Friend just announced her junior DD has committed to play lax at a top school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally find it funny that the “sour grapes” posters are trying to claim academic standards are the same for athletes. What a joke! Many schools limit the majors available to athletes and require tutors. I’m sure junior is a genius but that is just not the case for the vast majority of athletic recruits.

As a PP with the long post a page back noted, there are majors that are simply not realistic to the time constraints of the sport. That is a choice the student-athlete makes as part of the deal. If they really want a lab based major, then they likely need to give up the sport. Not everyone has that option if scholarship money is involved. So...they get a degree, play the sport and then go to grad school for their academic passion. So what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally find it funny that the “sour grapes” posters are trying to claim academic standards are the same for athletes. What a joke! Many schools limit the majors available to athletes and require tutors. I’m sure junior is a genius but that is just not the case for the vast majority of athletic recruits.

As a PP with the long post a page back noted, there are majors that are simply not realistic to the time constraints of the sport. That is a choice the student-athlete makes as part of the deal. If they really want a lab based major, then they likely need to give up the sport. Not everyone has that option if scholarship money is involved. So...they get a degree, play the sport and then go to grad school for their academic passion. So what?

IDK, my niece is pre-med and a D1 sport in a top 10 (in her sport) and T30 school.

Also, my son (who follows your way of thinking) gets an enormous amount of support in the form of preferred registration and tutors, who come to the athletic department during his required study time. He is getting an extra year of eligibility and auto accepted to a graduate school program in the degree he preferred instead of the one he did since he was 17/18/19 when he chose his major

My son has a few co-players that are engineering and biology so I think it just depends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

Actually, unless you and your partner have given in the seven figures, don't count on that double-legacy. Legacy matters when there is signigicant benefit to the school, i.e. long-term financial contributions. Schools benefit by admitting students for any number of reasons beyond just grades: diversity is probably number 1, then those who contribute to the long-term financial health of the institution in a significant way, then athletes, who tend to be top performers after graduation and, in the case of the big sports, money makers for the school. You can begrudge these factors all you want, but it's students like these who keep many of these insitutions thriving. The one in 50,000 A student has a much less predictable long-term contribution to the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

Can you see the difference? Your kid did nothing to achieve double legacy status. It is purely his or her good luck to have been born to parents who attended the school and made donations. An athlete trains for years to achieve a chance at being recruited. That's hard work, not pure luck.

I'm not arguing that the system is fair, but those two admissions preferences aren't comparable.

She can't. The fact that PP can't understand the hard work, sacrifice, discipline, and value of athletics is very scary. To think that's an unfair advantage and being an athlete is an unfair advantage is truly insane.

The fact that you think athletics has some sort of monopoly over hard work, sacrifice and discipline that other ECs (which don't get the same admissions preference) don't is insane.

I was comparing the advantage of being an athlete vs being a legacy. Quite accurately. A recruited athlete has more value and is more deserving than a legacy. All day long.

Other ECs require those qualities and that's great. My point wasn't that other ECs don't require them. It was that being a legacy does not.

Colleges are allowed to have priorities, just like you are. They also invest more to recruit professors in comp sci compared to classics. So what?

-Mom of legacy kids with no athletic ability

Your job is to provide connections! Step up babe! 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny how parents of athletes are twisting themselves into pretzels justifying this completely arbitrary advantage that athletes are given in the college admission process. Yes, your kid puts in long hours -- so do lot of other kids doing music, or theater, or science or dance at a high level. They don't get special admissions processes.

Yeah yeah, sports promotes community and school spirit. So do the performing arts. A tiny percentage of sports bring in money, most do not, yet they still get to recruit. You know that this glaring loophole in college admissions is the reason why the bribery scheme in the "Varsity Blues" case actually worked right? Take a picture of yourself on a rowing machine, call the kid a crew recruit -- voila, admission!

There are other unfairnesses in college admissions of course (legacies), but just because there are others doesn't mean that you can't acknowledge that this one is -- objectively -- unfair.

Totally agree. Parents seem completely oblivious to the water they’re swimming in. It is a bizarrely American thing to value the hard work put into athletics so much more than hard work in other areas. I’d take a kid who looked after his younger siblings after school every day over a kid who went to soccer practice every day because he wanted to win so badly.

This to me is it. It is bizarre -- the elevation of athletics over any other activity connected to the university community (arts, debate, chess, science, what have you). It is uniquely American.

