Athletic Ivy

[Anonymous]

Damn I mean why the vitriol . Most of the spots are taken by foreigners anyway with the exception of lax and the major sports

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

+1

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

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

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

So explain this:

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

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

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

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

Nonsense. The standard is “will this student be able to handle the work at Harvard?” and the athletes clearly satisfy that standard.

[Anonymous]

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

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

This. OP made the wrong choice and wants to blame everyone else.

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

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

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

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

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

+1

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

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

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

So explain this:

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

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

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

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

Nonsense. The standard is “will this student be able to handle the work at Harvard?” and the athletes clearly satisfy that standard.

Yep. This!

[Anonymous]

David Hogg scored 1270 and got accepted into Harvard and he wasn't an athlete. Anything is possible, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with athletics?

Athletics is fine. Is it more important than brain power and academic ability?

Yes, to some extent. Schools like Harvard, the other Ivies, Stanford, etc. have all decided that having a relatively balanced class is extremely important to their brand. Their business is producing leaders (in all walks of life) rather than just nerds (i.e. MIT and Caltech), and there's nothing wrong with that.

Anonymous wrote:"Among white students admitted to Harvard, 54% are athletes+legacy+dean's list+faculty/staff children (column 2). Just 10% is regular admission

Big athletic school, Harvard..."

Just read this and feeling injustice is real. How bad is it at other T20?

Why don't you worry about schools in your own country?

Anonymous wrote:Damn I mean why the vitriol . Most of the spots are taken by foreigners anyway with the exception of lax and the major sports

This (foreigners taking spots) only happens significantly in tennis, soccer, and hockey (I'm not sure I consider Canadian hockey players to be true foreigners).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

This makes no sense. Many MIT/ CT admits from our school have some Ivy admits as well. Of course, they can handle either.

[Anonymous]

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

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

Cute story. But he probably would have been rejected but for football. But keep believing your fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:David Hogg scored 1270 and got accepted into Harvard and he wasn't an athlete. Anything is possible, right?

Yeah so if you’re ok with the football player getting in you shouldn’t complain about David Hogg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

4.5 scholarships per team?

Yes hardest sport to get a scholarship in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

+100

So much sacrifice.

My kid would have hours of athletic practice, games, travel to games, travel out of state on weekends, all while balancing an all Honors/AP courseload, and even a summer job and active member of some Clubs.

He would be doing homework in the car on the way to practice. He would read assignments on the way to games out of state. This isn't any different from kids in marching band who have similar juggling of activities, and also get an admissions bump for their talent.

You have no idea how much work these kids are doing vs the kids that really only have to study after school, not do 4 hours of training.

Why should anyone care about that? Marching band kids aren’t skating into college because of it. At least recognize the difference. Plenty of kids who spend 4 hours doing other activities after school aren’t either. Your kids are and that’s fine. Just admit it.

If you think recruited athletes are “skating in” to elite schools (or any college) you are a total ignoramus who has never raised a child athlete.

My brother was one of the top 5 recruits in the country for his sport and the ivies/service academies, etc passed on him because of his grades/test scores. Some offered to have him redshirt a year and being up at CC, but he went to a D1 of a lesser academic caliber.

What were his grades like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Cute story. But he probably would have been rejected but for football. But keep believing your fantasy.

Umm, maybe, but how does this contradict at all what I wrote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with athletics?

Athletics is fine. Is it more important than brain power and academic ability?

Yes, to some extent. Schools like Harvard, the other Ivies, Stanford, etc. have all decided that having a relatively balanced class is extremely important to their brand. Their business is producing leaders (in all walks of life) rather than just nerds (i.e. MIT and Caltech), and there's nothing wrong with that.

Anonymous wrote:"Among white students admitted to Harvard, 54% are athletes+legacy+dean's list+faculty/staff children (column 2). Just 10% is regular admission

Big athletic school, Harvard..."

Just read this and feeling injustice is real. How bad is it at other T20?

Why don't you worry about schools in your own country?

Anonymous wrote:Damn I mean why the vitriol . Most of the spots are taken by foreigners anyway with the exception of lax and the major sports

This (foreigners taking spots) only happens significantly in tennis, soccer, and hockey (I'm not sure I consider Canadian hockey players to be true foreigners).

But the point is that kids going to school in the United States have a significant disadvantage in athletic recruiting for Ivies compared to students in other countries. The only exceptions are American football and lacrosse (because they rarely played outside the United States) and basketball (because USA is a powerhouse in this sport.). So getting into an Ivy on athletic grounds for many sports is incredibly difficult even if you do have nationally recognized talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with athletics?

Athletics is fine. Is it more important than brain power and academic ability?

Yes, to some extent. Schools like Harvard, the other Ivies, Stanford, etc. have all decided that having a relatively balanced class is extremely important to their brand. Their business is producing leaders (in all walks of life) rather than just nerds (i.e. MIT and Caltech), and there's nothing wrong with that.

Anonymous wrote:"Among white students admitted to Harvard, 54% are athletes+legacy+dean's list+faculty/staff children (column 2). Just 10% is regular admission

Big athletic school, Harvard..."

Just read this and feeling injustice is real. How bad is it at other T20?

Why don't you worry about schools in your own country?

Anonymous wrote:Damn I mean why the vitriol . Most of the spots are taken by foreigners anyway with the exception of lax and the major sports

This (foreigners taking spots) only happens significantly in tennis, soccer, and hockey (I'm not sure I consider Canadian hockey players to be true foreigners).

But the point is that kids going to school in the United States have a significant disadvantage in athletic recruiting for Ivies compared to students in other countries. The only exceptions are American football and lacrosse (because they rarely played outside the United States) and basketball (because USA is a powerhouse in this sport.). So getting into an Ivy on athletic grounds for many sports is incredibly difficult even if you do have nationally recognized talent.

This isn't really the case except in a handful of sports, as I stated above. Look at the rosters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with athletics?

Athletics is fine. Is it more important than brain power and academic ability?

Yes, to some extent. Schools like Harvard, the other Ivies, Stanford, etc. have all decided that having a relatively balanced class is extremely important to their brand. Their business is producing leaders (in all walks of life) rather than just nerds (i.e. MIT and Caltech), and there's nothing wrong with that.

Anonymous wrote:"Among white students admitted to Harvard, 54% are athletes+legacy+dean's list+faculty/staff children (column 2). Just 10% is regular admission

Big athletic school, Harvard..."

Just read this and feeling injustice is real. How bad is it at other T20?

Why don't you worry about schools in your own country?

Anonymous wrote:Damn I mean why the vitriol . Most of the spots are taken by foreigners anyway with the exception of lax and the major sports

This (foreigners taking spots) only happens significantly in tennis, soccer, and hockey (I'm not sure I consider Canadian hockey players to be true foreigners).

But the point is that kids going to school in the United States have a significant disadvantage in athletic recruiting for Ivies compared to students in other countries. The only exceptions are American football and lacrosse (because they rarely played outside the United States) and basketball (because USA is a powerhouse in this sport.). So getting into an Ivy on athletic grounds for many sports is incredibly difficult even if you do have nationally recognized talent.

This isn't really the case except in a handful of sports, as I stated above. Look at the rosters.

Tennis is damn near impossible followed by soccer and maybe some niche sports