otherwise, they wouldn't receive any tuition.

 

[JConXtsy]

Education at all levels has been dumbed down through the years. Remember, colleges want you to stay enrolled. Otherwise, they wouldn't receive any tuition.

No way. Education just gets better. People get smarter too.
I read recently that based on today's IQ standard (which average is in the 90s) people from just a century ago would have only averaged in the mid 70s.

 

[barkingwater2000]

No way. Education just gets better. People get smarter too.
I read recently that based on today's IQ standard (which average is in the 90s) people from just a century ago would have only averaged in the mid 70s.

Have you been involved in the public school system or higher ed? I have. I know the grading has been dumbed down and kids are passed on that never should be. I've seen kids who can barely read be accepted into small colleges and placed in remedial courses when they have no business even being in college. Its a business and they will do whatever they can to keep you in school.

 

[runningback43]

Have you been involved in the public school system or higher ed? I have. I know the grading has been dumbed down and kids are passed on that never should be. I've seen kids who can barely read be accepted into small colleges and placed in remedial courses when they have no business even being in college. Its a business and they will do whatever they can to keep you in school.

Seems like it's getting tougher and tougher to flunk a class. Show up and you'll get a passing grade.

 

[Dastardly Deed]

No way. Education just gets better. People get smarter too.
I read recently that based on today's IQ standard (which average is in the 90s) people from just a century ago would have only averaged in the mid 70s.

Can't agree with that ... other than in computer-related subjects. Today's kids are whizzes at this stuff because they were given "smart phones" at age 4 or 5. Good for them. Live your lives texting and sexting or whatever the hell you do on those things.

But otherwise, 2/3 of kids "graduating" from HS (excepting, as always, the very brightest) are as dumb as rocks in subjects such as English (reading and writing), history (most can't even name half our states on a map, never mind countries of the world), general science, math, etc. These are the same people populating our colleges and universities.

The whole world relies on the brightest one percent of the population--the scientists, the writers, the discoverers, the initiators. The rest of us are along for the ride.

 

[JConXtsy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

The whole world relies on the brightest one percent of the population--the scientists, the writers, the discoverers, the initiators. The rest of us are along for the ride.

What a sad outlook on life.

 

[Oklabama]

Can't agree with that ... other than in computer-related subjects. Today's kids are whizzes at this stuff because they were given "smart phones" at age 4 or 5. Good for them. Live your lives texting and sexting or whatever the hell you do on those things.

But otherwise, 2/3 of kids "graduating" from HS (excepting, as always, the very brightest) are as dumb as rocks in subjects such as English (reading and writing), history (most can't even name half our states on a map, never mind countries of the world), general science, math, etc. These are the same people populating our colleges and universities.

The whole world relies on the brightest one percent of the population--the scientists, the writers, the discoverers, the initiators. The rest of us are along for the ride.

Is geography even a required high school subject anymore? Doesn't appear to be based on what I see and hear from today's youth.

 

[CTOkie]

Can't agree with that ... other than in computer-related subjects. Today's kids are whizzes at this stuff because they were given "smart phones" at age 4 or 5. Good for them. Live your lives texting and sexting or whatever the hell you do on those things.

But otherwise, 2/3 of kids "graduating" from HS (excepting, as always, the very brightest) are as dumb as rocks in subjects such as English (reading and writing), history (most can't even name half our states on a map, never mind countries of the world), general science, math, etc. These are the same people populating our colleges and universities.

The whole world relies on the brightest one percent of the population--the scientists, the writers, the discoverers, the initiators. The rest of us are along for the ride.

Agree 100 %.
All this factors in to how we vote as well. Take any of the six candidates right now to figure that out. No elaboration needed.
I see plenty of young kids and teenagers who are buried in their "smart" phones and consequently develop a very impersonal and shallow way of relating to other people and reality.
It's appalling how little so many "educated" people know of history, geography and basic grammar. Even more troubling is how many of these folks are in the main stream media indoctrinating us instead of informing us. (I include the Fox News bunch as well).

