AJC > Sports > Tech > Blog > Archives > 2007 > October > 04 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USOf grad rates, and kids’ games
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
I don’t have a lot of depth to add to the story about Tech’s student-athlete graduation rates, as I’ve never written a story about them. Mike Knobler handles that material on a regular basis, as he has knowledge in how it works. My knowledge on the topic is limited.
I have, however, received a few e-mails suggesting that the ranking system is unfair to Tech because it doesn’t take into account how difficult it is to get a degree there whether you’re an athlete or not.
I’m not going to argue that the system doesn’t take such things into account (how could it?), but I will say that the idea of creating a sliding scale to evaluate something like graduation rates, and base it on the difficulty of earning degrees at different schools is preposterous. Little in life is uniform in application from case to case, and so it is here. That’s the way, period.
I do like that the current system does not penalize athletes who leave school in good academic standing (either to turn pro, transfer, or, I presume, drop out). That seems fair, but again my knowledge of the system is limited.
Bottom line, Tech has to improve. No way around that. Mr. Radakovich and others at Tech say as much. That’s not lip service, I don’t think, but I wonder about Radakovich’s feeling — and the feelings of several coaches — on the system. It does allow a six-year period for student-athletes to graduate for purposes of this evaluation, and that seems fair to me as well. Again, if a player goes pro early, or transfers, that doesn’t hurt that school’s rating.
Moving on, it’s impossible not to notice how Tech’s doing so well in virtually every special teams category. No. 1 in the nation in both net punting and kickoff return yardage allowed, and No. 7 in kickoff return average. Travis Bell’s missed just one FG, and Tech’s blocked a punt. The list goes on.
To some degree, it goes to show how much a coach, Charles Kelly, can improve in his second year on the job. Last season was his first as a full-time special teams coach. Of course, it helps to have Durant Brooks punting, a kickoff guy (Scott Blair) who does a nice job and then, as everywhere, you need to have the right kind of players to plug in. Tech has a good group there.
Last year, Maryland returned a kickoff for a touchdown against Tech. This year? I bet not.
Big game tomorrow night for my son’s team. We’re 2-2, having allowed one offensive touchdown in each game. The first time, the opponent returned an interception to make the difference. The other loss, we fell 6-0. Offense is struggling. The team we play Friday, the Browns, passes more than any other team by far. They’re also 2-2.
My little man is splitting time now at QB, since the original QB returned last week. He seems OK with that, even said last night that Matt Andersen is a better QB than him. In truth, Matt’s definitely quicker, and runs better. He’s a bit smaller, throws about like my Patrick, perhaps a little more accurately on short passes. Their arm strength is the same, although that doesn’t matter in our passing game much.
Wife’s trying very hard to get me to let Patrick skip next Saturday morning’s game so she can take him with our daughters and my mother-in-law to a reunion in Virginia. We’re already going to be missing one player, though, leaving us with just 14 if Patrick is there, 13 if he’s not. It’s more difficult for me to make a case because I have to get on a plane that morning shortly before Patrick’s team is to kick off so that I can get to Miami for that NOON game. I’m trying to make arrangements for the little man (grandpa’s going out of town for a wedding, uncle has to go to a different wedding late that day, and his other grandmother works until 3). His game will be over about 10:15. What a pickle; ain’t life grand?
Enough babbling.
Later,
Matt
Comments
By TDone
October 4, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this
My take on graduation rates is that the school can only go so far. Athletes must see the perceived benefit of getting the degree, but the school needs to provide all legal and moral means to set kids up for success.
As someone once told me years ago, there is no such thing as a missed opportunity. If you don’t take it, someone else will.
By JD
October 4, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this
So there’s a QB controversy on your son’s team? Doesn’t the coach know that never works! Hope he’s having fun.
Have the Terps announced who their QB will be this week yet?
By Jim G
October 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
Oh man, oh man, there you go with the tired old “how hard it is to get a degree at Tech” whine. It is a shame that Stanford, Vanderbilt, UNC, UVA, and Boston College just give away degrees. No wonder the fans from the other schools think that all of us Tech fans are crybabies. How would you decide the degree of difficulty in getting an industrial engineering degree from Tech as opposed to a Micro-biology degree from Stanford.
By SJLong_GA
October 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
I think it was Bear or someone who had this to say when asked how many of his players graduated…
“All of them that want to.”
