In case you have not been monitoring this USA Today web site that others have mentioned, it is damn good and worth weekly visiting. As we head to Atlanta 265 and counting on the OTC clock today when I drove in, we are getting more and more good info for us all. Yeeah!
Notes and Quotes
Nebraska watches two records fall Saturday night
Two-time All-American Allison Weston broke Nebraska's career record for kills in front of an NCAA volleyball record crowd of 11,529 Saturday night as the top-ranked Huskers pounded Colorado 15-4, 15-3, 15-2.
Weston, who had 12 kills and 13 digs, became the school's kill leader when she recorded her ninth of the night early in the third game, passing Eileen Shannon's 1,521 kills from 1989-92.
''It's the biggest event in my life, to play in front of 11,000 people and to break the record and hear the crowd. It was amazing,'' said Weston, who was a freshman at Nebraska when Shannon set the record. ''I remember when she got the record and I never dreamed in a million years I would get this tonight.''
The Huskers won their 16th-consecutive match and sixth straight over Colorado.
Attendance at the homecoming game broke the previous NCAA record of 11,114 set in 1993 at the NCAA finals between Long Beach State and Penn State.
Kilo killers
* No. 10 UCLA lost to No. 4 Stanford, but Jenny Johnson recorded her 1,000th career kill. * Tricia Stragliotto recorded her 1,000th career kill before a crowd of 2,126 at Ohio State as the Buckeyes fell to No. 6 Michigan State, 1-3. * Arkansas' Krystal Osborne recorded 18 kills in the Razorbacks' 1-3 loss to No. 25 Georgia, giving her 1,007 in her career.
Thirtysomething
Several players put away 30 or more single-match kills last week.
* Idaho's Tzvetelina Yanchulova knocked down 31 kills in the Vandals' 3-1 defeat of Boise State. * Nina Foster pounded 38 kills in Alabama's 2-3 loss to Mississippi State. * Bowling Green State's Carlyn Esslinger posted 30 kills in a 2-3 loss to Ohio. * Cincinnati's Chrissy Smith racked up 30 kills in the Bearcats' 3-1 defeat of Southern Mississippi Oct. 22. * Amy Marin recorded 35 kills in Eastern Kentucky's 3-2 decision over in-state rival Morehead State. * Tricia Tuley posted 33 kills for Fresno State in a 3-2 defeat of Cal Poly SLO. * Minnesota's Katrien De Decker put away 31 kills in a 1-3 loss to Indiana Oct. 20 at Minnesota. * Sammy Waldron posted 32 kills for the Rice Owls in their 3-1 win over Lamar. * San Jose State defeated No. 14 Pacific 3-1 as Paola Paz-Soldan knocked in 33 kills.
Schneck earns 300th win
* Rhode Island defeated St. Bonaventure and Duquesne, both 3-0, giving head coach Bob Schneck his 300th career win on Oct. 21. The Rams are now 20-3 overall, 12-0 in the Atlantic 10. * Arkansas State won over Lamar and Texas-Pan American, both 3-0, on Oct. 22, giving head coach Jeff Hulsmeyer his 150th win. * Butler coach Sharon Dingman chalked up her 100th win after defeating Wisconsin-Milwaukee 3-0 Oct. 21.
Castillo leads Middle Tennessee to three records
Middle Tennessee State (19-5, 8-2 Ohio Valley) defeated Tennessee-Chattanooga, Texas-Pan American, Morehead State and Eastern Kentucky last week, all in 3-0 or 3-1 decisions. In the EKU game, setter Nitza Castillo set a school record for most assists in a season with 1,049. Meanwhile, the team set a school record with its 19th season win and with 1,171 assists in a season.
Misc.
* South Florida (16-2, 6-0 Conference USA) defeated UNC-Charlotte, 3-0, and have won 10 straight matches. * No. 6 Michigan State (21-1, 10-0 Big 10) defeated No. 7 Penn State, 3-2, as Dana Cooke posted a triple-double (19k-12b-21d) on Oct. 21.
NCAA Women of the Year competition
Eight volleyball players are among the 52 student-athletes named state finalists Sept. 18 for the annual NCAA Woman of the Year. The program is designed to award outstanding female student-athletes who are top performers in their schools and communities. The eight:
* Kathy Shaw (Delaware/University of Delaware, 3.398 GPA/fitness management, 1994 North Atlantic Conference player-of-the-year, physical therapy volunteer) * Cris Waterhouse (District of Columbia/Catholic University, 3.800 GPA/biomedical engineering, three-time Capital Athletic Conference first team selection, president of Tau Beta Phi National Engineering Honor Society) * Kristy Grace Risner (Louisiana /Centenary College, 3.840 GPA/accounting, 1994 All-Trans American Athletic Conference first team selection, varsity softball team, youth softball volunteer) * Jennifer Jewell (Maryland/University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 3.710/psychology, UMBC's all-time digs leader, middle school tutor) * Anna Diaz (Massachusetts/Wellesley College, 3.767 GPA/psychology and Spanish, four-time all conference selection, member of NCAA Division III student-athlete advisory panel) * Amy Albers (Missouri/Washington University, 3.41 GPA/marketing, led WU to three straight NCAA Division III national championships, Special Olympics volunteer) * Ann Marie Ferretti (New Hampshire/Colby-Sawyer College, 3.440 GPA/nursing, holds school record for kills and digs, Healing the Children volunteer) * Cindy Paplham (Wisconsin/University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, 3.970 GPA/management computer systems, 1994 first team All-American, disabled student aide).
