condescending article from GT

[dawgs.sixpack]

<div>http://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/2011/6/7/2212645/recruiting-at-georgia-tech</div><div>
</div><div>the tone of this article really pisses me off.</div><div>
</div><div>i don't think anyone would argue that the sec has the academic standards of the acc. however, i do find the numbers suspicious that 25% of msu's students were top 10% in HS, but only 28% were top 25% in HS. so only 3% of our students were between 11% and 25% in HS? that just seems suspiciously low. and consider that kids ranked 11%-25% probably aren't pulling big time out of state scholarships or private scholarships, but could get a little money form the state of MS to pay for some/most/all of the cheap in state rates at msu, and the numbers seem even more off. i could see 3% top 10% and 25% between 11% and 25% long before i could see the other way around, because the kids with top 10% grades and scores would be more likely to attract scholarships out of state.</div><div>
</div><div>also, worth noting that MS HSs tend to be smaller than most of the rest of the country simply because MS is undeniably a small town state. for a lot of schools, the top 10% may only comprise 5 or 6 students each year. whereas states with larger populations are gonna have 50, 75, 100+ kids in the top 10% of any given class. and a whole lot more HSs to pull in state students from.</div><div>
</div><div>whatever, the tone of the writer pissed me off and so i'm looking to poke any holes i can in his rant. </div>

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

<div>http://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/2011/6/7/2212645/recruiting-at-georgia-tech</div><div>
</div><div>the tone of this article really pisses me off.</div><div>
</div><div>i don't think anyone would argue that the sec has the academic standards of the acc. however, i do find the numbers suspicious that 25% of msu's students were top 10% in HS, but only 28% were top 25% in HS. so only 3% of our students were between 11% and 25% in HS? that just seems suspiciously low. and consider that kids ranked 11%-25% probably aren't pulling big time out of state scholarships or private scholarships, but could get a little money form the state of MS to pay for some/most/all of the cheap in state rates at msu, and the numbers seem even more off. i could see 3% top 10% and 25% between 11% and 25% long before i could see the other way around, because the kids with top 10% grades and scores would be more likely to attract scholarships out of state.</div><div>
</div><div>also, worth noting that MS HSs tend to be smaller than most of the rest of the country simply because MS is undeniably a small town state. for a lot of schools, the top 10% may only comprise 5 or 6 students each year. whereas states with larger populations are gonna have 50, 75, 100+ kids in the top 10% of any given class. and a whole lot more HSs to pull in state students from.</div><div>
</div><div>whatever, the tone of the writer pissed me off and so i'm looking to poke any holes i can in his rant. </div>

 

[MaroonInNashville]

The whole time I was at the Regional, a buddy of mine (UGA alum) kept popping into my head. His stock answer when asked why he didn't go to GT: "I didn't have enough pimples."</p>

 

[jb1020]

this is nothing new.

 

[00Dawg]

This site had 30% and 58% for 2008.
http://www.greexplorer.com/Top-Universities/Mississippi-State-University.html

In the end, I'd guess that our Ayers-required admissions standards will always handicap us on statistics like this.

 

[saltslugs]

And if they are, we indeed should beembarrassed.<div>
</div><div>But, there is absolutely no way. Part of the reason our numbers are low is because of the admission rules. In Mississippi (MSU, OM, USM), you must accept all in-state students who meet the state's requirements. At most schools, however, the number of new students is limisted so many students meeting requirements are left out. Since we can't have any selectivity in regards to in-state students, we can't improve over time (in regards to the numbers discussed in this write-up) like other schools.</div>

 

[DawgatAuburn]

Go to almost any university web site and search for their Common Data Set. Ours is here: http://www.ir.msstate.edu/cdsets.htm

Here is the current data for MSU.
http://www.ir.msstate.edu/cds2010_2011.pdf

Go down to C10 on page 12. MSU reports 26 and 28 just as that article says. They also report that only 68% report a class rank, so that number is not complete. (Fifty percent of the time it works every time.)

The year before it was 27 and 27 with 99% reporting a rank, so that seems to at least partially validate the numbers.

 

[00Dawg]

These are our official numbers, so I'd guess someone changed a variable in 2009. Going by the 2010-11 school year, there is absolutely no way that 2% of the incoming class was ranked 11-25%, but 55% was ranked 26-50%.

2007-08: 26 and 53
2008-09: 30 and 58
2009-10: 27 and 27
2010-11: 26 and 28 (83% through top 50%)

My guess: That should be 27 and 54, and 26 and 54.

Edit: Our local area recruiter just recently left her position, so I sent the AA office an e-mail.

 

[DerHntr]

so less than half of the student body are dubmass ******

 

[saltslugs]

They've placed the numbers that should read 10-25% with top 25%. 00Dawg is right on.<div>
</div><div>Who's going to point this out to officials? I will if no one else has.</div>

 

[saltslugs]

for the Clemson-based article citing 47% of MSU students as homosexuals and how the ACC has more heteros.

 

[DerHntr]

[No message]

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

They thought they had a bigger deal, and They had it all figured out. Like they knew everything.

Brilliant Move!

