Cal grad rates released

12,688 Views | 99 Replies | Last: 13 yr ago by Holmoephobic
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaliganbear;841986252 said:

Nothing wrong with that at all. But thats just what the metric is. For everyone, Bama, Furd, Duke, Texas Tech, Cal, Rutgers etc.




Just because the metric is the same for everyone, doesn't mean that it measure what it's supposed to measure as well as it could. Or that certain schools game the metric more than others.
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear1;841986253 said:

Just because the metric is the same for everyone, doesn't mean that it measure what it's supposed to measure as well as it could. Or that certain schools game the metric more than others.


I completely agree with you. Thats not my point though. This was about why three specific students who graduated after the 6 year mark should not be counted in a metric that counts students who did or were on track to graduate within 6 years. The answer is in the question.

Unless of course those three student jt was referring to had to leave school for medical reasons, or to go on mission etc. If something like that is the case, then thats a different story.
mbBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
2005 was very much an "all or nothing class", and, I would guess one of the most significant NFL classes. A ton of guys who barely touched the field-who were the post NSD guys you were talking about??
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Naw, I was talking about the 2012 post NSD guys. Not in relation to this score, but more a comment of the kind of guys we've recruited, looking past major red flags. Of course none of those guys actually made it into Cal, correct me if I'm wrong. Which brings into question the kind of guys we are looking into.

Point is, I don't think this is all cuz JT doesn't care about academics, I'm sure he wants them all to do well. But if we are bringing in guys who really can't cut it, even with the resources afforded to student athletes, that's something we need to revaluate. The concerning part for me (going back to the 2012 post nsd guys) is that at that point last winter, our terrible scores were already common knowledge, and yet we were still willing to gamble on recruits with such questionable academics, none of whom were even the type of star recruits you would assume most teams would bend their standards for.

As has been pointed out already, Cal is a very difficult school to graduate from, so lets not put these kids, and the team in a position to fail.

Even some of the guys that have offers now come with major red flags as Shocky1 has pointed out. Just waiting to repeat history.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
HaasBear04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fire this clown for cause today. Were bottom feeders on the field and in the classroom, not to mention the coming reckoning with our creditors.
BerlinerBaer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How does the graduation rate for football compare to that of the regular student body? I'm guessing it's about 20 points lower.

On a related note, I read a study released a year or two ago that looked into SAT scores between athletes and the regular student body and the discrepancy was among the largest in NCAA. Considering most courses are graded on a curve or similar relative metric, these guys might struggle to pass regardless of how much tutoring they get.
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank God for Arizona
ManBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CalBearz02;841986290 said:

what are the chances CGB has linked this story lol


Chances are pretty good lol.
BMroom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaliganbear;841986217 said:

The whole anti-mass transit thing is so provincial. Silly kids.


Suburban myopia. Why take the scary Underground/Metro when you can go on a nice, safe guided bus tour?
Cardinal96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BobbyGBear;841986024 said:

Not surprisingly, this is first reported by a San Jose media outlet, and they are only showing Cal's numbers.

You guys, stop being naive. There is an agenda going on and our football program is the target. Take a step back, put the facts together and you will see it. This is propaganda.

Ask yourself why South Bay media would be the first to report this. Remember what you learned at Cal. Don't succumb to this garbage.


That is probably the dumbest post I have read on any message board all year. LOL at this being part of an agenda and propaganda. I almost wonder if this poster is a clever troll.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cardinal96;841986317 said:

That is probably the dumbest post I have read on any message board all year.

You must not read that many boards.
Cardinal96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo;841986105 said:

I was reading a Stanfurd forum last week, and everybody -- weirdly -- kept referring to us as "the college next to the BART station." I don't know if that's some kind of slam. I mean, what's wrong with being next to a BART station?


I have a lot of friends from Berkeley and have never gotten into the mutual hatred thing. We don't have a choice and I think it is stupid how it does that. Basically, any time I type Berkeley the site automatically changes it to "College near a BART Station". Any time I type USC, the site changes it to Team Under Stanford Control. Notre Dame has an acronym too. We don't have an acronym for Oregon yet. Maybe it would be something like "Kicks our ass year in year out" or "We beat them in 2009!"
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cardinal96;841986320 said:

I have a lot of friends from Berkeley and have never gotten into the mutual hatred thing. We don't have a choice and I think it is stupid how it does that. Basically, any time I type Berkeley the site automatically changes it to "College near a BART Station".


haha really? I guess I'm glad Stanford posters don't go out of their way to type it.

Now can BI please automatically change Stanford to 'The junior university where, out of necessity, Tiger Woods learned ugly chicks are better in the sack'.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaliganbear;841986259 said:

I completely agree with you. Thats not my point though. This was about why three specific students who graduated after the 6 year mark should not be counted in a metric that counts students who did or were on track to graduate within 6 years.


Very true. We as Cal fans have been playing the exception thing for this GSR metric for awhile - lets take such and such a player and exclude and do that 3 times, 10 times, etc and our GSR rates aren't as bad. But you could do the same with other schools data too I'm sure.

The most disappointing thing to me is in my statement in another thread - our federal grad rate and NCAA GSR are really really close, and if players going to the NFL are leaving in good standing it would not be close at all (see UCLA's stats... big spread between GSR and Fed rate says the players that leave do so in good standing). Either something isn't right in how our AD is handling the statistics (as in exactly what is 'poor standing'?) which is generating a ton of bad PR for no reason, or players actually are just leaving in poor standing (which the AD could also try to correct by coaching players on how to leave 'correctly') .
gardenstatebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But Rutgers came in at 91%. Yes, I agree that Rutgers is not as demanding as Cal, but the difference is too great to be explained by that --it's not as though Rutgers is some kind of diploma mill. I think the 91% is substantially greater than non-football players do. Both Rutgers' past coach (Greg Schiano) and present coach (Kyle Flood) put a great deal of emphasis on making sure their players go to their tutors and attend study hall. I am very surprised that is not the case at my alma mater. This is the last straw for me -- JT must go!
briloker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If grades are curved, then couldn't somewhere like Cal have the brightest student athletes in the PAC 12 and still have the worst GSR simply because most of the student body could outperform the athletes in the classroom? Obviously, I am not saying this is the case, but aren't graduation rates from different schools comparing apples to oranges?

Furthermore, some schools like Stanfurd and USC can have grade inflation ( no one gets lower than a B-!!) that would keep everyone in good standing? So isn't the criteria flawed?

However, more telling is the drop in GSR at Cal over two or three years, but it seems like this isn't that statistically relevant given the small sample size (a difference of 2-3 players could account for a large change in. GSR)
RealDrew2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can't fire for cause unless written into his contract, and no way is it in his contract.

And no future coach will agree to any such clause.
Tedhead03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RealDrew2;841986434 said:

Can't fire for cause unless written into his contract, and no way is it in his contract.

And no future coach will agree to any such clause.


Just do it, and let Tedford hire an attorney to sue for breach of contract. If he wants to hold us hostage, we can hold his money hostage.
Holmoephobic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tedhead03;841986585 said:

Just do it, and let Tedford hire an attorney to sue for breach of contract. If he wants to hold us hostage, we can hold his money hostage.


And why would a good coach with options want to come to Cal if this is how we treat the most winningest coach in our history? It's one thing to fire someone, it's quite another to push someone out the door and slam it in their face. Sending Tedford off in the most graceful way possible is the best way to promote the head coaching position for future candidates.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.