Athletic Ivy

[Anonymous]

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.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

It is a zero sum game. The football team needs what they need. Who cares if another is a better writer than the quarterback? Throwing a football is more desirable for some reason and the QB gets the spot even if he is not is a better position to leverage the academic opportunities available.

I mean, if you're bothering to have a football team, you might as well try to have a decent QB. QBs can write essays, too. I'm aware of a FB player recruited to multiple Ivies who is not really what I would consider an outstanding player but does apparently get good grades in rigorous classes.

Sure but is the QB best positioned to take advantage of an outstanding writing program when that is not their interest? Doubt it. But all these schools want to recruit athletes...they just do

Can the outstanding writer can play QB? Do you think being good at one automatically excludes being good at the other? If they have the sport, they need someone to play it. If you don't think they should have the sport, should they also not have other extracurricular activities?

Who cares? This is an institution of higher learning. Can you major in football?

But why should you get to deem who is worthy of admission and who isn't?

[Anonymous]

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.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

It is a zero sum game. The football team needs what they need. Who cares if another is a better writer than the quarterback? Throwing a football is more desirable for some reason and the QB gets the spot even if he is not is a better position to leverage the academic opportunities available.

I mean, if you're bothering to have a football team, you might as well try to have a decent QB. QBs can write essays, too. I'm aware of a FB player recruited to multiple Ivies who is not really what I would consider an outstanding player but does apparently get good grades in rigorous classes.

Sure but is the QB best positioned to take advantage of an outstanding writing program when that is not their interest? Doubt it. But all these schools want to recruit athletes...they just do

Can the outstanding writer can play QB? Do you think being good at one automatically excludes being good at the other? If they have the sport, they need someone to play it. If you don't think they should have the sport, should they also not have other extracurricular activities?

Who cares? This is an institution of higher learning. Can you major in football?

But why should you get to deem who is worthy of admission and who isn't?

This is a chat forum not an ad com. You think football talent is a lot more valuable and I do. Difference of opinion.

[Anonymous]

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.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

It is a zero sum game. The football team needs what they need. Who cares if another is a better writer than the quarterback? Throwing a football is more desirable for some reason and the QB gets the spot even if he is not is a better position to leverage the academic opportunities available.

I mean, if you're bothering to have a football team, you might as well try to have a decent QB. QBs can write essays, too. I'm aware of a FB player recruited to multiple Ivies who is not really what I would consider an outstanding player but does apparently get good grades in rigorous classes.

Sure but is the QB best positioned to take advantage of an outstanding writing program when that is not their interest? Doubt it. But all these schools want to recruit athletes...they just do

Can the outstanding writer can play QB? Do you think being good at one automatically excludes being good at the other? If they have the sport, they need someone to play it. If you don't think they should have the sport, should they also not have other extracurricular activities?

Who cares? This is an institution of higher learning. Can you major in football?

But why should you get to deem who is worthy of admission and who isn't?

This is a chat forum not an ad com. You think football talent is a lot more valuable and I do. Difference of opinion.

Why would you want to pay to send your kids somewhere if you don't approve of how they admit applicants. Real talk.

[Anonymous]

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.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

It is a zero sum game. The football team needs what they need. Who cares if another is a better writer than the quarterback? Throwing a football is more desirable for some reason and the QB gets the spot even if he is not is a better position to leverage the academic opportunities available.

I mean, if you're bothering to have a football team, you might as well try to have a decent QB. QBs can write essays, too. I'm aware of a FB player recruited to multiple Ivies who is not really what I would consider an outstanding player but does apparently get good grades in rigorous classes.

Sure but is the QB best positioned to take advantage of an outstanding writing program when that is not their interest? Doubt it. But all these schools want to recruit athletes...they just do

Can the outstanding writer can play QB? Do you think being good at one automatically excludes being good at the other? If they have the sport, they need someone to play it. If you don't think they should have the sport, should they also not have other extracurricular activities?

Who cares? This is an institution of higher learning. Can you major in football?

But why should you get to deem who is worthy of admission and who isn't?

This is a chat forum not an ad com. You think football talent is a lot more valuable and I do. Difference of opinion.

Why would you want to pay to send your kids somewhere if you don't approve of how they admit applicants. Real talk.

Ivy? They admit lots of interesting applicants. And plenty of interesting athletes. But giving a big edge to athletic talent? To me it is illogical and wastes what is the real point of college - the academic opportunities. But regardless if some of the athletes are not taking full advantage of the academics, it is there for the students that want to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not quite sure what the point of this thread is. Harvard has an enormous athletics program. So does Stanford. So do many other schools. Where there is a big athletic program, there are lots of athletes.

