The real affirmative action but let's blame the browns and blacks. It's ok as long as it's white

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why obsess over athletes? What about tuba players?

Yes, I don't get that. Based on all the studies I have seen, athletes go on to do very well as a group after elite college, on average. I don't really understand the insistence that they are somehow lesser contributors to the college or do worse. My understanding is that as a group, they do better in life than their Ivy League peers.

I am pro-affirmative action, FWIW.

Most of the posters here who trash athletes are likely ones who have a very narrow view of acceptable extracurriculars for their kids. High academic achievement is a must, obviously, and music is acceptable along with academic competitions and a few others. Their kids don’t tend to achieve in sports, and they tell themselves that those kids who do are less intelligent and less prepared for rigorous academics regardless of any evidence to the contrary. And they don’t enjoy watching sports so they don’t believe athletic talent could ever be an important asset to the community. If they read any of the studies describing how athletes in most sports are, on average, more successful in their chosen careers than non-athletes, then that’s more evidence to them that something is wrong with the country.

1. You're literally posting this in a thread about a study titled: "Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard"

2. This study says:

"We find that a white non-ALDC applicant with a 10% chance of admission would see a five-fold increase in admissions likelihood if they were a legacy; more than a seven-fold increase if they were on the dean’s interest list; and that they would be admitted with near certainty if they were a recruited athlete"

"In our preferred model, the similar increases in odds are substantially higher at over eight (legacies) and five thousand (athletes) times"

"Table 8 compares the ratings received by recruited athlete admits to those received by non-ALDC applicants and admits, focusing on the overall rating and the four profile ratings with the exception of the athletic rating.71 With the publicly available documents, we are able to form meaningful bounds on the ratings of recruited athletes.72 Recruited athlete admits are universally weaker than non-ALDC admits on these ratings"

"In many cases—and in contrast to LDC admits—recruited athlete admits are weaker than non-ALDC applicants. Non-ALDC applicants on average have higher academic and extracurricular ratings than admitted recruited athletes of the same race for all groups except Hispanics on the academic rating" <--- Note this says non-ALDC applicants have higher academic and extracurricular rating than admitted athletes.

So when you're talking about evidence, here it is. The statement has never been they are less intelligent, but are they less qualified? Yes.

3. The question of how athletes do AFTER college is not relevant to if they should be admitted to college in the first place. Yes, it's great that they got this chance because they could hit a ball, but they took that chance away from someone else, and who knows what that person would have done if only they had the opportunity.

4. Athletics isn't just another extracurricular. There is no music preference or painting preference. There are no special admissions procedures for students who excel at debate. You cannot compare these to immense advantage athletic applicants get in every way.

5. Even taken as athletes, the athletes getting these preferences are not the cream of the crop. You're not getting the best football players, soccer players, baseball players, etc. You're getting athletes who are, for the most part, good, but not great. What is the value then? Being pretty good at something is enough to vault you over all other more qualified applicants?

6. As to whether we enjoy watching sports - we do. We just don't think watching mediocre sports (and 95% of sports at the Ivy League level are mediocre) is worth letting less qualified students into a school. And in the case of the Harvard community, the numbers speak for themselves - the average attendance at a home football game last year (Yale excluded) was about 9800. and more people attend football games than any other sporting event. No one cares. If you think they do, see how many people are watching a Harvard baseball game and you can probably introduce yourself to every spectator by the end of the 2nd inning.

The study is flawed.

Athletic kids don't take the SAT more than once, they don't test prep. Once they know they are in it doesn't matter. So you are comparing apples and oranges.

Also, it's not about attendance it's about former Yale athletes hiring current Yale athletes. It's a thing, the boosters love sports. They are going to give these kids more internships and jobs.

They did not take the chance from somebody else. They got the spot and they thrive after, it shows the other measurements are not that great at determining who will be successful.

I love this.

The study is flawed, but only in the ways that I don't like.

