Private Schools Value Top Athletes Most

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

“Recruited athlete”? What does that mean? My kid met the coach and then went to the school and decided to keep playing her sport, which she played at a national level and they had a spot in her position. Was she recruited? She didn’t get anything, but time with three programs in order to decide which to go with. She also spent time on her own understanding her department, major and career services of what she is interested in.

Have worked now for 25 years and met, hired and mentored many people in my field. If I want something done on time, correctly, a d someone that responds well to feedback (ie thanks coach, will fix that up), I’d absolutely go with a smart former athlete. So many sports for so many different types of people!
Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

data from the lawsuit, analyzed here:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

The best line from the paper:

"To make this more precise, consider a white, non-ALDC applicant who has only a 1% chance of admission. If this applicant were treated as a recruited athlete, the admission probability would increase to 98%. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants. A similar calculation, but in reverse, emphasizes the advantage athletes receive. 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."

Most kids have a round a 1% chance. That's what happens when tens of thousands of students, thousands of whom have academic records that are virtually indistinguishable, apply to one school.

you understand the difference between 0.1 and 1%? These academic records are not 'virtually indistinguishable' - that's the fallacy. They are distinguishable, but for athletes, they don't matter.

You're assuming that anyone other than the plaintiff's expert thinks there is a difference between Kid A with a 1500 and a 3.87 UW GPA and Kid B with a 1550 and a 3.95. All of those schools are very open that there is a baseline and then they fill out classes.

again with the fake comparisons. you make stuff up in a pathetic attempt to make the difference seem small.

the numbers, the real numbers from the lawsuit, don't lie. it's harvard's own academic ranking.

And they disregard it because there is no data to suggest that the kids they pass over for the lax players will be any more successful as graduates or any larger donors down the road. The evidence actually suggests that the athlete is the better bet.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter if the child plays for the HS or if they are on a club team not affiliated with the HS?

you kinda want kids playing for the schools

I wish the US would adopt a European approach to scholastic sports. Schools should have nada to do with it, it just detracts from their missions. Leave the sports to clubs.

What is the European approach? I agree it needs to change.

What I just described. The schools don’t sponsor athletics. Kids can, should and do play sports, but all the leagues are run independently of schools.

The problem with this is its the selective colleges that go after athletes too. The privates are just trying to recruit the kids who can get accepted into them. Have to change sports at the college level and that ain't happening.

For good reason.
Study: College Athletes Have Better Academic, Life Outcomes

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/24/gallup-study-shows-positive-life-outcomes-college-athletes

I’m not saying don’t play sports. On the contrary, actually. It just shouldn’t be the schools sponsoring the teams. It’s the athletic kids and their parents who favor HS and colleges continuing to sponsor sports because it gives them a hook.

Do you understand how ingrained Friday night lights is in American culture? Didn't you ever pack a gym to cheer for your high school basketball team?

Maybe for large public schools. Most elite privates certainly at the middle school level (since you are talking about admissions) do not have enough students to field the teams at that level - sports are for fun, not particularly to help with admissions to high schools and our school sends kids to the top NE boarding schools. Our school discourages playing on travel teams and wants kids to play on the schools teams.

My kid goes to an all boys’ private middle school (not DMV) where sports is everyday and mandatory and the main sport they recruit for is ice hockey and even that takes second place after academics. The teachers at the school also coach sports and many of them played sports in college like football at Amherst, squash at Yale, etc not exactly Friday night lights.

Which is precisely why high schools have to be selective and recruit in order to field teams

Lol! The sports teams are mandatory and for fun. If they can play, they are in. The level of selectivity is not high at all. Also, it’s middle school and many kids get introduced to sports they have never tried before and their skill level is beginner. Athletics is not high on the admissions criteria except for hockey.

My kid is one of the top players in the area in a valued sport and got waitlisted at a big 3z

How was their academics? Grades and test scores?

One B all the rest A’s on reprogram card first two quarters. Level 4 AAP and 86th percentile on ISEE.

No college gives an F about your ISEE or SSAT score.

Who said anyone did? The PP was answering a question. What is your problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCS sends their top 10% to the ivies or similar.

I thought it was usually higher than 10 percent at NCS (and STA too).

No. They don’t. The only schools that consistently send the top 20% to ivies or similar in this area are the magnets like TJ and Blair. STA sends the top 10% as does GDS and Sidwell.

Other schools that send the top 20% year after year are some of the NYC private like Trinity, Horace Mann, Dalton etc and the top NE boarding schools; Exeter, Andover, Lawrenceville, Deerfield, etc

Also, most good publics also send the top 10% to Ivy or similar. W cluster, etc. if you look at college admissions, there is almost no difference between the average “good” public and private schools.

