Athletic Ivy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article shows percent international by sport. It’s quite shocking, tennis being the lead.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/demographics/2019RES_ISATrendsDivSprt.pdf

That’s how brutally hard it is for an American to get a scholarship in tennis plus there are only 4.5 for men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want a school filled with robotics team kids? Go to Caltech. That's the beauty of the marketplace.

Plenty of these athletic recruits and lots of other admits would get eaten alive at Caltech, MIT, etc. Unless you are a champion brainiac you will be crushed.

Nearly all Ivy students, athletes or not, could not hack it at MIT or CalTech. Those schools are for the truly brilliant, unlike the Ivies.

NP: Your understanding of “brilliance “ is truly limited. While I don’t doubt that there are lots of brilliant students at the Tech schools that you’ve singled out, there are also brilliant students in many schools and in many fields. You might not realize how many students turn down Tech schools because they want to stretch their brilliance in academic environments that can support their often wide-ranging academic and creative interests.

Okay. You can tell yourself that. The fact remains that while most MIT and CalTech students could excel at the Ivies, the reverse is not true.

Sure. So, support your assertion with some actual data.

I’m specifically interested in knowing how you’ll somehow prove that “most MIT and CalTech students will excel” with required course loads that include humanities, social sciences, and arts courses. Since you’re such a big supporter of Tech focused skills, let’s see your data. Guessing and your personal unsupported opinion really won’t cut it in science circles.
It may well be that when you’re dealing with students in the top cohorts that they’re “good enough” —even outside their areas of academic expertise — but since that’s the opposite of what you’ve argued for the Ivy students, some actual scientific data would be nice.
I know I’ve said that three times, but redundancy can be useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want a school filled with robotics team kids? Go to Caltech. That's the beauty of the marketplace.

Plenty of these athletic recruits and lots of other admits would get eaten alive at Caltech, MIT, etc. Unless you are a champion brainiac you will be crushed.

Nearly all Ivy students, athletes or not, could not hack it at MIT or CalTech. Those schools are for the truly brilliant, unlike the Ivies.

NP: Your understanding of “brilliance “ is truly limited. While I don’t doubt that there are lots of brilliant students at the Tech schools that you’ve singled out, there are also brilliant students in many schools and in many fields. You might not realize how many students turn down Tech schools because they want to stretch their brilliance in academic environments that can support their often wide-ranging academic and creative interests.

Okay. You can tell yourself that. The fact remains that while most MIT and CalTech students could excel at the Ivies, the reverse is not true.

Sure. So, support your assertion with some actual data.

I’m specifically interested in knowing how you’ll somehow prove that “most MIT and CalTech students will excel” with required course loads that include humanities, social sciences, and arts courses. Since you’re such a big supporter of Tech focused skills, let’s see your data. Guessing and your personal unsupported opinion really won’t cut it in science circles.
It may well be that when you’re dealing with students in the top cohorts that they’re “good enough” —even outside their areas of academic expertise — but since that’s the opposite of what you’ve argued for the Ivy students, some actual scientific data would be nice.
I know I’ve said that three times, but redundancy can be useful.

Touchy, touchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

+1

NP. I think there is one athlete-hater poster on DCUM who is obsessed beyond rationality with athletes. Their posts are exceptionally nasty and also they never listen to reason or evidence. It is rather sad.

Read the Harvard study. Oh wait every time that’s mentioned you get offended.

I’m not offended. I’ve read it and unlike you, I have the education to understand it. You are the one who seems to not understand reason or evidence, however. I sort of love how you keep talking about a study you clearly can’t understand. It’s like watching a toddler have a temper tantrum.

So explain this:

“An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.“

The explanation is the athletes are recruited. That means the coaches go out and find them. Then the admissions committee does a “pre read” to see if the athlete is qualified academically to be at Harvard. If not, they don’t apply. So what that number means is Harvard coaches have an 86% success rate at picking athletes who are qualified to be at Harvard.

This is a very important point that OP and her ilk are never going to acknowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

+1

NP. I think there is one athlete-hater poster on DCUM who is obsessed beyond rationality with athletes. Their posts are exceptionally nasty and also they never listen to reason or evidence. It is rather sad.

Read the Harvard study. Oh wait every time that’s mentioned you get offended.

I’m not offended. I’ve read it and unlike you, I have the education to understand it. You are the one who seems to not understand reason or evidence, however. I sort of love how you keep talking about a study you clearly can’t understand. It’s like watching a toddler have a temper tantrum.

