OT: UGA Admin. Standards
I'm sure Georgia isn't the only one...especially when it comes to bending admission standards to get an athlete in a revenue sport into school.
I think UGA deserves credit for helping Mitchell learn how to read. He used to be illiterate before he sought out help.
Now he's publishing children's books and encouraging others to read.
Good dude. Who knows where he would be if he didn't have the opportunities afforded to him by UGA.
"I think UGA deserves credit for helping Mitchell learn how to read."
Of course, because I'm sure they had no ulterior motive to do so...
That being said, not sure UGA is to blame for admitting him when he was obviously getting "help" in high school.
He learned while he was out for the season due to injury.
I mean sure the school had a motive to make sure he did well, but it's not like he just did the bare minimum. According to the article below, it seems like he sure does have a passion for reading and educating others.
I doubt he would join a book club full of 40-60 year old women if he didn't actively want to learn.
"but it's not like he just did the bare minimum. "
Maybe you need to learn how to read... Your post said UGA deserves credit for helping him. I never suggested he didn't deserve any credit, instead I prefer to give him 100% of the credit.
Alright, I know you're kind of a douchebag by the way you type, but I'll bite anyway.
In a perfect scenario in which colleges fulfill their duties to actively educate "student"-athletes, UGA would probably not be getting any praise from me for this. But since we don't live in that world and instead live in a reality in which some colleges recycle players solely for their athletic abilities, UGA had no reason to give a shit about this kid's educational shortcomings. They could have done what his high school and middle school did (and a lot of other universities *cough* UNC) and let him pass without any teaching whatsoever. It doesn't seem like that's what happened. So good for UGA and Mitchell.
Crediting the school =/= diminishing Mitchell's work.
Now go pick fights over minutiae somewhere else.
I was joking, but of course you know all about me from a few posts. Sorry I ruined your day...
They do not derserve credit for admitting someone illiterate into their university. Blame the middle school and high school for passing the young man and not giving him the help he needed, but UGA deserves no credit for violating the entire purpose of a university.
It's not the sole purpose of the university, and I would even say that they were fulfilling an academic purpose by making the world a more intelligent place, one good kid at a time. Go singlehandedly save the world somewhere else.
not a remedial education center. Just because the two are focused on education and making the world a better place does not mean that remedial students belong in a university.
Yeah damn those Bulldogs for admitting a kid screwed over by his high/middle schools and giving him the opportunities to better himself that he would not have had elsewhere!
students because they didn't have the opportunity to learn to read elsewhere? Give me a break.
Why did you have to go and make a good, positive story out of it?
Did he not know how to read? It just says he never read a book on his own. I know plenty of guys like that who can read. They just don't like to do it.
Edit: Well shit, someone posted a link below saying he actually was illiterate.
I don't think I'd interpret the quote about "not reading a book on his own" as never reading a book. Unless he explicitly stated otherwise, I imagine he meant he never read a book that wasn't required for school. I'd also imagine there's plenty of pretty bright kids in the same boat who simply don't enjoy reading for pleasure.
Right I would interpret his "not reading on my own" as "I only read when required".
Much to my surprise, turns out I was wrong, Malcolm used his words deliberately here:
Thank you for the link - awesome story. Really cool to see that he's still giving back and has a passion about this. It's a nice reminder that sometimes when the world is bleak, or we're concerned with other things, there's always a bit of hope shining through.
Yeah and he wouldn't tell the kids a book they haven't heard of. Even if he was illiterate let's not jump to judgment.
I feel like he took himself out of context. Surely he had finished a book before college. Surely.
Well I disagree. And stop asking for Shirley.
Some people don't enjoy reading.
Not an excuse.
Why? I have a professional degree and haven't read a book since high school. I don't enjoy it, never have. Doesn't mean you can't be quite intelligent without books in your free time.
agreed. I love history. I watch things on TV, the internet, etc. I still hate picking up a fantasy book and reading.
You should totally try reading a history book...
1944 - Jay Winik
1776 - David McCullough
Ah, but what are you doing right now ?
People may not read books as much as they used to, but I offer that perhaps we all read more than we used to.
Right. Most (some?) of my friends are very intelligent and haven't read a book since high school.