[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:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

“Recruited athlete”? What does that mean? My kid met the coach and then went to the school and decided to keep playing her sport, which she played at a national level and they had a spot in her position. Was she recruited? She didn’t get anything, but time with three programs in order to decide which to go with. She also spent time on her own understanding her department, major and career services of what she is interested in.

Have worked now for 25 years and met, hired and mentored many people in my field. If I want something done on time, correctly, a d someone that responds well to feedback (ie thanks coach, will fix that up), I’d absolutely go with a smart former athlete. So many sports for so many different types of people!
Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

data from the lawsuit, analyzed here:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

The best line from the paper:

"To make this more precise, consider a white, non-ALDC applicant who has only a 1% chance of admission. If this applicant were treated as a recruited athlete, the admission probability would increase to 98%. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants. A similar calculation, but in reverse, emphasizes the advantage athletes receive. 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."

Most kids have a round a 1% chance. That's what happens when tens of thousands of students, thousands of whom have academic records that are virtually indistinguishable, apply to one school.

you understand the difference between 0.1 and 1%? These academic records are not 'virtually indistinguishable' - that's the fallacy. They are distinguishable, but for athletes, they don't matter.

You're assuming that anyone other than the plaintiff's expert thinks there is a difference between Kid A with a 1500 and a 3.87 UW GPA and Kid B with a 1550 and a 3.95. All of those schools are very open that there is a baseline and then they fill out classes.

again with the fake comparisons. you make stuff up in a pathetic attempt to make the difference seem small.

the numbers, the real numbers from the lawsuit, don't lie. it's harvard's own academic ranking.

And they disregard it because there is no data to suggest that the kids they pass over for the lax players will be any more successful as graduates or any larger donors down the road. The evidence actually suggests that the athlete is the better bet.

no evidence on that point, but we agree that it's harvard's right (really any school's) to admit any student they want.

we should all just stop pretending that these students have the same academic records and are great athletes. They're great athletes with minimally acceptable academic records that would otherwise not get them a second look.

[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:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

“Recruited athlete”? What does that mean? My kid met the coach and then went to the school and decided to keep playing her sport, which she played at a national level and they had a spot in her position. Was she recruited? She didn’t get anything, but time with three programs in order to decide which to go with. She also spent time on her own understanding her department, major and career services of what she is interested in.

Have worked now for 25 years and met, hired and mentored many people in my field. If I want something done on time, correctly, a d someone that responds well to feedback (ie thanks coach, will fix that up), I’d absolutely go with a smart former athlete. So many sports for so many different types of people!
Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

data from the lawsuit, analyzed here:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

The best line from the paper:

"To make this more precise, consider a white, non-ALDC applicant who has only a 1% chance of admission. If this applicant were treated as a recruited athlete, the admission probability would increase to 98%. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants. A similar calculation, but in reverse, emphasizes the advantage athletes receive. 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."

Most kids have a round a 1% chance. That's what happens when tens of thousands of students, thousands of whom have academic records that are virtually indistinguishable, apply to one school.

you understand the difference between 0.1 and 1%? These academic records are not 'virtually indistinguishable' - that's the fallacy. They are distinguishable, but for athletes, they don't matter.

You're assuming that anyone other than the plaintiff's expert thinks there is a difference between Kid A with a 1500 and a 3.87 UW GPA and Kid B with a 1550 and a 3.95. All of those schools are very open that there is a baseline and then they fill out classes.

again with the fake comparisons. you make stuff up in a pathetic attempt to make the difference seem small.

the numbers, the real numbers from the lawsuit, don't lie. it's harvard's own academic ranking.

And they disregard it because there is no data to suggest that the kids they pass over for the lax players will be any more successful as graduates or any larger donors down the road. The evidence actually suggests that the athlete is the better bet.

no evidence on that point, but we agree that it's harvard's right (really any school's) to admit any student they want.

we should all just stop pretending that these students have the same academic records and are great athletes. They're great athletes with minimally acceptable academic records that would otherwise not get them a second look.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. The athletes I know who got into an Ivy or similar in recent years all had outstanding academics + being great at their sport.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter if the child plays for the HS or if they are on a club team not affiliated with the HS?

you kinda want kids playing for the schools

I wish the US would adopt a European approach to scholastic sports. Schools should have nada to do with it, it just detracts from their missions. Leave the sports to clubs.

What is the European approach? I agree it needs to change.