Athletic kids know the SAT doesn't matter. (as an aside, they're mostly rich white kids, so if the SAT is biased by race and wealth, they should be doing well) I suppose their grades don't matter either. So what is the point of the exercise? You can really tell the difference between the athlete who scored a 1200 because they didn't care and one who scored a 1200 because that's the best they can do? You said earlier that they were no less intelligent or prepared, but now you say it doesn't matter to them. I don't understand the course of the argument here.

Not only do athletes get a boost getting into college, they get a boost going out. If we don't care whether it's a meritocracy on the way out, why do we care it's not on the way in? I get it now.

They don't take the chance from someone else? How do you figure that? This is class with a fixed number of posts, so someone's not getting in, and chances are it's a poor white kid or an Asian kid.

Rich white kids have enough advantages in life. Do they really need this one, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That’s all good and fine but you can’t support athletic preferences for this reason and be against any other preference. It’s all or none.

Who's the little fascist now?

Nothing fascist about it. You simply can’t distinguish between preferring one irrelevant trait over another. You could but then you aren’t being intellectually honest. I mean you probably don’t have a problem with that because all you are concerned with is preserving your own perceived advantage but it’s oure hypocrisy to say that valuing athletic ability is an acceptable criteria for forming the college community but then saying that because it’s the only thing YOU value that the college has to stop using all others. At the end of the day either the college has the right to form it’s community or it doesn’t.

See, the difference I that I don't view athletics as an irrelevant trait (not that my kids benefit from it) in admissions, but I do think race by itself should be. You may think that race should be a relevant trait Fine. Admit it. Just realize that that makes you a racist by definition.

I don’t think any of the preferences are relevant - they should all be eliminated. . I think favoring only those preferences that apply in 70% of cases to rich white kids is an interesting position to take in the name of fairness and community but you do you.

But you are okay with favoritism when it comes to SAT scores which favors kids that are not necessarily smarter but just good at test prep.

Do I favor using the results of an academic test to differentiate between applicants to a university more than whether they are the 1200th best football player in the country for that year . . . . hmmm . . . YES.

Do you really think athletic ability is MORE relevant than SAT scores?

The question you posed is why are you okay with a measurement that is racially biased. My question to you, since SAT scores have been proven to be racially biased, why are you okay with a measure that is racially biased.

The athletic preference you champion is 70% white. Are you in favor of a preference that is racially biased and does not even purport to measure academic ability?

SAT scores are part of an overall picture and can be compensated for by other academic measures. Unlike athletics which lets an unqualified applicant jump the line, SAT scores are part of an application. You don't have great scores but you have great grades, you still have a shot. Harvard (or any other school) doesn't just list applicants in order of SAT score and then admit the top 2000. They do that with athletics.

So between the two, yes, I think SAT scores are more relevant than athletic ability.

So you support a racially biased measurement... just like those that support athletics.

Yes, it is, but the relative weight accorded to the SAT can and is adjusted accordingly. I support the use of the SAT and ACT in the manner they are currently used. As part of the overall evaluation of the academic and intellectual ability and interests of a candidate. This evaluation includes grades, other test scores, teacher and counselor evaluations, interviews, and essays.

I would not support the use of the SAT or ACT as the sole determinant of whether a student should be admitted. That is a significant difference between the SAT and athletics. With athletics, nothing else matters.

Curious, though, what do you think should be used in the college admissions process?

[Anonymous]

That is a significant difference between the SAT and athletics. With athletics, nothing else matters

That is actually not true. Admitted athletes are more than qualified academically and they have the added value to the school of also being outstanding in a particular sport. Just as an admitted oboe or cello player may be more than qualified academically and have the added value to the school of outstanding musical ability.

All the evidence I have seen shows that athletes at these schools are more than qualified academically. And, admittedly anecdotally, I have known a number of students from public schools in NoVa who were admitted because they were outstanding both in academics and athletics.

