I feel like we don't talk enough that top LACs are 40%+ recruited athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

I trust you don’t knock any other hooks then. They’re all qualified too.

Doesn't the recent Princeton data show their legacies have higher average SAT scores? Having a hook doesn't necessarily mean even pure numbers are lower.

All DCUM parents with access to a search engine should have reasonably known 20+ years ago that athletic excellence can help with college admissions when paired with academic achievement. I wonder why more didn't help put their kids in a position to succeed. So many parents on DCUM talk about putting kids first and sacrificing. Don't hate the players when you've known the game for decades. US colleges, elite academic schools included, have viewed athletic ability as merit for a long time.
Investing in some extracurriculars early on really is smarter than others if you are looking at it purely from a college admissions standpoint. I think people should let their kids do what they are passionate about but if you are just looking for the best admissions combo, there has been clear data out there since The Shape of the River that excellence in sports is the way to go.

That’s all fine but either all hooks are good or all hooks are bad. You shouldn’t pick and choose based on whether it helps your kid. You’ve already admitted institutional priorities matter.

All hooks don't have to be good or bad. Many people view athletes as having merit in terms of admissions (their talent and academic profiles combine to get them in). In contrast, legacies don't have a cultivated talent (they are lucky in birth). It could be perfectly reasonable to distinguish between these hooks. Schools like MIT and Hopkins make this distinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

I trust you don’t knock any other hooks then. They’re all qualified too.

Doesn't the recent Princeton data show their legacies have higher average SAT scores? Having a hook doesn't necessarily mean even pure numbers are lower.

All DCUM parents with access to a search engine should have reasonably known 20+ years ago that athletic excellence can help with college admissions when paired with academic achievement. I wonder why more didn't help put their kids in a position to succeed. So many parents on DCUM talk about putting kids first and sacrificing. Don't hate the players when you've known the game for decades. US colleges, elite academic schools included, have viewed athletic ability as merit for a long time.
Investing in some extracurriculars early on really is smarter than others if you are looking at it purely from a college admissions standpoint. I think people should let their kids do what they are passionate about but if you are just looking for the best admissions combo, there has been clear data out there since The Shape of the River that excellence in sports is the way to go.

That’s all fine but either all hooks are good or all hooks are bad. You shouldn’t pick and choose based on whether it helps your kid. You’ve already admitted institutional priorities matter.

All hooks don't have to be good or bad. Many people view athletes as having merit in terms of admissions (their talent and academic profiles combine to get them in). In contrast, legacies don't have a cultivated talent (they are lucky in birth). It could be perfectly reasonable to distinguish between these hooks. Schools like MIT and Hopkins make this distinction.

No one is defending legacies, that’s a red herring. Only the alumni giving group wants it to stick around.

Athletics is ranked as a totally different kind of preferential hook over all other talent based hooks like theater, music, debate, science fair, etc. just read selingos book, how most ED are granted to athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

I trust you don’t knock any other hooks then. They’re all qualified too.

Doesn't the recent Princeton data show their legacies have higher average SAT scores? Having a hook doesn't necessarily mean even pure numbers are lower.

All DCUM parents with access to a search engine should have reasonably known 20+ years ago that athletic excellence can help with college admissions when paired with academic achievement. I wonder why more didn't help put their kids in a position to succeed. So many parents on DCUM talk about putting kids first and sacrificing. Don't hate the players when you've known the game for decades. US colleges, elite academic schools included, have viewed athletic ability as merit for a long time.
Investing in some extracurriculars early on really is smarter than others if you are looking at it purely from a college admissions standpoint. I think people should let their kids do what they are passionate about but if you are just looking for the best admissions combo, there has been clear data out there since The Shape of the River that excellence in sports is the way to go.

That’s all fine but either all hooks are good or all hooks are bad. You shouldn’t pick and choose based on whether it helps your kid. You’ve already admitted institutional priorities matter.

All hooks don't have to be good or bad. Many people view athletes as having merit in terms of admissions (their talent and academic profiles combine to get them in). In contrast, legacies don't have a cultivated talent (they are lucky in birth). It could be perfectly reasonable to distinguish between these hooks. Schools like MIT and Hopkins make this distinction.

When I see a kid who is recruited, I think this kid has parents who could afford to take them around for tournaments and afford private coaches. There is not much talent requird to hit the ball against a wall since age 6. Fencing and squash are played by very few kids. Access to facilities is a real issue. In addition, these kids take less rigorous courses to keep up their GPA. Most athletes dont take up rigorous majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

I trust you don’t knock any other hooks then. They’re all qualified too.

Doesn't the recent Princeton data show their legacies have higher average SAT scores? Having a hook doesn't necessarily mean even pure numbers are lower.

