Hating donut hole life: athletic recruiting version

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges shouldn’t be giving athletes special treatment and easy admissions.

Sports should be treated as a valued extra-curricular that factors into the admissions equation, but in recent years this has become dramatically over-weighted. Coaches should have little to no say in the process. However, they have increased their involvement dramatically, which is understandable from their perspective because their livelihood depends on it. As much as some of these schools are playing at a seemingly very low level, if a coach has an awful record for several years in a row, they are likely to lose their job - if Bates volleyball or Skidmore softball win one game a year for 3-4 straight years, those coaches are likely done. So it is in their best interest to influence who gets in so they can have the best team possible.

Interesting choice of schools, the Bates Volleyball coach was fired at the end of last year. It isn't the same for every conference but many of the high academic conferences (Ivy, Patriot, NESCAC) have strict rules in place regarding recruiting. These rules limit the number of recruits along with enforcing academic requirements as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really hard to feel sorry for people when the athletic hook doesn’t work for them.

It’s not hard if you’re not an ahole because you know how much work the kid put into it.

Our kids who study hard, act in plays, win speech & debate competitions, tutor peers, and write for the paper also are kids who put a lot a lot of work in. they just don't feel as entitled to gain admission with lower academic standards!

why should students whose EC is sports gain admission with lower academic standards to play sports that don't bring any benefit to the school's other students? who watches cross-country, volleyball, squash, etc.?

at least diversity helps everyone by not having people in bubbles.

As a parent of a D1 athlete and another who was heavily involved in school ECs, there’s no comparison. The D1 athlete’s commitment was exponentially higher, and the non-athlete child would agree. The pressure she was under to perform at her sport and to peak at exactly the right time in state and national level competition was nothing like writing for the school paper.

I’m extremely proud of both of them, but the fact that the athlete’s grades lagged in comparison to the EC kid is completely justified considering the level of commitment. And it made sense to me that the athlete ended up at an Ivy with slightly lower grades and considerably lower test scores, whereas the other student with the 1500 SAT did not.

That is so wrong. So wrong. It's sad that you, a reasonably intelligent adult, would think like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really hard to feel sorry for people when the athletic hook doesn’t work for them.

It’s not hard if you’re not an ahole because you know how much work the kid put into it.

Our kids who study hard, act in plays, win speech & debate competitions, tutor peers, and write for the paper also are kids who put a lot a lot of work in. they just don't feel as entitled to gain admission with lower academic standards!

why should students whose EC is sports gain admission with lower academic standards to play sports that don't bring any benefit to the school's other students? who watches cross-country, volleyball, squash, etc.?

at least diversity helps everyone by not having people in bubbles.

As a parent of a D1 athlete and another who was heavily involved in school ECs, there’s no comparison. The D1 athlete’s commitment was exponentially higher, and the non-athlete child would agree. The pressure she was under to perform at her sport and to peak at exactly the right time in state and national level competition was nothing like writing for the school paper.

I’m extremely proud of both of them, but the fact that the athlete’s grades lagged in comparison to the EC kid is completely justified considering the level of commitment. And it made sense to me that the athlete ended up at an Ivy with slightly lower grades and considerably lower test scores, whereas the other student with the 1500 SAT did not.

So the academic standards were lower for the athlete? That’s a hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really hard to feel sorry for people when the athletic hook doesn’t work for them.

It’s not hard if you’re not an ahole because you know how much work the kid put into it.

Our kids who study hard, act in plays, win speech & debate competitions, tutor peers, and write for the paper also are kids who put a lot a lot of work in. they just don't feel as entitled to gain admission with lower academic standards!

why should students whose EC is sports gain admission with lower academic standards to play sports that don't bring any benefit to the school's other students? who watches cross-country, volleyball, squash, etc.?

at least diversity helps everyone by not having people in bubbles.

Because sports are institutional priorities at many schools, particularly old private schools. And, these schools have every right to their priorities. Nobody complains about athletes at Towson because people don't care about athletes and athletics except when they consume seats at a school they covet. Seems like simple envy and jealousy to me.

[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:DD is at an Ivy playing her sport. She got zero financial aid. She's now a sophomore and has been a really hard road. She doesn't get much playing time and doesn't get along with her teammates very much. The students at the school are a little weird because they are so so smart and she still working on making friends. The grass is not always greener. In hindsight, I would have encouraged her skip to D1 and just go in-state as a regular applicant.

this is the problem when Ivies and other top schools relax the academic standards too much for athletes. Then if the kid doesn’t continue with the sport then they also don’t really fit in/match the level of the rest of the kids who got in on academic merit. This was my experience at one of the Ivies.

