The CardBoard
Today in 59er Logic - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Today in 59er Logic (/thread-5042.html)

Pages: 1 2

Today in 59er Logic - washingtonismoney - 04-10-2013

THESIS: We need to get better at graduating players.
ANTITHESIS: We're recruiting several academically marginal players.
SYNTHESIS: We're going to get better at graduating players by recruiting academically marginal players.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/22036617/cals-dykes-works-to-fix-apr-woes-wont-give-up-on-closecall-recruit

(Although I am rooting for Mr. McKinley.)


Today in 59er Logic - washingtonismoney - 04-10-2013

THESIS: We need to get better at graduating players.
ANTITHESIS: We're recruiting several academically marginal players.
SYNTHESIS: We're going to get better at graduating players by recruiting academically marginal players.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/22036617/cals-dykes-works-to-fix-apr-woes-wont-give-up-on-closecall-recruit

(Although I am rooting for Mr. McKinley.)


Re: Today in 59er Logic - OutsiderFan - 04-10-2013

Not everyone can be Stanford material, but those who aren't can ultimately go on to great academic and professional achievements.  Many people, like McKinley simply don't have the opportunities or living conditions to allow this.  It makes me very pleased to know that public institutions like Cal can give kids like McKinley opportunities they couldn't have ever had otherwise.  What is sad is that such opportunities are in most cases only afforded to kids who can play sports. 

Russell White is one of my favorite all-time Cal Bears because of what he overcame (Dyslexia), after being the old "Prop. 48"kid (had to sit out a year due to lack of qualifying grades).  Once defined as a football player only, White graduated from Cal and ultimately went on to earn a Master's degree.  Perish the thought of what would have happened to him had he gone to USC.



Re: Today in 59er Logic - OutsiderFan - 04-10-2013

Not everyone can be Stanford material, but those who aren't can ultimately go on to great academic and professional achievements.  Many people, like McKinley simply don't have the opportunities or living conditions to allow this.  It makes me very pleased to know that public institutions like Cal can give kids like McKinley opportunities they couldn't have ever had otherwise.  What is sad is that such opportunities are in most cases only afforded to kids who can play sports. 

Russell White is one of my favorite all-time Cal Bears because of what he overcame (Dyslexia), after being the old "Prop. 48"kid (had to sit out a year due to lack of qualifying grades).  Once defined as a football player only, White graduated from Cal and ultimately went on to earn a Master's degree.  Perish the thought of what would have happened to him had he gone to USC.



Re: Today in 59er Logic - Bruce Wang - 04-10-2013

Somewhat relevant personal story here.  So I went to this private school from 4th to 8th grade.  My mom yanked me out of public school after my 4th grade teacher told her that I should repeat 3rd grade (probably because I had undiagnosed ADD or she confused me with the Japanese kid).  Anyhow, there was a classmate of mine at this private school that was the worst student in the class.  Marcus Antonius was a bit of a trouble maker, but a good person and one of the cool kids.  We were friendly, but not friends.  Flash forward 8 years.  I'm back home for the summer, taking a Kaplan LSAT prep class and to my astonishment I find Marcus in my LSAT class.  And he's at an Ivy League university! I have the worst poker face (which some of you can corroborate).  So Marcus says "Publius, I know what you are thinking. Turns out I'm not an idiot.  I'm just dyslexic.  The best part is I get extra time on standardized tests and rock these things."

There's more to this story having to do with sex-ed class in 6th grade.  But since this place is PG-13, I will add it to the list of stories of when we meet at the next CARDboard bowl game meetup.

Re: Today in 59er Logic - Bruce Wang - 04-10-2013

Somewhat relevant personal story here.  So I went to this private school from 4th to 8th grade.  My mom yanked me out of public school after my 4th grade teacher told her that I should repeat 3rd grade (probably because I had undiagnosed ADD or she confused me with the Japanese kid).  Anyhow, there was a classmate of mine at this private school that was the worst student in the class.  Marcus Antonius was a bit of a trouble maker, but a good person and one of the cool kids.  We were friendly, but not friends.  Flash forward 8 years.  I'm back home for the summer, taking a Kaplan LSAT prep class and to my astonishment I find Marcus in my LSAT class.  And he's at an Ivy League university! I have the worst poker face (which some of you can corroborate).  So Marcus says "Publius, I know what you are thinking. Turns out I'm not an idiot.  I'm just dyslexic.  The best part is I get extra time on standardized tests and rock these things."

