As most know, as of latest tally, some 84 faculty and staff left the private school after it had a change of leadership and increased its religious fervor. No school report on how many of the lost support staff have been replaced but being private Shorter has no obligation to tell anybody anything, including former graduates. All that is known for sure is that anyone hired has apparently promised, in writing, never to have sex unless married, condone anything homosexual or be seen drinking alcohol in public lest they be fired on the spot. No word yet on whether or not the new teachers believe there were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark.
Shorter is free to teach and preach whatever it wishes although there plainly is a certain affront to its academically superior past and freedom of intellectual curiosity involved.
The really interesting numbers to learn will be whether this highly-publicized uproar will affect student enrollment — not counting online students and athletes attracted by the school’s lack of birth control in sports teams.
Division III includes a significant number of high-caliber academic institutions such as Emory University, Washington U. in St. Louis (WUSTL) and the University of Chicago (UC) just to name a few. WUSTL (enrollment of approx. 14,000 students) and UC (enrollment of approx. 15,000 students) will be joining the SAA in the near future, and will compete against Berry and other SAA members in football.
Berry will primarily compete with other Division III schools and on occasion with Division II and Division I schools. A main focus at present is to work with their fellow SAA members to more fully develop operations of the newly minted conference.
Shorter is now in Division II (Gulf South Conference - includes West Georgia and Valdosta State) which is an athletic scholarship granting division of the NCAA.
Both schools game schedules are largely governed by their respective NCAA divisions and conferences with some latitude for non-conference games.
While Berry and Shorter have competed well against larger state & private colleges and universities, sizing up Berry and Shorter with Division I schools like UGA, GA Tech and GA State who offer full athletic scholarships and do not require their athletes to meet the same academic standards as others in their student populations, is an extreme apples-and-oranges comparison by any standard. Objectively, this is not a very fair comparison to expect much smaller private schools to be on a level playing field with Division I schools that have student enrollments of 36,000 (UGA), 22,000 (GA Tech) and 32,000 (GA State).
UGA essentially functions like a professional football enterprise...huge stadium, plenty of revenue and a large fan base - many of whom have never attended the university; as well as historically low graduation rates for its athletes.
What's the difference in scholarships between Division I and Division II. Do they both give out the same number of scholarships and the same size scholarships?
Or is the difference in divisions based on something else (school size, athletic competitiveness, etc).
Also, there are some schools that are in some sort of subset of Division I (I-A, I-AA, I-B? I can't remember what the designation was). How are they different from the rest of Div I or from Div II?
Thanks.
PS Are you a Viking?
In August 1973, the current three-division setup of Division I, Division II, and Division III was adopted by the NCAA membership in a special convention. Under NCAA rules, Division I and Division II schools can offer scholarships to athletes for playing a sport. Division III schools may not offer any athletic scholarships.
Generally, larger schools compete in Division I and smaller schools in II and III. Division I football was further divided into I-A and I-AA in 1978. Subsequently the term "Division I-AAA" was briefly added to delineate Division I schools which do not field a football program at all, but that term is no longer officially used by the NCAA.
In 2006, Divisions I-A and I-AA were respectively renamed the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS).
Subdivisions in Division I exist only in football. In all other sports, all Division I conferences are equivalent. The subdivisions were recently given names to reflect the differing levels of football play in them. The method by which the NCAA determines whether a school is Bowl or Championship subdivision is first by attendance numbers and then by scholarships.
For attendance reporting methods, the NCAA allows schools to report either total tickets sold or the number of persons in attendance at the games. They require a minimum average of 15,000 people in attendance every other year. These numbers get posted to the NCAA statistics website for football each year. With the new rules starting in the 2006 season, the number of Bowl Subdivision schools could drop in the future if those schools are not able to pull in enough fans into the games. Additionally, 8 schools in the Championship subdivision had enough attendance to be moved up in 2005 (although they would need to either compete as independents or join a conference in order to do so).
Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), formerly known as Division I-A, is the top level of college football, which is currently the only NCAA-sponsored sport without an organized tournament to determine its champion. Schools in Division I FBS compete in post-season bowl games, with the champions of six conferences receiving automatic bids to the Bowl Championship Series to determine a national champion (as is the case this year w/Alabama & Notre Dame in the Bowl Championship Game). This is due to many factors, including that bowl games are sanctioned by the NCAA (primarily in terms of amateurism regulations and guaranteeing a minimum payout to conferences of the participating schools), but are not under its direct administration. Starting with the 2014 season, the BCS will undergo radical change, with a four-team playoff to determine a national champion.