Could you find evidence of applicants who are “more” qualified academically but are not outstanding musicians or athletes? Of course you can. But why admit someone who is talented in only one area when you can admit someone who is talented in two areas and has the ability to contribute to the quality of the college experience for all the other students in the community?

It makes sense, when you only have so many spaces available, to admit students who will contribute in more than one area, so you have more return on your investment in that student, rather than one who is talented in only academics but nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That is a significant difference between the SAT and athletics. With athletics, nothing else matters

That is actually not true. Admitted athletes are more than qualified academically and they have the added value to the school of also being outstanding in a particular sport. Just as an admitted oboe or cello player may be more than qualified academically and have the added value to the school of outstanding musical ability.

All the evidence I have seen shows that athletes at these schools are more than qualified academically. And, admittedly anecdotally, I have known a number of students from public schools in NoVa who were admitted because they were outstanding both in academics and athletics.

Could you find evidence of applicants who are “more” qualified academically but are not outstanding musicians or athletes? Of course you can. But why admit someone who is talented in only one area when you can admit someone who is talented in two areas and has the ability to contribute to the quality of the college experience for all the other students in the community?

It makes sense, when you only have so many spaces available, to admit students who will contribute in more than one area, so you have more return on your investment in that student, rather than one who is talented in only academics but nothing else.

If you think just scraping over the bar makes you more than qualified (and your anecdotal evidence can probably be countered by students in NoVa public schools who didn't get admitted but were better on every other attribute), then you're adopting a model of admissions that says that once you scrape over the bar of academics, then the college can use other factors to differentiate students. That's fair, and I think it's what they're doing. I don't think it's fair, but it's ultimately not my call.

I do think you overreach in other ways, but that's a matter of what we think the subjective values are of particular things.

I'll leave you with this from the study:

"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."

I'm just not convinced this is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That is a significant difference between the SAT and athletics. With athletics, nothing else matters

That is actually not true. Admitted athletes are more than qualified academically and they have the added value to the school of also being outstanding in a particular sport. Just as an admitted oboe or cello player may be more than qualified academically and have the added value to the school of outstanding musical ability.

All the evidence I have seen shows that athletes at these schools are more than qualified academically. And, admittedly anecdotally, I have known a number of students from public schools in NoVa who were admitted because they were outstanding both in academics and athletics.

Could you find evidence of applicants who are “more” qualified academically but are not outstanding musicians or athletes? Of course you can. But why admit someone who is talented in only one area when you can admit someone who is talented in two areas and has the ability to contribute to the quality of the college experience for all the other students in the community?

It makes sense, when you only have so many spaces available, to admit students who will contribute in more than one area, so you have more return on your investment in that student, rather than one who is talented in only academics but nothing else.

If you think just scraping over the bar makes you more than qualified (and your anecdotal evidence can probably be countered by students in NoVa public schools who didn't get admitted but were better on every other attribute), then you're adopting a model of admissions that says that once you scrape over the bar of academics, then the college can use other factors to differentiate students. That's fair, and I think it's what they're doing. I don't think it's fair, but it's ultimately not my call.

I do think you overreach in other ways, but that's a matter of what we think the subjective values are of particular things.

I'll leave you with this from the study:

"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."

I'm just not convinced this is a good thing.

If you are one dimensional you have a 1% chance of admission. If you are smart and athletic and are going to contribute to the community for 4 years, you have a 98% chance of admission.

I'm just not convinced this is a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That is a significant difference between the SAT and athletics. With athletics, nothing else matters

That is actually not true. Admitted athletes are more than qualified academically and they have the added value to the school of also being outstanding in a particular sport. Just as an admitted oboe or cello player may be more than qualified academically and have the added value to the school of outstanding musical ability.

All the evidence I have seen shows that athletes at these schools are more than qualified academically. And, admittedly anecdotally, I have known a number of students from public schools in NoVa who were admitted because they were outstanding both in academics and athletics.