* Volleyball section front * Players of the week * Weekly schedule * Individual leaders * Team leaders * NCAA tournament schedule * Latest Division I poll * Division I conference standings * Division II AVCA poll/stats * Division III AVCA poll/stats * Go to Sports Index * Go to Sports front page
While checking out USA Today's volleyball web site, you might also want to click onto their Feedback section at the bottom of the page and first thank USA Today for providing more volleyball coverage on the 'Net and in the paper, and ask for even more.
: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/other/sowvbn.htm : NCAA Women of the Year competition : are top performers in their schools and communities. The eight: : : * Kathy Shaw (Delaware/University of Delaware, : 3.398 GPA/fitness management, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : * Cris Waterhouse (District of Columbia/Catholic University, : 3.800 GPA/biomedical engineering, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hmm... fitness management or biomedical engineering? Tough call here...
Sorry to interrupt this with non v-ball stuff...but these kind of competitions can drive me up a wall. These are students, and I want to say that the difficulty in maintaining a high GPA in the different majors is not the same.
Look around. It is the *rare* student athlete that completes a degree in a hard science or engineering. It is an accomplishment worthy of special note. To do it with high GPA indicates a remarkable person. I pay attention to this stuff whenever I can. Stanford has the highest number of players pursuing technical degrees I've seen. Just another indication of the caliber of individuals in that program.
A few years ago I had one of the womens vball team members in an advanced chemistry class I taught and this particular woman was also a four year letter winner in track. That in itself is rare. She received a B in the first semester (vball season) and was on her way to a B in the track season semester as well. She stopped going to most afternoon track practices during the last seven weeks of semester and put the time in on study for my class. I know she did this because she had a desk just down the hall from my office. She brought her grade up to an A, but she didn't place well in the conference championships. Tough choice, but she probably made the right one. She was having trouble getting in to a medical school...until a phone call was made and a letter written which described her level of sacrifice and academic achievement, which I might add, was probably gained in large part from her involvement in athletics while pushing herself academically. As far as I know, she graduated from that med school last year.
Medical doctor or conference high jump champ. Tough choice...not!
Sorry to interrupt the regularly scheduled programming. -- Rick T. Rick Fletcher - http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Assistant professor of chemistry | That's Idaho, not Iowa. | These University of Idaho | Upper Left Hand Corner. | opinions Moscow, ID 83844-2343 | No, I don't grow potatoes. | are mine.
Ok, you two.... I am beginning to take offense here.... have you actually looked at what a kines major takes, or are you assuming that it is a major in aerobics? While it may not have the rigor of geological engineering, it may also include physics, zoo, biochem, etc. I just hate to see you putting down a program of study that may mean a lot to the students in it.
One reason I'm a bit sensitive is that I was one of those kids who was pushed toward sciences and pre-med from the time I was 12. In my first years of college I was doing well in a pre-med program when I woke up, and said, hey I don't want to be a doctor! I switched to nutrition and have caught hell ever since. "Are you making cookies or brownies for your mid term" was a popular joke, while in reality I was in organic lab, biochem, and bio lab, but of course no one knew that those courses were a part of nutrition. The best part is that I have no doubt in my mind that if I wanted to be a doctor I would be, but instead I am doing what I want, not what my parents and other influences want.
Anyway, not everyone wants a tech degree, and at Idaho, some of our best and brightest student-athletes are ed majors, much to the chagrin of many. On the other hand, I can think of no one better than the best and brightest to be teaching my children.
So off the box I climb...BTW, another vb player who was a biol major then to an MS in microbi and biochem, then went to work at the Howard Hughes Research Institute in Seattle, is now getting an MBA.... and eagerly awaiting the day she is no longer a slave to tissue cultures. hee hee hee
>Are these the "full-blown" physics, chemistry, and math courses or are >they the non-equivalents for "biology majors"? There is a marked >difference. And I'm not even counting the physics-for-poets and >rocks-for-jocks nonsense that goes on under my very nose.
>Biology, nutrition, and other majors get away with less rigorous >courses. Less rigor means that the students aren't willing to learn >math so the University forces departments to teach courses devoid of >any real power. And it is a damn shame. At least scientists and >engineers have to take upper division electives in the humanities >without any mollycoddling. Strangely enough, most of the techies do >quite well in those courses.
