Aha moment - I know 7 current Ivy League students, and all of them happen to be legacies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t smart, high achievers beget smart, high achievers, on average?

Yes. Legacy kids must have the stats to get in. I know many who were not strong enough students, and were not admitted. And some with outstanding stats but not admitted.

There's a good article about the real corruption being in the area of athletic recruits, for whom academic standards are substantially lowered by contrast:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions/college-admissions-elite-sports-harvard-affirmative-action-macintosh/index.html

Wow, recruited athletes get a 1000% bump, and with lowered academic standards to boot? That's not right.

+1. Athletic recruiting has 10x the impact of legacy these days, yet legacy gets 10x the attention post-Supreme Court decision.

Institutions should be *forced* to reveal the academic stats of all athletic recruits. Full transparency. Where is that lawsuit?

It’s coming soon enough.

It will be dismissed. It would be nothing like the recent SC case. Athletic recruiting is clearly based on merit. You can argue that many sports require money or that schools don't need so many sports (or sports at all) but you can't say athletic recruits are like legacies in terms of the boost since it wasn't something they just lucked into birth wise.

If they are far from reaching the academic standard, which many of them are, the "merit" is highly questionable.

[Anonymous]

I remember athletics admission debated when I was at Princeton and I’ll have to find the article but athletics end up being more successful in income/ donations, which makes sense because of the nature of athletics (team work, social skills, discipline) so why not prioritize them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember athletics admission debated when I was at Princeton and I’ll have to find the article but athletics end up being more successful in income/ donations, which makes sense because of the nature of athletics (team work, social skills, discipline) so why not prioritize them?

I honestly can’t tell if this is a rhetorical question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember athletics admission debated when I was at Princeton and I’ll have to find the article but athletics end up being more successful in income/ donations, which makes sense because of the nature of athletics (team work, social skills, discipline) so why not prioritize them?

Because maybe the people they’re replacing in the admit pool would have been successful as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the athletes from top schools continue to have great results after graduation and help create a campus community that the school, students, and alumni value, then why would the schools seriously consider major change at this point? I agree that sports like squash, crew, and sailing that are hardly attended by non family members and are truly elitist should be things schools consider getting rid of but everyone needs to understand that the Ivy League, power D1 schools like Stanford, NW, and Duke and top D3s like MIT, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Hopkins, and Chicago have no intention of being anything like Oxford or Cambridge in viewing athletics just like any other school extracurricular activity. They also don't have a legal need to nor do I foresee one based on the recent SC decision.

Why? Because athletes are overwhelmingly white. And we just had a Supreme Court decision about affirmative action. Amherst has more athletes than the entire University of Alabama. Get it?

Are athletes overwhelmingly white? As far as I can tell, football, basketball, and track and field are the biggest college sports. Blacks are about 13 percent of the US population but seem very well represented in college sports. Maybe not fencing or sailing, but everywhere else.

What you don't see are very many Asian or Hispanic college athletes. Different priorities. Being a competitive athlete is a huge time commitment.

What is ridiculous though are SLACs like Wlliiams and Amherst where 40 percent of their students are recruited athletes. No one cares about Williams football or Amherst basketball. It's one thing at Stanford or Michigan, where there's a lot of space for different kids and a huge audience that brings in revenue. But with the SLACs, it seems like it's very much a scam to get rich white kids to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the athletes from top schools continue to have great results after graduation and help create a campus community that the school, students, and alumni value, then why would the schools seriously consider major change at this point? I agree that sports like squash, crew, and sailing that are hardly attended by non family members and are truly elitist should be things schools consider getting rid of but everyone needs to understand that the Ivy League, power D1 schools like Stanford, NW, and Duke and top D3s like MIT, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Hopkins, and Chicago have no intention of being anything like Oxford or Cambridge in viewing athletics just like any other school extracurricular activity. They also don't have a legal need to nor do I foresee one based on the recent SC decision.

Why? Because athletes are overwhelmingly white. And we just had a Supreme Court decision about affirmative action. Amherst has more athletes than the entire University of Alabama. Get it?