Could you find evidence of applicants who are “more” qualified academically but are not outstanding musicians or athletes? Of course you can. But why admit someone who is talented in only one area when you can admit someone who is talented in two areas and has the ability to contribute to the quality of the college experience for all the other students in the community?

It makes sense, when you only have so many spaces available, to admit students who will contribute in more than one area, so you have more return on your investment in that student, rather than one who is talented in only academics but nothing else.

If you think just scraping over the bar makes you more than qualified (and your anecdotal evidence can probably be countered by students in NoVa public schools who didn't get admitted but were better on every other attribute), then you're adopting a model of admissions that says that once you scrape over the bar of academics, then the college can use other factors to differentiate students. That's fair, and I think it's what they're doing. I don't think it's fair, but it's ultimately not my call.

I do think you overreach in other ways, but that's a matter of what we think the subjective values are of particular things.

I'll leave you with this from the study:

"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."

I'm just not convinced this is a good thing.

If you are one dimensional you have a 1% chance of admission. If you are smart and athletic and are going to contribute to the community for 4 years, you have a 98% chance of admission.

I'm just not convinced this is a bad thing.

You assume they are smart. That is an assumption that is not borne out by the study. They also did the coefficients in reverse and found:

"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"

Harvard can have sports teams without preferring athletes in the admissions process. they might suck more than they do now, but they suck pretty hard now.

[Anonymous]

Harvard can have sports teams without preferring athletes in the admissions process. they might suck more than they do now, but they suck pretty hard now.

Harvard wants athletes for more that just their athletic ability. Outstanding athletes tend to also possess the qualities that outstanding leaders have. They work well with others, know how to work hard, they persevere in the face of loss and disappointment. Many have the ability to inspire and encourage others to do well. They are the kind of people who frequently go on to be leaders in government and business.

Harvard is in the business of producing leaders in society, not only academics. Athletes bring abilities to the table that Harvard likes to see in their students. I realize a lot of people would like to see schools like Harvard be about the academics and nothing but the academics, but that just isn’t the case. Harvard sees the need for people who can be leaders in the world and that is what they aim to turn out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Most of the posters here who trash athletes are likely ones who have a very narrow view of acceptable extracurriculars for their kids. High academic achievement is a must, obviously, and music is acceptable along with academic competitions and a few others. Their kids don’t tend to achieve in sports, and they tell themselves that those kids who do are less intelligent and less prepared for rigorous academics regardless of any evidence to the contrary. And they don’t enjoy watching sports so they don’t believe athletic talent could ever be an important asset to the community. If they read any of the studies describing how athletes in most sports are, on average, more successful in their chosen careers than non-athletes, then that’s more evidence to them that something is wrong with the country.

1. You're literally posting this in a thread about a study titled: "Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard"

2. This study says:

"We find that a white non-ALDC applicant with a 10% chance of admission would see a five-fold increase in admissions likelihood if they were a legacy; more than a seven-fold increase if they were on the dean’s interest list; and that they would be admitted with near certainty if they were a recruited athlete"

"In our preferred model, the similar increases in odds are substantially higher at over eight (legacies) and five thousand (athletes) times"

"Table 8 compares the ratings received by recruited athlete admits to those received by non-ALDC applicants and admits, focusing on the overall rating and the four profile ratings with the exception of the athletic rating.71 With the publicly available documents, we are able to form meaningful bounds on the ratings of recruited athletes.72 Recruited athlete admits are universally weaker than non-ALDC admits on these ratings"

"In many cases—and in contrast to LDC admits—recruited athlete admits are weaker than non-ALDC applicants. Non-ALDC applicants on average have higher academic and extracurricular ratings than admitted recruited athletes of the same race for all groups except Hispanics on the academic rating" <--- Note this says non-ALDC applicants have higher academic and extracurricular rating than admitted athletes.

So when you're talking about evidence, here it is. The statement has never been they are less intelligent, but are they less qualified? Yes.

