PDA

View Full Version : Duke excels in the classroom--but you knew that



jimsumner
05-12-2010, 03:04 PM
"Fifteen of Duke’s varsity athletic teams were honored by the NCAA for placing among the top 10 percent in their respective sports nationally in the latest multi-year Academic Progress Rate (APR) report.

The Blue Devils’ baseball, men’s cross country, football, men’s golf, men’s indoor track and field, men’s outdoor track and field, men’s soccer, men’s swimming, men’s tennis, wrestling, women’s fencing, women’s lacrosse, women’s soccer, women’s swimming and volleyball teams were among those listed by the NCAA.

Duke led all ACC schools with its 15 selections followed by Boston College (13), North Carolina (8), Virginia (6), Georgia Tech (5), Wake Forest (5), N.C. State (3), Virginia Tech (3), Florida State (2), Maryland (1), Miami (1) and Clemson (0).

In addition, Duke paces all institutions currently ranked among the top 25 in the Learfield Sports Directors' Cup Standings, ranking ahead of Notre Dame (14; currently ranked 23rd in Cup standings), Stanford (8; ranked 1st), North Carolina (8; ranked 8th), Virginia (6; ranked 5th), Penn State (4; ranked 4th), California (4; ranked 19th), Ohio State (3; ranked 2nd), West Virginia (3; ranked 12th), LSU (3; ranked 15th), Texas (3; ranked 16th), Florida State (2; ranked 6th), Texas A&M (2; ranked 10th), UCLA (2; ranked 14th), Michigan State (2; ranked 18th), Tennessee (2; ranked 21st), Nebraska (2; ranked 22nd), Florida (1; ranked 3rd), Minnesota (1; ranked 7th), Wisconsin (1; ranked 11th), Kentucky (1; ranked 13th), Oregon (1; ranked 17th), Maryland (1; ranked 20th), New Mexico (1; ranked 24th) and Iowa State (1; ranked 25th)."

cspan37421
05-12-2010, 09:24 PM
Great news overall, but I was disappointed to see that not only was Duke men's basketball not among the teams so honored, but the other 3 of this years Final Four WERE.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0rEyuc7wlGfHqKg-YRICgxWYNvQD9FLHL5G1

then I read this paragraph:

"Just as surprising was not seeing Duke on the list. The Blue Devils had made it each of the past two years.

Teams lose one point if players transfer or leave early for the NBA and a second point if they are not in good academic standing when they leave. Duke had three transfers count against its score during that four-year period, though it doesn't mean the Blue Devils fell below the 925 threshold, which can lead to sanctions for teams with consistently poor scores."

So it appears Taylor King, E-Will, and ... ? Boykin? Marty? knocked us down a bit. Next year, Olek will count against us. If Kyle left early, he would have too.

I don't see why a transfer in good academic standing should count against a team. Or even an early departure for a professional job. Seems to me they ought to measure your academics while you're there. They're not only measuring academic progress, they're measuring retention.

"Each athlete earns one point per semester for remaining academically eligible and another point each semester for remaining at that school or graduating. "

So you could drop from being an A- student to a C+ student, but if you stay eligible, and stay at the school, the APR considers that "progress." Great.

4decadedukie
05-13-2010, 07:13 AM
I am particularly gratified at Duke's performance and at the variety of non-revenue sports in which we excel, both academically and athletically. This, in my opinion, is precisely what student-athletics is all about. I am convinced that many of those bright, disciplined, accomplished Dukies who compete in less-visible sports will become the leaders and the achievers in life's most important endeavors.

JaMarcus Russell
05-13-2010, 07:19 AM
Marty didn't hurt the APR at all since he graduated in 4 years. I believe that the only guys who can hurt Duke's APR are Boykin, Boateng, Taylor King, Elliot Williams, Gerald Henderson, and Olek Czyz. I am about 99% sure that they all left in good academic standing.

It all depends on which 4-year period was measured. If it was 2005-06 to 2008-09, then Boykin, Boateng, King, and Henderson would count against us. If it is 2006-07 to 2009-10, then it would be Boykin (I think), King, Williams, Henderson, and Czyz. 2007-08 to 2010-11 would include King, Williams, Henderson, and Czyz.

I could care less when you consider three things. First, the team's GSR was 89% and 92% the last two years. GSR means a hell of a lot more to me than APR. Second, the team's GPA for the fall 2009 semester was a 3.01 according to the Lexington newspaper. And third, for the 2008-09 school year, Singler, Czyz, Scheyer, Zoubek, Paulus, and Pocius all made a 3.0 or higher for the whole year. Obviously the 2009-10 numbers aren't out yet, but I am sure they will be very impressive.

jdj4duke
05-13-2010, 08:30 AM
I got this link from a UNC fan I know who told me that it is all over the Carolina message boards as yet even more proof of whatever point they are trying to make about the implications of the SI article.

dukechronicle.com/article/fight-blue-devils-fight.

