Should we really be making an issue of Maryland's graduation rates?

[Kevin in Pgh]

I ask the question, because any comparison of college graduation rates assumes that all schools approach athlete's achievements in the same way. As someone noted on an earlier thread, higher standards for graduation could simply result in more, ahem, streamlined paths for athletes to graduate ... just like what happens when players graduate high school without really being prepared for college.

And I'm not just talking about "other" schools. At Duke, there's always been a certain pressure for athletes to graduate, regardless of NCAA rules. I recently talked to a Duke athlete from the late 80s/early 90s and found it a jarring experience. He made it clear that many athletes could pretty much choose whether or not to go to class. Along with that, there was some pretty rampant cheating and there were professors who would arbitrarily give passing grades to those who needed them.

I guess I always assumed that the top-tier athletes had help and got some breaks, but it was pretty jarring to hear that - at least in the case of *some* football and basketball players - their transcripts were a sham. Since that discussion, I've found it hard to take much pride in Duke's graduation rate - though, to be fair, my "informant" noted that he was pretty sure the current guys can't get away with all of the same stuff that was happening back then.

[brumby041]

I have to whole-heartedly agree. I once worked for a gentleman who played football at an ACC school (not Duke) - I won't mention names, but they won a national title in 1983 or so. He had "graduated" from this institution.

The man presented well (spoken), but could not write AT ALL. The most basic written communication was beyond him. There is NO WAY that I could be convinced that this individual ever wrote anything on his own in college.

And yet he "graduated"...

These "student-athletes" get plenty of help from "tutors" who "help" them with their studies.

It's a business, people. Never forget that.

[JohnGalt]

I agree to a point. I think that the level of transparency due to the rise of computerization and other technological advancements has made the two previous examples looks awfully archaic. There's too much governance and too much to lose for these professors to blatantly "pass" an athlete based on his standing with the team.

That being said, IMO the lines have just become blurred. The amount of gray area has expanded exponentially and what is and isn't cheating has become increasingly difficult to nail down.

[KyDevilinIL]

These days, major universities and their athletic departments are essentially two independent corporations operating under the same umbrella.

Schools that graduate their athletes should be praised, sure, because that's their institutional philosophy and an admirable one to have. But I'm not losing any sleep over the ones that don't. We can disagree with the system – and I certainly do, a lot – but in many cases athletes are brought to schools strictly to make money for the athletic departments, period.

The concept of the "student-athlete" is a romantic one, but it's increasingly becoming a myth, and I don't think that's going to change.

[darthur]

I ask the question, because any comparison of college graduation rates assumes that all schools approach athlete's achievements in the same way.

There is absolutely no way of cooking the books that turns Duke's 92% into Maryland's 8% or vice-versa. At Duke, even high profile athletes DO go to class for the most part (at least as of 00-04 when I was a student), they take summer courses every year to ensure they get enough credits, etc. There is a culture of demanding academic performance which is simply not there at many other schools.


He made it clear that many athletes could pretty much choose whether or not to go to class.

So can any student. There are many classes at Duke where attendance hovers at or below 50%. Usually, you are graded on whether you can do the assignments and tests, not whether you attend class.


Along with that, there was some pretty rampant cheating and there were professors who would arbitrarily give passing grades to those who needed them.

Nothing unique to athletes there, or to Duke. When I TAed courses at Duke or Stanford, the only students who were ever failed were those who forced the issue. Not handing in assignments, not taking tests, etc. Even students who understood nothing would get a C or a D at worst if they put in some effort.

I can't speak much for tutors though. On the one hand, athletes should get and do need them. After all, they are forced to miss tons of class legitimately for games and for practice. On the other hand, tutoring in general is subject to abuse. One hopes that schools try to monitor the tutoring and keep it fair, but I wouldn't know.

[Kevin in Pgh]

What surprised me was that effort was not really needed. I got a specific example of a professor saying "What grade do you need?" Do you really think any student would get that treatment?

[darthur]

What surprised me was that effort was not really needed. I got a specific example of a professor saying "What grade do you need?" Do you really think any student would get that treatment?

That is certainly not okay, but I heard nothing like that when I was a student at Duke.

[sagegrouse]

Thread title: "Should we really be making an issue of Maryland's graduation rates?"

I am willing to believe it's an issue at the University of Maryland. You don't have to be hard-liner on academics for athletes. You just have to recognize that being last in graduation rates among Division I schools is just awful.

The idea of athletes seeking out professors who are easy graders is not not news. The idea of any college student seeking out professors who are easy graders is not shocking either. It's more like, "Duh!" This is about as much news as, "Water flows downhill," and is rather similar, isn't it? Professors and even departments have different approaches to grading. Lots and lots of students are aware of professors' grading practices before enrolling. And, no, it is not a scandal if the Athletic Department's academic advisors and tutors also advise athletes on which courses to take.

What has made athletics a bit more workable at places like Duke and Stanford is the grade inflation over the past 50 years. When I was at Duke (no, I didn't date Doris Duke; she refused to go out with me), the all-men's average just got over 2.5 the year I graduated. The Trinity average is comfortably above 3.0 now. Students who earn C's today may not distinguish themselves but still pass. In olden times, students who didn't distinguish themselves were likely to get a D or F.