I can't answer for Idaho's schools, but schools that I have been at don't have non-equivalents for other majors. Most programs have to have regular courses out side of the major. IE nursing has all biology run by the Biology dept. The Nursing program tends to use this as a screen. "Sorry you can't pass A+P but its out of our hands thats the Biology dept." For Bio majors you take the real chemistry or physics or calculus, can't hack it? Talk to them..... Now if UCLA (or any other school) provides easier course work for nonmajors in sciences shame on them. They are cheating the student.
>Wait just a second. Are these students taking these majors beacuse >they have a fundamental interest in the subject or because it is an >easy way to a degree while playing sports more or less full time?
I can't answer that. I have no problem with a student adjusting a schedule to allow an easier semester/quarter while practicing and playing. To specifically staer student atheletes towards classes and areas of study for the schools expediency is wrong. I firmly believe that both the school and the student have the responsibility to provide and take the best courses for their needs and wants for future goals not just a championship.
End o'my soap box
Ralph
PS: Don't get me started on the 'revenue sports' and nobody will get hurt!
In <479oot$...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu> lhilb...@harrier.csrv.uidaho.edu (Leslie Hilbert) writes:
>(moi, of course) more than once. And are the students to blame for weak >curriculum, >or would that be the administrators?
A little bit of both. Since the inmates have taken over the asylum these days, I'd place some blame on the kiddies as well.
BTW, the high jumper was a
>finalist in the >very competition which began this thread....And I can see where you are >coming >from, but demeaning a student-athlete for their chosen major seems to >harsh too me >unless you know the full story.
If we're considering students who combine athletics and academics, it seems a sin to mention a 3.4 GPA in underwater basket-weaving with the 3.8 in biomedical engineering. As far as the high jumper, I don't see what point you are trying to make. I was very impressed with what Rick Fletcher had to say about her and wasn't disparaging her in any way.
>those touchy feely >ENFP types who shoots from the hip and gets into trouble too often.
^^^^^^ Whazzat?
So I >politely
>bow out, and go to bake some cookies.....
Bummer, just when it was getting interesting, too. Time to go synthesize some thorazine.
--- Oski I wanna be sedated -- Ravi Narasimhan | Department of Physics, UCLA | An observer who crosses the Cauchy horizon Los Angeles, CA 90024 | emancipates himself from his past o...@physics.ucla.edu | --- S. Chandrasekhar
In <479nom$...@risky.ecs.umass.edu> rsnel...@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Ruseell S Nelson) writes:
>Cal Berkeley. Look around, there are tons of real student-athletes... >but not all of them get honored.
Agreed. Let's honor them as is appropriate.
Some friends of mine said they had to play against Brett Bush in the Caltech volleyball league. They adopted the "duck and cover" strategy.
--- Oski Rabbit season -- Ravi Narasimhan | Department of Physics, UCLA | An observer who crosses the Cauchy horizon Los Angeles, CA 90024 | emancipates himself from his past o...@physics.ucla.edu | --- S. Chandrasekhar
o...@physics.ucla.edu (L. Ravi Narasimhan) writes:
>Some friends of mine said they had to play against Brett Bush in the >Caltech volleyball league. They adopted the "duck and cover" strategy.
Caltech has seven undergrad houses, each with ~80 in-house and ~60 off-campus members. Brett was in Lloyd House; I was in Fleming, the reigning athletic power (despite my presence :-). Throughout the year, Interhouse pits the houses against each other in round-robin play in many different sports, including volleyball (co-rec, men's net, no restrictions). Interhouse volleyball was right in the middle of the Caltech varsity baseball season, so Brett would have to ask for the day off from practice, which he usually did only to play against Fleming. (When I was a sophomore, Fleming went 6-1 and Lloyd went 1-6 -- guess which day Brett got excused from baseball :-)
Brett was an all-around athlete back then, playing on the Caltech baseball and basketball teams. He stood 6'6 and was at least competent (see note) at volleyball, which made him by far the most imposing opponent on campus. (Note: I was too much a vb larva then to really judge his skills.) I remember that he never seemed to fully exploit his height when he spiked. He hit harder than anybody else around, but his ball didn't pass much more than a diameter above the net, so he could be blocked. Later in my "career", Fleming House's game plan was to triple-commit-block his high middle hits, and we had surprisingly good initial success for just a 6'3-6'0-5'11 front-line, blocking him three or four times in a row to start the match. (I think Lloyd House eventually won that one anyways.) I was surprised to hear that Brett had made it to the USA Men's B Team; he must have specialized in volleyball after graduating from Caltech. Congratulations, Brett, wherever you are.