The remaining five conferences, often referred to as "Mid-majors", do not receive automatic bids but their conference champions are eligible for an automatic bid if it ranks in the BCS top 12 or in the top 16 and ahead of the champion from a conference with an automatic bid. Only one "mid-major" champion can qualify for an automatic bid in any year. The one exception is Notre Dame, which only has to rank in the top eight of the BCS standings to earn an automatic bid to a BCS bowl game.
FBS schools are limited to a total of 85 football players receiving financial assistance. For competitive reasons, a student receiving partial scholarship counts fully against the total of 85. Nearly all FBS schools that are not on NCAA probation give 85 full scholarships.
As of 2012, there are 120 full members of Division I FBS.
Three schools recently announced future transitions to FBS:
Georgia State University began its FBS transition in 2012. The Panthers, currently full members of the CAA, started a football program in 2010. Like UMass in 2011, the 2012 Panthers played a full CAA schedule and were technically classified as CAA members. In July 2013, Georgia State will return to the Sun Belt Conference, which it had left in 1981, and will play a full conference schedule. Full FBS membership will follow in 2014.[37]
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte (Charlotte) will begin its FBS transition in 2013, the same year it starts its football program and rejoins C-USA. It will play as an FCS independent in 2013 and an FBS independent without bowl eligibility in 2014 before joining the C-USA football league in 2015.
Old Dominion University, another full member of the CAA, has announced its departure for C-USA, also effective in 2013. Unlike Georgia State, ODU will not begin its FBS transition until 2013; this means that the 2012 Monarchs will be full CAA members and eligible for the FCS playoffs. ODU will become a C-USA football member alongside Charlotte in 2015.
Another school, Georgia Southern University, has announced plans for an eventual upgrade to FBS. The school announced on September 28, 2012 that its students had approved increases in student fees to fund an expansion of its football stadium and an FBS upgrade. The fees must still be approved by the board of regents of the University System of Georgia. If approved by that body, the stadium fee will go into effect in 2013–14, and the FBS fee will take effect after GSU receives an invitation from an FBS conference.
Division II schools tend to be smaller public universities and many private institutions. Athletic scholarships are offered in most sponsored sports at most institutions, but with more stringent limits as to the numbers offered in any one sport than at the Division I level. For example, Division II schools may give financial aid in football equivalent to 36 full scholarships (whereas each school in Division I FBS, the highest level, is allowed 85 individuals receiving financial aid for football), although some Division II conferences limit the number of scholarships to a lower level. Division II scholarship programs are frequently the recipients of student-athletes transferring from Division I schools; a transfer student does not have to sit out a year before resuming sports participation as would be the case in the event of transferring from one Division I institution to another.
Division III (or DIII) consists of colleges and universities that choose not to offer athletically related financial aid (athletic scholarships) to their student-athletes and stress academics above athletics.
It was formed in 1973 in a split of the College Division, the former second-tier division of NCAA member schools. The former College Division members that chose to offer scholarships became Division II, while the non-scholarship members became Division III.
There are 449 member institutions (both full and provisional), making it the largest of the three divisions in the NCAA.
D-III schools range in size from fewer than 500 to over 20,000 students. D-III schools compete in athletics as a non-revenue-making, extracurricular activity for students; hence, they may not offer athletic scholarships, they may not redshirt freshmen,and they may not use endowments or funds whose primary purpose is to benefit their athletic programs.
Financial comparison:
Division III institutions do not have the same access to scholarship money when it comes to the recruiting process. Division III sports offer non-athletic financial aid packages rather than athletically based support. Division I sports teams are able to provide aid more directly through athletic based scholarships. Since there are fewer guidelines for athletic scholarships in Division III schools, these institutions have more choice in how they allocate their funds. Not only is there more financial support that is specifically given to Division I athletes, but Division I teams and facilities receive more funding from the NCAA. The NCAA puts substantially more money towards Division I programs than it does Division III. Sixty percent of all NCAA revenue is given directly to Division I institutions alone. From 2009–2010, 433 million dollars made up the NCAA's Division I expenses. Only about three percent of the NCAA’s spending goes towards Division III programs. The differences in financial support has been a major cause in further differences between both divisions.
