How long will it take for WRAL and others to report the UNC responses?
Objective Scientist Apr 13, 10:12 a.m.
The problem here is that even if the outside "experts" reported the "truth" as they saw it, and that they are indeed the best qualified to address the issue, it still "looks bad", their findings are "tainted", and "questionable" because they were chosen, hired, and paid by UNC! A piece of information that would be interesting... what were those "experts" charged with doing? I'd love to see the emails/letters, etc. exchanged between UNC and the "experts". UNC: "I'm hiring you, I will pay you a "nice sum of money" to do something for me." Experts: "OK - that sounds good... what is it you want me to do?" What was UNC's answer to that question?
PackFanaticInTheHouse Apr 13, 9:14 a.m.
Please don't let logical thoughts enter your head before responding to that mentally "questionable" individual.
In fact.. MOST pansies have a rather difficult time processing it (logic).
KT called a Congressional hearin Apr 13, 9:09 a.m.
So then tell us how do "outside experts" at trials come up with different conclusions for the prosecution and defense? Seems to happen quite often. I wonder....
KT called a Congressional hearin Apr 13, 9:07 a.m.
Kind of like the stuff coming out after Gov Martin's "review?"
heelraiser3 Apr 12, 11:10 a.m.
Nice post. Finally a UNC fan with some objectivity.
Objective Scientist Apr 12, 9:49 a.m.
Holding 3 degrees from UNC - ALL were earned and not one "paper-only" class on my transcript - I would indeed like for someone credible to find that it was all a "mistake"... that UNC never, ever admitted an athlete, or even a "regular student", who could not even read at the high school level. Was this group of 3 "credible"? From what I've seen they have the "credentials" and "qualifications" to be able to evaluate the information and make a judgment. However, their findings are "tainted" by having been hired by UNC. In a case like this, with the "experts" finding in favor of the University that hired them, such findings always has been and always will be "suspect". My background enables me to make an evaluation of Willingham's assertions, although I do not have the data and other information the hired experts had, therefore limiting my scrutiny. That said... the "test" to measure reading ability that is a huge factor in this entire discussion is not a "perfect" test of reading ability... it is clearly not the best test for reading ability... but it does tell us something about the individual's tested... along with LOTS of other information we have about athletes who were admitted to UNC. Let's set aside the focus on reading ability, and ask a very simple question - were/are athletes admitted to UNC who should not have been admitted due to significant/severe deficiencies in academic ability... the ability to do college level academic work at a university such as UNC? There is certainly ample evidence that point to a resounding "YES" as the answer! Also... some seem to have interpreting all of this to mean that ALL UNC athletes are deficient in reading and academic ability. That is NOT the case! Most UNC athletes are quite capable in the classroom... it is only a relative few who are lacking. But... those few are a few too many and they should never have been admitted. McAdoo (the football McAdoo) is a prime example!
heelraiser3 Apr 12, 9:00 a.m.
Simply put. YES.
modukev5saysbyebye Apr 12, 8:36 a.m.
2 words for you - Gov. Martin
PackFanaticInTheHouse Apr 12, 7:46 a.m.
they would GLADLY perform the services REQUESTED and come out with the CORRECT answer, in order to secure their proceeds, as well as to PROVE to other such institutions.... hey, if you need an "outside independent study" done.... we've GOT YOUR BACK... wink;)wink;)
what it is....
is FURTHER embarrassment for a pansy filled institution in DIRE NEED of NO FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT.
isn't being a NATIONAL LAUGHINGSTOCK for FIVE LONG YEARS enough?!?!?!?!?!?!
unc70 Apr 12, 2:59 a.m.
Do you honestly believe these experts would put at risk their reputations and standing among their peers by doing anything less than their best unbiased work because of who was paying them? Would you? For a mere $5,000? Really? Their work faces the ultimate peer review, with three separate analyses of the same data under scrutiny in a highly visible environment.
Have you no experience in the academic and research worlds? Do you believe it about the money for everyone, or just when it favors UNC? Do you general trust people and expect the best from them; or are you more among those my father meant when he cautioned to "Trust not those who trust not", or at least "Be slow to trust…"
Please sign in to post.
The Logan Zone
Tomorrow at 11:30 am on WRAL-TV
- NCAA FB
- NCAA BB
- NCAA FB2
— Fri 9:27 a.m.
— Fri 9:20 a.m.
— Fri 9:16 a.m.
— Fri 8:51 a.m.
— Fri 8:51 a.m.
— Fri 8:33 a.m.
— Fri 8:05 a.m.
— Fri 7:57 a.m.
— Fri 7:23 a.m.
— Fri 5:10 a.m.
— Fri 1:25 a.m.
— Fri 1:14 a.m.
— Fri 1:10 a.m.
— Fri 1:03 a.m.
— Fri 1:03 a.m.
— Fri 12:58 a.m.
— Fri 12:19 a.m.
— Fri 12:03 a.m.