"Not a Meritocracy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

+1 how does a sports team winning some game make the academics of that college great?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

Only in America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you're somehow surprised that Americans support it or that American schools value it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

Only in America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you're somehow surprised that Americans support it or that American schools value it?

A PP was referring to London and U of London, that is what I was responding to. Please follow along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a sad state of affairs that educators are now openly saying we don’t have a meritocracy. What do we have? An oligarchy?

It was never a meritocracy - hence the acknolwedgemtn. The smartest and best matched kids aren't at the school - those with the means to adhere to the practices/trends of that school are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Back this up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

+1 how does a sports team winning some game make the academics of that college great?

Exactly. They are two things that should be totally separate that have been conflated in our society for absolutely no good reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

+1 how does a sports team winning some game make the academics of that college great?

It does not but oh well. this is just a money suck for youth sports and college after that outside a very few sports and conferences. I would just accept it and work with it.

[Anonymous]

NP. Look, I'm a nerd. I'm not into athletics or defending athletics, and my jam is scoring very well on tests. That being said ...

Nothing where humans depend on interacting with one another on a regular basis goes well as just a "meritocracy" (in the sense used here -- doing well on tests). I absolutely do not believe you want your children taught only by teachers and professors who won the prize of the position by testing well, and no other things at play. Do you know how hard it is to get many top scientists to speak in articulate English, to care about things that are not relevant to their research (e.g., your child's emotional and mental struggles after the death of a sibling), and so on, and so forth?

Teachers are not best selected as the highest performers on tests alone. Neither are your co-workers -- don't you think hiring managers take other things into account, such as how easy someone will be to work with, whether they fill a gap in a team without certain interpersonal skills, etc? If nobody likes your team, your team is not going to be as effective. You have to have BOTH the tested skills and the ability to use them effectively in a group environment.

Class groups at schools an in higher ed are to some extent teams. They tend to move together through the process, and problems tend to spread, too. (Suicide and depression are contagious. low morale is contagious. Things spread along fault lines.) Wanting to balance out a class is a reasonable goal, same as for a work team.

I think it's fine to criticize the criteria, and there is a lot to criticize. The fact that it's not just based on test scores isn't really a valid criticism, though. Nothing in life is, when the context is people having to work together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Look, I'm a nerd. I'm not into athletics or defending athletics, and my jam is scoring very well on tests. That being said ...

Nothing where humans depend on interacting with one another on a regular basis goes well as just a "meritocracy" (in the sense used here -- doing well on tests). I absolutely do not believe you want your children taught only by teachers and professors who won the prize of the position by testing well, and no other things at play. Do you know how hard it is to get many top scientists to speak in articulate English, to care about things that are not relevant to their research (e.g., your child's emotional and mental struggles after the death of a sibling), and so on, and so forth?

Teachers are not best selected as the highest performers on tests alone. Neither are your co-workers -- don't you think hiring managers take other things into account, such as how easy someone will be to work with, whether they fill a gap in a team without certain interpersonal skills, etc? If nobody likes your team, your team is not going to be as effective. You have to have BOTH the tested skills and the ability to use them effectively in a group environment.

Class groups at schools an in higher ed are to some extent teams. They tend to move together through the process, and problems tend to spread, too. (Suicide and depression are contagious. low morale is contagious. Things spread along fault lines.) Wanting to balance out a class is a reasonable goal, same as for a work team.

I think it's fine to criticize the criteria, and there is a lot to criticize. The fact that it's not just based on test scores isn't really a valid criticism, though. Nothing in life is, when the context is people having to work together.

Brilliantly stated.

[Anonymous]

If we had a pure meritocracy wouldn’t private schools be outlawed, like in Finland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we had a pure meritocracy wouldn’t private schools be outlawed, like in Finland?

and ability to pay would be the deciding factor on where to attend. Alas, we have nothing even approaching a meritocracy

[Anonymous]

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

You set up a false dichotomy here. The tennis player might be a student with high academic interests.

My DS was a recruited athlete - and NMF and valedictorian. Three of the six recruits in his class are now in med school (and if you know anything about med school admissions, you recognize that’s a huge academic achievement). Athletes can be academically ambitious as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You set up a false dichotomy here. The tennis player might be a student with high academic interests.

My DS was a recruited athlete - and NMF and valedictorian. Three of the six recruits in his class are now in med school (and if you know anything about med school admissions, you recognize that’s a huge academic achievement). Athletes can be academically ambitious as well.

That’s great, but you can’t ignore how cost-prohibitive the level of sports needed to be recruitable are. Club soccer, club swimming, AAU basketball, national level travel baseball teams—none of that is cheap or free. Then there’s sports like rowing, squash and golf that are rare.

A kid can be a great lacrosse player, but if they have poor, uninvolved parents, they’re not getting recruited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

+1 how does a sports team winning some game make the academics of that college great?

How does having better student attending male academics great?

[Anonymous]

Make*