Both in my day and through the years there have been athletes who were among the smartest people on campus. The center on our basketball team got a PhD in physics from Hopkins. In my daughter's era, the highest MCAT score was earned by a football lineman from Alabama. And I am sure there are examples today.

So, what does this have to do with the University of Maryland? Well, I believe its graduation rate, however measured, was 8 percent. Eight percent! EIGHT PERCENT! The Duke rate, even with all the concerns expressed by the OP ("kevin in pgh"), is above 90% in both football and basketball and much higher among the Olympic sports. Even granting the OP's concerns about Duke, can you imagine what is going on at UMd? Or, maybe not going on?

sagegrouse
'Congratulations to anyone who made it the end of this dreary post'

[dukeimac]

I think the biggest issue here is that Gary Williams is not smart enough to figure out a way to have more of his players graduate.

I'm just wondering, maybe their tutors are having a problem making the grades.

[GODUKEGO]

It is not just focusing on Maryland although they do have the worst rate but Texas, Baylor, Kentucky, Temple, Washington, GA Tech, UCONN etc.. also needs to be mentioned.

http://www.tidesport.org/Grad%20Rates/2010_Mens_Bball_PR.pdf

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/16/ncaa_fouls_on_grad_rate_commitment/

Schools like Duke, Notre Dame, Gonzaga, Siena and Wake need to get much more recognition and praise by the press. There is way to much emphasis on W's and not enough on D's. With only 1% of college players moving on to the pros, if it is not a degree, than what are the expectations for the other 99%. These schools like Maryland are running player mills turning out young men into the real world with nothing. Since they are finished as revenue producers, just dump them. I love to hear Allen Iverson trying to speak in interviews. Georgetown graduates should be extremely embarrassed to think that he attended and stayed academically eligible there for two years. Kudos for UVA for sitting down their star before the ACC tournament for academic reasons.

[miramar]

IIRC, the 8% is actually an improvement for Maryland. They were at 0% a few years back, so a number of the Crazies showed up with graduation gowns.

I still haven't figure out how they found so many gowns under such short notice, but it was great. If you wait a bit for the video to load up, you can see the graduation gowns at the beginning of this Duke Blue Planet video:

http://www.dukeblueplanet.com/content.asp?tid=192

[Rudy]

Williams does have a point that Maryland's improvement since 1999-2003 has been ignored over the 8% report over those years.

"See, you’ll never put in there that our four seniors will graduate this year or that we’ve graduated 10 out of our last 12 players. That’s my quote. And our academic support system is completely different than it was ’99 to 2003. You’re talking about eight years ago, seven years ago where things were different.” -- to the Washington Post

[johnb]

There are complicating factors. Many of our football and basketball players come from high schools that are much worse than the typical Duke feeder high school (though there are exceptions), and quite a few of the people who play one of the two big sports around the country are from families in which they are the only ones who ever stepped on a college campus. Further, many well known colleges have fairly low graduation rates for all students, not just athletes, and national rates tend to be especially low for African-American men.

I am unimpressed by some old grad saying that Duke profs handed out passing grades. Is it possible that someone said, "so what grade do you need to pass?" Sure, but I've more clearly heard Duke profs say that they viewed our football players (and their near 100% graduation rates) with respect because they seemed--as a group--diligent and genuinely appreciative of the opportunity to go to a college like Duke. Are they winning Rhodes Scholarships? Probably not, but neither did I...

OTOH, I'm a big fan of incentivizing--as the NCAA did with its entrance requirements a few years back. So, if colleges were told that in order to participate in the NCAA tournament or a bowl game, they needed to have graduated 40% of their entering students during the prior 3 years (leaving out NBA/NFL early entries and transfers to other universities), I think you'd see recruiting change and grad rates go up; a legitimate outcry would be heard from people who would point out that a place like Maryland might then field a team composed of 8 ACC players and 6 academic ringers (who would often be second tier athletically and probably disproproportionately white), but it'd be a start--plus, top-notch players would avoid going to schools that were at risk for dropping below the 40% rate (though perhaps they could then allow academically-eligible people to flee their schools without penalty if the school is on academic probation).

Of course, the above would heavily benefit Duke, which is an added bonus.

[DukeUsul]

I have two data points, therefore what I'm about to say is statistically significant enough to be fact and not opinion.

;-)

My wife (while a grad student) was asked if she wanted to be a tutor for the football team at NCSU. She talked to a classmate who had done it and quit. Apparently she quit after she found out there was an expectation from the player that she would basically do his work for her.

While a student at Duke, I TA'd an intro physics class in which a scholarship basketball player was a student. I also tutored him privately on the side. He showed up to class, handed in all his assignments, and asked good questions. He frankly needed less tutoring than others in the class.

[Dukeface88]

Students aren't required to attend lectures as a general rule, though some profs try to force attendance anyway by participation grades, random quizzes; discussion sections and labs are exceptions. In that regard, athletes actually have higher standards than the rest of the student body - their attendance is both monitored and mandatory (according to friends of mine from the football team at least). I also know that a major athlete recieved a D in a class I was in, so I don't think the grades are fugded.