The point is - Harvard and Stanford are fake ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some sports at harvard the athletes are dominated by international students. So its not even American athletes getting the boost.

Correct.

The odds of American kids being athletically recruited to Ivies for niche sports such as fencing, squash, field hockey,etc… are slim because of this.

Harvard Rosters
Men's squash: 8 foreign 4 US
Women's squash: 5 foreign 9 US
Men's fencing: 1 foreign 13 US
Women's fencing: 0 foreign 15 US
Field hockey: 13 foreign 13 US

Doesn't look like the odds are too bad for US students in niche sports.

I’m all for international athletes making these sports better and more competitive but these results show that the number of roster spots that kids from this country can fill are lower than what might be otherwise expected. This makes athletic recruiting even more difficult for many of these sports.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/demographics/2021RES_ISATrendsDivSprt.pdf

This report gives participation of international athletes playing specific sports. Really the big one is tennis (63% in Division I) followed by ice hockey (39%) and men's soccer (37%).

Note that D1 men's fencing is only 20% international and women's 16%. Not a huge threat from foreigners.

There are under 1,000 athletes playing college squash so really you shouldn't worry about international athletes shutting out US kids from something so insignificant.

Honestly, seems like playing football is the best route for a male in the Ivies. Every school has a team, they need to recruit a ton of players, participation is down (at least in UMC areas) due to concussion risk and you have almost no foreign competition. Sure, your kid may have CTE down the road...but that's a problem for another day.

CTE risk is not high for a typical player for an Ivy --- no pop warner because kid doing other things. Just high school and college. Also people pay attention to concussions and most UMC parents would not let the kid play anymore if they had several.

Yeah, but you are missing the big picture...how many UMC parents won't even let their kid even remotely consider playing tackle football to begin with because of the headline risk. Compare that to 20 years ago and you will see a massive difference in participation.

People always say this, but have you ever met anyone with interested kids whose parents prevented them from playing? I haven't, at least not at the post-puberty level (I understand not playing Pop Warner).

[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.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

It is a zero sum game. The football team needs what they need. Who cares if another is a better writer than the quarterback? Throwing a football is more desirable for some reason and the QB gets the spot even if he is not is a better position to leverage the academic opportunities available.

I mean, if you're bothering to have a football team, you might as well try to have a decent QB. QBs can write essays, too. I'm aware of a FB player recruited to multiple Ivies who is not really what I would consider an outstanding player but does apparently get good grades in rigorous classes.

Sure but is the QB best positioned to take advantage of an outstanding writing program when that is not their interest? Doubt it. But all these schools want to recruit athletes...they just do

Can the outstanding writer can play QB? Do you think being good at one automatically excludes being good at the other? If they have the sport, they need someone to play it. If you don't think they should have the sport, should they also not have other extracurricular activities?

Who cares? This is an institution of higher learning. Can you major in football?

But why should you get to deem who is worthy of admission and who isn't?

This is a chat forum not an ad com. You think football talent is a lot more valuable and I do. Difference of opinion.

Why would you want to pay to send your kids somewhere if you don't approve of how they admit applicants. Real talk.

Ivy? They admit lots of interesting applicants. And plenty of interesting athletes. But giving a big edge to athletic talent? To me it is illogical and wastes what is the real point of college - the academic opportunities. But regardless if some of the athletes are not taking full advantage of the academics, it is there for the students that want to do that.

[Anonymous]

I went to Duke on athletic scholarship. Graduated magna cum laude with highest honors in my major (had to apply to get into the honors program). From a very poor single mother home with a mother with health and addiction problems. All of the anxieties of poverty. All American a couple of times. Private school people were foreign to me, as were elitists, who I often found rather effete without much practical experience (I was a Teamster in a warehouse during summers). I was surprised at the prejudice against athletes like myself, where it was often assumed that I was not a good student. Despite very little study time, I routinely competed well against everyone and indeed did even better at the top ten law school I attended, finishing second in the class and a Law Review editor and so on. I had this level of achievement because of athletics. Competition and intense focus were second nature - I certainly was not that bright. I did have some extrinsic motivation. My union buddies really got after me for keeping high grades - many of them were working night jobs to send their kids to college and knew my situation. My twin went to a highly regarded public university with big time athletic programs and was a multiple All American. Certainly the football and basketball teams had people who really shouldn't have been there. But athletes in the other sports were often very good students. My brother often experienced the same kind of prejudice as I did but he was such an intimidating intellect it didn't last long. 4.0 in math and a world recognized Phd in economics. Lots of motivation to take care of our mother. Considerable chips on our shoulders against elitists.