Yes yes yes. Even when they continue it is a problem. The ivy kids who are recruited athletes are more commonly than not weaker students, sometimes signifciantly. They struggle to just be average in difficult "curved to the mean" classes paths such as physics, calc, econ, engineering. Most do not attempt such classes or if they do they switch out. To be fair, for the non-athletes it is nice to have a guaranteed group who cannot compete well, and you can beat. I realize that sounds harsh but with grades on curves it matters and the non-athletes/non-weaker other hooks are happy to have whatever advantage they can.

Easily 50% of all athletes…and more like 75% for sports like fencing or squash…have stats that are at the 50%ile+ for the Ivy school. They have to for the academic indexes to balance out.

I don’t disagree they aren’t recruiting athletes with lower stats…but you are implying a much larger %age than is actual.

As do most rejected applicants.

We get that…but PP implied most athletes are weaker students which isn’t true.

You don’t get the point: the rejected pile (where most of these athletes would have been) does indeed consist of weaker students.

No…they wouldn’t. If most of the athletes have stats equivalent to 50% of all the non-athlete existing students…why would they be rejected?

Huh? If the athletes were not athletes, they would join the non-athlete rejected applicants (who you already agreed had similar stats to the athletes) in……..(wait for it)….the rejection pile.

wtf are you talking about? Some of the athletes would get rejected and some accepted…just like the other students.

If there was no athletic recruiting then these kids would have done other things than devote so many hours to just their sport.

So they are doing it just to get recruited?

Most enjoy their sport and realize they are strong enough for recruitment that gives them additional motivation. Many kids are aiming for the top schools and play whatever angle can work best for them whether that’s sports or winning musical competitions or whatever.

Not really hard to understand this.

The PP said if there was no recruiting, athletes would drop the sport and do something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really hard to feel sorry for people when the athletic hook doesn’t work for them.

It’s not hard if you’re not an ahole because you know how much work the kid put into it.

Our kids who study hard, act in plays, win speech & debate competitions, tutor peers, and write for the paper also are kids who put a lot a lot of work in. they just don't feel as entitled to gain admission with lower academic standards!

why should students whose EC is sports gain admission with lower academic standards to play sports that don't bring any benefit to the school's other students? who watches cross-country, volleyball, squash, etc.?

at least diversity helps everyone by not having people in bubbles.

CMU theatre kids don’t need test scores or grades anywhere approaching the non-theatre students. This is true of other schools with strong arts programs.

Do they get pre reads? I didn’t think so.

I am sure that they do. They are called auditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges shouldn’t be giving athletes special treatment and easy admissions.

Sports should be treated as a valued extra-curricular that factors into the admissions equation, but in recent years this has become dramatically over-weighted. Coaches should have little to no say in the process. However, they have increased their involvement dramatically, which is understandable from their perspective because their livelihood depends on it. As much as some of these schools are playing at a seemingly very low level, if a coach has an awful record for several years in a row, they are likely to lose their job - if Bates volleyball or Skidmore softball win one game a year for 3-4 straight years, those coaches are likely done. So it is in their best interest to influence who gets in so they can have the best team possible.

Interesting choice of schools, the Bates Volleyball coach was fired at the end of last year. It isn't the same for every conference but many of the high academic conferences (Ivy, Patriot, NESCAC) have strict rules in place regarding recruiting. These rules limit the number of recruits along with enforcing academic requirements as well.

LOL. I swear that was a totally random choice. I looked to see if Bates had a volleyball team but did not check to see anything about it. I just chose a non-rev sport.

Being a coach at these schools is really tough. I do not envy them. There is the pressure to perform but a lot of limitations in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD is at an Ivy playing her sport. She got zero financial aid. She's now a sophomore and has been a really hard road. She doesn't get much playing time and doesn't get along with her teammates very much. The students at the school are a little weird because they are so so smart and she still working on making friends. The grass is not always greener. In hindsight, I would have encouraged her skip to D1 and just go in-state as a regular applicant.

this is the problem when Ivies and other top schools relax the academic standards too much for athletes. Then if the kid doesn’t continue with the sport then they also don’t really fit in/match the level of the rest of the kids who got in on academic merit. This was my experience at one of the Ivies.