3. The question of how athletes do AFTER college is not relevant to if they should be admitted to college in the first place. Yes, it's great that they got this chance because they could hit a ball, but they took that chance away from someone else, and who knows what that person would have done if only they had the opportunity.

4. Athletics isn't just another extracurricular. There is no music preference or painting preference. There are no special admissions procedures for students who excel at debate. You cannot compare these to immense advantage athletic applicants get in every way.

5. Even taken as athletes, the athletes getting these preferences are not the cream of the crop. You're not getting the best football players, soccer players, baseball players, etc. You're getting athletes who are, for the most part, good, but not great. What is the value then? Being pretty good at something is enough to vault you over all other more qualified applicants?

6. As to whether we enjoy watching sports - we do. We just don't think watching mediocre sports (and 95% of sports at the Ivy League level are mediocre) is worth letting less qualified students into a school. And in the case of the Harvard community, the numbers speak for themselves - the average attendance at a home football game last year (Yale excluded) was about 9800. and more people attend football games than any other sporting event. No one cares. If you think they do, see how many people are watching a Harvard baseball game and you can probably introduce yourself to every spectator by the end of the 2nd inning.


I'm the poster you were responding to with this long list. I'm not going to go through it point by point since that would make for a ridiculously long thread and others have covered most of the counterpoints or quibbles somewhere along the way in this thread. I did want to clarify, however, that I don't think you or other posters who have written thoughtful responses on here are in the category of people "trashing" athletes. If you've been here a while, you will see that there is a subset of posters who truly do think all athletes are inferior and a complete waste of space at elite institutions, and I should have made clear that's the kind of poster I was referring to.

I do think you are off-base with your point 3: "The question of how athletes do AFTER college is not relevant to if they should be admitted to college in the first place." Someone upthread posted about this, but educated guesses about how athletes will do after college is absolutely part of why they receive preference in the first place. They are (allegedly anyway) more likely to be leaders, loyal to the school, and big donors, and while Harvard has a massive endowment and plenty of donations from non-athletes, like every other university, they absolutely care about trying to increase donation percentages and levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Harvard can have sports teams without preferring athletes in the admissions process. they might suck more than they do now, but they suck pretty hard now.

Harvard wants athletes for more that just their athletic ability. Outstanding athletes tend to also possess the qualities that outstanding leaders have. They work well with others, know how to work hard, they persevere in the face of loss and disappointment. Many have the ability to inspire and encourage others to do well. They are the kind of people who frequently go on to be leaders in government and business.

Harvard is in the business of producing leaders in society, not only academics. Athletes bring abilities to the table that Harvard likes to see in their students. I realize a lot of people would like to see schools like Harvard be about the academics and nothing but the academics, but that just isn’t the case. Harvard sees the need for people who can be leaders in the world and that is what they aim to turn out.

Wow - you really buy into the halo around athletes, don't you?

These are not 'outstanding athletes'. They're not Olympians, they don't turn professional, and they're rarely in the elite of their own birth year for their sport.

What are they? Mostly sub-par students who absent their athletic ability would never make it to the Harvard campus.

[Anonymous]

As an athlete you have 20-30 hours a week less to study and less times tutors and SAT/ACT prep. I guaranteed you the non Atlantic Asian eggheads would have same or less GPA if they were athletes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Most of the posters here who trash athletes are likely ones who have a very narrow view of acceptable extracurriculars for their kids. High academic achievement is a must, obviously, and music is acceptable along with academic competitions and a few others. Their kids don’t tend to achieve in sports, and they tell themselves that those kids who do are less intelligent and less prepared for rigorous academics regardless of any evidence to the contrary. And they don’t enjoy watching sports so they don’t believe athletic talent could ever be an important asset to the community. If they read any of the studies describing how athletes in most sports are, on average, more successful in their chosen careers than non-athletes, then that’s more evidence to them that something is wrong with the country.