Are athletes overwhelmingly white? As far as I can tell, football, basketball, and track and field are the biggest college sports. Blacks are about 13 percent of the US population but seem very well represented in college sports. Maybe not fencing or sailing, but everywhere else.

What you don't see are very many Asian or Hispanic college athletes. Different priorities. Being a competitive athlete is a huge time commitment.

What is ridiculous though are SLACs like Wlliiams and Amherst where 40 percent of their students are recruited athletes. No one cares about Williams football or Amherst basketball. It's one thing at Stanford or Michigan, where there's a lot of space for different kids and a huge audience that brings in revenue. But with the SLACs, it seems like it's very much a scam to get rich white kids to attend.

Here’s just one example:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/8/2025-freshman-survey/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t smart, high achievers beget smart, high achievers, on average?

Yes. Legacy kids must have the stats to get in. I know many who were not strong enough students, and were not admitted. And some with outstanding stats but not admitted.

There's a good article about the real corruption being in the area of athletic recruits, for whom academic standards are substantially lowered by contrast:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions/college-admissions-elite-sports-harvard-affirmative-action-macintosh/index.html

Wow, recruited athletes get a 1000% bump, and with lowered academic standards to boot? That's not right.

+1. Athletic recruiting has 10x the impact of legacy these days, yet legacy gets 10x the attention post-Supreme Court decision.

Institutions should be *forced* to reveal the academic stats of all athletic recruits. Full transparency. Where is that lawsuit?

It’s coming soon enough.

It will be dismissed. It would be nothing like the recent SC case. Athletic recruiting is clearly based on merit. You can argue that many sports require money or that schools don't need so many sports (or sports at all) but you can't say athletic recruits are like legacies in terms of the boost since it wasn't something they just lucked into birth wise.

I disagree. I think that it will be viewed through the lens of a disparate impact analysis.

[Anonymous]

Why so Division I schools give tennis scholarships, for example? Who cares, other than the players and their immediate family members, if a team finishes second one year or third the next? Keep the sport, sure, but lose the scholarships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the athletes from top schools continue to have great results after graduation and help create a campus community that the school, students, and alumni value, then why would the schools seriously consider major change at this point? I agree that sports like squash, crew, and sailing that are hardly attended by non family members and are truly elitist should be things schools consider getting rid of but everyone needs to understand that the Ivy League, power D1 schools like Stanford, NW, and Duke and top D3s like MIT, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Hopkins, and Chicago have no intention of being anything like Oxford or Cambridge in viewing athletics just like any other school extracurricular activity. They also don't have a legal need to nor do I foresee one based on the recent SC decision.

Why? Because athletes are overwhelmingly white. And we just had a Supreme Court decision about affirmative action. Amherst has more athletes than the entire University of Alabama. Get it?

Are athletes overwhelmingly white? As far as I can tell, football, basketball, and track and field are the biggest college sports. Blacks are about 13 percent of the US population but seem very well represented in college sports. Maybe not fencing or sailing, but everywhere else.

What you don't see are very many Asian or Hispanic college athletes. Different priorities. Being a competitive athlete is a huge time commitment.

What is ridiculous though are SLACs like Wlliiams and Amherst where 40 percent of their students are recruited athletes. No one cares about Williams football or Amherst basketball. It's one thing at Stanford or Michigan, where there's a lot of space for different kids and a huge audience that brings in revenue. But with the SLACs, it seems like it's very much a scam to get rich white kids to attend.

Here’s just one example:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/8/2025-freshman-survey/

Sorry, forgot to mention that only 37% of domestic Harvard students are white overall (including athletes).
https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=Harvard&s=all&id=166027#enrolmt

Yet 75% or so of athletes are white…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wut? I went to an ivy league school and almost nobody I knew was legacy. One person was the first in her entire county to have ever gone to any ivy league school.

