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: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.

No, your epithets do not help your point and in the anonymous forum reflect badly on those who may agree with you.

[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

Oh, well because you 'guarantee' it, that must be accurate.

Kids who get into Harvard do plenty of other activities - sometimes much more than 20-30 hours a week - and still maintain a higher GPA. Plenty of them even do sports but aren't recruited for it. They all maintain a higher GPA. This isn't some precious subset of applicants who have greater demands on their time than others.

Nice try though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So now we're letting kids in on 'grit'? WTF does that mean?

It's funny how when we're talking about college admissions it's usually about 'qualifications' and 'merit', but when we talk about athletes it's "wow, look how much time they spend on something'. check out the 'grit' on that kid!

[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.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

there is no evidence you can cite to support any of those statements.

I'm glad you find it funny because I think it's funny that you want to admit athletes who did not earn their spot at the college. I guess merit has its limits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

I was using sub-par to mean in general society. Among all SAT takers, 1450 is about 96th percentile, so not considered a sub-par score. Someone who gets a 1450, particularly if it is on only one try, is a pretty darn smart person.

How many of the kids with 1540s have another, non-academic, skill that is the equivalent of being able to compete on a Division I team? How many have the leadership abilities that many athletes have? How many have a non-academic skill that puts them in the 96th percentile for that skill?

The ability to score that highly on the SAT and, at the same time, be an outstanding athlete is not common. Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

I was using sub-par to mean in general society. Among all SAT takers, 1450 is about 96th percentile, so not considered a sub-par score. Someone who gets a 1450, particularly if it is on only one try, is a pretty darn smart person.

How many of the kids with 1540s have another, non-academic, skill that is the equivalent of being able to compete on a Division I team? How many have the leadership abilities that many athletes have? How many have a non-academic skill that puts them in the 96th percentile for that skill?

The ability to score that highly on the SAT and, at the same time, be an outstanding athlete is not common. Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time.

Among Harvard applicants, plenty.

And there is absolutely no evidence this rower didn't take the test 4 times and get tutoring.

I get Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time, but shouldn't one of those areas be academics? 1450 might a great general society score, so go row somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What this paper really proves is that Woke White Liberals are using Asians as the sacrificial lamb to assuage their white guilt about Blacks and Browns without having to pay any costs themselves.

You have no idea why colleges seek racial balances that reflect the population. It has nothing to do with guilt. You are ignorant.

NP. I dont care "why." It's racism, plain and simple.

No, it isn't, and the fact you keep repeating it proves you don't understand.

Or don't WANT to, which is far more likely.

It is racism. You just be happen to be okay with your version of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

I was using sub-par to mean in general society. Among all SAT takers, 1450 is about 96th percentile, so not considered a sub-par score. Someone who gets a 1450, particularly if it is on only one try, is a pretty darn smart person.

How many of the kids with 1540s have another, non-academic, skill that is the equivalent of being able to compete on a Division I team? How many have the leadership abilities that many athletes have? How many have a non-academic skill that puts them in the 96th percentile for that skill?

The ability to score that highly on the SAT and, at the same time, be an outstanding athlete is not common. Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time.

Among Harvard applicants, plenty.

And there is absolutely no evidence this rower didn't take the test 4 times and get tutoring.

I get Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time, but shouldn't one of those areas be academics? 1450 might a great general society score, so go row somewhere else.

But Harvard is not solely about academics, it is also about producing leaders. They don’t require every student to have the high level athletic skills that frequently go hand in hand with high level leadership abilities, but they do want a significant percentage of their students to have those skills.

So some have 1450s and play on Division I teams, and some have 1540s but have lesser sports abilities, and possibly exhibit fewer leadership abilities. Selecting students with a mix of high level abilities and achievements allows schools to have a student community with a variety of ways for young people to contribute and learn from each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What this paper really proves is that Woke White Liberals are using Asians as the sacrificial lamb to assuage their white guilt about Blacks and Browns without having to pay any costs themselves.

You have no idea why colleges seek racial balances that reflect the population. It has nothing to do with guilt. You are ignorant.

NP. I dont care "why." It's racism, plain and simple.

No, it isn't, and the fact you keep repeating it proves you don't understand.

Or don't WANT to, which is far more likely.

It is racism. You just be happen to be okay with your version of it.

...sigh...

no, it isn't, since it is not biased against any particular race.

No matter how many times you stomp your feet and keep asserting it is. It isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

I was using sub-par to mean in general society. Among all SAT takers, 1450 is about 96th percentile, so not considered a sub-par score. Someone who gets a 1450, particularly if it is on only one try, is a pretty darn smart person.

How many of the kids with 1540s have another, non-academic, skill that is the equivalent of being able to compete on a Division I team? How many have the leadership abilities that many athletes have? How many have a non-academic skill that puts them in the 96th percentile for that skill?

The ability to score that highly on the SAT and, at the same time, be an outstanding athlete is not common. Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time.

Among Harvard applicants, plenty.

And there is absolutely no evidence this rower didn't take the test 4 times and get tutoring.

I get Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time, but shouldn't one of those areas be academics? 1450 might a great general society score, so go row somewhere else.

But Harvard is not solely about academics, it is also about producing leaders. They don’t require every student to have the high level athletic skills that frequently go hand in hand with high level leadership abilities, but they do want a significant percentage of their students to have those skills.