MORE INFO YOU MAY FIND INTERESTING -
Athletic and academic comparison:
NCAA regulations in competition and time commitment have made Division III athletics seem less strenuous and binding when compared to Division I athletics. Each sport is subject to different regulations, but when comparing the same sports in Division I and Division III competition, there are many differences. For example, Division III baseball limits the number of games to 40 per season while Division I baseball sets the limit at 56 games per season. This has caused the general public to view Division III athletics as less competitive and focused. According to a 2008 NCAA survey, participants admitted devoting more time to athletics than they did towards academic responsibilities. This survey found that the average Division I athlete devotes 44.8 hours a week to athletic responsibilities in addition to the 40 hours a week that are set aside for academic life. This difference in time commitment can also be seen in the average number of classes missed. Twenty-one percent of Division I baseball players miss more than three classes per week compared to twelve percent of Division III baseball players. This pattern is similar in other sports as well according to the 2011 NCAA survey.
Effects on student athletes:
The differences in division requirements and financial regulation have led to some distinct differences in student life. Participation in school activities is more common in Division III athletes.[citation needed] Division III athletes are also known to put much more emphasis on their academic experience, including participation in on-campus research and extra-curricular activities. Not only is there more involvement, but Division III Athletes have proven to be more successful in time management when compared to non-athletes at the same institution. There are also differences in the student-athlete social experience. Division I athletes are more likely to have friends who are exclusively part of their respective team.
Shorter leaders say this partnership will also be a boon to local Chick-Fil-A eateries and sign makers countywide.
Negotiations have been delayed due to Phelps' daughter's requirement to alter the school's mascot.
"Imagine the intimidation felt by opponent schools when they look on their schedule and see 'Shorter Hate' coming up!", she says, "We could still use the eagle since that stuff's already paid for, and it does carry some of the irony our family loves."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-hateful-speech-on-hate-groups/2012/08/16/70a60ac6-e7e8-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html?hpid=z3
And Shorterprof, when and what did you teach at Shorter? You say that you were at the meetings and that you intentionally dumbed down the academics?" what kind of character would a professor have to have to agree to that? I doubt you have anything to do with Shorter.
I just want to be clear that I have nothing against Shorter -- I think it's good that the two institutions are moving in very different directions because more options are always better and the differences between the two institutions become clearer every year. This is healthy for both institutions, or at least it could be -- time will tell. All I know is that Berry has more incoming freshmen than it knows what to do with this year, and that's been the case for the last 3 years. I really do hope that Shorter faces the same kind of surplus (a good problem to have) once all the turmoil dies down.
Division III includes a significant number of high-caliber academic institutions such as Emory University, Washington U. in St. Louis (WUSTL) and the University of Chicago (UC) just to name a few. WUSTL (enrollment of approx. 14,000 students) and UC (enrollment of approx. 15,000 students) will be joining the SAA in the near future, and will compete against Berry and other SAA members in football.
Berry will primarily compete with other Division III schools and on occasion with Division II and Division I schools. A main focus at present is to work with their fellow SAA members to more fully develop operations of the newly minted conference.
Shorter is now in Division II (Gulf South Conference - includes West Georgia and Valdosta State) which is an athletic scholarship granting division of the NCAA.
Both schools' game schedules are largely governed by their respective NCAA divisions and conferences with some latitude for non-conference games.
While Berry and Shorter have competed well against larger state & private colleges and universities, sizing up Berry and Shorter with Division I schools like UGA, GA Tech and GA State who offer full athletic scholarships and do not require their athletes to meet the same academic standards as others in their student populations, is an extreme apples-and-oranges comparison by any standard. Objectively, this is not a very fair comparison to expect much smaller private schools to be on a level playing field with Division I schools that have student enrollments of 36,000 (UGA), 22,000 (GA Tech) and 32,000 (GA State).
UGA essentially functions like a professional football enterprise...huge stadium, plenty of revenue and a large fan base - many of whom have never attended the university; as well as historically low graduation rates for its athletes.
My continuing point is that beating up on a bunch of kids should be beneath all of us.
The second major hurdle occurred in the early 2000s. The strategy then was to expand the athletic programs in order to bring more students on to campus. It's a business model that basically says, give breaks on tuition so long as the students pay for rooms, meals, books, and assorted other fees. The school started athletic programs in everything in order to generate revenue. Nobody pays full tuition, but if you can collect partial tuition along with room fees, meals, and books, the school will come out ahead. Believe me, I sat in on the meetings when prospective students were looked at as dollar signs. We also considered the "friends and family" effect of accepting so many "athletes".