1. You're literally posting this in a thread about a study titled: "Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard"

2. This study says:

"We find that a white non-ALDC applicant with a 10% chance of admission would see a five-fold increase in admissions likelihood if they were a legacy; more than a seven-fold increase if they were on the dean’s interest list; and that they would be admitted with near certainty if they were a recruited athlete"

"In our preferred model, the similar increases in odds are substantially higher at over eight (legacies) and five thousand (athletes) times"

"Table 8 compares the ratings received by recruited athlete admits to those received by non-ALDC applicants and admits, focusing on the overall rating and the four profile ratings with the exception of the athletic rating.71 With the publicly available documents, we are able to form meaningful bounds on the ratings of recruited athletes.72 Recruited athlete admits are universally weaker than non-ALDC admits on these ratings"

"In many cases—and in contrast to LDC admits—recruited athlete admits are weaker than non-ALDC applicants. Non-ALDC applicants on average have higher academic and extracurricular ratings than admitted recruited athletes of the same race for all groups except Hispanics on the academic rating" <--- Note this says non-ALDC applicants have higher academic and extracurricular rating than admitted athletes.

So when you're talking about evidence, here it is. The statement has never been they are less intelligent, but are they less qualified? Yes.

3. The question of how athletes do AFTER college is not relevant to if they should be admitted to college in the first place. Yes, it's great that they got this chance because they could hit a ball, but they took that chance away from someone else, and who knows what that person would have done if only they had the opportunity.

4. Athletics isn't just another extracurricular. There is no music preference or painting preference. There are no special admissions procedures for students who excel at debate. You cannot compare these to immense advantage athletic applicants get in every way.

5. Even taken as athletes, the athletes getting these preferences are not the cream of the crop. You're not getting the best football players, soccer players, baseball players, etc. You're getting athletes who are, for the most part, good, but not great. What is the value then? Being pretty good at something is enough to vault you over all other more qualified applicants?

6. As to whether we enjoy watching sports - we do. We just don't think watching mediocre sports (and 95% of sports at the Ivy League level are mediocre) is worth letting less qualified students into a school. And in the case of the Harvard community, the numbers speak for themselves - the average attendance at a home football game last year (Yale excluded) was about 9800. and more people attend football games than any other sporting event. No one cares. If you think they do, see how many people are watching a Harvard baseball game and you can probably introduce yourself to every spectator by the end of the 2nd inning.

I'm the poster you were responding to with this long list. I'm not going to go through it point by point since that would make for a ridiculously long thread and others have covered most of the counterpoints or quibbles somewhere along the way in this thread. I did want to clarify, however, that I don't think you or other posters who have written thoughtful responses on here are in the category of people "trashing" athletes. If you've been here a while, you will see that there is a subset of posters who truly do think all athletes are inferior and a complete waste of space at elite institutions, and I should have made clear that's the kind of poster I was referring to.

I do think you are off-base with your point 3: "The question of how athletes do AFTER college is not relevant to if they should be admitted to college in the first place." Someone upthread posted about this, but educated guesses about how athletes will do after college is absolutely part of why they receive preference in the first place. They are (allegedly anyway) more likely to be leaders, loyal to the school, and big donors, and while Harvard has a massive endowment and plenty of donations from non-athletes, like every other university, they absolutely care about trying to increase donation percentages and levels.

I get that, but athletes disproportionately come from rich, white families. Do they really need this leg up? What do you think is going to happen to some kid from Greenwich who rows crew if he didn't get into Harvard? All you're doing by having this preference (and your example of Yale boosters hiring Yale sports kids bears this out) is perpetuating a system that favors the rich, white few, who, if you look at the numbers, don't have the chops to make it otherwise.

Further, if you're looking at outcomes, I would think Harvard would see an even greater improvement in the life fortunes of students admitted on racial preferences. So why is that bad? Why is it bad for some kid who overcame a poor public school system, had to work an after school job or take care of a sibling and had limited extracurricular opportunities to be given a chance but it's ok for an athlete? I appreciate the argument for athletic preferences, even if I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't get the argument for having an athletic preference but not a race preference. But that's just me.