I'd also like to remind people in this thread that "Student Athletes" are more than just the revenue sports. I don't think the swim, track and field or fencing teams, among others, appreciate being disparaged for no good reason.

[Zeb]

I only went to a few classes attended by basketball players at Duke. I was struck by two things:

1) They missed a lot of classes. This is not to say they were skipping class. The travel schedule for the team is ridiculous, paritucalrly in the spring. How many non-atheletes are out of town 2-5 days a week in college?

2) The classes were relatively easy. This is not to say the professors were fraudulently giving out grades. They just were classes where if you did the basic work and gave a crap, you got an A or B without too much effort. I would be shocked and disappointed if the Duke athletic department isn't constantly updating a list of classes that are athlete-friendly in terms of the demand they place on students.

Being a highly recruited Division 1 athlete in a revenue sport is just a whole different endeavor than the average undergraduate experience. It is much more challenging overall to be an athlete, but academically it is often easier by necessity. The occassional Duke player who is in Engineering or a challenging major--I honestly have no idea how they do it.

[DevilHorns]

Just to be clear, this "graduation rate" stat applies only to students that matriculate for 4 years (not those that leave early to the pros, or transfer). Is that right?

[GODUKEGO]

OTOH, I'm a big fan of incentivizing--as the NCAA did with its entrance requirements a few years back. So, if colleges were told that in order to participate in the NCAA tournament or a bowl game, they needed to have graduated 40% of their entering students during the prior 3 years (leaving out NBA/NFL early entries and transfers to other universities), I think you'd see recruiting change and grad rates go up; a legitimate outcry would be heard from people who would point out that a place like Maryland might then field a team composed of 8 ACC players and 6 academic ringers (who would often be second tier athletically and probably disproproportionately white), but it'd be a start--plus, top-notch players would avoid going to schools that were at risk for dropping below the 40% rate (though perhaps they could then allow academically-eligible people to flee their schools without penalty if the school is on academic probation).

Of course, the above would heavily benefit Duke, which is an added bonus.

When you think about this proposal of 40% rate, the last four players on a thirteen player squad hardly ever play and are there for a free ride and education. To reach the 40%, all you need is one player out of the first nine to graduate to reach the 40%. One, I do not think this is asking alot!! Love to know the rate for starters.

[JaMarcus Russell]

Just to be clear, this "graduation rate" stat applies only to students that matriculate for 4 years (not those that leave early to the pros, or transfer). Is that right?

I think there is some fuzzy wording because I have plugged in the Duke players in the years mentioned, and if you discount the early entries to the NBA, it works perfectly. So basically, the guys who transfer in good academic standing (like Jamal Boykin or Eric Boateng) don't count for or against us. Neither do the guys who leave early and come back to get a degree (Mike Dunleavy Jr., Jay Williams, etc). However, the guys who leave in poor academic standing (Avery) before transferring and the guys who go pro but don't come back to graduate in the allotted time period (Brand, Maggette) do count against us.

And to go back to the topic, while I was at Duke, I only had class with one basketball player, DeMarcus Nelson. While he wasn't exactly an active participant in the class, he always showed up unless the team was playing a Thursday night game, handed in his assignments, and could answer questions when called on. My friends who had classes with Greg Paulus, Shelden Williams, Sean Dockery, and Luol Deng all said the same things. They all seemed to take their classes pretty seriously and there were definitely some regular students who seemed to blow off their coursework much more than the basketball players. I realize that there aren't going to be too many athletes in revenue sports who are majoring in engineering or the hard sciences (although Miles apparently was in some engineering classes as a freshman), but based on what a lot of the alumni have gone to accomplish outside of basketball, I think Duke has a noticeably better mix of academics and sports for their most high-profile athletes than almost all D-1 teams.

And yes, Maryland does deserve to be bashed for their absolutely abysmal graduation rates. Any complaint about low standards at other schools can certainly be levied against Maryland as well.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Should we as duke fans make an issue out of maryland's graduation rate? I think not.

[superdave]

I think all ACC member schools are really good academically and worth attending. I think the ACC should have standards that exceed NCAA minimums. We should never allow ourselves to be lumped in with the bare minimum, no matter the consequences.

The ACC has had unwritten rules about partial qualifiers in the past, although I think those standards were upgraded by the NCAA a few years back. We should always go the extra mile.

I have to say I'm proud of Bennett for sitting Landesburg the remainder of the year. That's a big deal for Bennett to and it was the correct decision.

[Spret42]

Maryland has to do better at this. 8% no matter how you try to excuse it is pretty bad.

I think there are small differences between big public schools and smaller private schools with regard to athletes and grades etc. But nothing can excuse the 8% from that time frame.

Hopefully it gets better.

[Devilsfan]

They have so many NBA prospects that it's no wonder no one on the team graduates. Nice job of recruiting the "student athlete". Maryland is the anti-Duke. Gary is out Caliparing Calipari.