Yes yes yes. Even when they continue it is a problem. The ivy kids who are recruited athletes are more commonly than not weaker students, sometimes signifciantly. They struggle to just be average in difficult "curved to the mean" classes paths such as physics, calc, econ, engineering. Most do not attempt such classes or if they do they switch out. To be fair, for the non-athletes it is nice to have a guaranteed group who cannot compete well, and you can beat. I realize that sounds harsh but with grades on curves it matters and the non-athletes/non-weaker other hooks are happy to have whatever advantage they can.

This is utter nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really hard to feel sorry for people when the athletic hook doesn’t work for them.

It’s not hard if you’re not an ahole because you know how much work the kid put into it.

Our kids who study hard, act in plays, win speech & debate competitions, tutor peers, and write for the paper also are kids who put a lot a lot of work in. they just don't feel as entitled to gain admission with lower academic standards!

why should students whose EC is sports gain admission with lower academic standards to play sports that don't bring any benefit to the school's other students? who watches cross-country, volleyball, squash, etc.?

at least diversity helps everyone by not having people in bubbles.

Because sports are institutional priorities at many schools, particularly old private schools. And, these schools have every right to their priorities. Nobody complains about athletes at Towson because people don't care about athletes and athletics except when they consume seats at a school they covet. Seems like simple envy and jealousy to me.

It’s a hook, an unearned advantage that gets a student a special admissions process they otherwise wouldn’t have gotten.

It’s part of American athlete worship culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really hard to feel sorry for people when the athletic hook doesn’t work for them.

It’s not hard if you’re not an ahole because you know how much work the kid put into it.

Our kids who study hard, act in plays, win speech & debate competitions, tutor peers, and write for the paper also are kids who put a lot a lot of work in. they just don't feel as entitled to gain admission with lower academic standards!

why should students whose EC is sports gain admission with lower academic standards to play sports that don't bring any benefit to the school's other students? who watches cross-country, volleyball, squash, etc.?

at least diversity helps everyone by not having people in bubbles.

As a parent of a D1 athlete and another who was heavily involved in school ECs, there’s no comparison. The D1 athlete’s commitment was exponentially higher, and the non-athlete child would agree. The pressure she was under to perform at her sport and to peak at exactly the right time in state and national level competition was nothing like writing for the school paper.

I’m extremely proud of both of them, but the fact that the athlete’s grades lagged in comparison to the EC kid is completely justified considering the level of commitment. And it made sense to me that the athlete ended up at an Ivy with slightly lower grades and considerably lower test scores, whereas the other student with the 1500 SAT did not.

That is so wrong. So wrong. It's sad that you, a reasonably intelligent adult, would think like this.

Being one of the best athletes in your sport ever in your 100 year old HS, and one of the top 75 athletes in your sport in the country (among thousands of participants) in your graduation year AND finishing in the top 5 percent of your class at the same time is more impressive than finishing in the top 2 percent and writing for the school paper. I witnessed the determination that both took, and it just is. No one could ever convince me otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another thread on this

if a kid has an offer to Amherst or Williams, and $20k-$25k off a top Patriot league school - every kid should choose amherst or williams. You will make up that discount within your first 3 years out of school

Like said earlier in this thread, yes Amherst and Williams from nescac are worth full pay - hard stop after that

the on campus recruiting alone is worth the price of admission to these 2 schools - it’s incredibly impressive

good luck getting recruited to each of these - they 100% compete with lower ivy in many sports. Not uncommon for both win the x admit battle with Cornell or Penn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really hard to feel sorry for people when the athletic hook doesn’t work for them.

It’s not hard if you’re not an ahole because you know how much work the kid put into it.

Our kids who study hard, act in plays, win speech & debate competitions, tutor peers, and write for the paper also are kids who put a lot a lot of work in. they just don't feel as entitled to gain admission with lower academic standards!

why should students whose EC is sports gain admission with lower academic standards to play sports that don't bring any benefit to the school's other students? who watches cross-country, volleyball, squash, etc.?

at least diversity helps everyone by not having people in bubbles.

CMU theatre kids don’t need test scores or grades anywhere approaching the non-theatre students. This is true of other schools with strong arts programs.

Do they get pre reads? I didn’t think so.

I am sure that they do. They are called auditions.