 

[barkingwater2000]

Agree 100 %.
All this factors in to how we vote as well. Take any of the five candidates right now to figure that out. No elaboration needed.
I see plenty of young kids and teenagers who are buried in their "smart" phones and consequently develop a very impersonal and shallow way of relating to other people and reality.
It's appalling how little so many "educated" people know of history, geography and basic grammar. Even more troubling is how many of these folks are in the main stream media indoctrinating us instead of informing us. (I include the Fox News bunch as well).

CT we have 6 candidates for President. Which one are you leaving out?

 

[CTOkie]

CT we have 6 candidates for President. Which one are you leaving out?

I neglected Kasich. Madame Pants Suit, Sanders, Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Kasich....really great choices, huh ?

 

[Sooners83]

I neglected Kasich. Madame Pants Suit, Sanders, Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Kasich....really great choices, huh ?

yeah boo (not bad sportsmanship in politics it seems) amazing really, and we have several months more of this.

 

[barkingwater2000]

I neglected Kasich. Madame Pants Suit, Sanders, Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Kasich....really great choices, huh ?

Well there are probably only 3 of them that have a realistic chance. Gonna be interesting

 

[Oklabama]

I think Trump has a deal with the Clintons.

 

[CTOkie]

I think Trump has a deal with the Clintons.

I have been thinking this as being a real possibility for a few months now.
I believe Trumps' fracturing of the GOP (whether or not there is or isn't a deal with the Clintons) seals the deal for Hillary, who seems immune from all scrutiny.
I'm starting to visualize Chris Mathews crying as he announces Hillary, the first female president, as the winner of November's election.

 

[K2C Sooner]

I think Trump has a deal with the Clintons.

Oh my goodness, you think Plaino posts conspiracy theories on LSU players throwing games and referees calling bad games and you and CT give us this? LOL!

BTW, no further comments from me..............

 

[CTOkie]

Oh my goodness, you think Plaino posts conspiracy theories on LSU players throwing games and referees calling bad games and you and CT give us this? LOL!

BTW, no further comments from me..............

I'm not really spouting a conspiracy here, just pointing out the Hillary has to be euphoric about what's happening to her opposition.
Frankly, I think the GOP might have been behind the eight ball even in Trump's absence.

 

[barkingwater2000]

If Republicans can't win the white house this time then it may never happen again. Hillary and Bernie? Pathetic

 

[CTOkie]

Interesting how in 1992, H. Ross Perot, a Texas millionaire businessman, running as an Independent, won the election for Bill Clinton against George Bush, Sr.
Now, in 2016, Donald Trump, a New York millionaire businessman, running as a Republican, looks like he will do the same Bill Clinton's wife.
My concern is if Bill and Hillary divorce, who will get custody of the United States ?

 

[sybarite43]

First, I'll ignore the politics since I equate conservatism with the unwillingness or inability to think.

Secondly, the school systems have been dumbed down dramatically, at all levels. If you were to give college graduates of today the highschool exit exams of 1920, probably about ninety percent would fail. I had to correct the grammar of my children's English teacher, and they were at Highland Park.

Thirdly, prior to the development of a tutorial program at OU, I tutored a number of athletes in science, supposedly. But, it ended up that I tutored them in several fields. Some of these kids had never seen a book in high school. They didn't know how to study and could barely read. Once they saw how to approach something and saw the logical points, they often did quite well----before grade inflation. It just took someone who would teach them how to read, not just mouth the words, but how to understand.

 

[JConXtsy]

First, I'll ignore the politics since I equate conservatism with the unwillingness or inability to think.

Secondly, the school systems have been dumbed down dramatically, at all levels. If you were to give college graduates of today the highschool exit exams of 1920, probably about ninety percent would fail.