I mean, who knows what he meant. But by common usage, "never read a book on my own" means "I always had to have help to read one." I wouldn't read it as meaning he only read books required of him as opposed to books he read voluntarily. If you chose to pick up a book for the fun of it, would you say "you read it on your own"? Not really. Besides, in context, that makes NO sense. He's encouraging kids to learn to read. Why would he single out the first book he voluntarily chose to read? And lest we admit the obvious -- why would someone who otherwise reads requires books for school pick THAT book as the first one he chose to read "on his own"? Doesn't add up. Most logical inference is that, he simply always had someone helping him read (read: reading to him).
With his paycheck now, don't matter anyway. Whomever used to read to him, he can go hire that smuck and have him/her keep reading to him.
I've heard people, myself included, say "I don't like to read on my own" to denote voluntary vs. school required reading, so it's not far fetched to interpret that's what he meant.
That said, upon further review on the Googles, Malcolm indeed was borderline illiterate coming into college and there is many an article on the topic. You sir are correct.
Exactly and I agree. I've used the phrase and have heard others respond similarly in regards to completing required reading vs. Reading for fun.
Regardless of where he started, where he is now is impressive. He's in a classroom, as an NFL player, encouraging kids to read. To be clear, I think UGA cheats and pays recruits. What prompted my OP was a kind of extension of that thinking, with potentially admitting kids that were not strong academically (even to minimum standards) as another way to cheat. Poorly expressed, perhaps, but that's where it came from.
You make a good point. If programs were more judicious and concerned about the character of their recruits, we would likely hear more stories like Mitchell's.
How do you get a UGA grad off your porch?
A. Pay him for the pizza
You have a UGA wide receiver, linebacker, and defensive back in a car. Who is driving?
A. The cop
How do Georgia grad brain cells die?
Lame post. I read 1 complete book in High school. Rumble Fish
And still was able to graduate from Madonna University. I own a company, have a hot wife. 2 awesome kids (who also hate reading)
Agreed, your wife is hot.
that part from Talladega Nights
Teach the ancient art of Rex-kwon-do, by chance?
who are just incapable of reading for the sheer enjoyment of it, which is probably a factor in the point of pride they take in their disability.
I don't find it surprising. Our culture values sales ($), boosterism, and extroversion more than it does intellectual development, thoughtful engagement with others, and introversion.
I don't mean for this to sound like a value judgment, and I described a couple of extreme points there, but the U.S. collectively doesn't value reading.
Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't value academics as a whole in comparison to a lot of other countries.
Well, in a number of European countries, you take a test at age 14 or 15 that pretty much determines your life's path - if you don't do well on it, you can't go to a college-prep high school, and have to attend a "professional" school instead.
America gives students a lot of second chances. Even if they aren't college-ready after finishing high school, they can go to a community college. (Not many other countries have community colleges.) We also normally expect our elite athletes to at least finish high school, if not also go on to college, whereas in many countries they turn pro as teenagers.
The tradeoff of all this is that we have a higher number of high school students who aren't very strong academically, since in other places they'd be weeded out before then. So it's complicated: we are probably less demanding than other countries in the classroom, but expect a greater proportion of our society to receive an education.
Good points. I certainly enjoy the flexibility our system has, as I made a late career change in undergrad.
It's interesting to talk to foreign students about this topic though. I have a friend from Iraq and prior to immigrating she had already completed organic chemistry and other advanced courses prior to starting college. I'll have to ask her if the system was structured similar to your description.
Not all reading is the same and I find people take a condescending tone when I say I don't read for enjoyment. Then I find out they read Harry Potter or some other trash novel. I find that to be a waste of my valuable time. I'd much rather read an earnings report but all those sophisticated readers don't have time to be concerned with saving their money. In short, I'm glad you like reading books. Now, you can take your sad indictments elsewhere.
ugly wife. What does that mean?
Yes, but what do their administrative standards have to do with his reading ability?
...still got good grades. :)
His high school grades/test scores must have met the NCAA minimum, so he would have gotten admitted at a lot of schools. How he managed qualifying grades/test scores might be the bigger question.
In any event, from the linked article earlier in this thread, it sounds like he's worked to better himself and has learned to enjoy reading, so good for him. He took advantage of the opportunities college offered him.
if you can fog the mirror enough for the counseler to write 'approved' with his/her finger, you are in! congrats!
And spent almost 2 years there.....