Sure, they audition for the music program. They audition for their field of study. To be admitted to that program. They don’t audition as part of a special admissions process just for their particular extracurricular activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another thread on this

if a kid has an offer to Amherst or Williams, and $20k-$25k off a top Patriot league school - every kid should choose amherst or williams. You will make up that discount within your first 3 years out of school

Like said earlier in this thread, yes Amherst and Williams from nescac are worth full pay - hard stop after that

Bowdoin, Middlebury, Hamilton are NESCAC schools worth the squeeze, especially Bowdoin and Middlebury if IB or or Consulting is a goal. Swat, CMC, Pomona are also definitely worth it thought not NESCAC.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:DD is at an Ivy playing her sport. She got zero financial aid. She's now a sophomore and has been a really hard road. She doesn't get much playing time and doesn't get along with her teammates very much. The students at the school are a little weird because they are so so smart and she still working on making friends. The grass is not always greener. In hindsight, I would have encouraged her skip to D1 and just go in-state as a regular applicant.

this is the problem when Ivies and other top schools relax the academic standards too much for athletes. Then if the kid doesn’t continue with the sport then they also don’t really fit in/match the level of the rest of the kids who got in on academic merit. This was my experience at one of the Ivies.

Yes yes yes. Even when they continue it is a problem. The ivy kids who are recruited athletes are more commonly than not weaker students, sometimes signifciantly. They struggle to just be average in difficult "curved to the mean" classes paths such as physics, calc, econ, engineering. Most do not attempt such classes or if they do they switch out. To be fair, for the non-athletes it is nice to have a guaranteed group who cannot compete well, and you can beat. I realize that sounds harsh but with grades on curves it matters and the non-athletes/non-weaker other hooks are happy to have whatever advantage they can.

Easily 50% of all athletes…and more like 75% for sports like fencing or squash…have stats that are at the 50%ile+ for the Ivy school. They have to for the academic indexes to balance out.

I don’t disagree they aren’t recruiting athletes with lower stats…but you are implying a much larger %age than is actual.

As do most rejected applicants.

We get that…but PP implied most athletes are weaker students which isn’t true.

You don’t get the point: the rejected pile (where most of these athletes would have been) does indeed consist of weaker students.

No…they wouldn’t. If most of the athletes have stats equivalent to 50% of all the non-athlete existing students…why would they be rejected?

Huh? If the athletes were not athletes, they would join the non-athlete rejected applicants (who you already agreed had similar stats to the athletes) in……..(wait for it)….the rejection pile.

wtf are you talking about? Some of the athletes would get rejected and some accepted…just like the other students.

If there was no athletic recruiting then these kids would have done other things than devote so many hours to just their sport.

So they are doing it just to get recruited?

Most enjoy their sport and realize they are strong enough for recruitment that gives them additional motivation. Many kids are aiming for the top schools and play whatever angle can work best for them whether that’s sports or winning musical competitions or whatever.

Not really hard to understand this.

The PP said if there was no recruiting, athletes would drop the sport and do something else.

No…they wouldn’t devote as much time to it to allow for other things, but they would still play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really hard to feel sorry for people when the athletic hook doesn’t work for them.

It’s not hard if you’re not an ahole because you know how much work the kid put into it.

Our kids who study hard, act in plays, win speech & debate competitions, tutor peers, and write for the paper also are kids who put a lot a lot of work in. they just don't feel as entitled to gain admission with lower academic standards!

why should students whose EC is sports gain admission with lower academic standards to play sports that don't bring any benefit to the school's other students? who watches cross-country, volleyball, squash, etc.?

at least diversity helps everyone by not having people in bubbles.

As a parent of a D1 athlete and another who was heavily involved in school ECs, there’s no comparison. The D1 athlete’s commitment was exponentially higher, and the non-athlete child would agree. The pressure she was under to perform at her sport and to peak at exactly the right time in state and national level competition was nothing like writing for the school paper.

I’m extremely proud of both of them, but the fact that the athlete’s grades lagged in comparison to the EC kid is completely justified considering the level of commitment. And it made sense to me that the athlete ended up at an Ivy with slightly lower grades and considerably lower test scores, whereas the other student with the 1500 SAT did not.

So the academic standards were lower for the athlete? That’s a hook.

It is, and considering the athlete’s accomplishments is justified. FWIW she will be graduating from her school with Latin honors.