To those saying it's just another thumb on the scale for something the university wants like URM or orchestra and they still have to achieve top grades and test scores, do you see those candidates getting a special recruitment procedure? Does the diversity officer of the school call up a URM candidate and say, "you've got the diversity and background we could really use here. You've got to get a GPA of __ and a SAT of __, but as long as you do, you've got a soft commitment from Larling U!" Does the orchestra director say "we're in need of good trombonist and you caught our eye. If you maintain a GPA of ___ and get SAT of ____ and keep at the trombone, you're in." It's not a plus factor putting them over other candidates with equal stats, it's a whole nother admission procedure.

The only other candidates I can think of that might get an entirely new path set up for them are development, Z-list, your dad donates a building, candidates. But that's all very hush-hush, cloak-and-dagger, rumor which the university wants to hide.

Here, it's all in the open, and everyone looks at it and is like "yeah, seems legit."

Can you not admit it's not just another factor, it's a special fast-track just for athletes? The emperor has no clothes!

This. I don't care that athletes get a bump for being in a time-intensive EC, just like any other EC that requires talent and dedication. It's the completely separate application track where admissions bows to the coaches that smells bad. It's also what made the whole "Varsity Blues" con work. And, even though they busted that one counselor, you know there are others pulling the same thing given the lack of checks and balances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

Actually, unless you and your partner have given in the seven figures, don't count on that double-legacy. Legacy matters when there is signigicant benefit to the school, i.e. long-term financial contributions. Schools benefit by admitting students for any number of reasons beyond just grades: diversity is probably number 1, then those who contribute to the long-term financial health of the institution in a significant way, then athletes, who tend to be top performers after graduation and, in the case of the big sports, money makers for the school. You can begrudge these factors all you want, but it's students like these who keep many of these insitutions thriving. The one in 50,000 A student has a much less predictable long-term contribution to the school.

that really depends on the school. For a lot double legacy will get the kid in if they are within range

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

Can you see the difference? Your kid did nothing to achieve double legacy status. It is purely his or her good luck to have been born to parents who attended the school and made donations. An athlete trains for years to achieve a chance at being recruited. That's hard work, not pure luck.

I'm not arguing that the system is fair, but those two admissions preferences aren't comparable.

She can't. The fact that PP can't understand the hard work, sacrifice, discipline, and value of athletics is very scary. To think that's an unfair advantage and being an athlete is an unfair advantage is truly insane.

The fact that you think athletics has some sort of monopoly over hard work, sacrifice and discipline that other ECs (which don't get the same admissions preference) don't is insane.

My DD is being recruited for her sport. She is currently at what many of you call a "Big 3" and is a leader in a very important EC and was selected by faculty for a fairly presitigious other "EC." Neither of those remotly compare to the time and commitment she has made to her sport. Her true success is illustrated in the balance between school and the sport, not the balance between school and non-sport extra curriculars. They just aren't the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

Actually, unless you and your partner have given in the seven figures, don't count on that double-legacy. Legacy matters when there is signigicant benefit to the school, i.e. long-term financial contributions. Schools benefit by admitting students for any number of reasons beyond just grades: diversity is probably number 1, then those who contribute to the long-term financial health of the institution in a significant way, then athletes, who tend to be top performers after graduation and, in the case of the big sports, money makers for the school. You can begrudge these factors all you want, but it's students like these who keep many of these insitutions thriving. The one in 50,000 A student has a much less predictable long-term contribution to the school.

Please provide a statistic to support that athletes are top performers after graduation, I went to a school with a top d1 lacrosse program, and that was definitely not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally find it funny that the “sour grapes” posters are trying to claim academic standards are the same for athletes. What a joke! Many schools limit the majors available to athletes and require tutors. I’m sure junior is a genius but that is just not the case for the vast majority of athletic recruits.

As a PP with the long post a page back noted, there are majors that are simply not realistic to the time constraints of the sport. That is a choice the student-athlete makes as part of the deal. If they really want a lab based major, then they likely need to give up the sport. Not everyone has that option if scholarship money is involved. So...they get a degree, play the sport and then go to grad school for their academic passion. So what?

IDK, my niece is pre-med and a D1 sport in a top 10 (in her sport) and T30 school.