This is factually false. The only apples to apples comparison, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, has only existed since 1971. Since then, early education as tested at 9 and 13 years of age has shown MASSIVE improvements in test scores in both reading and math. At age 17, it has shown statistical insignificance in both reading and math if not somewhat of an increase. However if you look closely at the results, the scores have increased for all races since the 70s. The reason why the scores show no significant change overall since the 70s is that the racial makeup has skewed more towards blacks and hispanics which normally report lower average scores than whites.

Moreover if you look closely at the trends by age group, the significant increases in the 9 and 13 year age groups show recent (Internet Age) significant gains which wouldn't have trickled on to the 17 year age group yet. That improvement might not show until the statistical averages computed this year, 2016, or in the next averages, 2020. 17 year olds tested in 2012 were born in 1995. Pew survey results show only about 50% of adult Americans were using the internet in 2000 meaning the 17 year old age group in 2012 probably had a low rate of Internet involvement as children compared to the nearly 100% usage rate of today.

http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2012/

Unless you're arguing that the education system declined significantly from the 20s to the 70s and then remained stable, you have no leg on which to stand.

It's more likely that the demonization of the education system and youth has increased over time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...23b020-3f6a-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html

 

[sybarite43]

This is factually false. The only apples to apples comparison, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, has only existed since 1971. Since then, early education as tested at 9 and 13 years of age has shown MASSIVE improvements in test scores in both reading and math. At age 17, it has shown statistical insignificance in both reading and math if not somewhat of an increase. However if you look closely at the results, the scores have increased for all races since the 70s. The reason why the scores show no significant change overall since the 70s is that the racial makeup has skewed more towards blacks and hispanics which normally report lower average scores than whites.

Moreover if you look closely at the trends by age group, the significant increases in the 9 and 13 year age groups show recent (Internet Age) significant gains which wouldn't have trickled on to the 17 year age group yet. That improvement might not show until the statistical averages computed this year, 2016, or in the next averages, 2020. 17 year olds tested in 2012 were born in 1995. Pew survey results show only about 50% of adult Americans were using the internet in 2000 meaning the 17 year old age group in 2012 probably had a low rate of Internet involvement as children compared to the nearly 100% usage rate of today.

http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2012/

Unless you're arguing that the education system declined significantly from the 20s to the 70s and then remained stable, you have no leg on which to stand.

It's more likely that the demonization of the education system and youth has increased over time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...23b020-3f6a-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html

You can design a program to teach to the test. It works. It accomplishes nothing. Indeed, a good comparison are the various schools that teach one and two-day courses to get a real estate license, insurance license, series 6 license, etc. They guaranteed passage, and about 95% of the students do pass the test. That is not education.

See if you could pass this?
http://www.bullittcountyhistory.com/bchistory/schoolexam1912.html

That actually requires that you understand things like the structure of a language, a knowledge of geography, etc. The NAEP probably serves the purpose best of making a profit for the administrator of the test.

 

[JConXtsy]

You can design a program to teach to the test. It works. It accomplishes nothing. Indeed, a good comparison are the various schools that teach one and two-day courses to get a real estate license, insurance license, series 6 license, etc. They guaranteed passage, and about 95% of the students do pass the test. That is not education.

See if you could pass this?
http://www.bullittcountyhistory.com/bchistory/schoolexam1912.html

That actually requires that you understand things like the structure of a language, a knowledge of geography, etc. The NAEP probably serves the purpose best of making a profit for the administrator of the test.

That test does nothing other than illustrate your first paragraph.
The game show "Are you smarter than a 3rd grader?" illustrates this as well. I would argue an 8th grader from 1920 couldn't get very far on that game show today which is supposedly a measure of the current education system.

Geography, politics, grammar are all taught in today's school system just the same. The fact that adults don't retain the information taught to them in grade school shows nothing other than the lack of importance of these subjects in their strive for prosperity.

The true importance of education lies within its ability to instruct the student on where to look for knowledge and how to interpret the knowledge they find. Trivia is simply for games.