By Dave
October 4, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this
One of the factors that impacts Tech’s graduation rate is the relatively narrow range of options for a major. Tech’s stats overall for percentage of all students that start at Tech actually graduating from Tech are lower than a lot of schools, not just for athletes. If you decide three semesters into your studies that engineering is not your cup of tea, your cup of tea may not be offered at Tech.
I’m not sure six years is a realistic time frame for graduating for an athlete at any school. The number of non-athlete students graduating in four years is a lot lower today than when I was in school (Viet Nam played a role), and the additional work load an athlete in any big time sports program carries is non-trivial. It is unrealistic to expect them to handle the same number of semester hours as other students, and as long as they are legitimately classified as full time and taking courses that lead to a degree, I say cut them some slack on the time it takes to get through school.
By Alabama Jack
October 4, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this
I’m with you Dave. I graduated in 4 years (12 quarters) but only because of Vietnam and lack of money. if I could do over, I would love to have at least one or two more quarters with lots of electives just to improve my education.
By z.S. Graham
October 4, 2007 6:00 PM | Link to this
Helluva job on special teams for Tech this year. At an old football lettermans’ golf thing, I won a trip to Duke the year they kicked our fannies up there 2003? Took my wife, son and a friend of his. I was yelling for Tech to kickoff out of bounds because that would limit Duke to their own 35 on the return. What a mess the special teams have been under Chan until this year. It took awhile but kudos to the special teams guy. It ain’t the talent so much as it is the coaching on special teams. I promise you the current Tech special teams coach could take a high school team and perform better on kickoffs and punts. This years punter has a lot to do with things. Remember when Tech had a punter who couldn’t make the frat league team?
By dumbhick
October 4, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this
Tech has dumbed down its school with dumb kids to play football in order to be somewhat competitive.Do you think these kids would get into school if they were not athletes. Add on top of that, - the state of Georgia is always on the low end of test scores every year. maybe we need to recruit more out of state. Those are the facts Jack.
By Z.S. Graham
October 4, 2007 6:04 PM | Link to this
Helluva job on special teams for Tech this year. At an old football lettermans’ golf thing, I won a trip to Duke the year they kicked our fannies up there 2003? Took my wife, son and a friend of his. I was yelling for Tech to kickoff out of bounds because that would limit Duke to their own 35 on the return. What a mess the special teams have been under Chan until this year. It took awhile but kudos to the special teams guy. It ain’t the talent so much as it is the coaching on special teams. I promise you the current Tech special teams coach could take a high school team and perform better on kickoffs and punts. This years punter has a lot to do with the improvement. I can remember when Curry had some woman coaching punters. Geez.
By G P Burdell
October 4, 2007 6:15 PM | Link to this
I want all the athletes who graduate from Tech to be as miserable as the rest of us who graduated were. It ain’t no picnic playing ball and graduating; no way you can graduate on time. This management degree ain’t anywhere to hide either. Being an engineer and playing football is unbelievably tough. As my athletic association academic advisor said when I said I wanted to major in Chemical Engineering, “You got labs Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 3 till 6. When do you think you’re gonna practice football, boy?”
Special teams are jam up this year. The new guy is doing a great job; doesn’t hurt to have a punter who can kick it a mile either. As for coverage of kickoffs and punts, the former special teams coach could not get these kids to do squat. This current special teams guy could take a high school team and have better stats than the old guy had. The best we could hope was that the kickoff would go out of bounds, holding the opponents to their own 35 yd. line.
By jabster
October 4, 2007 6:45 PM | Link to this
Jim G:
I got a 2.5 when I got out with my BIE from Tech and a 3.97 getting my MBA from UGA, a top 25 public B-school (that’s straight A’s except for ONE B). So STFU unless you know what you’re talking about.
Also, don’t forget—Tech’s IE program is better than those at MIT, CalTech, Carnegie-Mellon, Stanford, Michigan, and—everybody else for that matter (reference: US News & World Report-look it up).
Speaking of US News, Terry and GTCoM are neck-and-neck in the B-school rankings. Like our little brothers, we GT engineers can make fun of the “M-Train”. The Bulldog Nation does not have that privilege, so don’t go there.