So explain this:

“An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.“

The explanation is the athletes are recruited. That means the coaches go out and find them. Then the admissions committee does a “pre read” to see if the athlete is qualified academically to be at Harvard. If not, they don’t apply. So what that number means is Harvard coaches have an 86% success rate at picking athletes who are qualified to be at Harvard.

This is a very important point that OP and her ilk are never going to acknowledge.

And they lower their standards for those applicants. They get admitted with lower stats. That’s what you will never acknowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want a school filled with robotics team kids? Go to Caltech. That's the beauty of the marketplace.

Plenty of these athletic recruits and lots of other admits would get eaten alive at Caltech, MIT, etc. Unless you are a champion brainiac you will be crushed.

Nearly all Ivy students, athletes or not, could not hack it at MIT or CalTech. Those schools are for the truly brilliant, unlike the Ivies.

NP: Your understanding of “brilliance “ is truly limited. While I don’t doubt that there are lots of brilliant students at the Tech schools that you’ve singled out, there are also brilliant students in many schools and in many fields. You might not realize how many students turn down Tech schools because they want to stretch their brilliance in academic environments that can support their often wide-ranging academic and creative interests.

Okay. You can tell yourself that. The fact remains that while most MIT and CalTech students could excel at the Ivies, the reverse is not true.

Sure. So, support your assertion with some actual data.

I’m specifically interested in knowing how you’ll somehow prove that “most MIT and CalTech students will excel” with required course loads that include humanities, social sciences, and arts courses. Since you’re such a big supporter of Tech focused skills, let’s see your data. Guessing and your personal unsupported opinion really won’t cut it in science circles.
It may well be that when you’re dealing with students in the top cohorts that they’re “good enough” —even outside their areas of academic expertise — but since that’s the opposite of what you’ve argued for the Ivy students, some actual scientific data would be nice.
I know I’ve said that three times, but redundancy can be useful.

Touchy, touchy.

Nope: Picky, Picky, Picky though. And exacting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want a school filled with robotics team kids? Go to Caltech. That's the beauty of the marketplace.

Plenty of these athletic recruits and lots of other admits would get eaten alive at Caltech, MIT, etc. Unless you are a champion brainiac you will be crushed.

Nearly all Ivy students, athletes or not, could not hack it at MIT or CalTech. Those schools are for the truly brilliant, unlike the Ivies.

NP: Your understanding of “brilliance “ is truly limited. While I don’t doubt that there are lots of brilliant students at the Tech schools that you’ve singled out, there are also brilliant students in many schools and in many fields. You might not realize how many students turn down Tech schools because they want to stretch their brilliance in academic environments that can support their often wide-ranging academic and creative interests.

Okay. You can tell yourself that. The fact remains that while most MIT and CalTech students could excel at the Ivies, the reverse is not true.

Sure. So, support your assertion with some actual data.

I’m specifically interested in knowing how you’ll somehow prove that “most MIT and CalTech students will excel” with required course loads that include humanities, social sciences, and arts courses. Since you’re such a big supporter of Tech focused skills, let’s see your data. Guessing and your personal unsupported opinion really won’t cut it in science circles.
It may well be that when you’re dealing with students in the top cohorts that they’re “good enough” —even outside their areas of academic expertise — but since that’s the opposite of what you’ve argued for the Ivy students, some actual scientific data would be nice.
I know I’ve said that three times, but redundancy can be useful.

Touchy, touchy.

Nope: Picky, Picky, Picky though. And exacting.

Nah. You are just angry and defensive at a common-sense observation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article shows percent international by sport. It’s quite shocking, tennis being the lead.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/demographics/2019RES_ISATrendsDivSprt.pdf

That’s how brutally hard it is for an American to get a scholarship in tennis plus there are only 4.5 for men

4.5 scholarships per team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

+1

NP. I think there is one athlete-hater poster on DCUM who is obsessed beyond rationality with athletes. Their posts are exceptionally nasty and also they never listen to reason or evidence. It is rather sad.

Read the Harvard study. Oh wait every time that’s mentioned you get offended.

I’m not offended. I’ve read it and unlike you, I have the education to understand it. You are the one who seems to not understand reason or evidence, however. I sort of love how you keep talking about a study you clearly can’t understand. It’s like watching a toddler have a temper tantrum.

So explain this:

“An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.“

The explanation is the athletes are recruited. That means the coaches go out and find them. Then the admissions committee does a “pre read” to see if the athlete is qualified academically to be at Harvard. If not, they don’t apply. So what that number means is Harvard coaches have an 86% success rate at picking athletes who are qualified to be at Harvard.

This is a very important point that OP and her ilk are never going to acknowledge.