Harvard isn't Alabama or Duke or some big sports school. People donate to Harvard for a variety of reasons, and the 6-4 football team isn't one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an athlete you have 20-30 hours a week less to study and less times tutors and SAT/ACT prep. I guaranteed you the non Atlantic Asian eggheads would have same or less GPA if they were athletes

You are not helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That is a significant difference between the SAT and athletics. With athletics, nothing else matters

That is actually not true. Admitted athletes are more than qualified academically and they have the added value to the school of also being outstanding in a particular sport. Just as an admitted oboe or cello player may be more than qualified academically and have the added value to the school of outstanding musical ability.

All the evidence I have seen shows that athletes at these schools are more than qualified academically. And, admittedly anecdotally, I have known a number of students from public schools in NoVa who were admitted because they were outstanding both in academics and athletics.

Could you find evidence of applicants who are “more” qualified academically but are not outstanding musicians or athletes? Of course you can. But why admit someone who is talented in only one area when you can admit someone who is talented in two areas and has the ability to contribute to the quality of the college experience for all the other students in the community?

It makes sense, when you only have so many spaces available, to admit students who will contribute in more than one area, so you have more return on your investment in that student, rather than one who is talented in only academics but nothing else.

If you think just scraping over the bar makes you more than qualified (and your anecdotal evidence can probably be countered by students in NoVa public schools who didn't get admitted but were better on every other attribute), then you're adopting a model of admissions that says that once you scrape over the bar of academics, then the college can use other factors to differentiate students. That's fair, and I think it's what they're doing. I don't think it's fair, but it's ultimately not my call.

I do think you overreach in other ways, but that's a matter of what we think the subjective values are of particular things.

I'll leave you with this from the study:

"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."

I'm just not convinced this is a good thing.

If you are one dimensional you have a 1% chance of admission. If you are smart and athletic and are going to contribute to the community for 4 years, you have a 98% chance of admission.

I'm just not convinced this is a bad thing.

You assume they are smart. That is an assumption that is not borne out by the study. They also did the coefficients in reverse and found:

"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"

Harvard can have sports teams without preferring athletes in the admissions process. they might suck more than they do now, but they suck pretty hard now.

They are smart they just don't test prep and take the SAT multiple times and get tutors to.boost their scores.

Compare.their score to the 1st score kids.get instead of their 4th try it will be even.

Harvard can have any type of sports teams they want. It's so funny you want to give athletes.that did not earn their spot a position on the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an athlete you have 20-30 hours a week less to study and less times tutors and SAT/ACT prep. I guaranteed you the non Atlantic Asian eggheads would have same or less GPA if they were athletes

You are not helping.

punishing

It is helping. Some kids can't handle everything an athlete can handle and it's the grit that matter not perfect scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Harvard can have sports teams without preferring athletes in the admissions process. they might suck more than they do now, but they suck pretty hard now.

Harvard wants athletes for more that just their athletic ability. Outstanding athletes tend to also possess the qualities that outstanding leaders have. They work well with others, know how to work hard, they persevere in the face of loss and disappointment. Many have the ability to inspire and encourage others to do well. They are the kind of people who frequently go on to be leaders in government and business.

Harvard is in the business of producing leaders in society, not only academics. Athletes bring abilities to the table that Harvard likes to see in their students. I realize a lot of people would like to see schools like Harvard be about the academics and nothing but the academics, but that just isn’t the case. Harvard sees the need for people who can be leaders in the world and that is what they aim to turn out.

Wow - you really buy into the halo around athletes, don't you?

These are not 'outstanding athletes'. They're not Olympians, they don't turn professional, and they're rarely in the elite of their own birth year for their sport.

What are they? Mostly sub-par students who absent their athletic ability would never make it to the Harvard campus.

What are they? Future CEOs and presidents.