It could have been us
- Thread starter EvanstonCat
- Start date
My source is my 3+ years in progressive roles working in the Northwestern football recruiting office from 2008-2011 where my primary responsibility was screening and processing the academic credentials of prospects. The standards are not publicly published, which makes sense.
Your turn.
Answer the question.
You could publish anything now if you wanted to. It’s 14 years ago. No one would be coming after you.
You’re still avoiding the question.
And I’ll tell you the benchmarks we actually used if you answer first. Got no problem doing it.
I certainly will not dispute that there are NU fans first and foremost because of these high standards.
However, I believe you can still do things the right way with relaxed admissions and don’t take as an extreme view as you do. No one has ever said “admit idiots” to win games. The real issue are these admitted students able to successfully manage the curriculum, graduate and become productive members of society?
So, I’ll ask you a question. If we lowered the standards ( let’s say to bare NCAA Minimum for this question) and our GSR and APR did not decline, would you be okay with it?
Are you really citing the Google Search AI overview on ANYTHING, much less on non-public information that isn’t searchable? JFC Northwestern people are supposed to be smarter than this.
Was the 19 ACT composite an “exception?” My recollection from my Rock days was we’d frequently have recruits who had like a 21 and were told they needed to score a 22 on the fall ACT to get in, I don’t recall 19s being discussed.
Dude relax. I was using that AI search for a simple roundup. I’m not an idiot. I’m aware AI hallucinates and is not a complete picture. But thanks for checking on me. I’m so touched.
Regarding the earlier question, no I am not for taking NCAA minimums regardless of if APR and GSR stayed high. What’s the point of doing that? We are better than that. Don’t turn your back on what we’ve stood for. Stop the “everyone gets a trophy” crap.
What did JFK say about going to the moon? “We do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard.” Northwestern and Stanford (and maybe BC and/or Rice) are the only academic institutions who actually have real standards for athletes. If we give into that like many others have purely to win then we have lost the plot. We would be the same as everyone else. We are not. I mean, FFS we were thisclose to leaving the B1G and moving to the Ivy in the late 70s. Fortunately, the institution gets it and is on the right side on this issue.
And I used to be someone who wasn’t always of the mind we should hold up our high standards - especially in basketball when we couldn’t even make the tournament - but I admit now that was the wrong stance. I’m a lot prouder when we succeed because I’m not naive. We are competing with two hands behind our back - yet still getting it done.
Regarding the earlier question, no I am not for taking NCAA minimums regardless of if APR and GSR stayed high. What’s the point of doing that? We are better than that. Don’t turn your back on what we’ve stood for. Stop the “everyone gets a trophy” crap.
What did JFK say about going to the moon? “We do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard.” Northwestern and Stanford (and maybe BC and/or Rice) are the only academic institutions who actually have real standards for athletes. If we give into that like many others have purely to win then we have lost the plot. We would be the same as everyone else. We are not. I mean, FFS we were thisclose to leaving the B1G and moving to the Ivy in the late 70s. Fortunately, the institution gets it and is on the right side on this issue.
And I used to be someone who wasn’t always of the mind we should hold up our high standards - especially in basketball when we couldn’t even make the tournament - but I admit now that was the wrong stance. I’m a lot prouder when we succeed because I’m not naive. We are competing with two hands behind our back - yet still getting it done.
It’s more about the full picture… if a kid had a very strong core GPA (I.e., 3.9 or better), then we felt pretty OK at 19 or 20 ACT so long as the English score was at or above the Composite.
You’re probably thinking primarily of Jacquez, who ended up at Syracuse because he had a 22 instead of 23 ACT. My understanding he had a 3.2 or 3.3 core GPA, which would require a higher standardized test to get supported by Admissions.
It was always much better to be a “high GPA, low score” guy than a “low GPA, high score” guy. Easy to spin the high GPA kid as a hard worker who’s just not a good test taker, etc., but the high test kid is more likely viewed as lazier and less motivated.
Jacquez was one but I also recall guys who needed to get a better score, succeeded, and came here.
I was mostly asking to set up the next question around exceptions: are we still using an “exception” model with a limited number of lower requirements, or is it always the same holistic scale for everybody? Because one easy movement if we’re still using exceptions is just making the exceptions the standard.
”We should make it more difficult on ourselves to win even though it’s already really hard at NU because we will feel better about ourselves if we are somehow able to pull it off.”
Interesting position.
Caleb Komolafe.
I have no idea how it’s set up nowadays, but (knowing NU) I very much doubt much has changed at all in the interceding 15 years.
Ish to Roy Munson in Kingpin.
Well, my grandpa always taught me to bowl 15 frames. It's like I told you before, we Amish, we do everything half again as hard as you do. Ten frames.
So you think we still have an "exceptions" model? How many was it in your day and how significant was it?
Yes I think we still have an appeal/exception process.
We used to get 2-3 annually. Generally for kids who didn’t hit 1 of the 3 major “metrics,” not “please let us take this kid that fits NCAA minimums.”
Makes sense. Simply making whatever the exception metric is the new standard would be a good start.
The guy had service academy offers (Army and Air Force) + Rice and Tulane and of course us. CK being a “lower end” (for our standards) qualifier? Hmm… don’t know about that.
Eh. Obviously, if there’s a kid who was from a broken home or something but persevered over that major obstacle and has slightly lower scores than normal given their situation? Ok. Otherwise… no.
He literally committed and was denied admission! He decommitted and Fitz went to bat with him with admissions and eventually reversed their decision.
This board is a joke
(other than @AdamOnFirst). Get back to the premium board asap. Grab @Gocatsgo2003 if you can.Ok? Guys can appeal and retake standardized tests. That happens ALL THE TIME. I did it, others I know did it too. And most of the time you improve the second time around. Some even take it three times.
My point was he clearly didn’t have a bad score on his (assumed) re-try - even when you take into account our elevated standards - because Army, Air Force, Rice and Tulane also offered. That’s a pretty impressive stack of offers from high academic institutions who have similar standards to us.
Yet another paid commercial message for The ReefThis board is a joke
*coquettish blush*This board is a joke
oh you
Rice and Tulane are meaningless on that list and have no meaningful academic restrictions remotely comparable to northwestern.
I honestly don’t know the rules for the service academies.
Why? Because we’re having a discussion?This board is a joke
Because none of those schools have meaningful academic restrictions for football scholar athletes, including the academies — they basically require a very strong character review but have lots of academic leeway, plus literally different NCAA rules when it comes to recruiting.
What do you think it takes to get into NU as a scholarship football player anyway? I’ll wait.
Except they don’t have similar standards to us for scholarship athletes. Why is this difficult for you to understand?
It isn’t a discussion if you refuse to acknowledge others’ experience and viewpoints. That’s a diatribe.