And they lower their standards for those applicants. They get admitted with lower stats. That’s what you will never acknowledge.

Everyone knows and acknowledges that the standards are lower for some athletes who end up at ivies. Everyone is aware that there is an index and a floor that is no more than one standard deviation lower than the student body as a whole. And everyone who actually knows what an index is understands that a lot of athletes score at or above the non-athlete population of admits.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone get that a top athlete is way more rare than some jackass who has a perfect unweighted GPA and 1570 SAT? Law of supply and demand

[Anonymous]

I know a football player who had offers to play from at least 3 Ivies, but he's probably a better student than he is a football player.

OP, maybe you should have invested in sports more rather than just SAT prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone get that a top athlete is way more rare than some jackass who has a perfect unweighted GPA and 1570 SAT? Law of supply and demand

Those types of rare athletes are not necessarily seeking Ivies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want a school filled with robotics team kids? Go to Caltech. That's the beauty of the marketplace.

Plenty of these athletic recruits and lots of other admits would get eaten alive at Caltech, MIT, etc. Unless you are a champion brainiac you will be crushed.

Nearly all Ivy students, athletes or not, could not hack it at MIT or CalTech. Those schools are for the truly brilliant, unlike the Ivies.

NP: Your understanding of “brilliance “ is truly limited. While I don’t doubt that there are lots of brilliant students at the Tech schools that you’ve singled out, there are also brilliant students in many schools and in many fields. You might not realize how many students turn down Tech schools because they want to stretch their brilliance in academic environments that can support their often wide-ranging academic and creative interests.

Okay. You can tell yourself that. The fact remains that while most MIT and CalTech students could excel at the Ivies, the reverse is not true.

Sure. So, support your assertion with some actual data.

I’m specifically interested in knowing how you’ll somehow prove that “most MIT and CalTech students will excel” with required course loads that include humanities, social sciences, and arts courses. Since you’re such a big supporter of Tech focused skills, let’s see your data. Guessing and your personal unsupported opinion really won’t cut it in science circles.
It may well be that when you’re dealing with students in the top cohorts that they’re “good enough” —even outside their areas of academic expertise — but since that’s the opposite of what you’ve argued for the Ivy students, some actual scientific data would be nice.
I know I’ve said that three times, but redundancy can be useful.

Touchy, touchy.

Nope: Picky, Picky, Picky though. And exacting.

Nah. You are just angry and defensive at a common-sense observation.

Lol hardly. Just trying to hold you to your own standards — even though it’s clear that they’re not based on personal experience with either type of school. Peace out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

+1

NP. I think there is one athlete-hater poster on DCUM who is obsessed beyond rationality with athletes. Their posts are exceptionally nasty and also they never listen to reason or evidence. It is rather sad.

Read the Harvard study. Oh wait every time that’s mentioned you get offended.

I’m not offended. I’ve read it and unlike you, I have the education to understand it. You are the one who seems to not understand reason or evidence, however. I sort of love how you keep talking about a study you clearly can’t understand. It’s like watching a toddler have a temper tantrum.

So explain this:

“An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.“

The explanation is the athletes are recruited. That means the coaches go out and find them. Then the admissions committee does a “pre read” to see if the athlete is qualified academically to be at Harvard. If not, they don’t apply. So what that number means is Harvard coaches have an 86% success rate at picking athletes who are qualified to be at Harvard.

This is a very important point that OP and her ilk are never going to acknowledge.

And they lower their standards for those applicants. They get admitted with lower stats. That’s what you will never acknowledge.

So what? Why can't they admit people with lower stats? If you don't like it, why are you trying so hard to send your kid to an Ivy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

+1

NP. I think there is one athlete-hater poster on DCUM who is obsessed beyond rationality with athletes. Their posts are exceptionally nasty and also they never listen to reason or evidence. It is rather sad.

Read the Harvard study. Oh wait every time that’s mentioned you get offended.

I’m not offended. I’ve read it and unlike you, I have the education to understand it. You are the one who seems to not understand reason or evidence, however. I sort of love how you keep talking about a study you clearly can’t understand. It’s like watching a toddler have a temper tantrum.

So explain this:

“An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.“

The explanation is the athletes are recruited. That means the coaches go out and find them. Then the admissions committee does a “pre read” to see if the athlete is qualified academically to be at Harvard. If not, they don’t apply. So what that number means is Harvard coaches have an 86% success rate at picking athletes who are qualified to be at Harvard.

This is a very important point that OP and her ilk are never going to acknowledge.

And they lower their standards for those applicants. They get admitted with lower stats. That’s what you will never acknowledge.

Not lower than the Ivy index.