He was full of you know what then. Here is an excerpt from the Duke Chronicle.
The article speaks for itself.
"For the Class of 2007, 768 male non-athletes were admitted to Duke with an average SAT score of 1,438, while 42 recruited athletes averaged 1,172. For females, 786 non-athletes averaged 1,403, versus 37 athletes' 1,258.
That's a 266-point gap for males and a 145-point gap for females.
And in case you're interested in a team-by-team breakdown, the eight men's baseball team recruits averaged 1,206 that year, while 22 football players averaged 1,063 and the five men's basketball players came in last at 997. All 14 other recruited male athletes averaged 1,258.
Considering the national average for the 2002 SAT was 1,026, it's a safe bet that few (if any) non-athletes could even get their foot in the door with stats like the ones above.
Yet the most elite recruits (read: prospective basketball players) can be tentatively admitted before they've finished their junior year of high school; all that's needed is a PSAT score and freshman and sophomore grades.
This must have been how our beloved Sean Dockery got admitted with a 2.3 GPA and an ACT score of 15; at the time, his credentials didn't even meet NCAA minimums of a 2.5 GPA and 17 on the ACT.
Which brings me to my point: Although I, too, will never forget the night Sean Dockery beat VT, this snapshot of our admissions process is a University-wide disgrace.
Indeed, is it really too much to ask for these student-athletes' scores to come within shouting distance of their classmates?
And can we really be an "academic" University when our lofty standards are so clearly subject to the athletic department's needs?
But most of all, why should non-athletes like myself accept the argument that sporting ability should outweigh inferior academic credentials?"
You can read the rest at
http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/10/20/Columns/Fight.Blue.Devils.Fight-2379823.shtml