The NAEP uses only a selection of the population and is not administered at all ages. The point of the NAEP is to eliminate the argument of teaching for a test. The public school system does not teach for the NAEP as they are not evaluated on their NAEP scores.

 

[barkingwater2000]

First, I'll ignore the politics since I equate conservatism with the unwillingness or inability to think.

Secondly, the school systems have been dumbed down dramatically, at all levels. If you were to give college graduates of today the highschool exit exams of 1920, probably about ninety percent would fail. I had to correct the grammar of my children's English teacher, and they were at Highland Park.

Thirdly, prior to the development of a tutorial program at OU, I tutored a number of athletes in science, supposedly. But, it ended up that I tutored them in several fields. Some of these kids had never seen a book in high school. They didn't know how to study and could barely read. Once they saw how to approach something and saw the logical points, they often did quite well----before grade inflation. It just took someone who would teach them how to read, not just mouth the words, but how to understand.

Its funny how people see things differently. I actually see most liberals as over emotional and uninformed. Guess it depends on your view point

 

[CTOkie]

You believe there's really a fundamental difference in the two political parties or that one party is "smarter" than the other ?
Both parties want to play Santa Claus by increasing the size of the government, adding entitlements (another word for dependency) which we pay for through taxes ...all to make us dependent on government control....which gets votes for politicians.
Over half the country do not pay taxes, which is why liberals keep getting elected. The tax-takers outnumber the tax-payers.....a nation of parasites. Liberals thrive on this.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oklabama]

First, I'll ignore the politics since I equate conservatism with the unwillingness or inability to think.

By posting this statement, you failed to "ignore the politics". You clearly made your point.

 

[JConXtsy]

I encourage anyone interested in politics to read the results of this Gallup poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx

And then read this academic paper:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

 

[sybarite43]

That test does nothing other than illustrate your first paragraph.
The game show "Are you smarter than a 3rd grader?" illustrates this as well. I would argue an 8th grader from 1920 couldn't get very far on that game show today which is supposedly a measure of the current education system.

Geography, politics, grammar are all taught in today's school system just the same. The fact that adults don't retain the information taught to them in grade school shows nothing other than the lack of importance of these subjects in their strive for prosperity.

The true importance of education lies within its ability to instruct the student on where to look for knowledge and how to interpret the knowledge they find. Trivia is simply for games.

The NAEP uses only a selection of the population and is not administered at all ages. The point of the NAEP is to eliminate the argument of teaching for a test. The public school system does not teach for the NAEP as they are not evaluated on their NAEP scores.

About all school systems do is teach to standardized tests. Once again, I'll make it clear. You can teach to a standardized test. Professional schools make a profit of it. There is one thing that demonstrates exactly what the difference is. The US Army drafted a few million people, all of whom had to go through an eight-week training course, a part of which included a written exam. You have maybe 75,000 unskilled inductees, many of whom are functionally illiterate. In the seventh week, they are given a series of exams (one written) to show that they have mastered drill performances, procedures, emergency procedures, etc. All 75,000 pass. How do you teach 75,000 people in eight weeks? They have no choice. They have no disciplinary problems. They will learn it. We don't really have that in our schools systems any more. We kind of did, many moons ago.

I don't even think we have the capability of doing the job that we want any more. In most of the world, if you want to teach math, you must be a math major. We don't have that. If you want to teach math, you are an education major who took some courses in math. The same is true of most disciplines. Often, the teachers aren't that well grounded. They try, but they are primarily there to keep discipline and to keep the kids in class since that is how the state pays the schools. Absentees cost funding. A tardy costs funding.

My children's English teacher didn't know the difference between fewer and less. A physics teacher couldn't tell me what Bernoulli's Principle had to do with a vacuum cleaner. I could go on and on with this.

All seniors at OU used to have to pass an English J exam to graduate. Any bets on whether they could do it now?

It needs to be repaired.

 

[Plainosooner]

I think Trump has a deal with the Clintons.

I thought that from the beginning.

