I agree with Indiana. No school is "bending the rules". LSU can admit whoever the like, as can any other school. Some students get in without meeting the school's usual minumum requirements, whether it be athletes, minorities, legacies, people willing to donate large sums of money, or exceptionally talented in some other capacity (music, writing, whatever). This thread is about athletes, but it happens with other students as well. It is, for good reason, within a school's ability to decide who they do & do not admit.
Good deal. :thumb: No, you said, "These numbers are absolutely meaningless without knowing whether they are based on the same standard or not". I say the percentages, in regards to how many athletes are admitted when they do not meet the NCAA standards, tell us enough and they aren't "Meaningless". The survey was about the percentage of scholarship athletes accepted through “special admit” status, meaning they did not meet the school's standard academic requirements. http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20061210-1119-specialadmits.html I give up though. :hihi:
No. Schools can only determine how much higher, if at all, they wish to set their standards. Let's say the NCAA minimum is a 17 ACT & 2.5 gpa (just a guess). However, Notre Dame choses to keep their standards for athletes the same as any other student, say a 30 ACT & 3.5gpa (another guess). So they restrict themselves on who they can recruit. You are misunderstanding the article, Tiga. Schools cannot set their standards below the NCAA minimum.
Who asked you? :hihi: Seriously, I'm not the one who said it's, "Bending the rules" -that was the author- and really not the jest of what we were discussing (At least the point I'd raised), but I will stand with my initial post on my thoughts in regard to it. Here is the author's piece below: With your logic, if LSU can admit whomever they want, why have standards for admissions? Since LSU has an admissions standard, and they allow exceptions.......what would you call it?
Not the question. What do you call it when any student who doesn't meet the "General" admission standards in?
An exception, which can be based on many things, and is completely within the school's discretion. And it is the question. You said why bother having them, and I clarified that they are not absolute - as noted by the name.
Think of it this way... Every Guy has their own general quality standards when it comes to women (8 and above or whatever), but personal exceptions can be made based on intoxication level, draughts, etc. However, there is an absolute minimum quality standard instituted by friends which will not allow you to take home a 5 or below. You aren't bending the rules by taking home a 7. You're making an exception & still above the friend-mandated minimum of 5. That doesn't make the general standards worthless, just flexible. :hihi:
I meant the other question on the point you raised with me on the loophole, I asked what would you call it. As far as your post above, you are correct.....and an exception to a established standard is a loophole but don't take my word, here's what established sources say is the definition of a loophole: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loophole Great example but too close to home brutha. :hihi:
Let me try one more time. Consider the offsides rule in football, but imagine that instead of a 5 yard penalty, it states that as long as the players are on the field of play it will not be enforced, but the schools will be required to report the percentage of players offside during the game. As a result players will be all over the field and teams will dutifully make their reports. You are correct that this would be a loophole, but it would be so big as to completely nullify the rule. In effect there would be no offsides rule, and it would be a waste of time to talk about it as such. The same is true with this "rule" we're discussing. Schools are required to state what their standards, describe the exception process, report on it etc. However, there is no mechanism to enforce the rule. So the schools do exactly what they want to do and report on it. The loophole is so big that the rule has no meaning. As is it's a waste of time to worry about it.