There's more to this story having to do with sex-ed class in 6th grade.  But since this place is PG-13, I will add it to the list of stories of when we meet at the next CARDboard bowl game meetup.

No, what's REALLY sad about Kal - Redrum - 04-10-2013

" What is sad is that such opportunities are in most cases only afforded to kids who can play sports.  "

At Kal, for all intents and purposes, such opportunities are exclusively given to kids who can play sports.  If you are a talented musician or sculptor with bad grades or test scores, you are SOL.  Kal admissions are so competitive that taking a chance on a marginal kid makes no sense when there are six non-marginal, highly qualified kids ready to take full advantage of the Kal education.

No, what's REALLY sad about Kal - Redrum - 04-10-2013

" What is sad is that such opportunities are in most cases only afforded to kids who can play sports.  "

At Kal, for all intents and purposes, such opportunities are exclusively given to kids who can play sports.  If you are a talented musician or sculptor with bad grades or test scores, you are SOL.  Kal admissions are so competitive that taking a chance on a marginal kid makes no sense when there are six non-marginal, highly qualified kids ready to take full advantage of the Kal education.

Re: Today in 59er Logic - terry - 04-10-2013

I'm somewhat surprised that people at Ca.l don't seem to believe there's a connection between their graduation rates and the academic quality of the guys they recruit. It seems to me that if they want more of their players to graduate, they should recruit better students. They say they want to improve graduation rates, but they keep recruiting nonqualifiers. I'm not sure they can have it both ways.

Outsiderfan suggests that Ca.l, as a public university, has an obligation to give an opportunity to marginal students. That's not how I understand the design of the California educational system. The California master plan for higher education generally says that the top 12.5% of high school graduates in the state are eligible for the UC system, the top 33% are eligible for the Ca.l State University system, and everyone is eligible for the community college system. So the UC schools do not have the mission of providing an opportunity to marginal students. That's what the community colleges are supposed to do. The UC system is supposed to educate the top students in the state. UC Berkeley is at the top of the UC system, and is supposed to educate the very best students in the state. I don't think it's really part of UC Berkeley's mission to provide an opportunity to marginal students.

Re: Today in 59er Logic - terry - 04-10-2013

I'm somewhat surprised that people at Ca.l don't seem to believe there's a connection between their graduation rates and the academic quality of the guys they recruit. It seems to me that if they want more of their players to graduate, they should recruit better students. They say they want to improve graduation rates, but they keep recruiting nonqualifiers. I'm not sure they can have it both ways.

Outsiderfan suggests that Ca.l, as a public university, has an obligation to give an opportunity to marginal students. That's not how I understand the design of the California educational system. The California master plan for higher education generally says that the top 12.5% of high school graduates in the state are eligible for the UC system, the top 33% are eligible for the Ca.l State University system, and everyone is eligible for the community college system. So the UC schools do not have the mission of providing an opportunity to marginal students. That's what the community colleges are supposed to do. The UC system is supposed to educate the top students in the state. UC Berkeley is at the top of the UC system, and is supposed to educate the very best students in the state. I don't think it's really part of UC Berkeley's mission to provide an opportunity to marginal students.

Hey, enough of this negativity. - Redrum - 04-11-2013

Real progress is being made, to wit:

"Current players have signed non-binding pacts to complete necessary credits to graduate."

Done and done.  Next problem?

Hey, enough of this negativity. - Redrum - 04-11-2013

Real progress is being made, to wit:

"Current players have signed non-binding pacts to complete necessary credits to graduate."

Done and done.  Next problem?

Re: Today in 59er Logic - OutsiderFan - 04-11-2013

(04-10-2013, 03:23 PM)terry link Wrote:Outsiderfan suggests that Ca.l, as a public university, has an obligation to give an opportunity to marginal students. That's not how I understand the design of the California educational system. The California master plan for higher education generally says that the top 12.5% of high school graduates in the state are eligible for the UC system, the top 33% are eligible for the Ca.l State University system, and everyone is eligible for the community college system. So the UC schools are not the part of the system that has the mission of providing an opportunity to marginal students. That's what the community colleges are supposed to do. The UC system is supposed to educate the top students in the state. UC Berkeley is at the top of the UC system, and is supposed to educate the very best students in the state. I don't think it's really part of UC Berkeley's mission to provide an opportunity to marginal students.