Also, my son (who follows your way of thinking) gets an enormous amount of support in the form of preferred registration and tutors, who come to the athletic department during his required study time. He is getting an extra year of eligibility and auto accepted to a graduate school program in the degree he preferred instead of the one he did since he was 17/18/19 when he chose his major

My son has a few co-players that are engineering and biology so I think it just depends.

A few examples here and there are not the norm. It is like saying Steve Jobs didn't graduate from college but went on to become successful means that others will be successful as well.

Take a look at University of North Carolina men tennis roster: https://goheels.com/sports/mens-tennis/roster

It is either Exercise and Sport Science or Business Administration. You are not going to find pre-med or Engineering. You just don't have time for those majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny how parents of athletes are twisting themselves into pretzels justifying this completely arbitrary advantage that athletes are given in the college admission process. Yes, your kid puts in long hours -- so do lot of other kids doing music, or theater, or science or dance at a high level. They don't get special admissions processes.

Yeah yeah, sports promotes community and school spirit. So do the performing arts. A tiny percentage of sports bring in money, most do not, yet they still get to recruit. You know that this glaring loophole in college admissions is the reason why the bribery scheme in the "Varsity Blues" case actually worked right? Take a picture of yourself on a rowing machine, call the kid a crew recruit -- voila, admission!

There are other unfairnesses in college admissions of course (legacies), but just because there are others doesn't mean that you can't acknowledge that this one is -- objectively -- unfair.

Totally agree. Parents seem completely oblivious to the water they’re swimming in. It is a bizarrely American thing to value the hard work put into athletics so much more than hard work in other areas. I’d take a kid who looked after his younger siblings after school every day over a kid who went to soccer practice every day because he wanted to win so badly.

This to me is it. It is bizarre -- the elevation of athletics over any other activity connected to the university community (arts, debate, chess, science, what have you). It is uniquely American.

To those saying it's just another thumb on the scale for something the university wants like URM or orchestra and they still have to achieve top grades and test scores, do you see those candidates getting a special recruitment procedure? Does the diversity officer of the school call up a URM candidate and say, "you've got the diversity and background we could really use here. You've got to get a GPA of __ and a SAT of __, but as long as you do, you've got a soft commitment from Larling U!" Does the orchestra director say "we're in need of good trombonist and you caught our eye. If you maintain a GPA of ___ and get SAT of ____ and keep at the trombone, you're in." It's not a plus factor putting them over other candidates with equal stats, it's a whole nother admission procedure.

The only other candidates I can think of that might get an entirely new path set up for them are development, Z-list, your dad donates a building, candidates. But that's all very hush-hush, cloak-and-dagger, rumor which the university wants to hide.

Here, it's all in the open, and everyone looks at it and is like "yeah, seems legit."

Can you not admit it's not just another factor, it's a special fast-track just for athletes? The emperor has no clothes!

This. I don't care that athletes get a bump for being in a time-intensive EC, just like any other EC that requires talent and dedication. It's the completely separate application track where admissions bows to the coaches that smells bad. It's also what made the whole "Varsity Blues" con work. And, even though they busted that one counselor, you know there are others pulling the same thing given the lack of checks and balances.

Do you even know what most kids go through for recruiting.

Imagine going on countless interviews, calls from coaches telling you they are interested, only to be ghosted. Getting invited to an interview and then have the coach hand you off to a graduate student for a "tour" because they found somebody better "last week".

I would love for the process to be the same. Let's have somebody stand over your child's desk while they take the SAT to not only see their score but to see how they act, feel, react. Then when your child turns to say hi, they act like they didn't even come to watch you because you got problem 9 wrong.

You are insane if you think most kids have a "fast track".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally find it funny that the “sour grapes” posters are trying to claim academic standards are the same for athletes. What a joke! Many schools limit the majors available to athletes and require tutors. I’m sure junior is a genius but that is just not the case for the vast majority of athletic recruits.

As a PP with the long post a page back noted, there are majors that are simply not realistic to the time constraints of the sport. That is a choice the student-athlete makes as part of the deal. If they really want a lab based major, then they likely need to give up the sport. Not everyone has that option if scholarship money is involved. So...they get a degree, play the sport and then go to grad school for their academic passion. So what?

IDK, my niece is pre-med and a D1 sport in a top 10 (in her sport) and T30 school.