What's my point? The academic programs today pale in comparison to those as recently as 20 years ago. We intentionally dumbed down the academics (I was at the meetings)! It used to be that talented students in the arts were courted to sustain the academic reputation of the school. Today, anyone who wishes to participate in sports a half-step above high school can get a tuition scholarship so long as they pay full price for room, board, and books. It's a total scam. The school makes money on those who wish to keep playing games.
The Rome News Tribune is 100% accurate in their portrayal of the school. They couldn't be any more precise with the final sentence of this article. Read it again because it's true:
The really interesting numbers to learn will be whether this highly-publicized uproar will affect student enrollment — not counting online students and athletes attracted by the school’s lack of birth control in sports teams.
Imagine that this occurred: A school claimed to be based on a religion. The religion was founded upon one book. In that book, the figurehead of the religion turned water into wine, and drank wine in public. The school determined, from the foregoing facts, that it was improper to drink alcohol.
Most would think that is completely crazy, but people like Shorter and Josh Arnold think it is completely normal. It's the "We're insane and yet you CAN NOT question us" attitude that has led most normal people to find it unthinkable to leave their children alone with "religious leaders". These people are lacking in the sanity department.
Your exegetical skills aside, I might suggest that blanket statements like "this is why people hate religion and the religious" undermine and discredit your position, as well as alienate any audience who may consider themselves even mildly religious.
I certainly don't need persuasive writing lectures from Shorter faculty whose accomplishments consist of online degrees and a willingness to follow the Book of Dowless. I also have one of the worthless degrees you are peddling now. Luckily, I moved on and received a higher degree from a university of which I am not ashamed. That diploma hangs proudly on the wall, while the Shorter piece of paper does not.
Seems the worst thing someone can be these days is supportive of Shorter. No amount of evidence-based reasoning will suffice. Anything short of unequivocal condemnation of Shorter will simply be deemed intolerable and punished with insults and personal attacks, lest anyone else make the mistake of saying something positive about Shorter. Does that about sum it up?
I seem to remember seeing quite a few faculty, with less than 10 years service at Shorter, depart. Only a handful that were close to retirement, they certainly didn't account for the bulk of the 400 years. And yes, they were CLOSE to retirement, but probably weren't planning on it just yet.
And you didn't answer about enrollment numbers. Is there really a need for the new dorm now?
Drew's Mom - Why don't you ask Berry why they are afraid to play Shorter. Shorter has taken the high road on this one and has not made a big deal of it. Nonetheless, Berry notified Shorter this earlier this year that they did not want to play. Just ask the folks at Rotary who heard it from the horse's mouth.
I know our friend Bert Epting has himself a country club membership, compliments of Shorter, but of course they only drink water there. At least, that's what he's hoping. Gotta pass through the bar to get to just about anywhere there.
Otter/alum - playing the race card isn't attractive. No one has said a word about race in this whole debate.
I would suggest you look at the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics to understand the justifiable concern of academics on the effect of a sports-driven college to academic rankings and standards.
What are enrollment numbers looking like this semester Josh? Since you are so involved with the student populace.
Concerned alum, who wants Shorter COLLEGE back!
No doubt, there was significant talent in the pool of faculty who have departed and I certainly wish them the best (in all sincerity). I would submit to you, however, that nearly half of those years you have reported represent a relatively small number of faculty who were approaching retirement, with 35 years of teaching experience (in addition to the normal annual attrition).
I would be curious to know what is the average length of teaching experiences for newly hired, tenure-track associate professors nationwide, especially at comparable institutions...the information could shed some more perspective on this conversation.
As for you Shorterprof, I suspect we would be pretty good at hopscotch. I know this, we would beat the fool out of Berry!”
I wonder if the research team at SOS would be willing to examine how much teaching experience our departed faculty had at their time of hire, and how many started their careers at Shorter with "freshly minted" terminal degrees in hand (or earned their terminal degrees during their time at Shorter). Seems premature to criticize the fresh crop of hires without this information.
I agree that new academics need to start out somewhere. I have two concerns here, though: First, so many of these new hires do NOT have terminal degrees. Second, this very large cohort of new instructors has very little experience; in a normal situation, a few new hires come on board with an experienced faculty, who can serve as their mentors. With few mentorship opportunities and little institutional memory to draw upon, I worry about their ability to develop professionally.