[johnb]

Should we as duke fans make an issue out of maryland's graduation rate? I think not.


I don't think it's fair to pick on individual students unless that student has just quit going to class--how do you know that person's background, etc.

I DO think it's fair to criticize Gary Williams and the Maryland administration, all of whom are adults who should be held accountable for their decisions.

[Richard Berg]

They have so many NBA prospects that it's no wonder no one on the team graduates. Nice job of recruiting the "student athlete". Maryland is the anti-Duke. Gary is out Caliparing Calipari.
What? Other than the Baxter/Dixon/Blake team, I can't think of a time when Gary has been stacked with NBA talent. Certainly nothing comparable to UNC, Georgia Tech, or Duke; even Wake would probably rank above MD.

[-bdbd]

If we agree that academics SHOULD be a part of the collegiate experience - isn't that why MOST athletes go to a school?? ("99% of us will be going pro in something other than athletics...") - then how can we NOT include some metrics of academic performance?

Look, grad rates are not the be-all-and-end-all of the metrics available, but they ARE one solid indicator. Is it 100% accurate in terms of measuring academic performance? Certainly not. But it IS an indicator. From those I've spoken to at MD, athletes just simply don't face the sort of presure or expectations of effort towards academics, that athletes at other school do...such as Wake, Duke, UVA, NC@CH, BC. It is no surprise or accident that MD has these abysmal graduation rates. The expectations (from the AD on down apparently) are not the same as at those other schools. And part of it is just the athletes that they bring in who often are "long shots" to graduate from day-1. It is honestly a shame for the kids.

But that culture/attitude certainly DOES deserve to be critised. And grade rates are but one indicator/measurement of it.

[Duke84]

If you pick the right classes, it's hard NOT to graduate from Duke in 4 years. Like Harvard, getting in is most of the battle. The athletes have a leg up getting in, but they have to do the work to stay in - and they generally do. I hate to say this, but it's probably tougher for a basketball player to graduate from Maryland in 4 years than it is from Duke. Duke is designed to graduate its students in 4 years. But it's sure not 11 1/2 times tougher.

I know some pretty smart Duke athletes who were in awe of how bright the rest of the students were. But they seem to have come out OK, if watching ESPN is any indication.

[Devilsfan]

The players are probably smarter than the students that attend their games. The so called students don't seem to know any vocabulary larger than four letter words. Accolades to the Maryland English department.

[JaMarcus Russell]

I hate to say this, but it's probably tougher for a basketball player to graduate from Maryland in 4 years than it is from Duke. Duke is designed to graduate its students in 4 years. But it's sure not 11 1/2 times tougher.

Why do you say that? Median GPA is an extremely misleading statistic because the quality of the student bodies are obviously not the same.

Maryland and all other flagship state schools are also designed to graduate students in 4 years.

[DevilHorns]

If you pick the right classes, it's hard NOT to graduate from Duke in 4 years. Like Harvard, getting in is most of the battle. The athletes have a leg up getting in, but they have to do the work to stay in - and they generally do. I hate to say this, but it's probably tougher for a basketball player to graduate from Maryland i0n 4 years than it is from Duke. Duke is designed to graduate its students in 4 years. But it's sure not 11 1/2 times tougher.

I know some pretty smart Duke athletes who were in awe of how bright the rest of the students were. But they seem to have come out OK, if watching ESPN is any indication.

Huh? All universities are designed to graduate student-athletes in 4 years.

I'm sure the doh! classes at state universities are more plentiful (not necessarily because state universities are easier overall, but because they have more selection in terms of majors... At Duke you can't become a landscaping major, but I'm pretty sure thats what Danny Wuerffel graduated with from the University of Florida, for example). The bottom line is there is no emphasis on academics at these schools with pathetically low graduation rates. Thats it. There's no mystery here.

[Duke84]

Please don't put me in the position of defending Maryland and knocking Duke. But their course and credit requirements are different, and can result in many more students extending their stay beyond four years. Yes, they should graduate more than 8% of their players. But sometimes, they go pro or go to Europe and come back too late for the NCAA to count them - but still graduate. I mean, when did Kenny Dennard graduate? I was drinking with him in the Hideaway in '81 and he wasn't anywhere close.

[Duke84]

Before you knock landscaping at Florida, ask yourself whether it's any less demanding than Sociology, Cultural Anthropology or AA Studies at Duke. Because those are not exactly challenging.

[Spret42]

Totally unrelated to MD's graduate rate.

There are differences between small elite private and big public schools with regard to how they approach grading, graduation etc. Smaller private schools do have a greater need to retain their students and graduate them in a four year span.

At big state schools, TA's and profs will simply flunk people right out of school. There is very little grade inflation etc. A big public university running on public funds becomes a bit more of a sink or swim on your own environment. The student body has a great many kids, some who were smart enough for elite expensive private schools but whose families simply decided the expenditure wasn't worth it, some who were simply average students. In other words, they are drawing from a much larger pool and there is always more coming.