Also, my son (who follows your way of thinking) gets an enormous amount of support in the form of preferred registration and tutors, who come to the athletic department during his required study time. He is getting an extra year of eligibility and auto accepted to a graduate school program in the degree he preferred instead of the one he did since he was 17/18/19 when he chose his major

My son has a few co-players that are engineering and biology so I think it just depends.

A few examples here and there are not the norm. It is like saying Steve Jobs didn't graduate from college but went on to become successful means that others will be successful as well.

Take a look at University of North Carolina men tennis roster: https://goheels.com/sports/mens-tennis/roster

It is either Exercise and Sport Science or Business Administration. You are not going to find pre-med or Engineering. You just don't have time for those majors.

The tennis roster... 60% are Business Majors, that is very good.

I think the % of people that major in pre-med and biology and engineering for the school as a whole is low so it's going to be low for students in sports but it's not much lower than the school as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally find it funny that the “sour grapes” posters are trying to claim academic standards are the same for athletes. What a joke! Many schools limit the majors available to athletes and require tutors. I’m sure junior is a genius but that is just not the case for the vast majority of athletic recruits.

So i assume this story about these 3 basketball players at Maryland had to major in communications? I will save you the trouble of actually reading the article and post the headline

Three Maryland women’s basketball players set sights on attending medical school

now you will say well they are the exception etc etc when it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about most college athletes use college to get amazing degrees. You look at the few who make it to the professional rank and use that as the majority when it simply isn't accurate.

Just to follow up on where they are now, 1 is at Wake Forest Med School, 1 is at Maryland Med school and the third will be going to med school when they complete their WNBA career

https://dbknews.com/0999/12/31/arc-rzlbjo22bvbbjggb45o63nhvvm/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally find it funny that the “sour grapes” posters are trying to claim academic standards are the same for athletes. What a joke! Many schools limit the majors available to athletes and require tutors. I’m sure junior is a genius but that is just not the case for the vast majority of athletic recruits.

So i assume this story about these 3 basketball players at Maryland had to major in communications? I will save you the trouble of actually reading the article and post the headline

Three Maryland women’s basketball players set sights on attending medical school

now you will say well they are the exception etc etc when it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about most college athletes use college to get amazing degrees. You look at the few who make it to the professional rank and use that as the majority when it simply isn't accurate.

Just to follow up on where they are now, 1 is at Wake Forest Med School, 1 is at Maryland Med school and the third will be going to med school when they complete their WNBA career

https://dbknews.com/0999/12/31/arc-rzlbjo22bvbbjggb45o63nhvvm/

Jesus, you seem so desperate to disprove the obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

Actually, unless you and your partner have given in the seven figures, don't count on that double-legacy. Legacy matters when there is signigicant benefit to the school, i.e. long-term financial contributions. Schools benefit by admitting students for any number of reasons beyond just grades: diversity is probably number 1, then those who contribute to the long-term financial health of the institution in a significant way, then athletes, who tend to be top performers after graduation and, in the case of the big sports, money makers for the school. You can begrudge these factors all you want, but it's students like these who keep many of these insitutions thriving. The one in 50,000 A student has a much less predictable long-term contribution to the school.

Please provide a statistic to support that athletes are top performers after graduation, I went to a school with a top d1 lacrosse program, and that was definitely not the case.

Agreed. I was friends with many athletes at my D3 school and can’t think of one who is a huge success. Most of the women became SAHMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

Can you see the difference? Your kid did nothing to achieve double legacy status. It is purely his or her good luck to have been born to parents who attended the school and made donations. An athlete trains for years to achieve a chance at being recruited. That's hard work, not pure luck.

I'm not arguing that the system is fair, but those two admissions preferences aren't comparable.

She can't. The fact that PP can't understand the hard work, sacrifice, discipline, and value of athletics is very scary. To think that's an unfair advantage and being an athlete is an unfair advantage is truly insane.

The fact that you think athletics has some sort of monopoly over hard work, sacrifice and discipline that other ECs (which don't get the same admissions preference) don't is insane.

I was comparing the advantage of being an athlete vs being a legacy. Quite accurately. A recruited athlete has more value and is more deserving than a legacy. All day long.

Other ECs require those qualities and that's great. My point wasn't that other ECs don't require them. It was that being a legacy does not.

Colleges are allowed to have priorities, just like you are. They also invest more to recruit professors in comp sci compared to classics. So what?

-Mom of legacy kids with no athletic ability

Your job is to provide connections! Step up babe! 😂

What does this mean?