You are focusing on how he was admitted without ever reading a book. What you should be asking is how he was able to graduate from high school without reading a book. This happens because people will manipulate the system to make sure guys are elgible. In poorer communities, sports are seen as one of the few ways to advance yourself in life. Because of this, K-12 teachers don't want to be the one that kills a kids athletic career and as a result they pass kids along through the system. This sets a culture where these young athletes see underpreparred students getting into schools just on sports, which give them a perception that school isn't that important.
Be a good athlete. Meet NCAA minimum qualification standards, which is a 2.3 Core GPA (C+ average) and an SAT of 900 or ACT SUM of 75 (18.75 average). Ironically the higher your core GPA the worse your SAT or ACT score can be based on a sliding scale.
Either way if you can get a C+ average in high school and score a 900 on the SAT then you can get into any D1 college for sports, with the exception of Stanford and Northwestern.
I can see the logic behind the sliding scale. The more you've proven yourself in the classroom, the less you need to prove on the test. The worse your grades are, the more you need to come through on test day, to demonstrate that you have the ability to survive in a college classroom.
Stanford and Northwestern aren't the only schools with standards above the minimum though. Some schools have particular requirements, such as a larger number of core classes taken than the NCAA minimum (13).
I think the NCAA minimum is 16 core classes now.
I understand that logic as well. However instead of having a hard threshold this sliding scale creates an incentive to try to inflate your core GPA through online courses, lenient teachers, etc. The idea that a kid with a 3.5 high school GPA would get a 420 SAT or have a 39 ACT SUM (9.75 average) is ridiculous.
And from what I've been told by NCAA coaches I've met is that Michigan's admissions committee negotiates with the coaching staff on players. I.e. they will let in NCAA minimum athletes but the coaches must recruit another kid who scores higher than NCAA mins so that the team's overall "average" admitted athlete is above a certain level acceptable to the admissions committee. The point being that if the coaches want you bad enough you can get in with NCAA minimum scores. Obviously this is easy for the football team since they will have ~20 kids each year and not all will be 5 stars. There is a reason why the 3 star guys tend to come from Catholic league schools, their scores will be good enough to average out the 5 star guys who aren't as academically stellar. This is also another thing that RRod got into trouble with during his tenure here. He kept sending too many low score kids the admissions committee and they got upset. Clearly WVU doesn't have such standards and they'll let an entire class of NCAA min kids in.
Stanford admissions on the other hand doesn't make such a bargain with their coaching staff and they will reject all players that don't meet their admission standards. The Stanford coaches I've met say this puts them at a big disadvantage because while Oregon and offer a kid early and know they will get in Stanford needs to constantly monitor their academic progress and can get burned if a kid doesn't perform academically. This results in Stanford coming in late after they know a recruits academic profile.
Honestly I don't know the specifics at Northwestern, but I'd imagine they are closer to the Stanford model of athletic admissions than they are to the Michigan model.
I'm not sure that's accurate about Stanford. I understand that most of the Ivy League (across sports, not just football) is a similar approach to how you describe Michigan even if the floor is not an NCAA minimum qualifier.
Yeah. The Ivies lower their standards quite a bit for athletes, which is odd given that they don't compete at the highest level in most sports.
My source is a current coach there so I'm pretty sure it is accurate. Perhaps I didn't clarify enough. The admissions board at Stanford won't take an NCAA minimum kid period. They may take a kid who wouldn't otherwise qualify if not for athletics, but that kid is still a good candidate.
The anecdote that the coach relayed to me was that they secured a verbal commitment from a kid very early, freshman year of high school. They knew the kid was borderline academically for Stanford (well above NCAA minimums), but they were a very good recruit and had a long relationship so the coaching staff rolled the dice. Senior year rolled around and the admission committee rejected that kid because their grades/scores weren't good enough. So long story short that kid ended up at Oregon and is a major contributer there.
Now you contrast that with Michigan's approach, where they will take an NCAA minimum kid so long as the coaching staff recruits others who are above NCAA minimums so that the class average is above NCAA minimums.
Bottom line being that if a coach at Michigan wants an NCAA minimum qualified kid bad enough they will get accepted into UM. At Stanford that is not the case.
So if the semantics are does Stanford "lower" their standards for atheletes, the technical answer is likely yes. But the degree to which they do is significantly less than other schools, Michigan included. the coaches at Stanford can't take a kid with a 2.5 GPA and a 900 SAT score into the admissions board and get him through. Stanford admissions will flat out reject that kid. Michigan admissions will say OK, but you need to give us another kid with a 3.7 GPA and a 1400 SAT to balance it out. MSU admissions would say yeah no problem, they meet NCAA mins.
