Hating donut hole life: athletic recruiting version

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you say that being an athlete is an 'unearned hook' - like legacy. Do you know how hard those athletes work? You might not like that it's a priority but they 'earn it'

It is nothing like high school newspaper (although I agree w the pp who noted the difference around college newspapers - that's a full time job).

I was puzzled by the whole athletic thing when I was at my HYP - and why the university cared so much. Now all these years later, I get it. The athletes are pretty darn successful and they are loyal alums. Turns out that extra 100 points on the SAT doesn't translate to success.

I hire on wall street. Always happy to have people who have done things like athletics or run a college paper - they are good team players, hard workers etc. Don't knock it.

Sure, they work hard (although most sports virtually require a certain socio-economic background). What I find more interesting is your admission that intellect isn’t that important on Wall Street.

Intellect is plenty important on Wall Street. But we're not talking about athletes or college newspaper editors as kids who aren't smart. We're talking about kids who have a 100-150 points less on the SAT and/or a couple tenths lower on GPA (and many of those high SAT kids are also from a certain socio-economic background with lots of tutors and the like).

I am saying that there are other attributes that make people successful in lots of parts of the workforce - teamwork, grit, EQ. Sports shows that and also college newspaper leaders and other things I am sure too. At my Ivy, those who graduated Summa aren't the most successful in the class or anywhere close. So when you are wondering why colleges are taking some of these athletic kids over kids with higher numbers, I am sure there are lots of reasons. But one of them is that some of those kids have proven over decades to be some of the most successful and loyal alums.

[Anonymous]

My college boyfriend was at an Ivy League school on a football scholarship. He was very bright and had good grades and test scores, but without football might not have been admitted. He majored in engineering, which was not an easy major, and was a B/C student. He worked really, really hard for those Bs and Cs. He was highly recruited on the job market and today is a managing partner at a large, well-known firm making very good money. He's also a very active alum. I don't think the university has any regrets.

[Anonymous]

It seems like a tough gamble/decision. Spending a lot of money and time on trying to develop a kid into a college-level athlete when most kids who are part of the travel/club team/personal trainers circuit might have benefitted more from just playing for their high schools teams and allocating the time/money saved towards other things. How can a parent know that when their kid is in middle school? I don’t envy the parents of athletic kids and none of us should judge unless we’ve walked the same path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you say that being an athlete is an 'unearned hook' - like legacy. Do you know how hard those athletes work? You might not like that it's a priority but they 'earn it'

It is nothing like high school newspaper (although I agree w the pp who noted the difference around college newspapers - that's a full time job).

I was puzzled by the whole athletic thing when I was at my HYP - and why the university cared so much. Now all these years later, I get it. The athletes are pretty darn successful and they are loyal alums. Turns out that extra 100 points on the SAT doesn't translate to success.

I hire on wall street. Always happy to have people who have done things like athletics or run a college paper - they are good team players, hard workers etc. Don't knock it.

Sure, they work hard (although most sports virtually require a certain socio-economic background). What I find more interesting is your admission that intellect isn’t that important on Wall Street.

I thought that was well known. being a glutton for long hours, irregular schedule, fitting in culturally (for front office jobs), being “clubbable” matters more than pure intellect. The smartest kids go into tech, sciences, pursue PhDs, academia. Smarts does not auto equal money or pursuing money. Actually I would
say being too smart is an impediment to success in business.

💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are not a donut hole family. I was a poor kid and now we can pay for our kids’ colleges full pay.

What I don’t understand with donut hole families. Why can’t you just pay what you would have paid for a state school and then take loans out.

Wow you are so nonchalant about thousands of dollars in debt.

Maybe they just saved better than you did.

People who save a lot are nonchalant about debt? Hmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My college boyfriend was at an Ivy League school on a football scholarship. He was very bright and had good grades and test scores, but without football might not have been admitted. He majored in engineering, which was not an easy major, and was a B/C student. He worked really, really hard for those Bs and Cs. He was highly recruited on the job market and today is a managing partner at a large, well-known firm making very good money. He's also a very active alum. I don't think the university has any regrets.

There are no ivy league football scholarships. Never have been.

But to your point, while some of these athletes are "below" the typical student admitted, they are still usually extremely bright and have a better academic profile than most of America. So they are smart enough to figure it out when they get to the working world. There are outliers in both directions - some who would have gotten in without being an athlete, and a few who were stretch admits (and even they aren't dumb). The traits to be successful in the real world do not perfectly align to the traits that most schools look for in their ideal admit - there is a lot of overlap.

And that also depends on how you define "successful." I know many very, very wealthy people, particularly entrepreneurial types, who 30 seconds into a conversation will make it clear that they were never good students. They are wired differently and channeled that to make a lot of money, which many would define as successful. But don't ask them about their favorite book or how they did in physics in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to this but what is a donut hole family?

