Friend just announced her junior DD has committed to play lax at a top school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people are failing to understand...there are a lot of kids who have stellar grades and standardized test scores WHO ALSO play sports. When given the choice between two kids who have roughly the same academic credentials, the University is going to take the kid who can help staff a team.

There are really not that many circumstances where academics are totally bent to take a kid who would not otherwise gain admission.

+1

Sure, Allen Iverson totally would have been admitted to Georgetown had he just been in the regular admissions pile

Yet he brought more money into the university then 95% of the people who have ever attended it.

100%. Honestly, this whole 10 page convo is angry privileged white ladies who want their kids to have a bigger hook in the door that they built to keep others out. They're trying to peddle it as being 100% focused on academics but it's really about keeping who they deem to be subpar out of their institutions. The universities have decided that they value sports. They offer a small amount of scholarships and slots for athletes who meet their requirements. If your kids are able to compete in that world, have at it. IF not, go through the college admissions process just like everyone else. This is not hard.

Interesting take. I see this convo as privileged white parents who want keep this special "athletic door" open because it disproportionally benefits them. I believe that there have been studies done showing that athletics admissions don't benefit the poor, LMC student who might otherwise not be going to that college - it benefits UMC, mostly white, students who are mostly in sports that do not bring money to the university but still do recruiting -- ex. sailing, lacrosse. Their parents have the means to pour a lot of money into training and preparing their kids to do these sports, many with an eye toward college admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny how parents of athletes are twisting themselves into pretzels justifying this completely arbitrary advantage that athletes are given in the college admission process. Yes, your kid puts in long hours -- so do lot of other kids doing music, or theater, or science or dance at a high level. They don't get special admissions processes.

Yeah yeah, sports promotes community and school spirit. So do the performing arts. A tiny percentage of sports bring in money, most do not, yet they still get to recruit. You know that this glaring loophole in college admissions is the reason why the bribery scheme in the "Varsity Blues" case actually worked right? Take a picture of yourself on a rowing machine, call the kid a crew recruit -- voila, admission!

There are other unfairnesses in college admissions of course (legacies), but just because there are others doesn't mean that you can't acknowledge that this one is -- objectively -- unfair.

How many people attend a sporting event? Thousands? Tens of thousands? At OSU and Michigan, hundreds of thousands? How many will watch a play or a concert? A few hundred? It's reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. If your friend’s DD is academically qualified and someone who would be a good applicant at that school anyway, the school and student are making a good decision to lock in the relationship. Playing a sport at a level high enough to commit while maintaining grades, etc. deserves to be rewarded just as much as the kid who fiends 20 hours a week in the lab or practicing an instrument. Sports also enhance a school’s community and school spirit, so benefit all students.

Totaply agree! The athlete is providing more "value add" to the university.

Are they? I understand the argument for football and basketball, but once you start going down the list of sports do you even have fans? When you were in college, how many field hockey games did you attend? Did you go to any Tennis matches? Would who have cared at all if your school had a swimmer win an even at a division meet?

Most schools are in an athletic conference, so they need to field teams in various sports as part of their membership. So yes, the kids are value add.

ok. Does the average student care that their school went winless in the Patriot League in golf?

No, but they might care that their school got booted from the league for not fielding enough teams across enough sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people are failing to understand...there are a lot of kids who have stellar grades and standardized test scores WHO ALSO play sports. When given the choice between two kids who have roughly the same academic credentials, the University is going to take the kid who can help staff a team.

There are really not that many circumstances where academics are totally bent to take a kid who would not otherwise gain admission.

+1

Sure, Allen Iverson totally would have been admitted to Georgetown had he just been in the regular admissions pile

Yet he brought more money into the university then 95% of the people who have ever attended it.

Sure, just don’t pretend he wasn’t admitted for basketball

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people are failing to understand...there are a lot of kids who have stellar grades and standardized test scores WHO ALSO play sports. When given the choice between two kids who have roughly the same academic credentials, the University is going to take the kid who can help staff a team.

There are really not that many circumstances where academics are totally bent to take a kid who would not otherwise gain admission.