There is the way things are suppose to work, and the way they do work in practical reality.  McKinley probably wouldn't be given any opportunity at a CC/JC.  He needs a scholarship and most importantly, structure.  Cal needs to have a football team that excites fans to pay for and support it and all its intendant costs.  Absent great athletes like McKinley, Cal won't be able to generate the revenue it needs, and California tax payers will pay the price.  So he takes the place of a "more deserving" kid (who was likely given more opportunities to succeed).

It's always a question of who gets what, who pays, how much, and who goes without, in virtually every life endeavor.  There are always trade-offs to be made and everyone's situation, personal and institutional, is different. 



Re: Today in 59er Logic - OutsiderFan - 04-11-2013

(04-10-2013, 03:23 PM)terry link Wrote:Outsiderfan suggests that Ca.l, as a public university, has an obligation to give an opportunity to marginal students. That's not how I understand the design of the California educational system. The California master plan for higher education generally says that the top 12.5% of high school graduates in the state are eligible for the UC system, the top 33% are eligible for the Ca.l State University system, and everyone is eligible for the community college system. So the UC schools are not the part of the system that has the mission of providing an opportunity to marginal students. That's what the community colleges are supposed to do. The UC system is supposed to educate the top students in the state. UC Berkeley is at the top of the UC system, and is supposed to educate the very best students in the state. I don't think it's really part of UC Berkeley's mission to provide an opportunity to marginal students.

There is the way things are suppose to work, and the way they do work in practical reality.  McKinley probably wouldn't be given any opportunity at a CC/JC.  He needs a scholarship and most importantly, structure.  Cal needs to have a football team that excites fans to pay for and support it and all its intendant costs.  Absent great athletes like McKinley, Cal won't be able to generate the revenue it needs, and California tax payers will pay the price.  So he takes the place of a "more deserving" kid (who was likely given more opportunities to succeed).

It's always a question of who gets what, who pays, how much, and who goes without, in virtually every life endeavor.  There are always trade-offs to be made and everyone's situation, personal and institutional, is different. 



Wait! What? - Redrum - 04-11-2013

" McKinley probably wouldn't be given any opportunity at a CC/JC.  He needs a scholarship and most importantly, structure."

OK.  But only if we start a state clearing house for ALL the kids with needs.  Lotsa kids need structure.  Lotsa kids need a scholarship.  AND...lotsa kids go to community colleges.  I think what you are really saying = " a full ride to UC Berkeley is a sweet deal any kid would like...but by playing football, McKinley gets to go to the head of the line."

" Low APR U needs to have a football team that excites fans to pay for and support it and all its intendant costs.  Absent great athletes like McKinley, Low APR U won't be able to generate the revenue it needs, and California tax payers will pay the price. "

And in addition to intendant costs, there are the attendant costs, too.  (Yes that was cheap shot)  But the "attendant" costs are associated with the athletic program,  not the mission of the university.  The California taxpayers should not pay the price of either exciting or dull UC athletics.  In fact,  the taxpayers have been subsidizing the Kal athletic dept. for decades even in the good, exciting years and only unrelenting overall budget pressure made that support drop below $10 million/year.  It's now pegged at around $5 million tax subsidy for the current year.  The idea that Kal must take substandard students to save the taxpayers money is bogus.  They've been taking substandard student athletes for no demonstrable budgetary benefit.  The only thing that's saving the taxpayers money in regards to Kal is an overall state budget crisis and fed up taxpayers.



Wait! What? - Redrum - 04-11-2013

" McKinley probably wouldn't be given any opportunity at a CC/JC.  He needs a scholarship and most importantly, structure."

OK.  But only if we start a state clearing house for ALL the kids with needs.  Lotsa kids need structure.  Lotsa kids need a scholarship.  AND...lotsa kids go to community colleges.  I think what you are really saying = " a full ride to UC Berkeley is a sweet deal any kid would like...but by playing football, McKinley gets to go to the head of the line."