All DCUM parents with access to a search engine should have reasonably known 20+ years ago that athletic excellence can help with college admissions when paired with academic achievement. I wonder why more didn't help put their kids in a position to succeed. So many parents on DCUM talk about putting kids first and sacrificing. Don't hate the players when you've known the game for decades. US colleges, elite academic schools included, have viewed athletic ability as merit for a long time.
Investing in some extracurriculars early on really is smarter than others if you are looking at it purely from a college admissions standpoint. I think people should let their kids do what they are passionate about but if you are just looking for the best admissions combo, there has been clear data out there since The Shape of the River that excellence in sports is the way to go.

That’s all fine but either all hooks are good or all hooks are bad. You shouldn’t pick and choose based on whether it helps your kid. You’ve already admitted institutional priorities matter.

All hooks don't have to be good or bad. Many people view athletes as having merit in terms of admissions (their talent and academic profiles combine to get them in). In contrast, legacies don't have a cultivated talent (they are lucky in birth). It could be perfectly reasonable to distinguish between these hooks. Schools like MIT and Hopkins make this distinction.

Hooks are based on what the institution values. Not what anyone else thinks. If the justification for an athletic hook is that the schools think having athletes and sports teams are good for morale and donations etc then they can say the same for any other hook. Whether you value it is completely irrelevant. You just can’t be a hypocrite about it and say the schools can choose only what you like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

I trust you don’t knock any other hooks then. They’re all qualified too.

Doesn't the recent Princeton data show their legacies have higher average SAT scores? Having a hook doesn't necessarily mean even pure numbers are lower.

All DCUM parents with access to a search engine should have reasonably known 20+ years ago that athletic excellence can help with college admissions when paired with academic achievement. I wonder why more didn't help put their kids in a position to succeed. So many parents on DCUM talk about putting kids first and sacrificing. Don't hate the players when you've known the game for decades. US colleges, elite academic schools included, have viewed athletic ability as merit for a long time.
Investing in some extracurriculars early on really is smarter than others if you are looking at it purely from a college admissions standpoint. I think people should let their kids do what they are passionate about but if you are just looking for the best admissions combo, there has been clear data out there since The Shape of the River that excellence in sports is the way to go.

That’s all fine but either all hooks are good or all hooks are bad. You shouldn’t pick and choose based on whether it helps your kid. You’ve already admitted institutional priorities matter.

All hooks don't have to be good or bad. Many people view athletes as having merit in terms of admissions (their talent and academic profiles combine to get them in). In contrast, legacies don't have a cultivated talent (they are lucky in birth). It could be perfectly reasonable to distinguish between these hooks. Schools like MIT and Hopkins make this distinction.

When I see a kid who is recruited, I think this kid has parents who could afford to take them around for tournaments and afford private coaches. There is not much talent requird to hit the ball against a wall since age 6. Fencing and squash are played by very few kids. Access to facilities is a real issue. In addition, these kids take less rigorous courses to keep up their GPA. Most athletes dont take up rigorous majors.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Being a recruited athlete at a highly selective college is one of the best hooks available. Very few prospective students can get an application "pre read" and get insight on admissions prospects. Recruited athletes can. Bobby the tuba player can't.

[Anonymous]

yeah, of course. but if you look at student newspapers (some linked earlier) or talk to students you know on campus, there is an idea that the squash team adds very little and just divides the class, lowering morale. but sure, they'll be good donors. they're parents are good donors now.

[Anonymous]

Some hooks are more equal than other hooks.

-NESCAC Animal Farm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an athlete, but I am fine with athletes getting a leg up because that is a legitimate metric of effort, organizational skills, hard work, team work etc. It's legacy and race advantages that I have major issues with.

Ok, but then by that standard, any kid who plays four years on a high school team and/or club team, should get extra consideration regardless their plans to play in college.

It’s more impressive and meaningful if you are good at your sport and have good grades too. It really shows that you have grit, work ethic and smarts too. I hire at a bank and my favorite hires are grads from top colleges who were athletes or in the army. Over my 24 year career, they have been consistently the best employees.

Ie my favorite hires are WASP candidates from top colleges.

You don’t even see your implicit racism.

I’m sure non athleties from top colleges would perform as well, unless your bank has a competitive squash team required to hit your numbers.

You seem quite ignorant.

Someone who goes out of his way to hire from the Army is almost certainly hiring a far more diverse group than people who hire from top colleges only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an athlete, but I am fine with athletes getting a leg up because that is a legitimate metric of effort, organizational skills, hard work, team work etc. It's legacy and race advantages that I have major issues with.

Ok, but then by that standard, any kid who plays four years on a high school team and/or club team, should get extra consideration regardless their plans to play in college.

It’s more impressive and meaningful if you are good at your sport and have good grades too. It really shows that you have grit, work ethic and smarts too. I hire at a bank and my favorite hires are grads from top colleges who were athletes or in the army. Over my 24 year career, they have been consistently the best employees.