+1

Sure, Allen Iverson totally would have been admitted to Georgetown had he just been in the regular admissions pile

And you think Allen Iverson is the norm? Read my statement...there not that many circumstances...I didn't say none. But you know what, Iverson brought in MILLIONS of dollars to Georgetown. He achieved his goal and GU achieved their goal. None of that has ANY bearing in "taking" a spot from an applicant that year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When was the last time a bunch of people gathered around to watch someone in a lab? In a debate? They don't.

They pack stadiums to watch sports every weekend and it brings the school tons of money. Even small little academic schools in the northeast have nice sized crowds for their sporting events.

Sorry your kid wasn't able to manage getting great grades and participate in a sport. Most schools value that much more than a kid who gets good grades and is also in the science club.

When was the last time a stadium was packed to watch a college swim meet?

But because the stadium is packed each Saturday in the fall those swimmers get to swim and you clearly have never been to a big 10 swim meet.

Just look at those dozen spectators. That totally makes the cost of the program worthwhile

[img]
https://bigten.org/common/controls/image_handler.aspx?thumb_id=0&image_path=/images/2019/2/14/Central_Page_Graphic.jpg
[/img]

Iowa needs to field enough teams across bigten sports to be a member in good standing. they don't have lax or ice hockey, so they need swimming. So what? Do you honestly think the swimmers are not good enough students to attend iowa? Do you really think a swimmer at iowa is taking a spot from your kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny how parents of athletes are twisting themselves into pretzels justifying this completely arbitrary advantage that athletes are given in the college admission process. Yes, your kid puts in long hours -- so do lot of other kids doing music, or theater, or science or dance at a high level. They don't get special admissions processes.

Yeah yeah, sports promotes community and school spirit. So do the performing arts. A tiny percentage of sports bring in money, most do not, yet they still get to recruit. You know that this glaring loophole in college admissions is the reason why the bribery scheme in the "Varsity Blues" case actually worked right? Take a picture of yourself on a rowing machine, call the kid a crew recruit -- voila, admission!

There are other unfairnesses in college admissions of course (legacies), but just because there are others doesn't mean that you can't acknowledge that this one is -- objectively -- unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. First, I’m happy for them. The girl is very nice and her mom is an old friend.
Second, I don’t think it’s a scholarship, they definitely don’t need the money. I’m just annoyed that her DD is a year behind mine and won’t have to go through most of the college crap and stress mine is currently going through. We are deep in it right now. My DD doesn’t play sports but has other talents, none which get her recruited by colleges.
Third, she has worked hard as an athlete but she wouldn’t be in a position to be recruited if her parents didn’t have the time and money to pay for all teams and tournaments. Let’s face it, for many (I realize there are big exceptions) recruited athletes for sports like lax come from affluent families so the whole system leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I know this is nothing new. I went to HS with many children of billionaires, most of whom ended up at ivies despite not having the grades. Life is not fair, college admissions is not fair.
I was just venting because, again, I have a very stressed out out senior.

Mom of a non-sports kid (he did earlier, but gave it up for music!) but even with comparing hours to hours, athletes give up their physical bodies for the sport and can really be plagued with injuries, which just isn't the same risk as a musician or scientist. I get your frustration...it sounds easier. But as the spouse to a D3 sport, I know the toll any long-term sport takes on the body. You give up a lot. D1 would be unimaginable to me.

So yes, I see your frustration. Sports seem over the top. But I really enjoyed my college freshman's football game this weekend!

[Anonymous]

The anti-athlete posts always seem to boil down to “I’m obsessed with College X, and it upsets me that College X prefers students like your kid. I think they should value the same things I value and only seek out students like my kid. It’s so unfair! Let’s try to change College X so it is more like College Y, which quite properly is seeking kids like mine, but is of no interest to my kid.”

I do have some sympathy for OP’s take on the relative ease of the admissions process for recruited athletes. It was, in fact quite easy for us compared to the process for our kid with no hooks. Our athlete had a top choice school, and they wanted him, so one campus visit, one application, and got letter in August saying he was conditionally accepted and would be formally notified of his acceptance at the same time as RD students barring significant downward trend in grades or serious behavioral incident. Unlike a PP who posted their kid’s Ivy experience, I don’t think the admissions committee cared in the slightest that he only had one real EC. Many of our friends with seniors told us that they hated us multiple times during application season, and they were only kind of joking. We understood.