Again speaking of US News, one thing that hurts Tech in their rankings is the poor graduation rate among the entire student body. It’s not “look on your left, look on your right” anymore, but it’s still rough.
By OhGiveMeABreak
October 4, 2007 6:45 PM | Link to this
Notre Dame and Boston College have over 95% graduation rate for their football players. FLORIDA has a 72% grad rate.
Not so special are you Tech
By bullhit
October 4, 2007 7:27 PM | Link to this
I had a 3.9999 to the third power when I got my Super Duper Pooper Scooper degree from GT . Then I went to Georgia to get a degree in super fine women watching and I barley squeaked by.
By gatech2010
October 4, 2007 7:50 PM | Link to this
Schools like MIT, Stanford, and Harvard are hard to get into not hard to stay at. They don’t have the weed out programs that tech does. I was in the top 15% of my physics class of a couple hundred people and I barely got a C. 80% percent of the class was given a D or F. Tech is one of a kind in this respect. Plus we don’t have majors like poultry science.
By Senior Citizen
October 4, 2007 8:07 PM | Link to this
The only fair way to compare performance in graduation rates is to compare athletes’ rates with non-athletes’ rates at each school. Otherwise you are, in effect, comparing the proverbial “apples and oranges”,since the curricular are dissimilar among the schools.
By OhGiveMeABreak
October 4, 2007 8:25 PM | Link to this
“Schools like MIT, Stanford, and Harvard are hard to get into not hard to stay at. They don’t have the weed out programs that tech does. I was in the top 15% of my physics class of a couple hundred people and I barely got a C. 80% percent of the class was given a D or F. Tech is one of a kind in this respect. Plus we don’t have majors like poultry science.” Are you for real? Schools like MIT, Stanford, and Harvard are “easy” to stay in? MIT is FAR tougher than Tech.
and Notre Dame and Boston College always lead the nation in football graduation and those are two schools that are tough to get in AND take their football seriously. What’s wrong with the Tech program?
and if 80% of your physics class got a D or F, than 80% of your class could have just been stupid. Or on the football team
By boo hoo
October 4, 2007 9:41 PM | Link to this
gatech 2010 - You are one dumb kid . Are you Polish ? Sad thing is according to you 80% of the people around you are even more dumb.Tech is just a crap school,learn to live with it - dumbass.
By Just the Facts
October 4, 2007 9:54 PM | Link to this
OK - people who did not attend GT think that we just make up the facts on how hard it is for ALL students to get a Tech degree, so here are the facts from the 2008 CollegeBoard College Handbook.
First - let’s acknowledge that all top school get top students. 1st Fact - look at the following for graduation % in 6 yrs and Mid 50% SAT range of incoming freshman:
BC - 91% and 1250-1420 UVA - 92% and 1220-1330 ND - 95% and 1250-1460
Basically these schools that have 1220+ at the 25 percentile (lower of the 25-75 mid band) and with this level of students they have graduation rates above 91%.
Now look at Tech
GT - 77% and 1230-1400
Students that are right in-line with what UVA or ND or BC get, but a graduation rate over 14 - 18% lower.
By the way, for some of the other “tough” schools, here are their graduation rates of their student body:
MIT - 95% Stanford - 95% Yale - 96% (think of Bush) Harvard - 98%
I have been out of Tech for 28 years and I have worked with engineers from Penn, Penn State, VT, UVA, VCU, Purdue, Michigan, West Virginia and more - and there is no doubt the difficulty in getting a GT degree
Just the facts
By GiveMeABreak
October 4, 2007 10:24 PM | Link to this
Maybe all that proves is that there is more to being a good student (WHICH is what it takes to graduate anywhere) than knowing your way around a graphing calculator. Maybe those schools are getting more well rounded students.
You can throw all the stats you want but no way are you going to make anyone believe that getting a degree from Georgia Tech is HARDER than MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Penn, Yale, Or Notre Dame. LMAO
By ben
October 4, 2007 11:08 PM | Link to this
I was one of the many kids who was a whiz at math in high school and thought I could I could breeze through Tech without going to class. I was wrong. I ended up becoming a DJ, then owning an ad agency. I should have gone to Georgia or FSU and majored in jounalism. You just don’t have to keep up with liberal arts studies the way you do with engineering.