What I just described. The schools don’t sponsor athletics. Kids can, should and do play sports, but all the leagues are run independently of schools.

The problem with this is its the selective colleges that go after athletes too. The privates are just trying to recruit the kids who can get accepted into them. Have to change sports at the college level and that ain't happening.

For good reason.
Study: College Athletes Have Better Academic, Life Outcomes

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/24/gallup-study-shows-positive-life-outcomes-college-athletes

I’m not saying don’t play sports. On the contrary, actually. It just shouldn’t be the schools sponsoring the teams. It’s the athletic kids and their parents who favor HS and colleges continuing to sponsor sports because it gives them a hook.

Do you understand how ingrained Friday night lights is in American culture? Didn't you ever pack a gym to cheer for your high school basketball team?

Maybe for large public schools. Most elite privates certainly at the middle school level (since you are talking about admissions) do not have enough students to field the teams at that level - sports are for fun, not particularly to help with admissions to high schools and our school sends kids to the top NE boarding schools. Our school discourages playing on travel teams and wants kids to play on the schools teams.

My kid goes to an all boys’ private middle school (not DMV) where sports is everyday and mandatory and the main sport they recruit for is ice hockey and even that takes second place after academics. The teachers at the school also coach sports and many of them played sports in college like football at Amherst, squash at Yale, etc not exactly Friday night lights.

Which is precisely why high schools have to be selective and recruit in order to field teams

Lol! The sports teams are mandatory and for fun. If they can play, they are in. The level of selectivity is not high at all. Also, it’s middle school and many kids get introduced to sports they have never tried before and their skill level is beginner. Athletics is not high on the admissions criteria except for hockey.

My kid is one of the top players in the area in a valued sport and got waitlisted at a big 3z

How was their academics? Grades and test scores?

One B all the rest A’s on reprogram card first two quarters. Level 4 AAP and 86th percentile on ISEE.

No college gives an F about your ISEE or SSAT score.

Thought this was about private schools valuing athletics.

[Anonymous]

Can we keep this to local private school conversation and start another thread if anyone wants to talk about college/Ivy league schools.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

“Recruited athlete”? What does that mean? My kid met the coach and then went to the school and decided to keep playing her sport, which she played at a national level and they had a spot in her position. Was she recruited? She didn’t get anything, but time with three programs in order to decide which to go with. She also spent time on her own understanding her department, major and career services of what she is interested in.

Have worked now for 25 years and met, hired and mentored many people in my field. If I want something done on time, correctly, a d someone that responds well to feedback (ie thanks coach, will fix that up), I’d absolutely go with a smart former athlete. So many sports for so many different types of people!
Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

data from the lawsuit, analyzed here:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

The best line from the paper:

"To make this more precise, consider a white, non-ALDC applicant who has only a 1% chance of admission. If this applicant were treated as a recruited athlete, the admission probability would increase to 98%. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants. A similar calculation, but in reverse, emphasizes the advantage athletes receive. 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."

Most kids have a round a 1% chance. That's what happens when tens of thousands of students, thousands of whom have academic records that are virtually indistinguishable, apply to one school.

you understand the difference between 0.1 and 1%? These academic records are not 'virtually indistinguishable' - that's the fallacy. They are distinguishable, but for athletes, they don't matter.

You're assuming that anyone other than the plaintiff's expert thinks there is a difference between Kid A with a 1500 and a 3.87 UW GPA and Kid B with a 1550 and a 3.95. All of those schools are very open that there is a baseline and then they fill out classes.

again with the fake comparisons. you make stuff up in a pathetic attempt to make the difference seem small.

the numbers, the real numbers from the lawsuit, don't lie. it's harvard's own academic ranking.

And they disregard it because there is no data to suggest that the kids they pass over for the lax players will be any more successful as graduates or any larger donors down the road. The evidence actually suggests that the athlete is the better bet.

no evidence on that point, but we agree that it's harvard's right (really any school's) to admit any student they want.

we should all just stop pretending that these students have the same academic records and are great athletes. They're great athletes with minimally acceptable academic records that would otherwise not get them a second look.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. The athletes I know who got into an Ivy or similar in recent years all had outstanding academics + being great at their sport.

i'm not the one telling myself stories based on the people 'i know'.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter if the child plays for the HS or if they are on a club team not affiliated with the HS?

you kinda want kids playing for the schools

I wish the US would adopt a European approach to scholastic sports. Schools should have nada to do with it, it just detracts from their missions. Leave the sports to clubs.

What is the European approach? I agree it needs to change.

What I just described. The schools don’t sponsor athletics. Kids can, should and do play sports, but all the leagues are run independently of schools.