I am sure being ranked third in the country in my sport helped me get into Duke. At the same time, I was in the top 25 percent in terms of stats so matriculating made sense. No private high schools, no test prep, no parents hovering or even caring if I went to college. My mother had no idea whether I obtained A's or D's - she just wanted me to stay out of trouble. Just a few simple rules. Don't drink - not compatible with big time athletics. Don't do drugs and especially pot - I needed to embrace my reality and not use anything to cope. I got tested in competition anyway. And treat women with respect and at the same time cautiously - unlike rich kids, I had no margin for error from dumb mistakes. From about 15 on, the objective was to satisfy the face in the mirror. This DCUM board is foreign to me. Who the heck would pay for private high school? And why such obsession over kids' college admissions? They have to own their work and future. I was not a careless parent, but never checked on my kids homework (they were girls with a higher maturity level than most). They went to public high school, and got in in their own to Princeton and Duke and did well there. Not good deals for me financially but I felt I had to pay my free education forward. They would have done well virtually anywhere. To those prejudiced against top level college athletes, be glad to have a discussion.

[Anonymous]

^^ "Certainly the football and basketball teams had people who really shouldn't have been there."
Based on what? Why would you deem these people less deserving than you? Sounds like you wouldn't have been there without athletic ability, either. Why pass judgment on those getting the same opportunity you did?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ "Certainly the football and basketball teams had people who really shouldn't have been there."
Based on what? Why would you deem these people less deserving than you? Sounds like you wouldn't have been there without athletic ability, either. Why pass judgment on those getting the same opportunity you did?

Also, it sounds like you were naturally gifted in the type of intelligence that allows for success in college and admission to a top 10 law school. This itself is a result of genetics and luck and a form of "winning the lottery" type privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ "Certainly the football and basketball teams had people who really shouldn't have been there."
Based on what? Why would you deem these people less deserving than you? Sounds like you wouldn't have been there without athletic ability, either. Why pass judgment on those getting the same opportunity you did?

Maybe he would have been admitted there without athletics, as PP and his brother sound academically / intellectually gifted, despite him claiming otherwise. Yes, PP seems to be discounting intelligence as itself a form of privilege and claiming it was all grit and hard work -- though the latter certainly does count for a lot. However, some people could prep for and take the LSAT 20 times and still not attain the score needed for admission to a top 10 law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ "Certainly the football and basketball teams had people who really shouldn't have been there."
Based on what? Why would you deem these people less deserving than you? Sounds like you wouldn't have been there without athletic ability, either. Why pass judgment on those getting the same opportunity you did?

It's zero sum game. The football player gets a spot. The kid that is better positioned to use all that football time to take advantage of academic opportunities is not admitted.

The college prefers that the athlete spend time running or throwing a ball or whatever it is they do, over engaging in academics with that same time. There are only 24 hours in a day and the colleges want a solid chunk of it spent on sports by many of their students. That is where the colleges values lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ "Certainly the football and basketball teams had people who really shouldn't have been there."
Based on what? Why would you deem these people less deserving than you? Sounds like you wouldn't have been there without athletic ability, either. Why pass judgment on those getting the same opportunity you did?

Also, it sounds like you were naturally gifted in the type of intelligence that allows for success in college and admission to a top 10 law school. This itself is a result of genetics and luck and a form of "winning the lottery" type privilege.

He’s also telling a story from probably 40 years ago oh how times have changed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ "Certainly the football and basketball teams had people who really shouldn't have been there."
Based on what? Why would you deem these people less deserving than you? Sounds like you wouldn't have been there without athletic ability, either. Why pass judgment on those getting the same opportunity you did?

It's zero sum game. The football player gets a spot. The kid that is better positioned to use all that football time to take advantage of academic opportunities is not admitted.

The college prefers that the athlete spend time running or throwing a ball or whatever it is they do, over engaging in academics with that same time. There are only 24 hours in a day and the colleges want a solid chunk of it spent on sports by many of their students. That is where the colleges values lie.[/quote]
This is kind of ridiculous bc most admitted are not going to be playing collegiate athletics, much less football. What if you had two applicants with equal stats, but one was an athlete in a sport that needed a player? Could the athlete then get the nod for admissions over the non-athlete?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ "Certainly the football and basketball teams had people who really shouldn't have been there."
Based on what? Why would you deem these people less deserving than you? Sounds like you wouldn't have been there without athletic ability, either. Why pass judgment on those getting the same opportunity you did?

Maybe he would have been admitted there without athletics, as PP and his brother sound academically / intellectually gifted, despite him claiming otherwise. Yes, PP seems to be discounting intelligence as itself a form of privilege and claiming it was all grit and hard work -- though the latter certainly does count for a lot. However, some people could prep for and take the LSAT 20 times and still not attain the score needed for admission to a top 10 law school.

*Most* people, not "some" people.