The Flem who made people cringe the most during Interhouse competitions was Jonathan Brown (pronounced "joNAYthan"), a ~6'5, ~230# varsity fullback who got up high enough to mis-hit balls off his elbows and down. He was definitely not a volleyball player, having an ad hoc approach and comically bad spike timing, so he almost never got a solid contact. But he swung hard enough to send balls to the ceiling, occasionally even bouncing them off the floor first. Opponents cringed because they were afraid that he'd accidentally get the whole ball, in much the same way that they'd cringe from a manic-depressive drunkard with a nervous twitch and a bazooka :-) I think we put him in to block Brett, and never let him touch the ball otherwise.
>In <479nom$...@risky.ecs.umass.edu> rsnel...@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Ruseell S Nelson) writes:
>>Cal Berkeley. Look around, there are tons of real student-athletes... >>but not all of them get honored.
>Agreed. Let's honor them as is appropriate.
>Some friends of mine said they had to play against Brett Bush in the >Caltech volleyball league. They adopted the "duck and cover" >strategy. >> --- Oski
Talk about a real student-athlete. The man (Brett Bush, that is, not Oski- no offense, please) could not only knock a few heads but he was truly bright, intelligent, funny, and a dedicated student. He sent one of his experiments up into space with NASA *and* played with the U.S. Volleyball Team. . .
In <47bfns$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> w...@saturn.ge.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang) writes:
> graduating from Caltech. Congratulations, Brett, wherever you are.
Uhh, Eric, Brett occasionally contributes to the group! Somewhere in San Diego, I believe.
I first saw Brett play at a preseason event at $tanford. Fred Sturm had Cal and Long Beach come over for scrimmage matches one weekend. Since it was early in the season, he aksed me to practice charting and get up to speed.
So, here come these teams, no uniforms, no rosters, infinite substitutions and I have to figure out some way of identifying the players. Cal had Justin Cox with his crewcut (noted as F for "Flattop",) a bald guy (C for "Curly",) Bush and others. [ My recollection is VERY hazy here viz. names and such.]
Fred eventually asked, "So, how's your alma mater?" and I said, "Well, Mongo can play a little..." Mongo, of course, being Brett.
--- Oski You'd be surprised you're doing the French mistake!
Ralph Durham (CA....@forsythe.stanford.edu) wrote:
: I can't answer for Idaho's schools, but schools that I have been at : don't have non-equivalents for other majors.
Then I would ask where you have been. There are always two tracks of Organic Chemistry and two tracks of Physical Chemistry...unless the school is very small. Almost always there are even two tracks of introductory chemistry. The difference between the tracks is the emphasis placed on math skills.
: Most programs have to : have regular courses out side of the major. IE nursing has all : biology run by the Biology dept. The Nursing program tends to use : this as a screen. "Sorry you can't pass A+P but its out of our hands : thats the Biology dept." For Bio majors you take the real chemistry : or physics or calculus, can't hack it? Talk to them.....
I appreciate the thought, but it is seldom so simple. All departments must teach students...no students, no tuition, no department. In many science departments, external sources of funding outweigh tuition dollars 10 to 1, so these arguments don't really hold up, yet they still are important. No students, no faculty. So don't fail the students in your department or we will give your money to engineering.
BTW, there are a lot of Chemistry departments in the US that bring in far more money than the athletic department. So how come the university is eager to build new football stadiums and less often new chemistry buildings?
-- Rick T. Rick Fletcher - http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Assistant professor of chemistry | That's Idaho, not Iowa. | These University of Idaho | Upper Left Hand Corner. | opinions Moscow, ID 83844-2343 | No, I don't grow potatoes. | are mine.
Sorry I came into this late, but I would like to add my two cents worth. I am a grad student in a "kinesiology" department at UC Berkeley and have had a lot of experience teaching student athletes. For my master's, I was at the University of Miami (yes, the pro football team in south Florida) and taught some student athletes there as well.
FIrst, concerning the rigor of a kinesiology degree program versus and engineering degree program, you can't make a blanket statement and have it be true. When I was TA'ing a musculoskeletal biomechanics class for department majors, some mechanical engineering students signed up looking for an easy A. The majority of them dropped after mid-terms and none of the remaining ones got an A. So Ravi, when you start talking about Kinesiology programs being a joke- it is not always so. Now that that is said, I will agree with you that the majority of programs out there are a joke and should be either overhauled or gotten rid of althogether. It is really a shame that those students that are interested in getting an education in kinesiology have to deal with the low level of programs that are out there. But remember, it really is a school by school basis. I would match a University of Michigan, U of Arizona, or Penn State undergrad major in kinesiology against any other major.
Regarding the good student athletes, there really are a lot of them that are excellent students. More often that not, the student athletes at Cal will be among the top half of the class. And again about the influence of the school, that wasn't the case at Miami.