Typically it’s used to describe a family that makes too much money to get any financial aid, but they don’t make enough to actually afford the school.

I kinda don’t get how the sports part factors into the definition for op, but maybe that’s just me.

I think it’s that her child went through the recruitment process at schools that they couldn’t afford/don't want to pay for thinking that there was money somewhere to make the school more affordable.
The recruitment stuff is a lot of time and, probably, a big emotional toll on the child. Athletic recruiters/coaches can act like they are friends with the kids they are trying to recruit and just make them feel really wanted and needed on the team.
It sounds like this has been kind of painful for their family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we are going through this live right now and it’s brutal - although as my friend said yeah there are worse problems to have - is getting a a third of a full scholarship at a very good D1 school better than being full pay at a tippy top D3 school. D1 will likely provide better social life and experience, D3 better academics alumni and job prospects. Honestly not sure which is better
we can afford the full pay but not paying sticker would be very nice, and I would basically make kid while on the difference as siblings were full pay elsewhere

and we thought the visits would wind up illustrating the material differences to DC - unfortunately not so in any meaningful way - his impressions were based on meeting “a cool kid” or two, and going on about the smoothie machine to his siblings on family text. I was about to blow a gasket - but this is a 17 year old kid, soo..anyway my mantra has always been go to best school you can get in and the rest will figure itself out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD is at an Ivy playing her sport. She got zero financial aid. She's now a sophomore and has been a really hard road. She doesn't get much playing time and doesn't get along with her teammates very much. The students at the school are a little weird because they are so so smart and she still working on making friends. The grass is not always greener. In hindsight, I would have encouraged her skip to D1 and just go in-state as a regular applicant.

this is the problem when Ivies and other top schools relax the academic standards too much for athletes. Then if the kid doesn’t continue with the sport then they also don’t really fit in/match the level of the rest of the kids who got in on academic merit. This was my experience at one of the Ivies.

You weren't smart enough but somehow got in?

Academic standards at the Ivies are relaxed somewhat but still plenty high enough. I have to call Bull.

No, I went to Harvard, not as an athlete. Two of my freshman roommates were varsity athletes. I have other friends of friends/ roommates who were athletes. you almost never saw athletes in STEM majors. Athletes suffered from an image as “dumb jocks” who couldn’t keep up intellectually or in other extracurricular pursuits. They just kind of kept to their own cliques.

I guess that we are lucky then because my pre med kid running at Brown doesn’t feel like a “dumb jock” at all.

Without running, kid would not be at Brown. Or do you insist kid would have gotten in anyway?

JHC, you people really don't get it. Maybe he wouldn't be at Brown without the running, but that doesn't mean he can't thrive there. People have this notion that the educational environment at the most elite schools is navigable only by true geniuses, but that simply isn't true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you say that being an athlete is an 'unearned hook' - like legacy. Do you know how hard those athletes work? You might not like that it's a priority but they 'earn it'

It is nothing like high school newspaper (although I agree w the pp who noted the difference around college newspapers - that's a full time job).

I was puzzled by the whole athletic thing when I was at my HYP - and why the university cared so much. Now all these years later, I get it. The athletes are pretty darn successful and they are loyal alums. Turns out that extra 100 points on the SAT doesn't translate to success.

I hire on wall street. Always happy to have people who have done things like athletics or run a college paper - they are good team players, hard workers etc. Don't knock it.

Sure, they work hard (although most sports virtually require a certain socio-economic background). What I find more interesting is your admission that intellect isn’t that important on Wall Street.

Intellect is plenty important on Wall Street. But we're not talking about athletes or college newspaper editors as kids who aren't smart. We're talking about kids who have a 100-150 points less on the SAT and/or a couple tenths lower on GPA (and many of those high SAT kids are also from a certain socio-economic background with lots of tutors and the like).

I am saying that there are other attributes that make people successful in lots of parts of the workforce - teamwork, grit, EQ. Sports shows that and also college newspaper leaders and other things I am sure too. At my Ivy, those who graduated Summa aren't the most successful in the class or anywhere close. So when you are wondering why colleges are taking some of these athletic kids over kids with higher numbers, I am sure there are lots of reasons. But one of them is that some of those kids have proven over decades to be some of the most successful and loyal alums.

But it’s really you have to be “smart enough”…and it’s fair to say that threshold on Wall Street is much lower than someone trying to finally figure out cold fusion…with the exception of some quant firms (where people lament kids taking $$$s over creating scientific breakthroughs).

[Anonymous]

My wife and were D1 athletes at major universities (cross country and baseball) in 90s. I did traveling all stars and played in summer leagues but it was all very localized and not too time consuming. Sports is now some industrial complex that sucks time and money from families and over-promises on future results.

