DMN - SMU says admissions process has loosened

[shadowman]

What percentage of D1 schools have added requirements beyond the standards of the NCAA Clearinghouse? Is this common? If it is not, it would hardly seem that the playing field is all that level, despite the marked improvement in criteria for athletic admissions to SMU, does it?

I'm sure Stallion has some insight here?

I still don't think this is a big deal, I am sure many schools in D1, especially ones that value academics, would take a second look at someone that bombed their SAT. I see nothing wrong with how things are, there is a review and appeals process, the only two casualties in the two years were both given the option to go to JC and enroll in January, they would be red shirted anyway.

Just not a big deal, the model can be tweaked and worked going forward. This is getting blown way out of proportion.

[southerncomfort]

An SAT score below 900? Hasn't the SAT been scored out of 2400 since 2006 (when I graduated and I was the first class to take the new SAT)? 900 is awfully low...that seems quite absurd, am I missing something?

[cutter]

I see nothing wrong with how things are, there is a review and appeals process, the only two casualties in the two years were both given the option to go to JC and enroll in January, they would be red shirted anyway.

Just not a big deal, the model can be tweaked and worked going forward. This is getting blown way out of proportion.

I agree that the process seems to be a reasonable one, on the surface. However, given the intimations by JJ in private conversations that NickSMU17 and ALEXLIFESON have noted (see the Soldier Field and Shreveport threads), there seems to be some internal undercurrent of signifcant discontent with the status quo. So....I'm just asking.

[Stallion]

yes they only consider the Math/English parts-not the third new part.

For many years I bitched and moaned that 85% of all Division 1A schools essential had admission standards in line with NCAA minimum qualification standards with minor variations here or there. I have a very definite belief that applied to all Texas schools except Rice(and formerly SMU). That discussion arose during a period when there was a 700 SAT minium. I admit I have never backed down on that position-but have never really considered the nuance presented by the deemphasized SAT. There now is no minimum SAT. I just don't know the answer as to whether a lot of schools will admit players well below the old 700 SAT minimum. I suspect there well could be a substantial number who would blacklist kids with SAT in the 500s and 600s for example. I think most would still admit a full qualifier with a 700 + SAT. We don't know what these 2 recruits scored on the SAT.

[Eddie P]

Just learned that Kevin Sherrington is writing a story tommorow about our current "situation" with the two recruits we got denied. Should be interesting.

[ponyte]

There is a robust debate on this board as to what qualifies a football player for admission. Some would question the validity of the SAT to predict academic success.

In the past, the school has felt that all students should be accessed based on the same admission standards. Some would argue that kids with unique talents (such as playing football) are denied an opportunity to get an education and perhaps better their chances of success in life. This could be because some of these potential candidates come from areas where academic success (or any success) is rare. There are many success stories of kids, who would not have been admitted had they not been an athlete, and achieved a degree and success after college. There have also been plenty of academic failures.

It is a hard balancing act (who has a chance of academic success and deserves a chance vs. who is a poor risk and doesn't get a chance at SMU).

As the debate moves forward, there is a wide range of possible admission standards. Everything from all students should be evaluated on the exact same standard regardless of other circumstances to any mouth breather that can hit like a freight train and almost remember most of his plays should be admitted.

But the key thing that some miss is, until we have a team in camp practicing, we will find any odd trivial subject to criticizes and analysis. Just wait till the red vs. blue jersey debates starts!

[PK]

There is a robust debate on this board as to what qualifies a football player for admission. Some would question the validity of the SAT to predict academic success.

In the past, the school has felt that all students should be accessed based on the same admission standards. Some would argue that kids with unique talents (such as playing football) are denied an opportunity to get an education and perhaps better their chances of success in life. This could be because some of these potential candidates come from areas where academic success (or any success) is rare. There are many success stories of kids, who would not have been admitted had they not been an athlete, and achieved a degree and success after college. There have also been plenty of academic failures.

It is a hard balancing act (who has a chance of academic success and deserves a chance vs. who is a poor risk and doesn't get a chance at SMU).

