Parents of High School Juniors - Hold On To Your Hats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So glad we're using our slots at these colleges for athletes. That will really make us competitive in the world -- at least at the Olympics.

Students who are able to maintain comparable grades and SAT scores while being varsity athletes who are good enough to get a scholarship (even to a Division III school) are typically students with excellent work ethics and study skills. We're not talking about students recruited only for their athletic abilities here.

[Anonymous]

Exactly pp. If a university can pick a "two-fer" -- someone who is great at academics and sports -- they will do that anytime over someone who is just great at one thing (academics or sports).

[Anonymous]

What about academics and community service, or academics and the arts? I just don't understand why the focus on athletics.

[Anonymous]

PP -- It's supply and demand. Many more people are capable of doing community service (everyone can) and some universities don't have "arts" -- most have sports teams and understand the value that a great sports team can do to raise a school's visibility and alumni donations. This is America -- if you don't like it -- go elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Given the crisis in American education, perhaps this focus should be rethought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given the crisis in American education, perhaps this focus should be rethought.

what crisis?

[Anonymous]

I used the Common App when I applied to various colleges. Simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used the Common App when I applied to various colleges. Simple.

What about the supplements? One supplement had about 10 extra short answer/essays on it. Of the schools my DC applied to only 1 didn't require at least 2 additional essays. And most of them either required or strongly encouraged interviews. So it didn't actually seem that simple.

[Anonymous]

Re recruited athletes...the students recruited at the Ivies for athletics this year from my child's school were definitely not the best students. Above average - yes. Superior academically - no.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. The focus on athletics in college is bizarre. Admission to Oxford or Cambridge, for example, does not depend on athletic prowess. I'd rather have my child working on a political campaign, organizing a food drive, or tutoring kids to read than perfecting a tennis backhand or rowing stroke. Yes, it's important to keep in shape, and yes, athletics can hone time management and leadership skills. But let's not kid ourselves. Colleges value these students because we adults like to watch sports and read how Harvard defeated Princeton. Sad, but true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. The focus on athletics in college is bizarre. Admission to Oxford or Cambridge, for example, does not depend on athletic prowess. I'd rather have my child working on a political campaign, organizing a food drive, or tutoring kids to read than perfecting a tennis backhand or rowing stroke. Yes, it's important to keep in shape, and yes, athletics can hone time management and leadership skills. But let's not kid ourselves. Colleges value these students because we adults like to watch sports and read how Harvard defeated Princeton. Sad, but true.

As a longtime employer, I *love* college athletes -- a varsity sport is worth a full point of GPA as far as I'm concerned.

[Anonymous]

I attended an Ivy in the late 1990s- then as likely now, the recruited athletes were quite a mixed bag. Certain sports certainly were largely comprised significantly of scholar-athlete types, e.g. Tennis, Crew etc. The marquee sports were much less so- e.g. football, basketball, hockey. Mine was a smaller school competing with the rest of the Ivies in all the major sports, so I would say the percentage of recruited athletes was relatively high and they often did reduce the quality of classroom experience, which was otherwise incredible.

[Anonymous]

The recruited athletes at our high school are significantly less intellectually curious than the students getting into these schools without the athletic boost. Of course, if you're spending 3 hours a day perfecting your lacrosse skills, you have less time for independent reading or exposure to a wider variety of interests. I dated a college athlete and I often felt sorry for him; his life experiences had been seriously limited by playing tennis all the time. He was the #1 tennis player, though!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read Crazy U by Andrew Ferguson that just came out, quite accurate and interesting.
It has been quite nuts, but there are just so many great schools out there now, that as long as your child and more importantly parents don't get too focused on a specific school or schools, and don't judge colleges today on the standards of what they were like in the 70s and 80s (and how easy they were to get into, believe me, totally new world out there compared to what current parents dealt with in the 70s and 80s), everyone will be fine.

"Crazy U" is hilarious and informative.
I'm reading "Schools That Change Lives" and "The New Global Student" as well.
"Crazy U" is the best thing I've come across.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So glad we're using our slots at these colleges for athletes. That will really make us competitive in the world -- at least at the Olympics.

Colleges like people who are well rounded and authentic. They also like a diversity of interests and abilities. A freshman class consisting of a one giant string ensemble would be very boring indeed.