While I know that there are some SAT and other differentials between scholarship athletes and the general student body at Duke, I would not even guess what those differences are at other universities, including CH. I suspect that they are even more glaring, whatever filters or interpretations might be put around the numbers.

From a purely observational standpoint though, I cringe most of the time that players from other schools are interviewed live or speak at press conferences. When Duke players are in front of the camera, they invariably come across far more like the student-athletes that we purport them to be.

At the same time, there is no way that we can expect these kids to be like other students; their lives, and demands and expectations from them are just too different. I venture to say that many of us, with far more "post-grad" work and life experience, would be challenged to carry the schedule, travel, off-court/field/gym/pool etc. and academic work loads that scholarship athletes, and especially Duke basketball players, do.

Whatever discrepancies might exist between scholarship athletes and the overall student body, I keep coming back to a couple of key points:
The University is generally better off for having these kids on campus and they nearly always represent the University in ways that reflect well on Duke. That so many of them go on to have successful, and even notable, careers after their student days, tells me that they have taken at least as much (forget the scholarships) from their Duke experience as they have given.

JaMarcus Russell
05-13-2010, 08:54 AM
I have enough links to articles with specific data to shut up any UNC fan. Unfortunately, I am abroad right now and won't have access to my home computer for a couple of weeks. However, if you have the patience to wait a couple of weeks, I can give you some info about Academic All-ACC players, GSRs for the past decade, and things like that.

Duke blows away the rest of the competition in the ACC, and UNC is in the middle of the pack.

To summarize a point (unfortunately with no data to back it up right now since I don't have my bookmarks), if Duke's 2002 class has an average SAT of 1420 and the basketball players are at 998 or whatever, at many state schools, the basketball players will have an 820 team SAT while the school average will be a 1200 or so.

ETA: I believe UNC's team SAT is in the 915-920 range in the same years that Duke's were measured, which isn't bad compared to the D-1 average. However, Duke has gotten so many more Academic All-ACCs than them that it isn't even close.

jdj4duke
05-13-2010, 09:05 AM
I have enough links to articles with specific data to shut up any UNC fan.

I have seen a couple articles where the difference in SAT scores is nearly 400 points between UNC men's bball players and the general student body. It would be interesting to see the data that you have as well; BUT, there is a fundamental error in your statement referenced above.

No amount of empirical evidence, data, proof, references, links, or even basic logical thought is ever enough to shut up UNC fans. Their mastery of using an exception to disprove the rule is unparalleled. It's worse when Duke is involved. If we claim the world is round, then their Flat Earth Society will erupt in high dudgeon.

cspan37421
05-13-2010, 09:31 AM
I didn't know what GSR was until you mentioned it, JaMarcus. And you're right - latest cohort for THAT is Duke 92, UNC 75.

You have to admit, though, that the fact that MSU, BU, and WVU were part of the high APR group and we weren't, is a PR loss for us, even if the "devil is in the details" and reveals that we've got nothing to be ashamed of.

davekay1971
05-13-2010, 10:15 AM
I didn't know what GSR was until you mentioned it, JaMarcus. And you're right - latest cohort for THAT is Duke 92, UNC 75.

You have to admit, though, that the fact that MSU, BU, and WVU were part of the high APR group and we weren't, is a PR loss for us, even if the "devil is in the details" and reveals that we've got nothing to be ashamed of.

Or it goes to show that the APR is complete BS. The posts above illustrate some significant flaws in the way it is calculated.

4decadedukie
05-13-2010, 05:17 PM
Frequently we are exposed to an unsubstantiated theory that UNC-CH is an "elite" undergraduate academic institution. Perhaps at one time it was, however, it now approaches the middle of the ACC, which is not the nation's most academically accomplished conference. To document this, 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/ indicates (Composite SAT, 25 - 75 percentile):
Duke: 1990-2290
BC: 1860-2140
Wake: 1860-2115
UVa: 1800-2120
UNC: 1780-2070

Duvall
05-13-2010, 06:14 PM
Frequently we are exposed to an unsubstantiated theory that UNC-CH is an "elite" undergraduate academic institution. Perhaps at one time it was, however, it now approaches the middle of the ACC, which is not the nation's most academically accomplished conference.

Well, look. You're assuming that (1) the four schools "ahead" of UNC by this metric aren't also "elite" undergraduate academic institutions, and (2) that the SAT scores of incoming students is a good measure of the quality of an undergraduate program. I'm not sure that either assumption is correct. Certainly Duke and UVa are excellent schools, with Wake Forest not far behind. I'm less familiar with Boston College, but I don't have any reason to think that it isn't also strong.