 

[JConXtsy]

There wasn't any blur of your point, but you stated that you can teach towards a test and then your proof that people were smarter in the 20s used a test that was full of trivia. Trivia does not equal intelligence.

And my point is that the NAEP is not a standardized test. It is not a test that is being taught to by anyone. It's a spot check on basic principles of math and reading.

If your argument is merely about grammar and spelling in the English language, my argument would be, "what's the point?" The whole purpose of language is for efficient communication. A misplaced comma, an errant colon, the incorrect there/their/they're doesn't matter in communication. Context develops the purpose of communication. If not, then how else would you know someone wrote it incorrectly? You knew, because you understood their communication. Even linguists recognize the unimportance of these things regularly labeling English as a dynamic language, and the education system has taken note as well showing their understanding by changing the SAT format for the first time in over half of a century - de-emphasizing the importance of vocabulary and writing, and rather focusing on reading comprehension.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/magazine/the-story-behind-the-sat-overhaul.html?_r=0

 

[glmays11]

This is factually false. The only apples to apples comparison, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, has only existed since 1971. Since then, early education as tested at 9 and 13 years of age has shown MASSIVE improvements in test scores in both reading and math. At age 17, it has shown statistical insignificance in both reading and math if not somewhat of an increase. However if you look closely at the results, the scores have increased for all races since the 70s. The reason why the scores show no significant change overall since the 70s is that the racial makeup has skewed more towards blacks and hispanics which normally report lower average scores than whites.

Moreover if you look closely at the trends by age group, the significant increases in the 9 and 13 year age groups show recent (Internet Age) significant gains which wouldn't have trickled on to the 17 year age group yet. That improvement might not show until the statistical averages computed this year, 2016, or in the next averages, 2020. 17 year olds tested in 2012 were born in 1995. Pew survey results show only about 50% of adult Americans were using the internet in 2000 meaning the 17 year old age group in 2012 probably had a low rate of Internet involvement as children compared to the nearly 100% usage rate of today.

http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2012/

Unless you're arguing that the education system declined significantly from the 20s to the 70s and then remained stable, you have no leg on which to stand.

It's more likely that the demonization of the education system and youth has increased over time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...23b020-3f6a-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html

Kind of funny you say schools haven't been "dumbed down" as I had a conversation with a University President today who said that tests have been "dumbed down". He also talked about the total lack of care at local state government level for education. He said rules and test requirements from the Fed and State levels have totally led this drop.

He is celebrating his 50th year in education. He spent 25 years at public schools and the rest of his career in Higher Ed. President for 10 years.

But I'm sure you are much more qualified to make such statements. When you suggest reading articles from the left leaning papers and reports by left governed organizations, kind of makes this Old Redneck doubt your argument.

Tests, surveys, etc can be so heavily influenced by the questions asked and who sponsored the survey. Tell me what you want the answers to be and I will craft the questions to get there. Oldest trick in the book.

By the way, my brother was a Public school superintendent for 29 years used to comment about this subject. He had to follow the law. Study for the tests was all that was preached by The Dept of Education.

Sadly he passed away 5 years ago. He said he was glad he got out when he did. He told me it would get much worse.

As an old International Tax Accountant, I learned early on that the bottom line was greatly influenced by management decisions, that were made. Interpretations of events can significantly change things.

Many times the bottom line was already determined.

I think any survey, study etc should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

It isn't that complicated.
You get accepted...you study your ass off and make the grade.

You don't make the grade, you flunk out.
Any questions?

 

[glmays11]

I'm just wondering why so many, and I'm not just talking OU, can barely qualify for a scholarship out of high school and then magically get through four or five years of a tougher environment once in college?

Have any of you wondered the same? We really have very few that fall through the cracks.

My daughter went to Tulsa University. 3.8 grade average. She told me about the countless times a professor would team or group certain students together and the collective would all get the final score on a project or paper. Many times she was grouped with were football and basketball players that wouldn't even show up to work on the final project. She would do all the work and the so called "team" all received the grade.

