A lot of times, the quality of schools the kids come from will be a reason for a high or low SAT or ACT test score. Some schools teach kids how to successfully take a standardized exam, while others do not. If a kid doesn't know the strategy behind a standardized exam, they will struggle on them.

In Texas, because our state exam is so stringent (and I disagree with that, FWIW), we teach our kids test-taking strategies to help them be more successful when taking any test of that sort.

When I taught in Louisiana, we didn't begin to touch test-taking strategy.

So, kids are getting a wide variance of instruction, depending on where they go to school.

As for any kid having a chance at an education without athletics, well, that's just not true. Many of these guys would not attend college without an athletic scholarship. My dad, for example, was one of these types of guys.

He was the first person in his family to graduate from high school, he was given an athletic scholarship, but didn't really know how to succeed in college (schools do a better job of assisting their athletes these days, btw.) He managed to stay eligible for four years, but wasn't close to earning a degree.

After working for a few years, he decided to go back to college, at his own expense, and finish his education. He wouldn't have done that if he'd never had the opportunity to experience college in the first place, and he was only able to do that because he was a good athlete.

I'm thankful that he had the opportunity to play college football because, otherwise, the cycle of poverty and ignorance in his family wouldn't have been broken. Because athletics gave him a chance at an education and opened his eyes to the possibilities of an education, I went on to college, and my children will go to college, and their children will go, and so on and so on. The cycle was broken.

That happens in many, many of these athletes' families. Therefore, I don't care what an athlete's ACT or SAT score is. I care that he is exposed to a college education, and I know that even if he doesn't graduate, his eyes have been opened to something more than he would've had without it.

... and with the guidance of someone like CLM, who has the big picture in mind beyond winning football games, that same scenario you describe with your dad will be supported nowadays at LSU by the academic program and a coach who cares. I agree with you, you can be "coached" to do well on an exam, it doesn't mean those who don't do well are not smart, or ambitious, or don't bring other positive attributes to the table.

I'm not sure what each kid thinks. But I know coaches make a big difference in a LOT of these young folks' lives. And I'd be willing to bet that a LOT of them, in fact, try much harder in college because the coaches play a Dad/Mom role, and also because they want to remain eligible and get drafted.

I'm not saying poor students become intellectuals, I'm just saying there's something to be said for kids with low scores getting degrees they normally wouldn't desire much less get the chance to pursue.

You're dead right about all you posted.

People that compile lists of the top universities are really missing the boat. People that believe these university rankings are short sighted.

A couple of points here:

In grammar and high school learning has direction. It comes from the teachers and goes to the students. Teachers teach and students learn. Whereas in college It's up to the student to learn; to teach himself. That's why the universities provide the learning resources to the students as opposed to lower education in which the schools provide resources to the educators. It is true that ivy league schools attract higher caliber students than, say, SEC schools, but this does not imply that a student can't get a great education at an SEC school. With the internet, the same resources are available to each college undergrad at each and every university. Note: I'm generally speaking about undergradute education It's different somewhat in grad school but not totally so. A medical student anywhere in America has basically the same opportunity to learn general medicine as anyone. So basically, when you get to college, the student's individual ability to learn is way more important than what school he goes to.

Just like star rankings for recruits, test scores are indicators of future success, they are not guarrantors of it.

There is WAY too much snob appeal for degrees from different universities and the universities promote this. They spend way too much effort and time concentrating on how they stack up against one another and not enough time concentrating on how they truly make people better human beings. Education is really an end in itself not necessarily a means to an end. By that I mean, if knowledge makes you a better person then the education has done it's job successfully; it doesn't have to translate in better jobs, more money, or better lifestyle to be judged a success.

My neice just interviewed for a job in Chicago and the interviewer told her she just wasn't impressed with her degree because it was from the University of New Orleans. To which my neice replied immediately "So you're telling me that you're more impressed with a certificate than you are a person's personal character, intelligence and abilities." The lady offered her the job and she declined saying "No thanks because I'm not really impressed with your character, intelligence and abilities". She got a good job somewhere else.

So who cares if Florida student athletes rank low in test scores. Last time I looked they were playing OU today in the BCS national championship game. They have their priorities straight at least. Go Florida... Go SEC!!

Before saying anything else I'll agree with the poster above in one thing: you only get out of college what you bring into college. Studies show students who were accepted to - but (for whatever reason) did not attend - Ivy League schools do just as well as whose who did attend. The advantage of saying "I went to Harvard" lasts approximately five years - a fairly poor return on investment, all told. As for the article itself, well... I'm surprised Florida has such a low average SAT score for the team, given how high a score the non-football students need to get in. I mean, that's nearly a 500 point gap....

Can anyone provide a link to the complete list of rankings for all of the schools that responded? I'd like to see where everyone falls between the top and bottom 10, and the links in the AJC article only take me to avg SAT scores for GA schools.

Thanks in advance.

right, but the point is that waters down a degree when you have people who don't meet the same qualifications as non-athletes receiving degrees just as readily. it also calls into question the validity of the degree.

not that i don't approve of these guys getting their education, but lord knows we all need it, i just think that universities are becoming basically post high schools.