Ie my favorite hires are WASP candidates from top colleges.

You don’t even see your implicit racism.

I’m sure non athleties from top colleges would perform as well, unless your bank has a competitive squash team required to hit your numbers.

You seem quite ignorant.

Someone who goes out of his way to hire from the Army is almost certainly hiring a far more diverse group than people who hire from top colleges only.

Depends. Office class runs very white and Protestant, and I doubt you are taking from the enlisted which are diverse. Nice try though, waving the patriotic flag and all, but I grew up surrounded by military families so I know the real drill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an athlete, but I am fine with athletes getting a leg up because that is a legitimate metric of effort, organizational skills, hard work, team work etc. It's legacy and race advantages that I have major issues with.

Ok, but then by that standard, any kid who plays four years on a high school team and/or club team, should get extra consideration regardless their plans to play in college.

It’s more impressive and meaningful if you are good at your sport and have good grades too. It really shows that you have grit, work ethic and smarts too. I hire at a bank and my favorite hires are grads from top colleges who were athletes or in the army. Over my 24 year career, they have been consistently the best employees.

Ie my favorite hires are WASP candidates from top colleges.

You don’t even see your implicit racism.

I’m sure non athleties from top colleges would perform as well, unless your bank has a competitive squash team required to hit your numbers.

You seem quite ignorant.

Someone who goes out of his way to hire from the Army is almost certainly hiring a far more diverse group than people who hire from top colleges only.

Depends. Office class runs very white and Protestant, and I doubt you are taking from the enlisted which are diverse. Nice try though, waving the patriotic flag and all, but I grew up surrounded by military families so I know the real drill.

If you grew up around military officers, you would know that they are very diverse, and have been for quite some time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an athlete, but I am fine with athletes getting a leg up because that is a legitimate metric of effort, organizational skills, hard work, team work etc. It's legacy and race advantages that I have major issues with.

Ok, but then by that standard, any kid who plays four years on a high school team and/or club team, should get extra consideration regardless their plans to play in college.

It’s more impressive and meaningful if you are good at your sport and have good grades too. It really shows that you have grit, work ethic and smarts too. I hire at a bank and my favorite hires are grads from top colleges who were athletes or in the army. Over my 24 year career, they have been consistently the best employees.

Ie my favorite hires are WASP candidates from top colleges.

You don’t even see your implicit racism.

I’m sure non athleties from top colleges would perform as well, unless your bank has a competitive squash team required to hit your numbers.

You seem quite ignorant.

Someone who goes out of his way to hire from the Army is almost certainly hiring a far more diverse group than people who hire from top colleges only.

Depends. Office class runs very white and Protestant, and I doubt you are taking from the enlisted which are diverse. Nice try though, waving the patriotic flag and all, but I grew up surrounded by military families so I know the real drill.

If you grew up around military officers, you would know that they are very diverse, and have been for quite some time.

Oh please. Service academies are so white (80%) that the Supreme Court exempted them from the decision banning the use of race in admissions. The officer corps in the US armed forces is about 75% white. And let’s not discuss the gender gap.

It’s pretty consistent with athletes at “top” colleges who are also somewhere around 60-70% white.

In short, if you wanted to hire white men without saying you only wanted to hire white men you would be hard pressed to find better proxies than ex military officers and athletes from top colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

I trust you don’t knock any other hooks then. They’re all qualified too.

Doesn't the recent Princeton data show their legacies have higher average SAT scores? Having a hook doesn't necessarily mean even pure numbers are lower.

All DCUM parents with access to a search engine should have reasonably known 20+ years ago that athletic excellence can help with college admissions when paired with academic achievement. I wonder why more didn't help put their kids in a position to succeed. So many parents on DCUM talk about putting kids first and sacrificing. Don't hate the players when you've known the game for decades. US colleges, elite academic schools included, have viewed athletic ability as merit for a long time.
Investing in some extracurriculars early on really is smarter than others if you are looking at it purely from a college admissions standpoint. I think people should let their kids do what they are passionate about but if you are just looking for the best admissions combo, there has been clear data out there since The Shape of the River that excellence in sports is the way to go.

That’s all fine but either all hooks are good or all hooks are bad. You shouldn’t pick and choose based on whether it helps your kid. You’ve already admitted institutional priorities matter.

All hooks don't have to be good or bad. Many people view athletes as having merit in terms of admissions (their talent and academic profiles combine to get them in). In contrast, legacies don't have a cultivated talent (they are lucky in birth). It could be perfectly reasonable to distinguish between these hooks. Schools like MIT and Hopkins make this distinction.