Ruseell S Nelson (rsnel...@risky.ecs.umass.edu) wrote: : There was also a walk on football player at UCF a couple of years : ago (Division II powerhouse at the time) that was the president : of the local chapter of Golden Key and is now a Ph D student at : Cal Berkeley. Look around, there are tons of real student-athletes... : but not all of them get honored.
Well...I started out in the sports end and now I'm in the teaching end and I guess the tons you speak of are localized in the east. I don't see tons...
Let me check that. I was at U. Cal Davis, a division II school with a strong football program. A lot of those guys took my courses in Chemistry and many did well, so maybe it is the Div 1 schools that are lacking in tonnage.
-- Rick T. Rick Fletcher - http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Assistant professor of chemistry | That's Idaho, not Iowa. | These University of Idaho | Upper Left Hand Corner. | opinions Moscow, ID 83844-2343 | No, I don't grow potatoes. | are mine.
You guys are forgeting to mention one other thing that makes Brett stand out. He is a nice guy and willing to help others in their efforts to learn the game.
My team plays in the Home region of Brett's team (Asics East) and I have played against him several times. (Un)Fortunately we did not have to play against Asics at Nationals (instead we had the Ukraines in our pool). Brett hurt his ankle pretty bad late in pool play I believe which hurt Asics since he was playing great.
The major difference I see between Brett and other middles is that he is a speed middle. By this I mean that he will attack the ball almost immediately upon the ball clearing the net not giving the block enough time to react block. This makes the decision much easier for the setter and makes scoring much more successful.
Last I saw, Brett was assistant coach for the LA NVL team which won last year. Congrats.
Hope to c-ya all at Nationals this year,
-- Hank Pokigo <0 0> "Woof" Big Red Volleyball (_._) -Gemini
w...@saturn.ge.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang) writes: >o...@physics.ucla.edu (L. Ravi Narasimhan) writes: >>Some friends of mine said they had to play against Brett Bush in the >>Caltech volleyball league. They adopted the "duck and cover" strategy. > I remember that he never seemed to > fully exploit his height when he spiked. He hit harder than anybody > else around, but his ball didn't pass much more than a diameter > above the net, so he could be blocked. Later in my "career", > Fleming House's game plan was to triple-commit-block his high middle > hits, and we had surprisingly good initial success for just a > 6'3-6'0-5'11 front-line, blocking him three or four times in a row > to start the match. (I think Lloyd House eventually won that one > anyways.) I was surprised to hear that Brett had made it to the USA > Men's B Team; he must have specialized in volleyball after > graduating from Caltech. Congratulations, Brett, wherever you are.
I had the opportunities to see Brett play both at Caltech and this past May at USAV Nationals, so I can attest to a nice before and after story. I didn't get to see Brett play at Berkeley during the run of Collegiate Club Championships (during which Brett was MVP at least once), so my story has no middle. Eric's description of volleyball at Caltech is accurate. This past May I was very impressed with Brett's performance at USAV Nationals, as he had improved dramatically. I think Brett was released from the USA team because he doesn't have the dominating physical presence necessary for a middle blocker at the international level, but during the entire USAV Nationals tournament I never saw him late for a single ball in the middle. He hit at maximum extension practically every time (also a testament to the setter), and had a ridiculously high hitting percentage in the limited way that the middle attack is used in high-level volleyball. He had excellent mobility as a blocker.
I'll second the congratulations to Brett for improving his game so greatly, and cite him as a lesson in what's important for being a middle blocker.
Now I notice there are new threads popping up about strong student athletes. I think that makes my initial point. Excellence in academics and athletics often marks an exceptional individual. The important facet is excellence. Some schools and study programs have a stronger reputation for requiring or breeding excellence than others. The judges in many contest often are poorly equipped to judge excellence. Much like the NCAAA (I think that is the acronym, National Christian Athletes, something, something) players of the week posted here. I'm sure they are wonderful people and probably great players, but *I* have no way to judge and since the schools are small and the competition often less keen, excellence is suspect, although possible.
Like comparing the PAC-10 to say, ...anything else.<g>
Not picking on the NCAAA programs, just an immediate example. -- Rick T. Rick Fletcher - http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Assistant professor of chemistry | That's Idaho, not Iowa. | These University of Idaho | Upper Left Hand Corner. | opinions Moscow, ID 83844-2343 | No, I don't grow potatoes. | are mine.
Please allow my mind to wander below. I'm administering a cumulative exam to 8 Ph.D. students right now and have a few hours to kill. To set the tone for this post, let me just say that the questions on the exam I'm proctoring are extremely difficult! 3 hours for two questions...and most won't finish and they will be cranky for days. I don't blame them.