I'm not trying to open a can of worms here, but I often wonder if this is the norm?

 

[jobea01]

About all school systems do is teach to standardized tests. Once again, I'll make it clear. You can teach to a standardized test. Professional schools make a profit of it. There is one thing that demonstrates exactly what the difference is. The US Army drafted a few million people, all of whom had to go through an eight-week training course, a part of which included a written exam. You have maybe 75,000 unskilled inductees, many of whom are functionally illiterate. In the seventh week, they are given a series of exams (one written) to show that they have mastered drill performances, procedures, emergency procedures, etc. All 75,000 pass. How do you teach 75,000 people in eight weeks? They have no choice. They have no disciplinary problems. They will learn it. We don't really have that in our schools systems any more. We kind of did, many moons ago.

I don't even think we have the capability of doing the job that we want any more. In most of the world, if you want to teach math, you must be a math major. We don't have that. If you want to teach math, you are an education major who took some courses in math. The same is true of most disciplines. Often, the teachers aren't that well grounded. They try, but they are primarily there to keep discipline and to keep the kids in class since that is how the state pays the schools. Absentees cost funding. A tardy costs funding.

My children's English teacher didn't know the difference between fewer and less. A physics teacher couldn't tell me what Bernoulli's Principle had to do with a vacuum cleaner. I could go on and on with this.

All seniors at OU used to have to pass an English J exam to graduate. Any bets on whether they could do it now?

It needs to be repaired.

You're being taken to school right now. You talk about education badly and this is a great learning experience for you

 

[Soonersincefitty]

Kind of funny you say schools haven't been "dumbed down" as I had a conversation with a University President today who said that tests have been "dumbed down". He also talked about the total lack of care at local state government level for education. He said rules and test requirements from the Fed and State levels have totally led this drop.

He is celebrating his 50th year in education. He spent 25 years at public schools and the rest of his career in Higher Ed. President for 10 years.

But I'm sure you are much more qualified to make such statements. When you suggest reading articles from the left leaning papers and reports by left governed organizations, kind of makes this Old Redneck doubt your argument.

Tests, surveys, etc can be so heavily influenced by the questions asked and who sponsored the survey. Tell me what you want the answers to be and I will craft the questions to get there. Oldest trick in the book.

By the way, my brother was a Public school superintendent for 29 years used to comment about this subject. He had to follow the law. Study for the tests was all that was preached by The Dept of Education.

Sadly he passed away 5 years ago. He said he was glad he got out when he did. He told me it would get much worse.

As an old International Tax Accountant, I learned early on that the bottom line was greatly influenced by management decisions, that were made. Interpretations of events can significantly change things.

Many times the bottom line was already determined.

I think any survey, study etc should be taken with a grain of salt.

Ouch!
and the truth shall set you free.

 

[WhyNotaSooner]

Can't agree with that ... other than in computer-related subjects. Today's kids are whizzes at this stuff because they were given "smart phones" at age 4 or 5. Good for them. Live your lives texting and sexting or whatever the hell you do on those things.

But otherwise, 2/3 of kids "graduating" from HS (excepting, as always, the very brightest) are as dumb as rocks in subjects such as English (reading and writing), history (most can't even name half our states on a map, never mind countries of the world), general science, math, etc. These are the same people populating our colleges and universities.

The whole world relies on the brightest one percent of the population--the scientists, the writers, the discoverers, the initiators. The rest of us are along for the ride.

I'd agree with this to a large degree. I won't discount that there are some great kids out there doing some good things while attending HS & College, but the fact is, there are major companies in many fields and sectors that are begging for quality help and they are recruiting top students from around the world.

 

[WhyNotaSooner]

Kind of funny you say schools haven't been "dumbed down" as I had a conversation with a University President today who said that tests have been "dumbed down". He also talked about the total lack of care at local state government level for education. He said rules and test requirements from the Fed and State levels have totally led this drop.

