Definitely Jeremy Lin... crazy 4.0+ GPA, high SAT's .. got into Harvard on academics alone since they dont give out athletic scholarships.. Also to the OP.. Shaq???? you serious?
while i may agree with you that physics may be harder but bad career move unless you went on to get your PhD. Engineering is a lot more practical and its easier to find a job
Adoo: cmlmel77 makes my point for me. My point was solely on academic rigor. There are some amazing people over there, it is very difficult to get into these programs and I'm sure the experience was worth the money. But it would be a waste for MBA programs to focus on academic rigor, since that stuff doesn't necessarily translate into success in the business world. The other stuff like leadership, communication, networking, negotiation, etc. is more relevant. I was over at GSAS on the other side of the river, where it is nothing if not rigorous. But given the fact that starting salaries for people from HBS are much higher after only 2 years grad school than our graduates, one could argue that the HBS guys are smarter than us. Plus they had a great cafeteria and gym.
Dikembe is very intelligent....Grant Hill was supposedly very accomplished in college. Patrick Patterson graduated in 3 years - no small feat for a student athlete. Battier is a smart guy. Okafor had a 3.8 GPA in college. Mark Madsen is a Stanford Grad. Roger Mason Jr has a degree in Architecture. ....but in general the bar is pretty low. If Kobe's SAT score is high for an NBA player, that doesn't speak well for the rest of the association and probably speaks to why so many of them are broke after retiring.
they don't get scholarships but they do get huge admission breaks. I go to a school with comparable admissions to harvard, and there are athletes with SAT scores that wouldn't get them into their local state school
I think that's a very fair way to put it. Most engineering students do have to put in more hours of work. Some physics majors do the same, being involved in independent research projects for instance, but that's not necessarily required to graduate.
I'm currently getting a PhD. Physics PhDs take a lot of work, but they do open the doors to certain high paying careers that you can't get into with just an engineering undergrad degree (e.g., quantitative finance).
Big deal. You know, the stupidest guy in my fraternity became an architect - after he flunked out of dental school!
i thinks he is referrring to executive MBA programs, where all the students are already employed as manager in industry. they're their to pick up leadership skills, communication, networking, etc.. no wonder GWB got his excecutive MBA from Harvard for the regular MBA programs, most of the students have undergrad from another discipline. they are to to learn new discipline at the grad school level. the academic is vigorous, 3 to 4 accounting courses crammed into one class, 2 stat classes crammed into one, 2 quant analysis cramm into one, 2 marketing classes crammed into one, 2 or 3 finance classes crammed into one. there are mid-term and final exams, grades are kept, progress is monitored. there have been many MBA candidates who have either flunked out or placed on academic probation.
Signs of Intelligence and BB Instincts glimmers in many players but none more than:- Battier, Kobe,Yao, Pau, Nash,Majic Johnson, Tom Sanders etc
Where I did my undergrad, there were three levels of physics: physics for pre-meds, physics for engineers, and physics for physics majors. The pre-med version was basically AP physics. The engineering and physics tracks were roughly comparable for first year courses (classical mechanics, E&M). But starting in the second year, the engineers learned more about how to apply concepts based on classical mech & E&M, while physicists had to go deeper and wider. As I recall, the engineers didn't have to use a Hamiltonian, but that was foundational for physicists. On the other hand, physicists only knew the basics of circuit design. But it was the pure math majors that had to start from first principles and prove the tools that physics majors had to use. Like I said, there are different types of intelligence so it's hard to really compare at some point. And I'm pretty sure that people who are good at these subjects probably don't have the basketball iq of 99% of the nba. For the purposes of speculating on the relative academic intelligence of NBA players, I'd say Danny Granger is pretty impressive too, having graduated as a major in civil engineering while playing D1 basketball.
Wow I didn't know there are so many academically smart NBA players! Just how smart is Shane Battier? Valedictorian? I didn't know that! I put Shaq on my list because to me, anyone who pursues a Ph.D. in anything is smart. Compared to most guys in the league, that is very impressive.
Reporter: "Did you get to visit the Parthenon on your trip to Greece" Shaq: "I can't really remember the names of the clubs we went to" Definitely not one of the brightest.
source for Lin? For people saying a 1080 for Kobe is bad, he is a basketball player, among NBA players he would probably be in the 95th percentile, at least. I believe he could have gone to Duke, Duke has more rigorous academic requirements than other college basketball programs.
David Robinson scores a 1320 on the SAT, attended the Naval Academy and majored in math. That is very impressive to me. Adonal Foyle graduated magna c*m laude with a degree in history from Colgate and is a political activist and poet in his spare time.