" Low APR U needs to have a football team that excites fans to pay for and support it and all its intendant costs.  Absent great athletes like McKinley, Low APR U won't be able to generate the revenue it needs, and California tax payers will pay the price. "

And in addition to intendant costs, there are the attendant costs, too.  (Yes that was cheap shot)  But the "attendant" costs are associated with the athletic program,  not the mission of the university.  The California taxpayers should not pay the price of either exciting or dull UC athletics.  In fact,  the taxpayers have been subsidizing the Kal athletic dept. for decades even in the good, exciting years and only unrelenting overall budget pressure made that support drop below $10 million/year.  It's now pegged at around $5 million tax subsidy for the current year.  The idea that Kal must take substandard students to save the taxpayers money is bogus.  They've been taking substandard student athletes for no demonstrable budgetary benefit.  The only thing that's saving the taxpayers money in regards to Kal is an overall state budget crisis and fed up taxpayers.



Re: Wait! What? - OutsiderFan - 04-11-2013

(04-11-2013, 08:42 AM)Redrum link Wrote:" McKinley probably wouldn't be given any opportunity at a CC/JC.  He needs a scholarship and most importantly, structure."

OK.  But only if we start a state clearing house for ALL the kids with needs.  Lotsa kids need structure.  Lotsa kids need a scholarship.  AND...lotsa kids go to community colleges.  I think what you are really saying = " a full ride to UC Berkeley is a sweet deal any kid would like...but by playing football, McKinley gets to go to the head of the line."

" Low APR U needs to have a football team that excites fans to pay for and support it and all its intendant costs.  Absent great athletes like McKinley, Low APR U won't be able to generate the revenue it needs, and California tax payers will pay the price. "

And in addition to intendant costs, there are the attendant costs, too.  (Yes that was cheap shot)  But the "attendant" costs are associated with the athletic program,  not the mission of the university.  The California taxpayers should not pay the price of either exciting or dull UC athletics.  In fact,  the taxpayers have been subsidizing the Kal athletic dept. for decades even in the good, exciting years and only unrelenting overall budget pressure made that support drop below $10 million/year.  It's now pegged at around $5 million tax subsidy for the current year.  The idea that Kal must take substandard students to save the taxpayers money is bogus.  They've been taking substandard student athletes for no demonstrable budgetary benefit.  The only thing that's saving the taxpayers money in regards to Kal is an overall state budget crisis and fed up taxpayers.

I'm not going to say your points are wrong, but if the society really wanted, I mean REALLY wanted things to be as you suggest, they would be that way, wouldn't they?

Re: Wait! What? - OutsiderFan - 04-11-2013

(04-11-2013, 08:42 AM)Redrum link Wrote:" McKinley probably wouldn't be given any opportunity at a CC/JC.  He needs a scholarship and most importantly, structure."

OK.  But only if we start a state clearing house for ALL the kids with needs.  Lotsa kids need structure.  Lotsa kids need a scholarship.  AND...lotsa kids go to community colleges.  I think what you are really saying = " a full ride to UC Berkeley is a sweet deal any kid would like...but by playing football, McKinley gets to go to the head of the line."

" Low APR U needs to have a football team that excites fans to pay for and support it and all its intendant costs.  Absent great athletes like McKinley, Low APR U won't be able to generate the revenue it needs, and California tax payers will pay the price. "

And in addition to intendant costs, there are the attendant costs, too.  (Yes that was cheap shot)  But the "attendant" costs are associated with the athletic program,  not the mission of the university.  The California taxpayers should not pay the price of either exciting or dull UC athletics.  In fact,  the taxpayers have been subsidizing the Kal athletic dept. for decades even in the good, exciting years and only unrelenting overall budget pressure made that support drop below $10 million/year.  It's now pegged at around $5 million tax subsidy for the current year.  The idea that Kal must take substandard students to save the taxpayers money is bogus.  They've been taking substandard student athletes for no demonstrable budgetary benefit.  The only thing that's saving the taxpayers money in regards to Kal is an overall state budget crisis and fed up taxpayers.

I'm not going to say your points are wrong, but if the society really wanted, I mean REALLY wanted things to be as you suggest, they would be that way, wouldn't they?

Re: Today in 59er Logic - Kathy - 04-11-2013

(04-11-2013, 08:21 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Absent great athletes like McKinley, Low APR U won't be able to generate the revenue it needs, and California tax payers will pay the price.

Why on earth should California taxpayers have to pay the price for weenie athletics?



Re: Today in 59er Logic - Kathy - 04-11-2013

(04-11-2013, 08:21 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Absent great athletes like McKinley, Low APR U won't be able to generate the revenue it needs, and California tax payers will pay the price.

Why on earth should California taxpayers have to pay the price for weenie athletics?