The problem with this is its the selective colleges that go after athletes too. The privates are just trying to recruit the kids who can get accepted into them. Have to change sports at the college level and that ain't happening.

For good reason.
Study: College Athletes Have Better Academic, Life Outcomes

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/24/gallup-study-shows-positive-life-outcomes-college-athletes

I’m not saying don’t play sports. On the contrary, actually. It just shouldn’t be the schools sponsoring the teams. It’s the athletic kids and their parents who favor HS and colleges continuing to sponsor sports because it gives them a hook.

Do you understand how ingrained Friday night lights is in American culture? Didn't you ever pack a gym to cheer for your high school basketball team?

Maybe for large public schools. Most elite privates certainly at the middle school level (since you are talking about admissions) do not have enough students to field the teams at that level - sports are for fun, not particularly to help with admissions to high schools and our school sends kids to the top NE boarding schools. Our school discourages playing on travel teams and wants kids to play on the schools teams.

My kid goes to an all boys’ private middle school (not DMV) where sports is everyday and mandatory and the main sport they recruit for is ice hockey and even that takes second place after academics. The teachers at the school also coach sports and many of them played sports in college like football at Amherst, squash at Yale, etc not exactly Friday night lights.

Which is precisely why high schools have to be selective and recruit in order to field teams

Lol! The sports teams are mandatory and for fun. If they can play, they are in. The level of selectivity is not high at all. Also, it’s middle school and many kids get introduced to sports they have never tried before and their skill level is beginner. Athletics is not high on the admissions criteria except for hockey.

My kid is one of the top players in the area in a valued sport and got waitlisted at a big 3z

How was their academics? Grades and test scores?

One B all the rest A’s on reprogram card first two quarters. Level 4 AAP and 86th percentile on ISEE.

This was for 9th? It could simply be that they have a lot of applications and in a normal year, your child would have gotten in. It sounds like the sport didn’t matter much despite the title of the thread. Also, if the ISEE was in the 90%+, may have made a difference. Write a letter to the school saying your child will definitely go if he gets off the waitlist.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

“Recruited athlete”? What does that mean? My kid met the coach and then went to the school and decided to keep playing her sport, which she played at a national level and they had a spot in her position. Was she recruited? She didn’t get anything, but time with three programs in order to decide which to go with. She also spent time on her own understanding her department, major and career services of what she is interested in.

Have worked now for 25 years and met, hired and mentored many people in my field. If I want something done on time, correctly, a d someone that responds well to feedback (ie thanks coach, will fix that up), I’d absolutely go with a smart former athlete. So many sports for so many different types of people!
Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

data from the lawsuit, analyzed here:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

The best line from the paper:

"To make this more precise, consider a white, non-ALDC applicant who has only a 1% chance of admission. If this applicant were treated as a recruited athlete, the admission probability would increase to 98%. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants. A similar calculation, but in reverse, emphasizes the advantage athletes receive. 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."

Most kids have a round a 1% chance. That's what happens when tens of thousands of students, thousands of whom have academic records that are virtually indistinguishable, apply to one school.

you understand the difference between 0.1 and 1%? These academic records are not 'virtually indistinguishable' - that's the fallacy. They are distinguishable, but for athletes, they don't matter.

You're assuming that anyone other than the plaintiff's expert thinks there is a difference between Kid A with a 1500 and a 3.87 UW GPA and Kid B with a 1550 and a 3.95. All of those schools are very open that there is a baseline and then they fill out classes.

again with the fake comparisons. you make stuff up in a pathetic attempt to make the difference seem small.

the numbers, the real numbers from the lawsuit, don't lie. it's harvard's own academic ranking.

And they disregard it because there is no data to suggest that the kids they pass over for the lax players will be any more successful as graduates or any larger donors down the road. The evidence actually suggests that the athlete is the better bet.

no evidence on that point, but we agree that it's harvard's right (really any school's) to admit any student they want.

we should all just stop pretending that these students have the same academic records and are great athletes. They're great athletes with minimally acceptable academic records that would otherwise not get them a second look.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. The athletes I know who got into an Ivy or similar in recent years all had outstanding academics + being great at their sport.

i'm not the one telling myself stories based on the people 'i know'.