By Fan
October 4, 2007 11:17 PM | Link to this
Since you didn’t major in liberal arts studies, how would you know you don’t have to “keep up” with the studies the way you do in engineering?
And maybe not going to class is why getting a degree was so tough for you at Tech and not so much the difficulty of the program.
By surfrider
October 5, 2007 2:27 AM | Link to this
Someone told me as a Freshman or I heard from the school that only 45% of all Freshman end up graduating. This included the total body. There were two reasons for this, one was calculus and the second was get this a survival swimming course. It turns out the survival swimming course was delayed as long as possible by many students because one had to float tied up and things of that sort. Eventually the politically correct crowd discontinued it or it was reformed as I’m not up to par on what happened to the course. Back to football. The wrap on O’leary was the graduation rate in the 30’s if not mistaken. The key the critics were’nt looking at is he inherited it in the low 20’s since the previous regime (Lewis) had a lot of attrition. Now the trendline was going in the right direction. Even Braine and company discussed this problem a few years ago. Truth be known if Tech’s athletes can remain close to the student population whatever number that is now would be a success. My guess is they may lag that number most of the time.
By mckay_mike@yahoo.com
October 5, 2007 3:05 AM | Link to this
Givemeabreak, I suggest you enroll at Tech and find out for yourself. That looks like the only way for you to find out is upclose and personal.
Another thing that tells you how relatively hard it is compared to others just in the state is what you have to make for Dean’ List. It is lower than other schools in the state.
By Beeski
October 5, 2007 7:55 AM | Link to this
It is a shame that Stanford, Vanderbilt, UNC, UVA, and Boston College just give away degrees.
Football players taking the “easy” majors at those schools are not required to take calculus and hard sciences.
The “easy” major at GT is a top 30 undergrad biz school(ranked higher than Terry btw), which requires calculus and hard sciences. Dook’s BS major is Sociology btw.
By WFC
October 5, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this
I spent 4 quarters at GT in the late 1960’s (2.9 GPA) before transferring and it IS difficult to stay in the program. This is purposeful. It takes more than just being good at math and science (I was). You really have to want to be an engineer (I didn’t). GT is a cold academic environment and I didn’t fit in. I’m glad it was tough. I might have otherwise hung around, graduated and been miserable. Tech is simply different… rather narrow in focus.
By cltgtfan
October 5, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this
Graduation rates must improve. Yes Tech is difficult and yes there are a lot of students in general that struggle with staying in school. That does not excuse the athletes from what they are there for. They are getting the chance at a free degree from a great school.
The athletic association must make providing the athletes all the resources they can to succeed and gradutate its top priority. No success on the field (especially our limited success lately) makes up for only 51% of the students graduating in my mind. Especially, when that puts us dead last in the ACC. Georgia Tech can and should do better.
By Joe Colvin
October 5, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this
Georgia Tech is a school that emphasizes technology and the sciences. It is not a liberal arts school. However, I will not be critical of liberal arts schools in other universities.
A liberal education is just as important as a technical education and graduates with BA’s have contributed as much to our society as graduates with BS’s.
Tech’s graduation rates for athletes should be higher. There will not be many graduating in 4 years but there is no good reason for the low percentages.
A few of our Tech players will go on and make it at the professional level but the vast majority will not ever see a professional pay check.
For those players, Tech should do everything possible to see that they graduate.
The education they receive from Tech will make a huge difference in their quality of life over the years.
I have long thought that one thing Tech could do is put together a book of occupations of its athlete graduates as a selling point to assist in recruiting.
By TOO
October 5, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
As an outsider I will summarize the Comments to this blog.
A degree from GT is something to be very proud and useful in life.
A degree from GA is something that gives the recipent the right to claim being a football crazy, girl-watching (?), not so useful in life’s opportunities (person).
Here’s to all of the SEC schools except for (tail wagging the dog) last place educational school of higher learning.
By ME
October 5, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
I know I speak for many many SEC alumni and fans when I say the SEC would rather have Tech back in the SEC and the DAWGS gone to the C-USA or another conference.
We need a a school with International Respect to replace a school still known for the Kemp Affair.
By jabster
October 5, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
Senior Citizen wrote: “The only fair way to compare performance in graduation rates is to compare athletes’ rates with non-athletes’ rates at each school.”
Bingo! We have a winner!