When I see a kid who is recruited, I think this kid has parents who could afford to take them around for tournaments and afford private coaches. There is not much talent requird to hit the ball against a wall since age 6. Fencing and squash are played by very few kids. Access to facilities is a real issue. In addition, these kids take less rigorous courses to keep up their GPA. Most athletes dont take up rigorous majors.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Being a recruited athlete at a highly selective college is one of the best hooks available. Very few prospective students can get an application "pre read" and get insight on admissions prospects. Recruited athletes can. Bobby the tuba player can't.

We don't hate the player. All the PPs are saying that the whole admissions game is rigged. Colleges have created this massive admissions loophole so that rich white kids can get in through the backdoor thanks to years of expensive private coaching in some obscure exclusive sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the problem? How else are they supposed to field their teams?

This is backwards thinking. The mission of a college is not to field athletic teams and then fill in the rest of the academic seats with students as an afterthought. The mission of a school is to educate students. Because you want students to exercise and be fit and develop school spirit, you let them form athletic teams and compete with other schools. This is how college athletics started. You field the teams that current student are interested in playing, and you field those teams with existing students. If no one wants to play a given sport this year, you drop that team until enough kids sign up; but given the number of students athletes in the country, this is unlikely to be a problem anywhere. Pick your college, then try out for the team when you get there.

You are incredibly naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an athlete, but I am fine with athletes getting a leg up because that is a legitimate metric of effort, organizational skills, hard work, team work etc. It's legacy and race advantages that I have major issues with.

Ok, but then by that standard, any kid who plays four years on a high school team and/or club team, should get extra consideration regardless their plans to play in college.

It’s more impressive and meaningful if you are good at your sport and have good grades too. It really shows that you have grit, work ethic and smarts too. I hire at a bank and my favorite hires are grads from top colleges who were athletes or in the army. Over my 24 year career, they have been consistently the best employees.

Ie my favorite hires are WASP candidates from top colleges.

You don’t even see your implicit racism.

I’m sure non athleties from top colleges would perform as well, unless your bank has a competitive squash team required to hit your numbers.

You seem quite ignorant.

Someone who goes out of his way to hire from the Army is almost certainly hiring a far more diverse group than people who hire from top colleges only.

Depends. Office class runs very white and Protestant, and I doubt you are taking from the enlisted which are diverse. Nice try though, waving the patriotic flag and all, but I grew up surrounded by military families so I know the real drill.

If you grew up around military officers, you would know that they are very diverse, and have been for quite some time.

Oh please. Service academies are so white (80%) that the Supreme Court exempted them from the decision banning the use of race in admissions. The officer corps in the US armed forces is about 75% white. [But the military does not consider Hispanic to be a race, so the numbers for whites (and each other race) include those who identify as Hispanic.] And let’s not discuss the gender gap. [If women want to be military officers, there is absolutely nothing stopping them, but they don't.]

It’s pretty consistent with athletes at “top” colleges who are also somewhere around 60-70% white.

In short, if you wanted to hire white men without saying you only wanted to hire white men you would be hard pressed to find better proxies than ex military officers and athletes from top colleges.

West Point is 64% white and 12% black
Naval Academy is 62% white and 12% black
Air Force Academy is 64% white and 11% black

These are all roughly in line with the US population. You'd have to be pretty damn stupid to imagine the military academies do not have a deliberate policy of ensuring diversity in their classes, but yeah that's you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an athlete, but I am fine with athletes getting a leg up because that is a legitimate metric of effort, organizational skills, hard work, team work etc. It's legacy and race advantages that I have major issues with.

Ok, but then by that standard, any kid who plays four years on a high school team and/or club team, should get extra consideration regardless their plans to play in college.

It’s more impressive and meaningful if you are good at your sport and have good grades too. It really shows that you have grit, work ethic and smarts too. I hire at a bank and my favorite hires are grads from top colleges who were athletes or in the army. Over my 24 year career, they have been consistently the best employees.

Ie my favorite hires are WASP candidates from top colleges.

You don’t even see your implicit racism.

I’m sure non athleties from top colleges would perform as well, unless your bank has a competitive squash team required to hit your numbers.

You seem quite ignorant.

Someone who goes out of his way to hire from the Army is almost certainly hiring a far more diverse group than people who hire from top colleges only.

Depends. Office class runs very white and Protestant, and I doubt you are taking from the enlisted which are diverse. Nice try though, waving the patriotic flag and all, but I grew up surrounded by military families so I know the real drill.

If you grew up around military officers, you would know that they are very diverse, and have been for quite some time.

Oh please. Service academies are so white (80%) that the Supreme Court exempted them from the decision banning the use of race in admissions. The officer corps in the US armed forces is about 75% white. And let’s not discuss the gender gap.

It’s pretty consistent with athletes at “top” colleges who are also somewhere around 60-70% white.

In short, if you wanted to hire white men without saying you only wanted to hire white men you would be hard pressed to find better proxies than ex military officers and athletes from top colleges.

You truly sound ignorant.