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:

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.

PP, its just unfair that you cast these aspersions unchallenged because, for some self-serving reason, you need to believe it. Maybe some recruited Athletes are just solid students and not GREAT students, but some recruited athletes are also really great students too.

My DC was recruited for his nationally ranked athletic ability. True. But, he also got a 36 on the ACT, which I think only 2,500 or so HS students out of the 3 million who take the test annually achieve. He had a 94% HS average in all AP classes to include: AP BC Calc, AP Chem ( scoring a 5 as a 10th grader ), AP History, AP Physics, AP CS. He also got his pilot's license when he was a Junior in HS. He was also editor of his HS yearbook and co-captain of his robotics team, which was Nationally ranked

And he was not alone in his class. There were kids who were stronger students than him, who also were great athletes and who were the Valedictorian.

It’s bc their kid got rejected/waitlisted. I hear this a lot almost always from parents of outstanding students who got rejected or waitlisted at an Ivy. Example, 1570 SAT, straight As, top 2% from a well regarded very large public hs, etc but not an athlete. Good artist, excellent pianist, editor of year book, etc whatever…. so when they hear about some kid who got accepted who is an athlete, they go ballistic even worse than their kid.

Thank You for your post, but I think its a bit deeper than that, which is what makes it so problematic and detracting from a sense of community.

My DC is a very humble young adult and always takes in a room before ever speaking up. Why? He is really interested and hoping that someone else ( or many ) people in the room are smarter than him and that he can learn from them.

The OPPOSITE of that is a person who thinks ( or needs to think) that they are the smartest person in the room, that everyone else is inferior and then, if for some reason that is not acknowledged by a class rank or college admission.... well, there is HELL to pay.

Another stereotype is that really beautiful women can't be smart too. Seriously, I had a team mate who was an Engineering major at a top 5 Engineering school AND she was a NCAA D1 full ride athlete, but she was also a cover model. She had about 200K set aside from modeling when she was in HS that she would show me how she was investing in the stock market ( a hobby of hers because she also liked numbers)

You wouldn't believe the knives that came out for this girl.... classmates who would go to the Dean and suggest she was sleeping with the Professor and that was how she got a coveted internship. People who alleged she must be on 'roids to run that well... Now, if she had been ugly as dirt, they probably would have accepted her and been nice to her. Her crime: smart, talented and very beautiful.

Sick world

[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: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.

PP, its just unfair that you cast these aspersions unchallenged because, for some self-serving reason, you need to believe it. Maybe some recruited Athletes are just solid students and not GREAT students, but some recruited athletes are also really great students too.

My DC was recruited for his nationally ranked athletic ability. True. But, he also got a 36 on the ACT, which I think only 2,500 or so HS students out of the 3 million who take the test annually achieve. He had a 94% HS average in all AP classes to include: AP BC Calc, AP Chem ( scoring a 5 as a 10th grader ), AP History, AP Physics, AP CS. He also got his pilot's license when he was a Junior in HS. He was also editor of his HS yearbook and co-captain of his robotics team, which was Nationally ranked

And he was not alone in his class. There were kids who were stronger students than him, who also were great athletes and who were the Valedictorian.

It’s bc their kid got rejected/waitlisted. I hear this a lot almost always from parents of outstanding students who got rejected or waitlisted at an Ivy. Example, 1570 SAT, straight As, top 2% from a well regarded very large public hs, etc but not an athlete. Good artist, excellent pianist, editor of year book, etc whatever…. so when they hear about some kid who got accepted who is an athlete, they go ballistic even worse than their kid.

Thank You for your post, but I think its a bit deeper than that, which is what makes it so problematic and detracting from a sense of community.

My DC is a very humble young adult and always takes in a room before ever speaking up. Why? He is really interested and hoping that someone else ( or many ) people in the room are smarter than him and that he can learn from them.

The OPPOSITE of that is a person who thinks ( or needs to think) that they are the smartest person in the room, that everyone else is inferior and then, if for some reason that is not acknowledged by a class rank or college admission.... well, there is HELL to pay.

Another stereotype is that really beautiful women can't be smart too. Seriously, I had a team mate who was an Engineering major at a top 5 Engineering school AND she was a NCAA D1 full ride athlete, but she was also a cover model. She had about 200K set aside from modeling when she was in HS that she would show me how she was investing in the stock market ( a hobby of hers because she also liked numbers)

You wouldn't believe the knives that came out for this girl.... classmates who would go to the Dean and suggest she was sleeping with the Professor and that was how she got a coveted internship. People who alleged she must be on 'roids to run that well... Now, if she had been ugly as dirt, they probably would have accepted her and been nice to her. Her crime: smart, talented and very beautiful.

