| Amherst loves "victim-centered" students who want to control "open" intellectual inquiry and debate. Do as we say, not as we do. |
So, in a way being an athlete is harder since you can't be TO. Not every athlete has low stats. Coaches need higher stat kids on their roster to balance out lower stat kids. |
Yet the graduation rate and overall GPA for NCAA athletes is higher than the rest of the population of the school. Plus they are in the top 1% for their given sport. They are exceptional in ways a 4.5 GPA and 12 AP's never could be. They are able to do exactly what your child does (minus an upper level science class... probably due to travel and not making the labs not being able to handle it) plus hold down a full time job with travel. |
Yes I think your kid was jealous. And there’s no reason to feel sorry for anyone with a 32 on the ACT. The athlete doesn’t need your kid’s pity. |
|
Is it ok to lower standards for diversity but not for athletes? Which one do you want? Can you not have both?
|
Yeah, meanwhile my 1570 DC with nearly perfect GPA, published researched (not canned), etc. got waitlisted. |
Because the research they published was not in the 1% of published research, it's just another article nobody will read and no new therapies will come from it. Athletes are performing in the 1% of the nation. |
Sure, whatever you say. |
And yet no one cares about or attends their games at the D3 level. |
Yet they raise more money for the school than your kid does. They have lower drop out rates. They give the school name recognition. They excel after graduation. They create community. They have high GPA’s. They recruit away from the Ivy League. |
I think the issue is the large percentages. If, say, 10% athletes and 10% diversity (broadly defined) categories were admitted with lowered admissions standards, that would leave 80% admitted strictly for academic merit. Far more reasonable. It is hard to justify shutting out so many top academic performers in favor of athletes whose games have pitiful attendance. Maybe you make some exceptions for football and lacrosse, and whatever the two most competitive women's teams are but for squash etc.? Come on. |
These are all generic talking points, with little data to back them up. Give the school name recognition, what?? Who was the last famous Amherst athlete? I'll wait. Create community with so few game attendees, how exactly? They don't recruit away from the Ivy League, that's absurd. |
This. Maybe things have changed since the good old days, but there is zero hype for any of these teams. |
| Do you really believe what the admissions office tells you, what they publish? I bet Amherst cooks the books better than Enron. |
Yes, that's not fair. I can see how PP with the high stats athlete could get in over your kid, but not the lower-stats one. There should be more transparency about the hard academic stats for admitted athletes. Let stakeholders see the actual extent to which admissions standards are, or are not, modified. Let's also see the data on game attendance and alumni donations. My guess is none will be impressive, but let the data prove me wrong! |