GiveMeABreak: Have you been to MIT (GT of the North)? Every MIT grad I have known said it was cake once you were in.
About graphing calculators, they didn’t exist when I was at Tech. Never owned one and still don’t.
OTOH, I know doctors who studied pre-med at Tech (aka BIOL or CHEM) who thought that med school (Harvard Med in one case) was a cakewalk compared to Tech.
Surfrider: FYI-drownproofing was made optional around 1988. I don’t know of anyone who didn’t get out because of it, though.
Should we improve our graduation rate? Sure. But not at the expense of watering down our programs or grade inflation. Keep in mind that Tech has a new program called “The Tech Promise” for low-income students who lose the HOPE scholarship because they get less than a 3.0 (like over 50% of the student body does these days).
By Snellvillejacket
October 5, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this
Jim G your comments may be worthwihle, however how many students from those schoold you named to you ever see going out early and turning pro? Seems to me the NCAA ought to look at Salary of the atlehthes which leave school. If over $500,00 then the school should get a pass. The school has done what it is suppose to do, prepare one for the workplace.
By GiveMeABreak
October 5, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
Since Tech is an engineering school, the students that apply and get in are obviously talented in math. The idea that calculus is difficult enough that so many flunk out for those type students is ludicrus.
Not buying it. At all.
By LongBeachJacket
October 5, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
GiveMeABreak.
I’ll give you a break but you are also off the mark. I can tell you from first hand experience as an alumnus of an Ivy League institution who has also studied at Tech that there are legitimate disparities. And once you’re in at one ot those schools it IS easier to stay in. As top tier public institution, Tech has a different mentality overall. The culture is not geared toward student retention in the same fashion as most of the top tier private schools.
Furthermore, if you want to argue that the 50 to 60% of the football team at Duke (or Stanford) majoring in Sociology has to study harder than our guys majoring in Management, then I’ll take your bet and raise it. Tech is what Tech is, and the Athletic Department must deal with reality. No excuses allowed.
That said, some of the arguments about disparities are real, not fiction.
And that’s a fact, Jack….
By GiveMeABreak
October 5, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this
So Tech is much tougher than pre-med programs at Stanford or pre-law at Harvard because they just want to keep the students in school??? But Tech only cares about the upper 50% actually graduating???
NOT BUYING IT and I know firsthand of a kid graduating this spring. NO WAY would he be doing that if things are the way you say.
By firechangailey.com
October 5, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this
GiveMeABreak:
Until you attend those Calc courses you can’t talk about it. A lot of kids have dreams of being an engineer but those types of courses kill them. Combined with the fact that it’s a lot of students first time away from home living on their own. If you don’t keep up with those classes it’s almost impossible to catch up.
By the way - it’s ludicrous.
By LongBeachJacket
October 5, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this
Well, as always, everyone is entitled to their own opinion…anecdotal though it may be…including me…
GO JACKETS!!!!!!!!
By GiveMeABREAK
October 5, 2007 8:55 PM | Link to this
EVERY kid that goes away to college is dealing with being on their own for the first time. No excuse there.
If these classes are so tough that most of your class can’t pass them, then maybe Tech needs to raise its admissions requirements. Or do a better job teaching. Because apparently you are letting in football players that can’t hack it, and are not going on to pro careers for the most part. That is a huge waste of time for those kids who should be leaving school with a degree. Shame on Georgia Tech and that graduation rate. Notre Dame has a 95% graduation rate and that school is no cakewalk either.
By GTinNC
October 6, 2007 3:23 AM | Link to this
Matt, Love your articles. One suggestion - on your statement in the 1st paragraph, “My knowledge on the topic is limited.” As a suggestion for continuous improvement - don’t start saying you don’t know much about something, then write 14 paragraphes about that subject. I would agree with your preface - your knowledge “is limited”.
By GoldDomer
October 6, 2007 8:42 AM | Link to this
Do you people really mean to say that Tech’s lower graduation rate means it has higher academic standards? Unbelievable.
Notre Dame has a 95% graduation rate for their football team and the compares nicely to their overall student graduation rate and NO “football majors” like general studies are offered. Nobody fails out of Notre Dame, because the students are serious about their Ivy League caliber education.
There is a serious problem at a school that not cannot graduate its football players but according to this blog, can barely graduate its regular students.
That is NOT something to be proud of.