I took "Guns and Boats" since it was a required part of the NROTC program when I was at Duke - in the 1960's. It was neither easy nor quite as rigorous as the engineering courses I was taking. But I did have to work.
Beyond that, it didn't matter whether it was easy or hard. The university did not count the hours towards my degree requirement. I took it because the Navy required it, but it didn't move me any closer to graduation. That's very different than the current situation at UNC where it appears the course is part of the system that's in place to support eligibility requirements.
Leave it to Jay...pretty funny.
mate selection, auburn, 1987
Wow. I never even imagined receiving college credit for one of the essential goals in a college student's life.
I wonder how much more focused/productive our thousands of hours of ad hoc laboratory sessions would have been if we followed a course outline?
On second thought, perhaps it was better for some (cough, cough) that prospective "selectees" were less well-informed of the process.
“This has all of the ingredients of a major academic violation because it is so systematic over a long period of time. I feel certain that the NCAA is planning on inviting themselves back. They simply can’t let this go.”
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/...#storylink=cpy
Jay Bilas is missing the point. Fortunately, others are not.
"This is the best of all possible worlds."
Dr. Pangloss - Candide
Wow. That may be the most damning article I have read on all this. Here are leading academic advisers and experts across the country demanding that the NCAA take serious action. I just can't see how the NCAA can let this go. And I think they won't. I am betting that they are waiting for the Martin report, which is supposed to come this month, and then they will either bring the hammer down or launch their own investigation.
-Jason "this will end badly for UNC... many wins are going to be vacated and scholarships are going to be lost... in both football and basketball, I suspect" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
I was at Duke in the late 1960s and early 1970s and Guns and Boats was indeed regarded as an easy course.
But it was a legitimate course. You had to attend class and do the work -- and it was real work. The key was the Theodore Ropp, who was a renowned Naval historian, had such a low regarded for undergrads that any show of intelligence surprised him. He was a much tougher grader for his grad students.
Again, the key point about the UNC naval studies class -- did they grade the section loaded with athletes differently than the sections filled with non-athletes? Being an easy course doesn't put it on the NCAA rader ... being easier for athletes than for non-athletes -- that is (or should be) a major violation.
In one section of NAVS302 (Spring 2007), with 30 out of 38 athletes they used an entirely different syllabus which stated no tests or quizes, a 2 page double spaced mid term paper and a 5 person group presentation for an oral final.
Here is the grade distribution for these Naval Science Courses, which I think actually highlight the problems here...keep in mind before the 2009 they redid the courses to provide a more appropriate education.
http://www.unc.edu/news/12/09_12.pdf
I find it hilarious the athletes that enrolled in NAVS302 after the course was changed. Poor kids didn't know what they were walking into. LOL!
I would say most of the NAVS courses are probably crib courses these kids were steered into, but the Spring 2007 one is the one that can get Carolina into hot water since a different syllabus was used, the professor talked to Academic Support who in turned pushed 30 kids into that course.
GPAs under Newnam: 2.69, 2.38, and (drumroll please) 1.93.
GPAs under Gramlisch: 3.8, 3.54, 3.85, and 3.84.
Wow. Definitely should check ratemyprofessor.com before signing up for THAT course
Trinity '09
I did have one easy class, though it was not easy for everybody most likely. It was a "Business Statistics" class taught by a Professor named Battle in a social science department of some kind. It was easy for me because I had previously taken Probability and Statistics in the Math dept. I took it because I needed an upper level course in social sciences for distributional requirements. The two things I remember about the class are the weird 1st meeting when the professor announced that his goal was for everyone in the class to get an A, and the fact that all tests were open book tests and EVERY problem used a normal distribution, which you didn't have to calculate as there was a table of values in the back of the book.
BTW - I came back to this thread because I saw this quite entertaining column today:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/...n-run-unc.html
Nice Q&A from the Raleigh N&O today from the editor:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/...reporting.html
[redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.
Yep, that is about what I would have predicted from the UNC fandom... Is it possible to sound more childlike than those asking those questions??
I remember asking question like that when I was about 8 years old. "Mom, I wasn't talking in class, the teacher just doesn't like me". "Mom everyone else was doing it, the teacher just picked on me"...
Boo hooo hooo!
Should have added this to my original post. I especially like the editor's quote:
"I am a graduate of UniversityNonCompliance. But college affiliations are irrelevant to our work. Our reporters and editors set aside their personal histories and work without fear or favor."
(bold print is mine)
[redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.
More ugly, ugly, ugly allegations of academic fraud.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/...ons-haunt.html
Highsmith was never suspended or disciplined at all by the UNC football team. Heck, he played against us last night.
As the spring 2011 semester wound to a close, UNC-Chapel Hill football player Erik Highsmith had nothing to show for the blog students were supposed to contribute to for a communications class, his instructor said. The blog accounted for 30 percent of a student’s grade.
Highsmith wrote two posts in seven days. The first was about poultry farming, the second about people and pets.
Very little of either post was in his own words.
The first entry was virtually identical to a passage on an education website written by four 11-year-olds for their peers. The second mirrored much of an essay someone posted on Urch.com, a website that helps people prepare for the SAT, GRE and other college entry exams.
-Jason "the article contains more incidents and blatant plagiarism involving other players too" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
It also contains the very telling reactions of UNC...a continuing pattern of denial, refusal, and obstruction. Clearly UNC recognizes the extent of their problem...and their goal is to hide it.
Martin's "investigation" is also obviously a publicity sham. They don't have time to look into whether or to there was rampant plagiarism? Isn't that the whole point of an investigation into academic misconduct? No, it isn't, not when the point of the investigation is simply to exist so UNC can say it investigated...something.
The first entry was virtually identical to a passage on an education website written by four 11-year-olds for their peers.
...
She did not realize that the blog for the class had been exposed on UNC-CH’s website, where a fan of rival N.C. State University found it, and contacted the N&O. The day after the N&O interviewed her, password protection was added to the site.
Don't worry...State is keeping the heat on.