Duke has to compete with other elite schools for the smartest kids. I joked with my brother in law, the latest of the men in his family to graduate from Notre Dame, about how I could never have graduated from a school as hard as ND. His response was surprising. "Getting in is the hard part, everyone who gets in finishes." He said for what a student pays, their is no way the school will allow them to fail out and lose that income.

None of this is meant to let MD off the hook for the 8%. Like I said before, MD must to better with that.

[DevilHorns]

Before you knock landscaping at Florida, ask yourself whether it's any less demanding than Sociology, Cultural Anthropology or AA Studies at Duke. Because those are not exactly challenging.

Eh? I guess. I was a Bio & Chem, but I did take a Sociology course to fulfill a requirement that was unexpectedly tough. The highest grade in the class of 30 was a B (he never curved and he actually failed several students in the class). Go figure.

I don't think we have to tread into the topic of easy majors/classes at Duke. There is no doubt a list of courses for Jocks that want an easy schedule and an easy major. I almost have no doubt that there is the same list of courses at any of these universities, and the list is likely even more extensive at these public universities since there is a larger volume of courses to take in general. As for a harder list of requirements to graduate? I honestly don't know, but I kind of doubt it.

And from my experience (and I'm pretty sure its still the case), Duke was incredibly unaccepting of AP/IB credits, which is definitely not the case for public universities like Maryland or Florida where a very strong high school student can enter in as a sophomore in some cases. That in my opinion argues against Duke having more lax requirements in general.

Kind of a random thought here ---- I'm also a Miami Heat fan, and recently Antoine Walker (a member of our recent championship team and of UK wildcat fame) was in the press for bankruptcy and gambling debts. Its incredibly sad. That is my reason for why its important to care about any school's graduation rate. The word student in student-athlete should be emphasized to prepare students enough to not throw away millions and millions at a rate high enough to make anyone shake their head. Another random fact--- I know many Duke Bball players (ex. Chris Duhon) go after the Markets and Management Certificate which helps them manage a portfolio, understand the market, etc. Another plus to go to Duke as a student-athlete!

[ReformedAggie]

Should we as duke fans make an issue out of maryland's graduation rate? I think not.

Well I think it is just wrong to make athletic competition the POINT of going to college so yes, let's make an issue of all graduation rates. And let's support the concept that education - which lasts a lifetime - is far more important than the final score of any game. Sport stardom lasts til what? you're 35 or so? And then what?

Why do you think so many many many professional athletes and ex college stars end up drugging, drinking, and losing everything they have to hangers-on and multiple wives? Yes, sure, a minority make big buckaroos for a while, but do they keep it? Do they lead useful lives? Sorry, but my daughter was a soccer star and still managed to get two degrees and had she not done well academically at university, the cleats on her shoes would have made significant indentations on her rearess enduss. Her life now IS useful, she coaches little kids, succeeds at business, and is rearing her own children. One has been called a "golf prodigy" at 4 years old, but if he doesn't do his coloring homework from pre-school she takes his balls (wicked grin)..............

If fans don't hold the schools accountable for educating ALL students, then we are as guilty as all the prof's and coaches who make a joke out of this issue. There are so many many kids who would love to have the opportunity to get to college for the right reasons. Education. Yeah, this is a huge issue to me. (gets down from soapbox).

[allenmurray]

Before you knock landscaping at Florida, ask yourself whether it's any less demanding than Sociology, Cultural Anthropology or AA Studies at Duke. Because those are not exactly challenging.

As a Sociology undergrad I was expected to have a thorough working knowledge of Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, Harold Garfinkel, Erving Goffman, C. Wright Mills, Talcott parsons, Claude Levi-Strauss, Margart Mead, and many others. I was also expected to be conversant in Economics, Political Science, Social Psychology, and Government/Politics. It was hardly an easy major. In fact, the reading and writing demands were incredibly high as compared to many of my peers.

As for your slam on AA Studies, unless you are equally cirtical of folks who major in say, European History, I detect some subtle racism in your post.

[Reddevil]

The graduation rate issue is not about Duke vs. MD, or private vs. public. It's about kids who apply themselves academically vs. kids who don't, or more accurately steering kids into the direction of self responsibility. We know that earning a degree has relatively much less to do with intellect than things like desire, motivation, and determination. This is what separates men from boys. There are only so many self-motivated kids to go around. The real key is having institutional leadership in place to guide these kids onto the path of accountability. Many of us have been fortunate enough to have experienced upbringings that instilled a sense of responsibility (or fear!) in us to struggle through our desire to coast. Many more have not had that leadership in their lives. I'm not talking about babysitting, but guidance. Look at the Universities public and private that do things the right way. Their athletic success proves that there is no excuse for being a sham. We're not talking about 50%, or even 25%, but 8 freakin' %! Disgusting.

[4decadedukie]

This thread’s fundamental question is: “Should we really be making an issue of Maryland's graduation rates?” My answer is simple: Absolutely, and not only because Maryland has such an atrocious, long-term academic performance record.

Some individuals, even those who participate on this board, appear to believe that collegiate basketball is “semi-pro” preparation for the NBA (isn't that the Developmental League’s function?) and that the well understood academic responsibilities – and the affirmative results – that accrue to ALL college students do not apply to these student athletes. In my respectful opinion, they are completely wrong.