YOu may not have known they were legacy because we didn't walk around with T-shirts emblazoned "I am a legacy". no one in my harvard class discussed that or financial aid. I remember someone thinking my dad was the person who got me in - no - it was my straight As, SATs and slot in my high school class and gift for writing that got me in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the athletes from top schools continue to have great results after graduation and help create a campus community that the school, students, and alumni value, then why would the schools seriously consider major change at this point? I agree that sports like squash, crew, and sailing that are hardly attended by non family members and are truly elitist should be things schools consider getting rid of but everyone needs to understand that the Ivy League, power D1 schools like Stanford, NW, and Duke and top D3s like MIT, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Hopkins, and Chicago have no intention of being anything like Oxford or Cambridge in viewing athletics just like any other school extracurricular activity. They also don't have a legal need to nor do I foresee one based on the recent SC decision.

Why? Because athletes are overwhelmingly white. And we just had a Supreme Court decision about affirmative action. Amherst has more athletes than the entire University of Alabama. Get it?

Are athletes overwhelmingly white? As far as I can tell, football, basketball, and track and field are the biggest college sports. Blacks are about 13 percent of the US population but seem very well represented in college sports. Maybe not fencing or sailing, but everywhere else.

What you don't see are very many Asian or Hispanic college athletes. Different priorities. Being a competitive athlete is a huge time commitment.

What is ridiculous though are SLACs like Wlliiams and Amherst where 40 percent of their students are recruited athletes. No one cares about Williams football or Amherst basketball. It's one thing at Stanford or Michigan, where there's a lot of space for different kids and a huge audience that brings in revenue. But with the SLACs, it seems like it's very much a scam to get rich white kids to attend.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.thecrimson.com/photos/2021/09/08/014858_1351237.png

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the athletes from top schools continue to have great results after graduation and help create a campus community that the school, students, and alumni value, then why would the schools seriously consider major change at this point? I agree that sports like squash, crew, and sailing that are hardly attended by non family members and are truly elitist should be things schools consider getting rid of but everyone needs to understand that the Ivy League, power D1 schools like Stanford, NW, and Duke and top D3s like MIT, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Hopkins, and Chicago have no intention of being anything like Oxford or Cambridge in viewing athletics just like any other school extracurricular activity. They also don't have a legal need to nor do I foresee one based on the recent SC decision.

Why? Because athletes are overwhelmingly white. And we just had a Supreme Court decision about affirmative action. Amherst has more athletes than the entire University of Alabama. Get it?

Are athletes overwhelmingly white? As far as I can tell, football, basketball, and track and field are the biggest college sports. Blacks are about 13 percent of the US population but seem very well represented in college sports. Maybe not fencing or sailing, but everywhere else.

What you don't see are very many Asian or Hispanic college athletes. Different priorities. Being a competitive athlete is a huge time commitment.

What is ridiculous though are SLACs like Wlliiams and Amherst where 40 percent of their students are recruited athletes. No one cares about Williams football or Amherst basketball. It's one thing at Stanford or Michigan, where there's a lot of space for different kids and a huge audience that brings in revenue. But with the SLACs, it seems like it's very much a scam to get rich white kids to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the athletes from top schools continue to have great results after graduation and help create a campus community that the school, students, and alumni value, then why would the schools seriously consider major change at this point? I agree that sports like squash, crew, and sailing that are hardly attended by non family members and are truly elitist should be things schools consider getting rid of but everyone needs to understand that the Ivy League, power D1 schools like Stanford, NW, and Duke and top D3s like MIT, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Hopkins, and Chicago have no intention of being anything like Oxford or Cambridge in viewing athletics just like any other school extracurricular activity. They also don't have a legal need to nor do I foresee one based on the recent SC decision.

Why? Because athletes are overwhelmingly white. And we just had a Supreme Court decision about affirmative action. Amherst has more athletes than the entire University of Alabama. Get it?

