|
|
another thread about the modelModerators: PonyPride, SmooPower
29 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
You know...I have NO PROBLEMS whatsoever about bringing in Dexter Manley types, as long as you teach them to read while they are attending your school. I do have problems with criminals. Too bad there is always a Texas or OU that has zero scruples.
[quote="OC Mustang]
Alaric's question was sincere, and I regret being flippant in my answer. But isn't it obvious that they don't want to change the model, and they are doing so only reluctantly? Net-net, most of us either have accepted the premise that the model has failed or thought it was screwy to begin with. I fall into the former category; Stallion falls into the latter. [/quote] OC, you're missing the intent of my question. I'm asking people on this bored board how they feel? I'm guessing most of them think we ought to trash the model but I don't know for sure. I used to think SMU should have higher academic standards and I was ok with losing (for a while) because I could always say we had higher academic standards and I thought eventually we'd win...that was crazy. I accepted the new model a few years ago, just wondering if everyone else has. My new thinking is that we adopt the standard anyone else does, we just make sure our athletes leave SMU significantly more educated than when they arrived. College is about education, right? Accept Dexter Manley and turn him into one reading and writin' sonuvabitch! I know that won't happen but really, why do we need to be on the moral high ground when no one else is?
Pure lunacy actually. I called this over 20 years ago. Said Pye would literally kill SMU athletics. Being left out of the BCS probably did kill our FB program, at least to a large degree. BB and its potential is a different story!!!
I had a scholarship to SMU in engineering because of my math and science talents. I was only expected to be minimally proficient in other disciplines.
Dancers get scholarships to SMU in dance because of their dancing talent and are only expected to be minimally proficient in academics. Football players get scholarships to SMU for FOOTBALL and should only be expected to be MINIMALLY proficient in academics!
INDEED!!! Geaux MUSTANGS! Geaux Tigers!
I agree with this principle. I just disagree with SoCal about whether a university ought to be in the business of having to teach its students how to read. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I've always felt you should be allowed to major in Football, or whatever sport you're playing. SMU let me major in theatre. In practical terms, that proved to be about as useful as a Football major would be.
If a person, athlete or not, can not read in college it is not the fault of the University but rather some elementary school from an earlier date. It has always amazed me how Universities are chastised for allowing students to graduate wihtout being able to read. I can assure you, if I am a professor at a University, I am going to assume everyone that enters my classroom can read. If there is outside help going on, that is cheating, wrong, immoral, and grounds for dismissal of all students involved in the charade, but lets stop blaming Universities for having graduates that cannot read. It is not their responsibility.
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand
Knuckle,
I think a lot of major schools take kids who enter with a 7th grade proficiency and have them leave with same 7th grade proficiency. They simply care only about success on the field. What is wrong with taking same kid and having him leave with a 12th grade proficiency. You are doing him a big favor in the long haul versus, say, a University of Arkansas 'education'.
I have to disagree SoCal. I do not want my education stymied by my professor having to teach a student 8th grade reading, and I do not want my University spending money for remedial classes to teach 8th grade reading. Again, this is a problem to be addresed at the elementary school level. When we can get the government out of the education business, all will improve. As it is now, the PC crowd insisits that all pass regardless of performance so their feelings will not be hurt. All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand
So if a Reggie Bush / Darren McFadden type player needed a special education you wouldn't want your University to Pony Up? Seems like a great investment to me!!!!
OK. We have 2 different subjects. Mine is that the Manley situation should not ever exist at the college. Obvioulsy if they can not read or write, they can not qualify for college. If they do there is foul play. If they are a great athlete but unqualified for college, they have to find another way to get there. Yes, I would not want my University to pony up. But no other university should be able to pony up either. There are JCs, trade schools, and other sources for kids to get to a level where they can qualify for college. I do not think there is a Univeristy in the country that advertises itself to students who can not read or write. I do not think a great athlete should be deprived of playing his sport for a living, but I also do not think a great mind should be deprived of a spot in a school because an illiterate was admited due to athletic ability. All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand
Well I think the Manley cases are rare exceptions and I used that only since Knuckle did to further my point that I would allow non-thug kids into this University if they help us win Championships, within limits of course.
On a slightly different note, one of my best friends at school was a TA who swore that one of his students could not read. My friend is not known for exaggeration either. That student would be on EVERYBODY'S All-SMU Team, if not on the First Team, at least 2nd or 3rd team. And I mean EVERY Legitimate All-SMU Team. Hint - he has not played for SMU in over 20 years. 
The Board of Trustees, faculty, and Dr. Turner & Co. do not share the worldview that athletics should share in the teaching & research (okay, and "the arts") as the mission of SMU. I don't either, honestly. I share the view that SMU's mission is NOT, I repeat, NOT an egalitarian one. It is elitest by design, though my idea of "elitest" is certainly more meritorious than that which would describe SMU's elitism.
However, neither my view on the university's mission nor my view on elitism is a Nomme de Guerre. I pick my battles more realistically than that. To wit, I also believe it is an UBER-RIDICULOUS notion that students, alumni, and other SMU supporters be subjected to no more than an English Symposium, a math class, or a gender-role conference as an event to rally around. That is just damn stupid. Following that logic to a healthy competitive conclusion, if a university like SMU is to truly milk everything it can from collegiate athletics, particularly revenue-generating sports, then by God, we ought to actually put something on the field that wins. And right/wrong/indifferent, our existing product at best does not do that...hence our furious typing and Charlie Brown frustration. "Moderation in all things, and especially in Absoluts [vodka]." The Benediction, Doc Breeden, circa 1992
Well said - SoCal
It's that's, indeed, true, that says it all & the model must be thrown out. BRING BACK THE GLORY DAYS OF SMU FOOTBALL!!!
For some strange reason, one of the few universities that REFUSE to use their school colors: Harvard Crimson & Yale Blue.
29 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests |
|