Well, they were accepted

[Anonymous]

To the people who keep defending a world where HS and collegiate athletics take on outsized importance, try this thought experiment:

Imagine a world where colleges and HS did not field a basketball or hockey or football or LAX or swim team etc. *Of course* they could use the fact that so-and-so was an exceptional athlete in evaluating them as a candidate, just as they could use if someone was a chess grandmaster, or concert violinist, or quiz bowl champion. All of those activities, though valuable, are not the core of the mission of a HS or a university, which is to educate young minds. Are those things helpful to an education? Sure, but they can (and should) all be accomplished without school sponsorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the people who keep defending a world where HS and collegiate athletics take on outsized importance, try this thought experiment:

Imagine a world where colleges and HS did not field a basketball or hockey or football or LAX or swim team etc. *Of course* they could use the fact that so-and-so was an exceptional athlete in evaluating them as a candidate, just as they could use if someone was a chess grandmaster, or concert violinist, or quiz bowl champion. All of those activities, though valuable, are not the core of the mission of a HS or a university, which is to educate young minds. Are those things helpful to an education? Sure, but they can (and should) all be accomplished without school sponsorship.

Universities recruit internationally for all sorts of things not just athletics including chess grandmasters and concert violinists. So it depends on what the school is looking for. Stop blaming athletes for your kid not getting in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the people who keep defending a world where HS and collegiate athletics take on outsized importance, try this thought experiment:

Imagine a world where colleges and HS did not field a basketball or hockey or football or LAX or swim team etc. *Of course* they could use the fact that so-and-so was an exceptional athlete in evaluating them as a candidate, just as they could use if someone was a chess grandmaster, or concert violinist, or quiz bowl champion. All of those activities, though valuable, are not the core of the mission of a HS or a university, which is to educate young minds. Are those things helpful to an education? Sure, but they can (and should) all be accomplished without school sponsorship.

Read some mission statements, most are far broader than just academic education

"The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society."

"Yale is committed to improving the world today and for future generations through outstanding research and scholarship, education, preservation, and practice. Yale educates aspiring leaders worldwide who serve all sectors of society."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCS sends their top 10% to the ivies or similar.

I thought it was usually higher than 10 percent at NCS (and STA too).

No. They don’t. The only schools that consistently send the top 20% to ivies or similar in this area are the magnets like TJ and Blair. STA sends the top 10% as does GDS and Sidwell.

This thread suggests otherwise.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/645/933424.page

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter if the child plays for the HS or if they are on a club team not affiliated with the HS?

you kinda want kids playing for the schools

I wish the US would adopt a European approach to scholastic sports. Schools should have nada to do with it, it just detracts from their missions. Leave the sports to clubs.

What is the European approach? I agree it needs to change.

What I just described. The schools don’t sponsor athletics. Kids can, should and do play sports, but all the leagues are run independently of schools.

The problem with this is its the selective colleges that go after athletes too. The privates are just trying to recruit the kids who can get accepted into them. Have to change sports at the college level and that ain't happening.

For good reason.
Study: College Athletes Have Better Academic, Life Outcomes

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/24/gallup-study-shows-positive-life-outcomes-college-athletes

I’m not saying don’t play sports. On the contrary, actually. It just shouldn’t be the schools sponsoring the teams. It’s the athletic kids and their parents who favor HS and colleges continuing to sponsor sports because it gives them a hook.

Do you understand how ingrained Friday night lights is in American culture? Didn't you ever pack a gym to cheer for your high school basketball team?

Maybe for large public schools. Most elite privates certainly at the middle school level (since you are talking about admissions) do not have enough students to field the teams at that level - sports are for fun, not particularly to help with admissions to high schools and our school sends kids to the top NE boarding schools. Our school discourages playing on travel teams and wants kids to play on the schools teams.

My kid goes to an all boys’ private middle school (not DMV) where sports is everyday and mandatory and the main sport they recruit for is ice hockey and even that takes second place after academics. The teachers at the school also coach sports and many of them played sports in college like football at Amherst, squash at Yale, etc not exactly Friday night lights.

Which is precisely why high schools have to be selective and recruit in order to field teams

Lol! The sports teams are mandatory and for fun. If they can play, they are in. The level of selectivity is not high at all. Also, it’s middle school and many kids get introduced to sports they have never tried before and their skill level is beginner. Athletics is not high on the admissions criteria except for hockey.

My kid is one of the top players in the area in a valued sport and got waitlisted at a big 3z

How was their academics? Grades and test scores?

One B all the rest A’s on reprogram card first two quarters. Level 4 AAP and 86th percentile on ISEE.

This was for 9th? It could simply be that they have a lot of applications and in a normal year, your child would have gotten in. It sounds like the sport didn’t matter much despite the title of the thread. Also, if the ISEE was in the 90%+, may have made a difference. Write a letter to the school saying your child will definitely go if he gets off the waitlist.

No, for 7th.