: FIrst, concerning the rigor of a kinesiology degree program versus and : engineering degree program, you can't make a blanket statement and have : it be true. When I was TA'ing a musculoskeletal biomechanics class for : department majors, some mechanical engineering students signed up looking : for an easy A. The majority of them dropped after mid-terms and none of : the remaining ones got an A. So Ravi, when you start talking about : Kinesiology programs being a joke- it is not always so. Now that that is : said, I will agree with you that the majority of programs out there are a : joke and should be either overhauled or gotten rid of althogether. [snip]
I cut a lot of the original post and I apologize because the writer makes his points well. And not to be too big on the swords and plowshare thing, but what you say so eloquently, I butchered in the customary way, to begin the thread. I'm not sure Ravi isn't saying the same thing and Ms. Hilbert was just standing up for the athletes and that's one reason they all seem to love her.
Any program in a university can be strong and worthwhile. In the beginning all probably were. Four good professors can probably make a strong program (in any subject) anywhere in the US...if the administration on down to the Chairperson backs the effort. The benefit comes from the study and it usually doesn't matter what is studied. Aristotle had some pretty weird beliefs but I wouldn't want to enter a public debate with him. Who knows, if he would have had an oven available to him he might have considered weighty issues and baked cookies. We all have different interests and the university is a great place to pursue them. Personally, I am more interested in the extremely fundamental topics, but others like applications. I used to look down on the others, now I just enjoy visiting their huge houses occasionally and riding in their fancy cars.<g>
The problems come when the emphasis on academics breaks down. This is what has happened in many places and honest study shows that an athletic program is a fertile place for this to occur. An athletic department isn't an academic department...so why are we surprised this is where the breakdown often occurs? And then there is that pesky people problem. People talk to one another and close, warm relationships form. For those in the athletic department, it oftens happens with those in the physical education department, just like it is natural for a chemist to talk with a physicist. (Here, close relationships are often limited due to the famous problems of personal hygiene or lack thereof. <huge g, just a stereotype...>) Personal relationships can cause a certain kid to pass a class, or a course to be offered "by arrangement" and then once the word gets out, the enrollment skyrockets the next semester. Soon there is a "program". Then there is Miami. (joke, wild laughter)
Frequently, the athletes suffer more for this than the rest of the campus for the above reasons. But who's to say they suffer...I used to whine to my college roommate constantly that he needed to go to classes...yet his teachers would often call him at home to inform him of assignments he missed by not going to class and he would mysteriously pass with a C or D. The first year I was in graduate school I sat in a bar, bummed beer from others because I was too broke to pay, and watched his huge face on a big screen TV pitching in the World Series. And I loved to go party with the team when they came to town! These are tough issues because the benefits come in all shapes and sizes.
Whew... I just realized I could easily go on for many more pages about this, but since no one is still reading at this point...why bother.<g> To summarize, the weak programs which can be used to favor athletes are not usually set up to do so, it just happens. The establishment of these types of programs is often subtle, so it is very possible that an ambitious, excellent student can find themselves in such a program sitting next to a drooling fool, that is, when the fool decides to show. Even so, everyone passes the course. Sure, the great student gets an A and the fool gets whatever is necessary to pass, but dynamic range is important. In academics, it should be linear over a limited range or else the program slides toward the bottom tiers.
If you don't understand that last sentence, you should probably wipe your chin. <g> -- Rick T. Rick Fletcher - http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Assistant professor of chemistry | That's Idaho, not Iowa. | These University of Idaho | Upper Left Hand Corner. | opinions Moscow, ID 83844-2343 | No, I don't grow potatoes. | are mine.
I was club president for the Cal men's volleyball team when Brett Bush first arrived at the university and would like to add my perspective to the story of his accomplishments. I will start by making a sweeping apology for any incorrect information which I pass on, as I am including some background information which I am not completely sure of.
First, people should understand that Brett did not play lots of volleyball before coming to Cal. As was mentioned he played baseball at CalTech (I believe he was a pitcher), but he really had only played one or two years of volleyball on his high school team I believe.
Brett came to Cal and was an immediate physical presence on the Cal club team. Cal's next tallest player was 6'3 at most. Brett improved quickly and tremendously during his time at Cal, as do most players with great physical skills and a strong desire to learn.
Cal's strongest year was the year after I graduated. They had Brett and Justin Cox playing middle most of the time (though Justin played on the right side some), Kirk Kandler and Mike Curci were the outside hitters, and Jay Solomon was the setter. This team did really well against NCAA men's teams (finishing fifth at the UCSB tournament) and did not lose to a single club team.
Brett went from that team to the National Team and trained in San Diego for about a year or more. He travelled on a few trips, but was always behind some of the middle blockers they had on the team at the time.
Brett is an incredible athlete, great volleyball player, and one of the smartest and nicest individuals I have ever had the opportunity to meet.
In <47gb07$...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu> fletc...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rick Fletcher) writes:
[ Cumes ]
That's what was interesting about the Stanford graduate chemistry program. Three multiple choice tests before the first week of classes; if you passed, you got your butt into the lab, and were home-free until the thesis defense!