This is why Harbaugh was correct when he made his Statements about Michigan back in 2007. He said that Michigan's athletic department has ways of getting borderline guys accepted. That is clearly true.
The real story here is that he read The Giving Tree. God, that book creeps me out. We hid it from our kids so they wouldn't ask us to read it to them.
Literally just read this to my son tonight.
You are a cruel, cruel parent.
There's a lot of lessons to take away from it - some positive, some negative. Never really noticed it as a kid - but I do now.
The creepiest book to me when I was a kid was Where the Wild Things Are - while the book is great the drawings of the monsters gave me nightmares when I was younger. It is what it is.
To my kids classroom today as a guest reader. Shel Silverstein in general is pretty creepy, but I like that one better than the various books of creepy poems.
I can't recall a single, non-textbook book I read in high school either. I hated reading and strategically avoided it. I didn't take English classes, I took alternatives that counted for English. I didn't write a paper after 10th grade. And, I got into UM and continued to avoid it by going into engineering. Even in college I avoided reading. I now read a lot of news and financial literature but haven't tried to read a book for entertainment since 3 and out and I only made it half way through that.
You missed out on an amazing experience.
I lived 3 and out so I don't think I missed an experience.
Georgia is a good school. It's not uncommon to see standards change for athletes. As long as the school stands by them and truly provides an education, I'm all for it. If they abandoned a lesser student, then condemn away.
Don't get me wrong. I still want to kick their ass in any sporting event! Lol!
For people who don't enjoy reading. To each his own form of entertainment.
makes me sad, and yet at the same time, explains so much.
Not sure I get the outrage here.
He never read a book on his own, but he could read, if not very well and just barely enough to handle tests and school work. That sounds like about 75% of the people I went to high school with and a whole bunch of them did just fine even without college and I am sure if they had the athletic gifts of this young man they would have been fine in college as well. Some people just don't enjoy reading, aren't given the tools to appreciate it, and aren't exposed to it at home as something to enjoy and value. Frankly, if I had to rely on English class for the books that were supposed to teach me a love of reading I would have hated it as well.
The real story here is through connections made while at Georgia he developed a love of reading(admittedly it was on his own and through joining a ladies book club) but I doubt it would have happened had he not been in Athens. So in essence it seems like you're telling me it's better he not have had that opportunity, not sure that's a good look either.
I'm sure you had many leather-bound books and your childhood home smelled of rich mahogany, but not everyone is so fortunate. The dude bettered his life through athletics and is now giving back, and he has UGA to thank for that. I highly doubt anyone is lining up to apologize for this situation.
I've volunteered with a local Chicago organization called Bernie's Book Bank, whose mission it is to get books into the hands of at-risk schoolkids.
A few facts, showing that we (assuming most of us are at least middle class) easily take reading and access to books for granted/
- Children who struggle in vain with reading in the first grade soon decide that they neither like nor want to read. Juel, 1998
- Two-thirds of students who cannot read proficiently by the end of the 4th grade will end up in jail or on welfare. BegintoRead.com
- In middle-income neighborhoods the ratio of books per child is 13 to 1, in low-income neighborhoods, the ratio is 1 age-appropriate book for every 300 children. Neuman, Susan B. and David K. Dickinson, ed. Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Volume 2. New York, NY: 2006, p. 31.
- 61 percent of low-income families have no books at all in their homes for their children. Reading Literacy in the United States, 1996.
- A single, brief exposure to good reading material can result in a clear increase in enthusiasm for reading. Ramos and Krashen, 1998; Cho and Krashen, 2002
what are facts 6 and 7?
Update: I went to the link, thanks. It pays to read.
If you need a reason to bang on Georgia use their FOIA philosophy. That's worth banging on.
Not a good look? Georgia took a kid who was deficient academically and educated him. It's almost like that's the purpose of a university of something.
The fact that he hadn't read a complete book doesn't mean he couldn't read perfectly well. Lots of people, many with college degrees, don't read books.
Yeah, I don't see how "passed the NCAA standard for admission based on test scores and GPA", then nurturing his clear desire to learn so that he goes back to schools and tells other kids to read and admits he may have been like them too isn't remotely a bad look for UGa. Baylor covering up sexual assaults, UT covering use sexual assaults, those are bad looks.