Our daughter participated in a soccer league when younger but eschewed the travelling teams because she had other interests. Her coaches told us that we should be more focused on improving her skills and get individual lessons and join a travelling team. We said no as she did not have the passion for the sport.

We dodged a bullet. I have frequent conversations with several people at work who complain about the financial pains and time costs of participating in sports. One person is adamant that their child will get a D1 baseball scholarship at a major school. It is clear this person is delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really hard to feel sorry for people when the athletic hook doesn’t work for them.

It’s not hard if you’re not an ahole because you know how much work the kid put into it.

Our kids who study hard, act in plays, win speech & debate competitions, tutor peers, and write for the paper also are kids who put a lot a lot of work in. they just don't feel as entitled to gain admission with lower academic standards!

why should students whose EC is sports gain admission with lower academic standards to play sports that don't bring any benefit to the school's other students? who watches cross-country, volleyball, squash, etc.?

at least diversity helps everyone by not having people in bubbles.

CMU theatre kids don’t need test scores or grades anywhere approaching the non-theatre students. This is true of other schools with strong arts programs.

Perhaps. But the chances of getting into the theater program at CMU are substantially less than the regular admissions percentages.

In addition, drama is an academic major at CMU, with a separate audition component to the admissions process. Not really a good comparison with athletics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you say that being an athlete is an 'unearned hook' - like legacy. Do you know how hard those athletes work? You might not like that it's a priority but they 'earn it'

It is nothing like high school newspaper (although I agree w the pp who noted the difference around college newspapers - that's a full time job).

I was puzzled by the whole athletic thing when I was at my HYP - and why the university cared so much. Now all these years later, I get it. The athletes are pretty darn successful and they are loyal alums. Turns out that extra 100 points on the SAT doesn't translate to success.

I hire on wall street. Always happy to have people who have done things like athletics or run a college paper - they are good team players, hard workers etc. Don't knock it.

Sure, they work hard (although most sports virtually require a certain socio-economic background). What I find more interesting is your admission that intellect isn’t that important on Wall Street.

Intellect is plenty important on Wall Street. But we're not talking about athletes or college newspaper editors as kids who aren't smart. We're talking about kids who have a 100-150 points less on the SAT and/or a couple tenths lower on GPA (and many of those high SAT kids are also from a certain socio-economic background with lots of tutors and the like).

I am saying that there are other attributes that make people successful in lots of parts of the workforce - teamwork, grit, EQ. Sports shows that and also college newspaper leaders and other things I am sure too. At my Ivy, those who graduated Summa aren't the most successful in the class or anywhere close. So when you are wondering why colleges are taking some of these athletic kids over kids with higher numbers, I am sure there are lots of reasons. But one of them is that some of those kids have proven over decades to be some of the most successful and loyal alums.

You do realize you are describing the typical above average northeast flagship student? Literally thousands in each class.
You do not seem familiar with the self-perpetuating athlete- networking - job - hire athletes cycle? Athlete success is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really hard to feel sorry for people when the athletic hook doesn’t work for them.

It’s not hard if you’re not an ahole because you know how much work the kid put into it.

Our kids who study hard, act in plays, win speech & debate competitions, tutor peers, and write for the paper also are kids who put a lot a lot of work in. they just don't feel as entitled to gain admission with lower academic standards!

why should students whose EC is sports gain admission with lower academic standards to play sports that don't bring any benefit to the school's other students? who watches cross-country, volleyball, squash, etc.?

at least diversity helps everyone by not having people in bubbles.

CMU theatre kids don’t need test scores or grades anywhere approaching the non-theatre students. This is true of other schools with strong arts programs.

Perhaps. But the chances of getting into the theater program at CMU are substantially less than the regular admissions percentages.

In addition, drama is an academic major at CMU, with a separate audition component to the admissions process. Not really a good comparison with athletics.

It is if one is trying to claim that all students at a school are expected to have very similar stats.

Even theatre kids need to fulfill other academic requirements so shouldn’t they be required to also have top SAT and other scores? Being a great actor won’t do much for you in CMU math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like a tough gamble/decision. Spending a lot of money and time on trying to develop a kid into a college-level athlete when most kids who are part of the travel/club team/personal trainers circuit might have benefitted more from just playing for their high schools teams and allocating the time/money saved towards other things. How can a parent know that when their kid is in middle school? I don’t envy the parents of athletic kids and none of us should judge unless we’ve walked the same path.

We went the travel team route for baseball or soccer with all of our kids. It was really fun until it turned into showcase travel in high school. None of our kids were interested in playing in college. One ended up playing Varsity, one left their sport after JV and one never played at all in high school (had other interests). They all pursued other interests of their own choosing IB HS and have all landed well.

DH was D1 baseball and I was D3 soccer. It was our thing, not their thing I guess. But also the showcase travel was a grind and not fun. The teams don’t really gel at all at that point. They’ve definitely sucked all the fun out of HS sports.