Sick world

Huh!?! It’s nothing deep. Their kid didn’t get in…. End of story. Blaming it on athletes assuming they have less academic ability is an easy mark. I also hear a lot about kids padding their resume for college admissions, creating non profits, etc. They wouldn’t be complaining if their kid was accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except that one reason why local private schools value top athletes is for their potential to be recruited for admission to many of the top colleges. Totally relevant to this thread.

Holton total matriculation to Ivy schools has nothing to do with this thread. If there are examples of Holton athletes attending Ivy then so be it, but it’s getting way off course.

[Anonymous]

Private schools value student-athletes not just athletes. The kid who excels in the playing field and in the classroom has always been the goal. Being well rounded. I don’t know anyone at our private school whose goal for their kid is to play div 1 sports or even to get an athletics scholarship. It’s not that kind of crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private schools value student-athletes not just athletes. The kid who excels in the playing field and in the classroom has always been the goal. Being well rounded. I don’t know anyone at our private school whose goal for their kid is to play div 1 sports or even to get an athletics scholarship. It’s not that kind of crowd.

Really? Most private schools have kids whose goal is that and when it is your kid's goal, believe me, it becomes your goal too as a parent.

[Anonymous]

Someone told me Gonzaga doesn't recruit basketball players because it is harder to get into the school vs other schools that do recruit? Truth or just talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone told me Gonzaga doesn't recruit basketball players because it is harder to get into the school vs other schools that do recruit? Truth or just talk.

I got bridge in Brooklyn too and I’ll sell it to you real cheap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone told me Gonzaga doesn't recruit basketball players because it is harder to get into the school vs other schools that do recruit? Truth or just talk.

It is not harder to get into Gonzaga than it is to Maret, Sidwell, STA, and even Landon. All of which recruit.

[Anonymous]

GDS is full of athletic recruits with great hand-eye coordination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GDS is full of athletic recruits with great hand-eye coordination.

Was that meant as a joke?

[Anonymous]

Face it, a very small percentage of kids are good enough to be recruited and they have a better chance of getting recruited for college than an independent school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Team sport kids also must communicate real time on a field. Their situational awareness is also superior, especially on a fast ball sport like basketball. Can’t see the play, get in position, block, get a rebound, catch a ball? Go do something slow. No problem.

THIS plus time management plus commitment (time, energy, effort) plus leadership skills plus dedication plus drive to achieve and win plus ability to learn on the fly...

Parents complaining about athletes getting preference just don't get it. Our DS, year-round AAU/travel basketball player for several years and soccer player, dedicates a lot of time to his sport practicing with his team at least two evenings per week for 2 hours at a time, skills training, travel for tournaments, and practicing on his own on off days. Twice a week after school we drive 45+ minutes in traffic each way to bring him to a 2-hour practice, then back home late to clean up, eat full dinner, finish homework, study, etc. which makes for a very long day. While he is training, his friends are probably spending more time on homework and playing video games. DS is smart but if he had more time to study every day, he would likely get excellent grades, but he does well and learns so the trade-off is worth it.

Same goes for kids who dedicate a lot of time to other intense activities like music, dance, theater. School admissions officers get it.

Sounds a lot like my child. Does he attend a Big3?

[Anonymous]

On a somewhat related note, the people that view sports as a "hook" for college admissions in the same way they view a legacy as a hook have no idea what they are talking about.
The legacy is something your are born into, while the sports hook is based on years of hard work and unrelenting dedication.

My DS, who now plays division 1, attended a Big 3 school. One year she was injured and couldn't do anything for 8 months. We couldn't believe how time she had to get her work done, get good rest, spend time with friends. To play at high a level was obviously her choice, and one she does not regret, but for anyone to suggest that legacy and sports hooks are the same probably hasn't had a child go through the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On a somewhat related note, the people that view sports as a "hook" for college admissions in the same way they view a legacy as a hook have no idea what they are talking about.
The legacy is something your are born into, while the sports hook is based on years of hard work and unrelenting dedication.

My DS, who now plays division 1, attended a Big 3 school. One year she was injured and couldn't do anything for 8 months. We couldn't believe how time she had to get her work done, get good rest, spend time with friends. To play at high a level was obviously her choice, and one she does not regret, but for anyone to suggest that legacy and sports hooks are the same probably hasn't had a child go through the process.

Playing a D1 sport is equivalent to working a full time job.