This aligns with the decision. Sort students by race, assuming race implies something about all applicants, not okay. Selecting for a characteristic, like athletic ability, fine. Doesn’t matter if that then favors a given group,.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the athletes from top schools continue to have great results after graduation and help create a campus community that the school, students, and alumni value, then why would the schools seriously consider major change at this point? I agree that sports like squash, crew, and sailing that are hardly attended by non family members and are truly elitist should be things schools consider getting rid of but everyone needs to understand that the Ivy League, power D1 schools like Stanford, NW, and Duke and top D3s like MIT, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Hopkins, and Chicago have no intention of being anything like Oxford or Cambridge in viewing athletics just like any other school extracurricular activity. They also don't have a legal need to nor do I foresee one based on the recent SC decision.

Why? Because athletes are overwhelmingly white. And we just had a Supreme Court decision about affirmative action. Amherst has more athletes than the entire University of Alabama. Get it?

Are athletes overwhelmingly white? As far as I can tell, football, basketball, and track and field are the biggest college sports. Blacks are about 13 percent of the US population but seem very well represented in college sports. Maybe not fencing or sailing, but everywhere else.

What you don't see are very many Asian or Hispanic college athletes. Different priorities. Being a competitive athlete is a huge time commitment.

What is ridiculous though are SLACs like Wlliiams and Amherst where 40 percent of their students are recruited athletes. No one cares about Williams football or Amherst basketball. It's one thing at Stanford or Michigan, where there's a lot of space for different kids and a huge audience that brings in revenue. But with the SLACs, it seems like it's very much a scam to get rich white kids to attend.

Once football, basketball and at some programs (the successful ones which focus on sprints and jumps which score points) track and field, blacks are not particularly well represented in many sports. Overall blacks appear to be well represented but the distribution across sports is narrow. Schools like Clemson and Brown recently tried to jettison their men's track programs, but quickly met a lot of resistance because the track teams are a consistent source of black male student athletes, and reinstated the programs. One would think that athletic directors would have known this before they cancelled the programs, but NCAA athletics is often about money - and it will become more of an issue with the consolidation of teams in football conferences, which pay most all of the freight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the athletes from top schools continue to have great results after graduation and help create a campus community that the school, students, and alumni value, then why would the schools seriously consider major change at this point? I agree that sports like squash, crew, and sailing that are hardly attended by non family members and are truly elitist should be things schools consider getting rid of but everyone needs to understand that the Ivy League, power D1 schools like Stanford, NW, and Duke and top D3s like MIT, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Hopkins, and Chicago have no intention of being anything like Oxford or Cambridge in viewing athletics just like any other school extracurricular activity. They also don't have a legal need to nor do I foresee one based on the recent SC decision.

Why? Because athletes are overwhelmingly white. And we just had a Supreme Court decision about affirmative action. Amherst has more athletes than the entire University of Alabama. Get it?

Are athletes overwhelmingly white? As far as I can tell, football, basketball, and track and field are the biggest college sports. Blacks are about 13 percent of the US population but seem very well represented in college sports. Maybe not fencing or sailing, but everywhere else.

What you don't see are very many Asian or Hispanic college athletes. Different priorities. Being a competitive athlete is a huge time commitment.

What is ridiculous though are SLACs like Wlliiams and Amherst where 40 percent of their students are recruited athletes. No one cares about Williams football or Amherst basketball. It's one thing at Stanford or Michigan, where there's a lot of space for different kids and a huge audience that brings in revenue. But with the SLACs, it seems like it's very much a scam to get rich white kids to attend.

Once football, basketball and at some programs (the successful ones which focus on sprints and jumps which score points) track and field, blacks are not particularly well represented in many sports. Overall blacks appear to be well represented but the distribution across sports is narrow. Schools like Clemson and Brown recently tried to jettison their men's track programs, but quickly met a lot of resistance because the track teams are a consistent source of black male student athletes, and reinstated the programs. One would think that athletic directors would have known this before they cancelled the programs, but NCAA athletics is often about money - and it will become more of an issue with the consolidation of teams in football conferences, which pay most all of the freight.

Clemson met resistance because they have a strong track and field record with championships. Nobody is going to jettison a winning program.