As the debate moves forward, there is a wide range of possible admission standards. Everything from all students should be evaluated on the exact same standard regardless of other circumstances to any mouth breather that can hit like a freight train and almost remember most of his plays should be admitted.

But the key thing that some miss is, until we have a team in camp practicing, we will find any odd trivial subject to criticizes and analysis. Just wait till the red vs. blue jersey debates starts!

Yale blue...please.

[HB Pony Dad]

Just wait till the red vs. blue jersey debates starts!

Yale blue...please.

and Harvard crimson if the Yale blues are wearing white!

[cutter]

Stallion, thanks for the helpful info.
I'll assume that your '85%' is derived from some reliable source(s).
My impression from your comments is that it is likely the vast majority of D1 schools have much more relaxed admission standards than SMU, and in line with the NCAA minimum requirements. I guess, that is both good and bad.
I can see your point re: SAT in the 500-600 range. I didn't realize that you get 400 points (combined Math/English) just for taking the test (using wikipedia here, since my SAT days are many moons removed).

Still, there seems a reasonable argument to relax SMU requirements further in order to be competitive in recruiting from a greater pool of athletes. I wonder if the new(?) learning/academic center is a compromise of sorts to allow more 'marginal' student-players in?

It is a hard balancing act (who has a chance of academic success and deserves a chance vs. who is a poor risk and doesn't get a chance at SMU).

Agreed.
I guess, it would be encouraging if they were really attempting the balancing act, or really discouraging if they were just blowing smoke, in whatever the behind-the-scenes machinations that is ongoing.

[PK]

On a serious note, I would think that JJ would want to know that a new recruit has a good chance of being able to stay eligible before taking the time to work with him on his football skills only to then have him flunk out. JJ obviously is able to evaluate football talent, but hoping a kid can stay eligible vs knowing the kid has what it takes academically to stay eligible may be two different things. Even those kids that should be able to stay eligible some times don't apply themselves and you wind up with the situation we have this year with a number of scholarship football players ineligible. How much harder will it be for the kid not ready for college. I'm not judging the two kids recently denied admission as I don't really know their situations. I'm just saying there probably should be some thoughtful academic reviews made on recruits.

[Mestengo]

I think it has been stated that if you just show up to class and act like your interested is 90% of the battle…

[PerunaPunch]

There is a robust debate on this board as to what qualifies a football player for admission. Some would question the validity of the SAT to predict academic success.

That's true. My SAT was high enough that I could have qualified more than twice off it (pre-2006 test), and yet I was on academic probation after my first semester (I got betta ).

An SAT is not an IQ test. It merely provides a benchmark for where a student is scholastically at a certain point in time (they should rename it "Scholastic Achievement Test" rather than "Scholastic Aptitude Test"). As such, it's not necessarily a very good indicator of academic success even though generally speaking there is some credence to the concept that past performance predicts future success.

You can argue factors like cultural bias in the testing and whatnot, but since most of our lectures are in English, most lectures are delivered by PhDs, and most of the work is required to be done in English, and since we all have (or had) to take the same math, science, literature, etc., I think the SAT does give educators an idea of how well a student can function in a given classroom without assistance. If an SAT is under a certain threshold, I think it's safe to say that admissions knows that some assistance will need to be provided for the student to accelerate their learning and graduate. And from what it sounds like, if they believe a student is currently too far behind to have at least a 50/50 chance to succeed, they are denied admission.

[HB Pony Dad]

From reading the DMN article it is obvious that Tom Tunks, the associate provost who has overseen undergraduate admissions, Steve Orsini, and coach June Jones have been given conflicting directives with regards to NCAA qualifiers.

This conflict in directives needs to be addressed by the administration (i.e. President Turner) and both parties, academic and athletic, need to have the same unequivocal understanding.

Obviously somebody fumbled here and SMU as a whole gets another black eye.

This conflict needs to be resolved immediately!

[NickSMU17]

We should be able to direct this guys into Majors they will want to use later in life...education, physical therapy, ect...The university should help them achieve in whatever they want to do, and give proper support a whole different issue...

Then we are providing them a service and us a service as well...

[CalallenStang]

Tunks is stepping out of this role:
http://www.smudailymustang.com/?p=25397