With Orsini gone will SMU get athletic friendly courses?

by **Rebel10** » Thu May 17, 2012 5:30 pm

Also, June's safety net is gone now. I think Tuner may hire someone who thinks more along the lines of the Knight Commission IMO.

by **03Mustang** » Thu May 17, 2012 5:32 pm

Agree. Our ascent to mediocrity was fun....now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

by **BIGHORSE** » Thu May 17, 2012 5:34 pm

I'm afraid we will go back to the Pye days.

by **ALEX LIFESON** » Thu May 17, 2012 8:31 pm

We have a poster or two that have screaming "everything is on a level playing field" and bashing those that say "we still have big problems". Has your eyes been opened now?

by **SMUer** » Thu May 17, 2012 8:44 pm

Uh, did you notice the three bowls we've been to?...I kid, I kid

by **Webmaster** » Sun May 20, 2012 9:04 am

No. In fact, the new curriculum changes (heavy on writing) are decidedly athlete UN-friendly.

But to be fair, the curriculum changes are also unfriendly to engineers, science and match, dancers, artists, musicians, etc. Basically anyone who's not liberal arts.

by **BigT3x** » Sun May 20, 2012 11:20 am

Panic!

SMU is going to Div III! The ghost of Pye is taking over! Woe is us!

by **whitwiki** » Sun May 20, 2012 12:35 pm

I valued the liberal arts in my engineering degree. It's good to round out your education...

by **Mustangsabu** » Sun May 20, 2012 1:34 pm

Webmaster wrote:No. In fact, the new curriculum changes (heavy on writing) are decidedly athlete UN-friendly.

But to be fair, the curriculum changes are also unfriendly to engineers, science and match, dancers, artists, musicians, etc. Basically anyone who's not liberal arts.

This makes me cry. Not the post, but the idea that asking our students to be stronger writers is a "change". When I was in school, albeit not in the States, everything was writing. Inability to write at length and coherently ensured that you didn't get anywhere near college. If you even got through school.

---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?ebl5r1

by **Webmaster** » Sun May 20, 2012 1:36 pm

Sure. But usually kids who are stronger at math and science are weaker at language and writing, which is why an emphasis on writing prejudices against math/science oriented kids.

Further, it's a well known fact amongst educators, curriculum developers and that ilk (even President Obama alluded to it in a recent speech) that our Nation's educational focus on writing and language has put us behind other countries (most notably Eastern countries) with respect to our student's proficiency in math and the sciences. This has led to us falling behind in new discoveries, inventions, patents, etc.

If we're going to admit "better" students, a better solution IMHO would be to raise math/science standards for engineers, math and science majors and leave the intensified writing for the liberal arts majors.

by **ponyte** » Sun May 20, 2012 4:04 pm

I don't think the football team will be affected too much by the change at the AD position. JJ is with us for this year and he has a staff in place. I doubt the other sports' athletes are going to be upset or affected either. This is an opportunity for us to have a breakout season. Before we all commit mass seppuku, lets see what happens.

We have much improved programs, improved facilities and improved support. We can be attractive to qualified ADs. Let the search do its business. Let the kids and the coaches do theirs.

by **couch 'em** » Sun May 20, 2012 4:17 pm

Webmaster wrote:Sure. But usually kids who are stronger at math and science are weaker at language and writing, which is why an emphasis on writing prejudices against math/science oriented kids.

Further, it's a well known fact amongst educators, curriculum developers and that ilk (even President Obama alluded to it in a recent speech) that our Nation's educational focus on writing and language has put us behind other countries (most notably Eastern countries) with respect to our student's proficiency in math and the sciences. This has led to us falling behind in new discoveries, inventions, patents, etc.

If we're going to admit "better" students, a better solution IMHO would be to raise math/science standards for engineers, math and science majors and leave the intensified writing for the liberal arts majors.

It seemed to me, at least on the engineering front, that Forsake had punted on competing for top classical engineers and was pushing 'management skills' over pure engineering. Perhaps SMU as a whole us taking this tack.

by **Topper** » Sun May 20, 2012 4:33 pm

SMU simply doesn't offer the majors that are most attractive to jocks with no academic bent in the first place. Just look at the UT catalog and the available majors that include Exercise Science and Physical Culture and Sports. We are losing the very talented kids that don't want serious majors anyway. They always have UT, Tech, A&M, etc.

by **smuuth** » Sun May 20, 2012 5:33 pm

What an insult to "institutions of higher learning". Rather than dumbing down how about this......recruit student/athletes? Ones who can handle the college work and realize the value of certain, not all, college degrees.

by **couch 'em** » Sun May 20, 2012 5:52 pm

smuuth wrote:What an insult to "institutions of higher learning". Rather than dumbing down how about this......recruit student/athletes? Ones who can handle the college work and realize the value of certain, not all, college degrees.

There are plenty of D-III schools for you to follow