He is celebrating his 50th year in education. He spent 25 years at public schools and the rest of his career in Higher Ed. President for 10 years.

But I'm sure you are much more qualified to make such statements. When you suggest reading articles from the left leaning papers and reports by left governed organizations, kind of makes this Old Redneck doubt your argument.

Tests, surveys, etc can be so heavily influenced by the questions asked and who sponsored the survey. Tell me what you want the answers to be and I will craft the questions to get there. Oldest trick in the book.

By the way, my brother was a Public school superintendent for 29 years used to comment about this subject. He had to follow the law. Study for the tests was all that was preached by The Dept of Education.

Sadly he passed away 5 years ago. He said he was glad he got out when he did. He told me it would get much worse.

As an old International Tax Accountant, I learned early on that the bottom line was greatly influenced by management decisions, that were made. Interpretations of events can significantly change things.

Many times the bottom line was already determined.

I think any survey, study etc should be taken with a grain of salt.

That's pretty rich. Gotta love a Univ Pres complaining about the education system that he's been part of for 50 years. I'm thinking he's hauling in a healthy six figures. Not that he isn't qualified or not deserving if he's pulling in his market value.

 

[Plainosooner]

I think there are a lot of contributing factors generally. One of the primary factors are some guys, who as public education students were no taught how to study, or weren't motivated to study. They were motivated to be athletes and as good as that as they could be. Some were immature. And because they weren't great students but were often great athletes, that's where they positive feedback came from and became their primary focus.

Sometimes, college opens their eyes. The whole experience of meeting well educated people, and deciding to seek that. The great thing about being an OU athlete and especially an OU football player, is that you not only have access to great academic support, you are required to use that support if you're classroom performance isn't wonderful.

The fact is that a lot of the barely made it in, guys, don't make it. A lot of times it's their lack of effort. But not always. Bob runs a few off, if they just blow off going to class. They get second chances. They get early AM stadium steps. They get game and team suspensions. We've lost guys recently that just wouldn't take care of their business. Those who give effort get more chances. Those who behave acceptably get more chances.

I don't know how much it happens at OU, but some places, papers get written for them. Tests, especially online, get taken for them. But that's not only athletes doing things that way. I have a relative that get a degree at A&M, who took their final five classes online, and got test taking help online.

I have a customer, whose child was a really good student. Not an athlete. Their child was at Alabama when the tornado and storm damage wiped out the final five or six weeks of the semester and the entire university took the last six weeks online. TV classes and other such devices. I was headed over to that house to work, and the lady told me to come early and get my work done upstairs first, because he offspring was taking a final exam upstairs. So I needed to be gone before the test started.

When I got there, their child was upstairs with four friends, waiting around to take the test together.Let's assume it was a group project, even though it likely wasn't. There was going to be some help going on. This is not the way we took finals in the 70s. Not usually anyway.

The point is that there are all sorts of ways to cheat. But you're going to have to get some real work done to get a for real degree. I'm guessing that when Pitino is having staff hire strippers to have sex with players and recruits, that cheating in other areas, are maybe a little more likely. And in basketball, if they are really elite players, then they're not likely to hang around more than a year or two anyway. Schools are inventive enough to find enough classes with passable tests, even for the "slow learner" to keep them eligible for two or four semesters, even if they make "No progress toward a degree."

But what often happens is that the guy when he's 21 or younger, doesn't really see the value of anything but football, even if he is actually capable of getting a degree. But if he is, and doesn't take advantage of the educational opportunity, he will realize it later on, and he will return to get his degree. And often, if he hadn't had the required tutoring that got him progressed enough to be over halfway there, while a student, that wouldn't have happened.

So even if they don't maximize their opportunity in the short term, they still will in the future.

 

[JConXtsy]

I think any survey, study etc should be taken with a grain of salt.

I guess we're all doomed then, and the human race will come to a standstill based on your anecdotal evidence. We're getting dumber and dumber despite the facts.
Give me a list of non left-leaning publications that you accept, and I'll find you similar data.