"Not a Meritocracy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

Only in America.

Which is where all the non-Americans seem to flock for education.

And questioning the contribution of student athletes to the quality of our higher education is legitimate. You think athletics is important to higher education and others do not. Not giving so many sports to tennis players means more spots available to students with higher level academic interests.

American universities are so great that people want to come here for education, and then change everything that makes American universities stand out

it is not the college athletics that make US universities stand out.

Even in London, you're more likely to see a Notre Dame sweatshirt than a University of London shirt. American universities engender loyalty and pride in a way that schools in other countries don't and athletics are a big part of it.

[Anonymous]

The ugly side of a meritocracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-america-became-a-divided-nation-of-the-protected-and-the-unprotected/2018/06/22/4723ccb6-5dfc-11e8-9ee3-49d6d4814c4c_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top privates have always been about buying access and finding ways to make kids who were no more qualified than hundreds, if not thousands, of area public school kids look better on paper. Forgive me if I can’t work up a ton of sympathy for your belated recognition that others play the game better than you do.

Curious how they do this?

Feeder school to colleges like U Chicago that is willing to take a ton of kids (some with much lower stats than it would normally take from other schools).

[Anonymous]

Sports recruiting to college is what it is. It is an entrenched industry and hook. It makes no logical sense but such is life. You need to understand this game and play it the best you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

Only in America.

Which is where all the non-Americans seem to flock for education.

And questioning the contribution of student athletes to the quality of our higher education is legitimate. You think athletics is important to higher education and others do not. Not giving so many sports to tennis players means more spots available to students with higher level academic interests.

American universities are so great that people want to come here for education, and then change everything that makes American universities stand out

it is not the college athletics that make US universities stand out.

It is having a vibrant student body that makes colleges stand out. The highly rejective schools have branded themselves on this basis. Athletes are part of that. URMs are part of that. Robotics team kids are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privelege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Ugh - I think this is our school - I missed two online lunches this week due to work commitments. I'm disappointed to hear this was a narrative.

This school cares far too much for the rich and is shockingly disinterested in others. It amazed me how few of us feel that anything we'd have to say would matter to them.

Why would you expect a school that costs so much that only rich people can afford it to be interested in not-rich people?

This is like saying "Armani New York Fifth Avenue is shockingly disinterested in people who shop at Kohl's".

Because it’s a SCHOOL and I’d like their priority to be the well being of the students. But sadly, it’s really just their own profile they seem to care about. They want to be desired by all, especially the rich… for prestige but do little of substance for the HS kids.

It is an expensive private school for rich kids ffs, it is absurd to expect them to have an altruistic attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

Only in America.

Which is where all the non-Americans seem to flock for education.

And questioning the contribution of student athletes to the quality of our higher education is legitimate. You think athletics is important to higher education and others do not. Not giving so many sports to tennis players means more spots available to students with higher level academic interests.

American universities are so great that people want to come here for education, and then change everything that makes American universities stand out

it is not the college athletics that make US universities stand out.

It is having a vibrant student body that makes colleges stand out. The highly rejective schools have branded themselves on this basis. Athletes are part of that. URMs are part of that. Robotics team kids are not.

LOL. You have not met the lax bros at DC's school. Vibrant is not the word that pops to mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sports recruiting to college is what it is. It is an entrenched industry and hook. It makes no logical sense but such is life. You need to understand this game and play it the best you can.

It makes a lot of sense, just look at the rating Thursday

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is a meritocracy you just don’t like the measuring stick they use.

Everyone on DCUM who whines about legacies athletes and rich kids getting in “without merit” would never complain about URMs getting in without merit.

URM’s don’t get in without merit you just don’t like the measuring stick used.

They get in with less merit than ordinary applicants, just like athletes legacies and rich kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sports recruiting to college is what it is. It is an entrenched industry and hook. It makes no logical sense but such is life. You need to understand this game and play it the best you can.

But you could say the same about the standardized testing industry, right? And now test optional is working to upend that.

A school could say tomorrow "We are no longer giving preference to athletes in admissions" and not only would it not diminish the quality of their applicant pool, it could improve it by drawing attention from the many, many applicants who are not athletes and want a shot at admissions where their non-athletic extra-curriculars are given the same weight as athletics.