The NCAA’s superficial emphasis on academic achievement is appropriate (and, in fact, the NCAA would do well to put real “teeth” into it edicts); this is NOT an antiquated, quixotic perception. Rather, the fact is VERY few collegiate competitors will ever earn a dime as professional athletes, but ALL of them will have the opportunity for decades of personal and professional achievement, for societal contribution, and for individual satisfaction largely founded on their academic and intellectual preparation.

Duke Basketball is a clear exception to this generally accurate principle, because we have some pro basketball players (NBA and other leagues) among our alumni. Even at Duke, however, most basketball players will never enter the professional ranks. Additionally, among those Dukies who do play professional basketball, many will have extensive, outstanding careers in other arenas (Gary Melchionni is a good example). Moreover, this analysis does not even consider non-revenue sport Dukies, or the student athletes who play at Division I universities that do not frequently place alumni on professional teams, or the tens-of-thousands of players who graduate from Divisions II and III colleges.

The University of Maryland does its student athletes (here I specifically focus on its Men’s Basketball program) a real disservice, and it deserves serious criticism for doing so. By not ensuring a reasonable academic/athletic balance for its players, Maryland jeopardizes – perhaps cripples – the futures’ of these young men. How many Terps will end up without an undergraduate degree, in menial jobs with marginal futures, when their Duke contemporaries – I cannot bring myself to use the term “peers” – have far better prospects, because Gary Williams (and senior UMd administrators) essentially dismiss academic and intellectual development? They should be ashamed, and they are largely accountable for their players’ life-failures to achieve their full potential.

Williams was just designated as the 2009-2010 ACC “Coach of the Year.” The “journalists” who bestowed this distinction are equally complicate; they, too, fail to understand the full-range and the life-long significance of a university’s responsibilities to its student athletes.

[4decadedukie]

I think all ACC member schools are really good academically and worth attending.

I admire the generosity in your academic assessment (and I agree with the remaining points in your post). However, I find it difficult to believe that all ACC universities are “good academically.” Recognizing that this is certain to elicit some disagreements, my individual opinion is:
> Elite/top-tier: Duke
> Excellent: UVa, Wake UNC, BC (not ordered)
> Good: Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Miami, Maryland (not ordered)
> Acceptable: FSU

Obviously, the foregoing is overly simplified; individual departments, schools and curriculum will differ from this generalization.

[Spret42]

The graduation rate issue is not about Duke vs. MD, or private vs. public. It's about kids who apply themselves academically vs. kids who don't, or more accurately steering kids into the direction of self responsibility. We know that earning a degree has relatively much less to do with intellect than things like desire, motivation, and determination. This is what separates men from boys. There are only so many self-motivated kids to go around. The real key is having institutional leadership in place to guide these kids onto the path of accountability. Many of us have been fortunate enough to have experienced upbringings that instilled a sense of responsibility (or fear!) in us to struggle through our desire to coast. Many more have not had that leadership in their lives. I'm not talking about babysitting, but guidance. Look at the Universities public and private that do things the right way. Their athletic success proves that there is no excuse for being a sham. We're not talking about 50%, or even 25%, but 8 freakin' %! Disgusting.

I beg to disagree. But that is just me. I think we overvalue things like desire motivation and determination nowadays and undervalue intellectual capacity.

We seem to accept physical limitations in people with regard to performance but we cling onto the idea that everyone is capable of college level academic work if they just try hard enough. It isn't true.

I am the perfect example. I am incapable of doing mathematics much beyond the most basic 1st semester algebraic functions. There is no amount of determination which will allow me to do it. The same thing with anything along the lines of science, economics, engineering etc.. I don't have the intellect for them.

I suppose we all may have some subjects that we are smart enough to do at a university level. Maybe that speaks to your argument of guiding the kids to the right path.

[4decadedukie]

Please add NC State to the "good" category (my Industrial Design grad school alumnae daughter will shoot me).

[Indoor66]

I admire the generosity in your academic assessment (and I agree with the remaining points in your post). However, I find it difficult to believe that all ACC universities are “good academically.” Recognizing that this is certain to elicit some disagreements, my individual opinion is:
> Elite/top-tier: Duke
> Excellent: UVa, Wake UNC, BC (not ordered)
> Good: Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Miami, Maryland (not ordered)
> Acceptable: FSU

Obviously, the foregoing is overly simplified; individual departments, schools and curriculum will differ from this generalization.

Wherefor art thou UNC? Not top tier....

[DevilHorns]

Please add NC State to the "good" category (my Industrial Design grad school alumnae daughter will shoot me).

Isn't NC State's engineering track more respected than Duke's (outside of BME)?

Not an engineer here, but just something I have heard.

[4decadedukie]

I really do not want to get into a heated discussion, which is why I originally indicated that this was "my individual opinion." However, in an attempt to find a single source for SAT information (therefore consistent, even if imperfect, among universities) and with full recognition that SAT scores are only one rough measure of selectivity/quality, here is what http://www.satscores.us/ (http://http://www.satscores.us/) indicates (Composite SAT, 25 - 75 percentile):
Duke: 1990-2290
BC: 1860-2140
Wake: 1860-2115
UVa: 1800-2120
UNC: 1780-2070

Again, in my personal opinion, UNC-CH is a fine university and at/near the top for PUBLIC, national-class research institutions; however, it is not quite in the same category as Duke and its PRIVATE peers.