[Anonymous]

I understand the sentiment. Your kid works their butt off, crossing all the hurdles, checking all the boxes, but they aren't athletic enough even though they played that sport every year since they were four and tried really hard. So for that one reason that feels so unrelated to college, they don't get to go to the top academic schools, and the athlete in their class, who maybe isn't a top academic/maybe is, does. It is hard to make sense of it when you've done everything right academically, and you want to to there to study, but you just can't jump that high or hit someone hard enough to knock them down. Therefore, you have to study philosophy and neuroscience somewhere else. It is an awkward disconnect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The anti-athlete posts always seem to boil down to “I’m obsessed with College X, and it upsets me that College X prefers students like your kid. I think they should value the same things I value and only seek out students like my kid. It’s so unfair! Let’s try to change College X so it is more like College Y, which quite properly is seeking kids like mine, but is of no interest to my kid.”

I do have some sympathy for OP’s take on the relative ease of the admissions process for recruited athletes. It was, in fact quite easy for us compared to the process for our kid with no hooks. Our athlete had a top choice school, and they wanted him, so one campus visit, one application, and got letter in August saying he was conditionally accepted and would be formally notified of his acceptance at the same time as RD students barring significant downward trend in grades or serious behavioral incident. Unlike a PP who posted their kid’s Ivy experience, I don’t think the admissions committee cared in the slightest that he only had one real EC. Many of our friends with seniors told us that they hated us multiple times during application season, and they were only kind of joking. We understood.

They also fail to acknowledge that at rock bottom, attending a school is buying an education from the school, not lending your talents to the school. The application process obscures that (by design). The school isn't assembling a team of the most promising biochemists, they are selecting promising biochemists to buy their degrees. Athletes are mostly full freight, too, they just bring a skill the school is willing to barter an admissions slot for. The down side is the recruitment might come from a school the athlete wasn't considering otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When was the last time a bunch of people gathered around to watch someone in a lab? In a debate? They don't.

They pack stadiums to watch sports every weekend and it brings the school tons of money. Even small little academic schools in the northeast have nice sized crowds for their sporting events.

Sorry your kid wasn't able to manage getting great grades and participate in a sport. Most schools value that much more than a kid who gets good grades and is also in the science club.

How many people are at Brown girls lacrosse games? A couple dozen, tops? We're talking about UMC patrician sports, not top 25 D1 football and basketball the brutes play.

[Anonymous]

Yet I can still watch Brown play LAX on ESPN. So perhaps you are just wrong about the numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When was the last time a bunch of people gathered around to watch someone in a lab? In a debate? They don't.

They pack stadiums to watch sports every weekend and it brings the school tons of money. Even small little academic schools in the northeast have nice sized crowds for their sporting events.

Sorry your kid wasn't able to manage getting great grades and participate in a sport. Most schools value that much more than a kid who gets good grades and is also in the science club.

How many people are at Brown girls lacrosse games? A couple dozen, tops? We're talking about UMC patrician sports, not top 25 D1 football and basketball the brutes play.

The brutes? The elitism is just dripping from this PP. don’t feel for your or your kid one bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny how parents of athletes are twisting themselves into pretzels justifying this completely arbitrary advantage that athletes are given in the college admission process. Yes, your kid puts in long hours -- so do lot of other kids doing music, or theater, or science or dance at a high level. They don't get special admissions processes.

Yeah yeah, sports promotes community and school spirit. So do the performing arts. A tiny percentage of sports bring in money, most do not, yet they still get to recruit. You know that this glaring loophole in college admissions is the reason why the bribery scheme in the "Varsity Blues" case actually worked right? Take a picture of yourself on a rowing machine, call the kid a crew recruit -- voila, admission!

There are other unfairnesses in college admissions of course (legacies), but just because there are others doesn't mean that you can't acknowledge that this one is -- objectively -- unfair.

Totally agree. Parents seem completely oblivious to the water they’re swimming in. It is a bizarrely American thing to value the hard work put into athletics so much more than hard work in other areas. I’d take a kid who looked after his younger siblings after school every day over a kid who went to soccer practice every day because he wanted to win so badly.