Sure, there are schools that couldn't do this because boosters who are obsessed with the school's football team (ahem*notre dame*ahem) would lose their minds. But there are plenty of schools where that's not true, and where the value of the school to students and alumni has jack squat to do with the athletics program.

And I'm not saying get rid of the athletic program. Athletics are great. I'm just saying there is absolutely room in the landscape for more schools to just eschew a heavy preference for athletics in admissions without negatively impacting the school at all. Some people care and derive a lot of pride out of seeing their school do well at athletics, but many of us just don't care. I personally went to a university that spent a ton of money on it's football program and it wasn't even good. Such a waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports recruiting to college is what it is. It is an entrenched industry and hook. It makes no logical sense but such is life. You need to understand this game and play it the best you can.

It makes a lot of sense, just look at the rating Thursday

That's "the game" PP is talking about. Just because success in athletics impacts public perception of colleges does not make this connection logical. If a school makes the tournament this year and gets a boost in applications next year as a result, would you say that's "logical". Or is it maybe weird that a school of higher education would gain popularity from an event that has literally nothing to do with education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

Only in America.

Which is where all the non-Americans seem to flock for education.

And questioning the contribution of student athletes to the quality of our higher education is legitimate. You think athletics is important to higher education and others do not. Not giving so many sports to tennis players means more spots available to students with higher level academic interests.

American universities are so great that people want to come here for education, and then change everything that makes American universities stand out

it is not the college athletics that make US universities stand out.

Even in London, you're more likely to see a Notre Dame sweatshirt than a University of London shirt. American universities engender loyalty and pride in a way that schools in other countries don't and athletics are a big part of it.

College is about higher education, though, not about sports. This is a uniquely American thing. The Brits love their football and are fiercely loyal to their football teams, but they can separate athletics from academics. We can't seem to do that here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privelege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Might be same school but last week the CCO at our school put it in writing that there is no competitive advantage in college admissions in attending the school. So you essentially pay a huge amount of money, get worse grades, and get no advantage now in the eye of colleges who used to at least recognize that the level of work done is high at these schools.

Can you post what the CCO wrote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The athletic hook is just an arbitrary preference. We live in a culture that values athletics, so we've decided an applicant with athletic ability who could compete on a college team is worth more than one with any other skill. If we lived in a country that really valued music or other performing arts, non-profit or advocacy work, then we'd see students with exceptional ability and records in these areas having an edge in college admissions and beyond. But we don't.

To be perfectly honest, beyond truly virtuosic athletic ability that would be thrilling to watch (which like 2% of college athletes have in a handful of sports that actually command a lot of interest), I don't view college athletes as contributing anything "extra" to society in a way that feels worth rewarding. Why would I care if people who are really good soccer players or fencers go to better colleges or get scholarships? I mean, good for them, but I view that as a purely personal pursuit that has next to no social value. I'd be more inclined to give admissions edges to very talented musicians or visual artists because I think the odds that they will contribute something to society that I might actual consume or benefit from are much higher. Same with someone with a demonstrated interest or ability in helping people in poverty or solving some of the social ills we are all impacted by. It just feels truly random that we've elevated student athletes in this way when there are many, many other things I value a lot more than skill and experience in athletics. And I'm a sports fan! But almost none of these kids aren't Serena Williams or Peyton Manning. In fact, Serena's a great example because outside of football, most high level professional sports to not draw on college athletes at all -- most people playing tennis on college teams were not good enough to compete professionally. And lacrosse or badminton or whatever (pretty much no one does except the kids who play these sports and their parents) and it's a mystery to me why skill in those sports would help you gain admittance to college.

Nobody cares about your arbitrary ideas of what has “social value” and what does not. Colleges think sports have social value. American society writ large thinks sports have more social value than classical music or fine arts.

The odds of a college athlete going on to do something that you will consume or benefit from is much, much higher than that of a college musician or artist doing so. And that’s keeping in mind the great probability that very few of them will do sports, music, or art after college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

Only in America.

Which is where all the non-Americans seem to flock for education.

because of research $$$ not because of athletics.

They come for the whole package. You don't get to pick and choose.

please.. most foreign students don't care about the athletics.