[Spret42]

I really do not want to get into a heated discussion, which is why I originally indicated that this was "my individual opinion." However, in an attempt to find a single source for SAT information (therefore consistent, even if imperfect, among universities) and with full recognition that SAT scores are only one rough measure of selectivity/quality, here is what http://www.satscores.us/ (http://http://www.satscores.us/) indicates (Composite SAT, 25 - 75 percentile):
Duke: 1990-2290
BC: 1860-2140
Wake: 1860-2115
UVa: 1800-2120
UNC: 1780-2070

Again, in my personal opinion, UNC-CH is a fine university and at/near the top for PUBLIC, national-class research institutions; however, it is not quite in the same category as Duke and its PRIVATE peers.

Why would it be? It is a state university. Isn't it designed with the idea of providing education to all the people of North Carolina etc.

This is an honest question.

What is Duke's freshman enrollment? If you took UNC's freshman enrollment and counted only their top equal number of students, would the numbers be comparable? Or is that already built into those numbers on that site.

[J.Blink]

As for your slam on AA Studies, unless you are equally cirtical of folks who major in say, European History, I detect some subtle racism in your post.

Just FWIW, I graduated with a dual major in History and Computer Science (and a language minor). I specialized in non-European history and took several African studies courses. Some of these cross-listed AAAS (African and African-American Studies) classes were run out of history and some of them were run out other department (ie, culanth, sociology, etc).

There was absolutely no comparison between the history courses and the cultural anthro ones. Anthro was a sad joke. I'm not at all claiming to be humble, PC, or anything else here, but there were "legit" AAAS classes and cakewalk idiotic classes, and IMO, cakewalk outnumbered legit. And please note, I don't even mean this is a slam against sociology and cultural anthropology. I personally find that some departments (eg those two) have become ridiculously anti-Western, post-modern, and politically involved (see e.g. group of 88) but there are definitely still valuable courses taught in those departments.

[J.Blink]

Isn't NC State's engineering track more respected than Duke's (outside of BME)?

Not an engineer here, but just something I have heard.

As a North Carolinian who went through Duke and got a Comp Sci degree, while also having many friends go to NCSU and get various engineering/comp sci degrees I would humbly say "it depends." I think the biggest difference is the average student at Duke is probably of a higher caliber (due to both many Duke students having greater opportunities before college and Duke being able to be far more selective). However I knew many people who got excellent educations at NCSU--probably better in some ways than Duke.

I guess it boils down to -- if you say "Duke engineering student" or "NCSU engineering student," what do most people think? I think most people would think the Duke student would be better, even if that's not grounded in reality.

And incidentally UNC-CH has a absolutely top notch graduate level Computer science program (particularly in the area of graphics)

[4decadedukie]

Isn't NC State's engineering track more respected than Duke's (outside of BME)?

Not an engineer here, but just something I have heard.

Even if I fully accept your premise – and I do not – NCSU’s website indicates that there are approximately 5,900 undergraduate engineering students, although the University's total undergraduate enrollment is roughly 23,000; that is only about a quarter of State's undergraduate population. Therefore, I would be reluctant to accept the concpet that the excellence of NC State’s undergraduate engineers is a decisive determinant in aggregate undergraduate quality/selectivity.

[4decadedukie]

Why would it be? It is a state university. Isn't it designed with the idea of providing education to all the people of North Carolina etc.

This is an honest question.

What is Duke's freshman enrollment? If you took UNC's freshman enrollment and counted only their top equal number of students, would the numbers be comparable? Or is that already built into those numbers on that site.

First, I never suggested a direct comparison between Duke and UNC-CH; rather, I was ONLY responding to Indoor66’s inquiry: “Wherefore art thou UNC? Not top tier....”. In fact, I agree that outstanding, major public and private universities have somewhat different objectives, which may be why widely disseminated college rankings (admittedly, far from flawless in their methodologies or conclusions), such as US News’, place them in distinct categories.

Second, I cannot answer your questions re SatScore’s methodology; however, I respectfully suggest that your concept of comparing Duke with UNC’s top 1,713 freshman “SAT achievers” (Duke's Class of ’13 enrollment is 1,713) may be flawed. Why UNC’s top SAT performers, instead of their medium or mean achievers, or the bottom scorers?

[Spret42]

I actually was really only asking out of curiosity.

I asked about the top 1700 at UNC seeing as they would sort of represent the best 1700 kids that UNC admitted etc. So I was just sort of wondering how they would match up with the best 1700 Duke admitted (incidentally the entire class). I was thinking of a hypothetical UNC where only the top 1700 were a part of the criteria for whether they were a "top tier" school. Would their best students match up with Duke's best students?

Would their drop from the top tier be due to being a larger state school with a larger enrollment?