>interests and the university is a great place to pursue them. Personally, I >am more interested in the extremely fundamental topics, but others like >applications. I used to look down on the others, now I just enjoy
visiting their huge houses occasionally and riding in their fancy cars.<g>
Rick, molecular reaction dynamics ise viewed by many physicists as applied! There is the sense that "String theory is fundamental and everything else is engineering".
[ Standards ]
>education department, just like it is natural for a chemist to talk >with a physicist. (Here, close relationships are often limited due to >the famous problems of personal hygiene or lack thereof. <huge g, just a >stereotype...>)
Huh? Gene who?
[ More standards ]
>Even so, everyone passes the course. Sure, the great student gets an A and >the fool gets whatever is necessary to pass, but dynamic range is >important. In academics, it should be linear over a limited range or >else the program slides toward the bottom tiers.
It is the decline in overall standards that has me worried. Very worried. There is an unspoken "understanding" on campuses that certain groups of people cannot handle certain subjects. Nicholson once declaimed, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" "You" in our case can refer to athletes among many others, the "truth" being chemistry, physics, literature, non-trivial music, and/or anything that cannot be broken down into a few paragraphs of, at most, two syllable words.
And that is why I latched on to this topic, as divorced from volleyball as Taylor is from Hilton, Wilding, Todd, Fisher, Burton (doubly degenerate,) Warner, et.seq. The divorce necessarily implies a marriage prior. At one time, students were athletes, athlete were students. There was no term to separate the two because they were, in fact, inseparable. My colleagues in theoretical physics might say that a fundamental symmetry had not been broken.
The athlete is now euphemistically referred to as a "student-athlete." The "student" so amended is a farce. It shows that the bond, once holy, between a pupil and his/her teachers has been rent. "Student" becomes a bandage, the brave face put on for a public which really knows the secret, but, pretends otherwise. The athlete exists for his/her sport and has no allegiance to the educational process apart from what regulators decree. His/her teachers are powerless against what is legal aprt from what is right.
The mission of a University must be to expose its pupils to the landmarks of civilization. This must be true for all, athletes and sloths alike. The University cannot and must not become a trade school either for the engineer or the aspiring professional "jock." A University must produce broadly and deeply educated people, capable of rational and creative thought. That is its historical charter. Such a goal requires remarkable commitment from all sides involved.
In recent years, Universities have abandoned their traditional missions in favor of catering to special interests. Majors arise with little reason other than it is more expedient to accede than to fight. [Aside to Leslie Hilbert: I am NOT suggesting that multiculturalism is one of these cases. I believe to the contrary.] Students are allowed to select, or even to design, courses of study for convenience. Athletes, one component of the studentry, are often allowed excessive leeway in fitting college around their sport. Rick Fletcher has enumerated a number of ways in which this can occur. I am sure his list is not exhaustive.
The collegiate athlete is thus doubly jeopardized. On the field, his/her coach is in control of the game. In practice and in matches, the job of the athlete is to execute a game-plan conceived of by someone else. Memorizing the playbook is paramount, everything else off the field must defer. And off the field, this means not burdening the mind with too many "difficult" concepts. Concepts which require some intellectual resources to digest.
I argue that some control must be remanded to the athlete on the field and a little control must be rescinded from him/her in the classroom. In the long run, the spontaneity engendered will make for more enjoyable sport. And the development of thinking, reasoning citizens, capable of creatively approaching murderously hard problems will only make life a little easier in the future for everyone.
>If you don't understand that last sentence, you should probably wipe >your chin. <g>
I had no idea what you were saying, but, I've never let that stop me before...
And, with that, I respectfully close my public comments on this subject.
|> >(moi, of course) more than once. And are the students to blame for weak |> >curriculum, |> >or would that be the administrators? |> |> A little bit of both. Since the inmates have taken over the asylum |> these days, I'd place some blame on the kiddies as well.
I wholeheartedly disagree. The kids do not set up the programs, curricula, etc. They will do what is required of them. If you raise the expectations, they will increase their performance to match, provided that they are capable.
|> If we're considering students who combine athletics and academics, it |> seems a sin to mention a 3.4 GPA in underwater basket-weaving with the |> 3.8 in biomedical engineering. As far as the high jumper, I don't see
Underwater basket weaving sounds like it might be pretty hard :-)
L. Ravi Narasimhan (o...@physics.ucla.edu) wrote: : In <46rg0b$...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu> fletc...@harrier.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rick Fletcher) writes:
: You are too kind. A *major* in fitness management is an outrage in : and of itself. I'm finding a lot of these bogus degree programs : around these days. Add kinesiology, {undergraduate, legal, : environmental,...} studies, psychology, sociology, communications, : and so forth to the list.