So some have 1450s and play on Division I teams, and some have 1540s but have lesser sports abilities, and possibly exhibit fewer leadership abilities. Selecting students with a mix of high level abilities and achievements allows schools to have a student community with a variety of ways for young people to contribute and learn from each other.

The Venn diagram of athletes and leadership skills is not a perfect circle. Stop pretending that it is.

If some unproven claim that athletes have great high level leadership skills is your justification for why they should be admitted, then we should admit that all bets are off and say Harvard can admit anyone they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

I was using sub-par to mean in general society. Among all SAT takers, 1450 is about 96th percentile, so not considered a sub-par score. Someone who gets a 1450, particularly if it is on only one try, is a pretty darn smart person.

How many of the kids with 1540s have another, non-academic, skill that is the equivalent of being able to compete on a Division I team? How many have the leadership abilities that many athletes have? How many have a non-academic skill that puts them in the 96th percentile for that skill?

The ability to score that highly on the SAT and, at the same time, be an outstanding athlete is not common. Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time.

Among Harvard applicants, plenty.

And there is absolutely no evidence this rower didn't take the test 4 times and get tutoring.

I get Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time, but shouldn't one of those areas be academics? 1450 might a great general society score, so go row somewhere else.

But Harvard is not solely about academics, it is also about producing leaders. They don’t require every student to have the high level athletic skills that frequently go hand in hand with high level leadership abilities, but they do want a significant percentage of their students to have those skills.

So some have 1450s and play on Division I teams, and some have 1540s but have lesser sports abilities, and possibly exhibit fewer leadership abilities. Selecting students with a mix of high level abilities and achievements allows schools to have a student community with a variety of ways for young people to contribute and learn from each other.

The Venn diagram of athletes and leadership skills is not a perfect circle. Stop pretending that it is.

If some unproven claim that athletes have great high level leadership skills is your justification for why they should be admitted, then we should admit that all bets are off and say Harvard can admit anyone they want.

Previous posts have information about studies showing the success of athletes after college.

Harvard is a private school, so they can choose to admit whomever they want. They’d have to give up government funding, but I hear they have a pretty decent endowment...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No halo, but I do recognize the leadership abilities that many athletes possess. And Harvard recognizes these attributes, as do many of their peer institutions.

And outstanding doesn’t necessarily mean Olympic or professional level. Most of the outstanding students at Ivies are not going to win Nobel prizes, or any academic prizes for that matter, but they are still outstanding students.

And the athletes at Ivies are not “sub-par” students. A recent Ivy League rower came forward and “admitted” that he was recruited with “only” a 1450 SAT score. No one considers 1450 a sub-par score.

look, maybe sub-par means something different to you, but last year at Harvard, for accepted students who took the SAT, the 25th percentile score was 1480. The 75th percentile score was 1600, and the average score was 1540.

Looks pretty sub-par to me.

I was using sub-par to mean in general society. Among all SAT takers, 1450 is about 96th percentile, so not considered a sub-par score. Someone who gets a 1450, particularly if it is on only one try, is a pretty darn smart person.

How many of the kids with 1540s have another, non-academic, skill that is the equivalent of being able to compete on a Division I team? How many have the leadership abilities that many athletes have? How many have a non-academic skill that puts them in the 96th percentile for that skill?

The ability to score that highly on the SAT and, at the same time, be an outstanding athlete is not common. Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time.

Among Harvard applicants, plenty.

And there is absolutely no evidence this rower didn't take the test 4 times and get tutoring.

I get Harvard wants kids who can be highly successful in more than one area at a time, but shouldn't one of those areas be academics? 1450 might a great general society score, so go row somewhere else.

But Harvard is not solely about academics, it is also about producing leaders. They don’t require every student to have the high level athletic skills that frequently go hand in hand with high level leadership abilities, but they do want a significant percentage of their students to have those skills.

So some have 1450s and play on Division I teams, and some have 1540s but have lesser sports abilities, and possibly exhibit fewer leadership abilities. Selecting students with a mix of high level abilities and achievements allows schools to have a student community with a variety of ways for young people to contribute and learn from each other.

The Venn diagram of athletes and leadership skills is not a perfect circle. Stop pretending that it is.

If some unproven claim that athletes have great high level leadership skills is your justification for why they should be admitted, then we should admit that all bets are off and say Harvard can admit anyone they want.

Previous posts have information about studies showing the success of athletes after college.

Harvard is a private school, so they can choose to admit whomever they want. They’d have to give up government funding, but I hear they have a pretty decent endowment...

previous posts claim the studies exist but don't provide them. And there's a big difference between athletes having leadership skills and athletes having post graduate success because, as one poster put it, Yale boosters like to hire Yale athletes.

But what if Harvard wants to keep their government funding (and what if we want to keep funding the research being conducted at the university)? What then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What this paper really proves is that Woke White Liberals are using Asians as the sacrificial lamb to assuage their white guilt about Blacks and Browns without having to pay any costs themselves.

You have no idea why colleges seek racial balances that reflect the population. It has nothing to do with guilt. You are ignorant.

NP. I dont care "why." It's racism, plain and simple.

No, it isn't, and the fact you keep repeating it proves you don't understand.

Or don't WANT to, which is far more likely.

It is racism. You just be happen to be okay with your version of it.

...sigh...

no, it isn't, since it is not biased against any particular race.

No matter how many times you stomp your feet and keep asserting it is. It isn't.

DP. I don’t think you have any understanding of how affirmative action works.