I honestly don't know the answer and was trying to ask respectfully.

[DevilHorns]

Even if I fully accept your premise – and I do not – NCSU’s website indicates that there are approximately 5,900 undergraduate engineering students, although the University's total undergraduate enrollment is roughly 23,000; that is only about a quarter of State's undergraduate population. Therefore, I would be reluctant to accept the concpet that the excellence of NC State’s undergraduate engineers is a decisive determinant in aggregate undergraduate quality/selectivity.

Its just something I heard. Im not going to try and argue for it. This is becoming more off-topic now anyways (apologize for that, I contributed to that...).

[sagegrouse]

Again, in my personal opinion, UNC-CH is a fine university and at/near the top for PUBLIC, national-class research institutions; however, it is not quite in the same category as Duke and its PRIVATE peers.

To take a thread that was once "On-topic" and veered "Off-topic" in a different direction -- basically "Off-a-cliff", I would like to offer something that students in my daughter's era (mid-1990s)used to say about Duke and UNC students:


"They represent two different meanings of 'diversity.' Duke students are from all over the country, more so than almost any other school, and from foreign countries as well. But they are often in the same mold. [Did someone say 'J. Crew?'] UNC students are almost all from North Carolina but reflect every kind of personality and background that one can imagine."
Sounds like two pretty good places to me.

sagegrouse

[hughgs]

As a North Carolinian who went through Duke and got a Comp Sci degree, while also having many friends go to NCSU and get various engineering/comp sci degrees I would humbly say "it depends." I think the biggest difference is the average student at Duke is probably of a higher caliber (due to both many Duke students having greater opportunities before college and Duke being able to be far more selective). However I knew many people who got excellent educations at NCSU--probably better in some ways than Duke.

I guess it boils down to -- if you say "Duke engineering student" or "NCSU engineering student," what do most people think? I think most people would think the Duke student would be better, even if that's not grounded in reality.

And incidentally UNC-CH has a absolutely top notch graduate level Computer science program (particularly in the area of graphics)

Here's what I think:

Duke Engineer = consultant
NCSU Engineer = design

[theAlaskanBear]

We need to remember also the difference between instate and out of state students at UNCCH.

UNC-CH is an excellent top tier public institution. For out-of-staters to be accepted, it is truly an elite institution. Now, for obvious reasons, NC students have different standards. This I think is a big difference, because Duke is not really a "regional" school, it would be interesting to compare out-of-state and in-state enrollment and scores for each school.

That said, it all depends on what you want to go to school for. Neither Duke nor UNCCH have an accredited architecture program, but Clemson does. Its really not fair to compare schools, because all have their strengths and weaknesses. It is really department dependent.

I hate when people get into these discussions that try to stereotype students at a particular school. I guarantee you that ANYWHERE I go, I can find stupid and I can find brilliant people. Why does it even matter?

[Reisen]

I didn't read through all the replies to this thread, so this may have already been posted. And I'll preface this by saying I mean this with all due respect...

The Duke University of today is nothing like it was for people who graduated in the 1980's and before. Indeed, the entire elite college experience, from prep work, getting in, internships, etc, is 1000x more competitive, and only gets more so every year.

By the time my daughter is old enough to go to Duke, I don't even want to think what her experience will be like. But suffice it to say the stories of athlete experiences in the 70's and 80's are as relevant to today as kegs on the quad are (it's a whole different Duke).

[allenmurray]

Just FWIW, I graduated with a dual major in History and Computer Science (and a language minor). I specialized in non-European history and took several African studies courses. Some of these cross-listed AAAS (African and African-American Studies) classes were run out of history and some of them were run out other department (ie, culanth, sociology, etc).

There was absolutely no comparison between the history courses and the cultural anthro ones. Anthro was a sad joke. I'm not at all claiming to be humble, PC, or anything else here, but there were "legit" AAAS classes and cakewalk idiotic classes, and IMO, cakewalk outnumbered legit. And please note, I don't even mean this is a slam against sociology and cultural anthropology. I personally find that some departments (eg those two) have become ridiculously anti-Western, post-modern, and politically involved (see e.g. group of 88) but there are definitely still valuable courses taught in those departments.

It doesn't take much seaching to find an "easy" course in any social science - however, that is different from it being an "easy" major. Many schools require that all students take a course or two in the social sciences - so folks migrating from other majors often find these "general" courses and think they are representative of the major as a whole. (I found introductory Zoology quite easy, but I'm not silly enough to think it is an easy major.) Folks who major in social sciences have very high reading and writing demands. And while some university's social science programs are highly ideological, that is not true for all - and even when it is true the slant isn't always as you described, but at some schools is just the opposite.

[SharkD]

Just to be clear, this "graduation rate" stat applies only to students that matriculate for 4 years (not those that leave early to the pros, or transfer). Is that right?

The NCAA GSR is calculated based on the percentage of freshmen who enroll in a specific academic year and graduate from the same institution within 6 years.

Transfers and drop-outs hurt the rate, if they do not earn a degree from their original institution of enrollment, within 6 years of entering college.

[just_wondering]

If it makes you feel better about yourselves!