Ravi, I think that you are getting a little bit carried away. The educational model for the top 10% of students should not necessarily hold for all 100%. More professional training is done at the undergraduate level in many of these cases. Please explain to me why a degree in say fitness management might be less useful than say one in history, political "science", english, etc.
Kinesiology is often a major for people who want to be PT's or AT's and some even go on to med school. It is as "hard" a field as you could study. And how can you denigrate psychology and sociology as being without merit? I think you are showing a little bit of a technical bias here, and one to which I'm sensitive since I have been guilty of it on many occasions.
On the whole, however, I agree with many of your points regarding the current problems with intercollegiate athletics and academics. Too little is expected of student-atheletes, if we should even use that term in the case of some sports.
Anyone catch the FSU-UVA football game on Thursday night? Gotta love those Thursday games. That means that FSU got to Charlottesville on Wednesday morning, obliterating 3 days of classes. Tough to say "Sorry coach, can't go. I'd miss too many classes," when football is the only thing paying for your education, and you have nothing on which to rely when that ends. It's a tough cycle. The problem is that the schools aren't doing the kids any favors if they don't end up getting a useful degree despite the schools' insistence of their honorable intentions.
I could go on for hours about the problems and possible solutions, but I don't think this is the forum for it. I will say this further: It can be done. I majored in Engineering as an undergrad and managed to graduate with high honors while simultaneously playing 2 division I sports, and still finding time to relax, carouse, and meet and date the wonderful woman who is now my wife. I also passed up an opportunity to continue playing volleyball in order to accept a graduate fellowship and get my Phd.
I partially agree with the poster (sorry, don't have time to track it down) who attributed these accomplishments to the individuals involved. But, I think that the schools must put more emphasis on the overall pursuit of excellence in their athletic programs. The programs' measure should be based on both the success of the team, and of the individual players in both athletics and academics. I don't see the NCAA rushing out to create a National Academic Champinship in sports that would go to teams with the best overall academic performance. granted, the subjective nature of such a competition would make it hard, but maybe they could have an honor role of variable size. Maybe couple that with a slice of the NCAA tournament money? Hmm, I think we're on to something. It is very doubtful that the powers-that-be would go for something like this. Imagine a high-level basketball coach being forced to keep a player who might not be the best athlete but might actually graduate with distinction.
Unfortunately, we're all guilty of creating the atmosphere where academics take a back seat. In the 3 years that I've read this group, this is the first serious discussion of academics that I've sen take place. You don't read too many profiles in the media of exceptional students doing outstainding work.
Where or how can it be better you may ask. In my head, I think it can be, and that's the most important place of all.
fletc...@harrier.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rick Fletcher) wrote: >... >Let me check that. I was at U. Cal Davis, a division II school with a >strong football program. A lot of those guys took my courses in >Chemistry and many did well, so maybe it is the Div 1 schools that are >lacking in tonnage.
I didn't attend UC Davis, but my sister did and I lived in the area for a number of years. Thus, I can say with some authority that UC Davis is an exception to the rule. It is a non-scholarship school so it doesn't get or recruit pure athletes. Rather, it actually fields teams of student-athletes where the student portion is important.
I think the original point in this thread was that we should have some sort of weighting of the major when student-athletes are chosen to be honored. It is probably unfair to equally honor a 3.9 GPA in phys. ed. with a 3.9 GPA in Elec. Engr. Can I say that we all agree on that? Also, I think we all agree that the practice of giving an easy load to an athlete is a bad practice, especially when the athlete ends up without even a degree.
Where we disagree on weighting of certain majors like kinesiology. It's pretty difficult to do with the wide variety of programs and variances between schools. So while weighting is a good concept, implementation is a real problem. Perhaps we should let the schools or the NCAA choose a weight for each major to try to even things up.
David --------------------------------------------------------------------- Any opinions expressed are solely my own. Not an Intel spokesperson. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: I think it would be unfair to honor a 3.9 GPA in mechanical : engineering at the University of Central Florida with a 3.9 GPA from the : UC-Berkeley Department of Human Bodynamics. ^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry about the typing, that is supposed to be Human Biodynamics.
David J. Ayers (day...@mipos2.intel.com) wrote: : I think the original point in this thread was that we should have some : sort of weighting of the major when student-athletes are chosen to be : honored. It is probably unfair to equally honor a 3.9 GPA in phys. ed. : with a 3.9 GPA in Elec. Engr. Can I say that we all agree on that?
No you can't.
I think it would be unfair to honor a 3.9 GPA in mechanical engineering at the University of Central Florida with a 3.9 GPA from the UC-Berkeley Department of Human Bodynamics. The Berkeley "kinesiology" GPA would be a higher accomplishment in my opinion. I don't say this to put down UCF or to enshrine Berkeley, it is just those are the schools and programs with which I am familiar.
My point is that with grade inflation and the wide disparity in undergraduate universities as well as individual departments, you can't make a blanket weighting of majors.