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

This site had 30% and 58% for 2008.
http://www.greexplorer.com/Top-Universities/Mississippi-State-University.html

In the end, I'd guess that our Ayers-required admissions standards will always handicap us on statistics like this.

without "ayers-required admission standards" we'd have like 5,000 students. i am more than willing to concede that the logistics of being a public univ in MS hurt our ability to be an elite academic institute, but this guy from GT acts like we are putting out functional idiots.

 

[00Dawg]

The settlement was finalized in 2002, and the last appeal heard in 2004. We were in the mid teens when Portera started clamping down on growth and trying to hike academic standards in the late 90's.</p>

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

the way you said it, you were saying if we weren't forced to have lower standards to accommodate MS students, then we wouldn't rank so low. i'm just saying if we tried to have higher standards like the state universities in more populated states, we'd be struggling to get enough students on campus to make it viable.texas, uva, unc, cal, ucla, michigan, etc. can all afford to have higher standards for their marquee in state universities because they have the population to still pump more students than they know what to do with into the university system. we in MS do not. i don't know exactly the details of what you were referring to, but i just took it as a broader knock on govt mandated lower entrance standards or something.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

That's who the email needs to go to.

 

[00Dawg]

canlower our ranking in some categories, including those under discussion, but we've embraced the greaterincrease in student population and turned it into a positive for the university as a whole.
IIRC, the minimumstandard in 1996 was 18 on the ACT, compared to the 16 we have to accept now.
It's a handicap, albeit not a great one, but even a small gap in statistics can make your school rank much lower in those categories that high-quality students look for.

For discussion, though, Texas requires a minimum ACT score of 22 for admission. Roughly about 60% ofthe 2010 incoming freshmen at State would meet that mark.
I think the Portera era showed that we could survive as a university withan approach that focused on academics, but not flourish. I consider those years to behave been missed opportunitiesas far as growing our university.

This link shows our ACT score average over the last 15 years.
http://www.ir.msstate.edu/average_act_scores.htm
I'd attribute the bump in 2001 and 2002 to the final implementation of Portera's ideals, the following trough to the Ayers standards being implemented, and theincrease through 2009 to the work done by Dr. Foglesong with the honors college and other efforts in that direction.

 

[MemphisMaroon]

<span></span>"Well, we are currently reading about 2012 commits for the football team and hoops commits will start rolling in this summer.<span> </span>If we are recruiting a player who is also on the list at Miss State or FSU, I wonder about his judgment."

Seriously??? Since when did staff from other competing schools start "wondering" about a players judgment because of the schools he may want to attend? Is this guy seriously suggesting that Ga. Tech and schools like it should stop recruiting top talent because a prospective athletes are thinking about going to lesser schools? This can't be what hes suggesting, it would be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.<span></span>

 

[jakldawg]

and scream how you just beat the Hell out of them after being such exemplary hosts!!!<div>**</div>

 

[Nugdawg]

We were smart enough to stay in the SEC...just sayin.

And besides, when I think of Ga Tech, I think of the nerds that couldn't get into Vandy and a cool drunken fight songsung by said nerds wearing sweaters around their necks.</p>

 

[GloryDawg]

Math is math. History is history. English is English. Really how many ways can you teach it? School is school no matter where you go. I have trained GT grads. They are just as stupid as the GA grads I have trained. Just those dumb-asses pay more for a degree then I did. Also I had a history professor when i was at state who was a Harvard Grad and taught there tell me that the only difference in Harvard and State was the price and what it takes to get in and if your family had money that's all it took.

 

[DirtyLopez]

stupid this idiot is. He leaves his wife b/c he fell in love with one of his sales girls who was engaged to someone else at the company at the time. She starts taping their conversations where he professes his love for her and uses them to get him fired. A year or so later after she is unengaged, she calls GT guy up and they start dating. After much drama they get married and she continuously cheats on him with men AND women and he continues to chase and beg her back. And she isn't attractive!! Pitiful bastard. I don't know any State grad that nears his level of stupid or spinelessness. So, I came to the conclusion that GT puts out spineless dumbasses.

 

[MSUArrowCS]

So I was helping my niece decide on a college and my research shows that we should consider all athletes interested in MSU idiots? Sweet mercy.

I haven't really thought about the athletics side of it, but I'm getting a degree from ACC school at the moment that's on par with GT in my field. What I've seen is that regardless of the bottom-end admission standards and retention rates, etc. (and I'm assuming that your average student deciding between MSU and GT is probably not worried about those) the top of the class in decent programs at MSU can compete academically and in the marketplace with the top of the class in those programs at GT and other schools. No one's going to argue that there aren't more quality programs or quality students at GT, but you can succeed quite well with a degree from either school - especially in undergrad.

This idiot's leap from his niece's situation to athletics is laughable. I think we'd all be perfectly fine if every MSU target is completely ignored by Georgia Tech. I think they should take this guy's advice.

 

[gravedigger]

but reading this thread might give someone the impression we are.

Its a 17ing article. Not a School Mission statement.

 

[saltslugs]

Seriously, calm the 17 down. Just, calm down...

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

i think the guy is just trying to make an argument of why the sec is so much better in football, and why f$u and vatech are the best programs in the acc.