Also, for what it's worth there aren't many conferences with stronger academic reputations than the ACC. Among major conferences you could make a case for the Big Ten, for now, but that's about it. Among smaller conferences you have the Ivy League, but it's hard to come up with too many others without running into the absurdity of comparing large land-grant schools and research universities to small colleges.

BleedsP287
05-13-2010, 06:41 PM
I don't know about UNC being "elite", but certainly both UVA and UNC consistently score well in college rankings that are popular every year in the news magazines. And by well I mean top 30 or so. UVA has several times over the last decades been ranked top public school and always scores respectably, as does UNC.

Frankly, I've always believed a person's performance in school says a lot more about their potential than some measure of the "quality" of the school. I'd hire an A student from a state university any day before a C student from an elite private school. Not to down play the school brand too much, I think it's very important given equivalent performance, and it certainly shows potential to even get selected for some schools.

I guess I'm just advocating while we may criticize the institution, let's not lose sight of the fact that no doubt many very good people are there despite the averages. Except Chapel Hill. Those guys suck.

BD80
05-13-2010, 07:58 PM
... Teams lose one point if players transfer or leave early for the NBA and a second point if they are not in good academic standing when they leave. ...

Kentucky is going to get slaughtered under this measurement due to Calipari's "roster makeover" and then bringing in four one-and-dones.

He ran off four or five players last year and had five players leave early this year, with another (Dodson?) still in limbo.

4decadedukie
05-14-2010, 04:18 AM
I'd hire an A student from a state university any day before a C student from an elite private school.

I certainly agree.

4decadedukie
05-14-2010, 04:27 AM
Among major conferences you could make a case for the Big Ten, for now, but that's about it. Among smaller conferences you have the Ivy League, but it's hard to come up with too many others without running into the absurdity of comparing large land-grant schools and research universities to small colleges.

How about the Patriot League, and then we have all the excellent colleges in Divisions II and III (Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, Washington & Lee, Davidson, Kenyon, and so forth)? I really am not attempting to make too much of this or to initiate a major discussion; however, no one said academic and athletic excellence was limited to "major conferences." In fact, I would respectfully suggest that most student-athletes at top-tier "colleges" will benefit as much from their total, integrated undergraduate experiences as their Division I peers.

RPS
05-14-2010, 09:52 AM
Also, for what it's worth there aren't many conferences with stronger academic reputations than the ACC. Among major conferences you could make a case for the Big Ten, for now, but that's about it. Among smaller conferences you have the Ivy League, but it's hard to come up with too many others without running into the absurdity of comparing large land-grant schools and research universities to small colleges.

Don't forget the PAC-10.

School/SAT Composite/US News Rank

Stanford/2000-2310/4
Cal/1790-2160/21
USC/1910-2180/26
UCLA/1760-2090/24
Washington/1620-1980/42

These compare pretty favorably with the ACC's top schools.

Duke/1990-2290/10
BC/1860-2140/34
Wake/1860-2115/28
UVa/1800-2120/24
GaTech/1820-2090 /35
UNC/1780-2070/28

These factors are obviously not dispositive, and are perhaps not even all that relevant, but they provide a reference point for why the PAC-10 belongs in the discussion.

SilkyJ
05-14-2010, 04:45 PM
Kentucky is going to get slaughtered under this measurement due to Calipari's "roster makeover" and then bringing in four one-and-dones.

He ran off four or five players last year and had five players leave early this year, with another (Dodson?) still in limbo.

I don't think anyone at Kentucky particularly cares where they stand in the academic progress report...

Richard Berg
05-14-2010, 07:13 PM
Frequently we are exposed to an unsubstantiated theory that UNC-CH is an "elite" undergraduate academic institution. Perhaps at one time it was, however, it now approaches the middle of the ACC, which is not the nation's most academically accomplished conference. To document this, 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/ indicates (Composite SAT, 25 - 75 percentile):
Duke: 1990-2290
BC: 1860-2140
Wake: 1860-2115
UVa: 1800-2120
UNC: 1780-2070
If you limit UNC's scores to out-of-state admits, they would rank much higher (perhaps as high as #2, not sure). Their admission standards for NC residents are far less strenuous -- and deservedly so.

4decadedukie
05-14-2010, 07:52 PM
If you limit UNC's scores to out-of-state admits, they would rank much higher (perhaps as high as #2, not sure). Their admission standards for NC residents are far less strenuous -- and deservedly so.

I am sure that's true and I fully appreciate the political mandate of a sate university; however, isn't also irrelevant in assessing the aggregate quality and selectivity of undergraduates?

Richard Berg
05-14-2010, 10:08 PM
Well if you want to know where the "myth" comes from, look no further. Most Duke students come from out-of-state. When they look at the profile of their HS peers who did/didn't get into UNC-CH, they're likely impressed at its selectivity. They may have even been rejected themselves. Only if they happen to befriend native Chapel Hill students during their time in Durham, or are a stats junkie, would they realize their perspective is skewed.