Athletes have such an edge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are talking about all sport like lacrosse or crew or field hockey, these recruits statistically will presumptively be successful in their chosen careers.

What a flimsy statement. I am sure kids who play lacrosse or crew are disproportionately from wealthy families and have grown up with lots of opportunities. They aren’t successful because of their sport. (Not even getting to what is the definition of success and what stats are you using).

Yes, OP, I find colleges favoritism to atheists to be so bizarre and frustrating. College is not an athletic endeavor.

Athletics help fund most of the fancy buildings your studious kids study in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What annoys me is the special treatment and perks the athletes get once in the school.

Athletes at my Ivy League school got free one-on-one tutoring and were allowed to skip classes and were given special notes and videos of the classes they missed. I had to work many hours at my exhausting work study job to make money. I would have liked a tutor to help make up for the time I also was too “busy” to study.

This is so far off base you must be a troll. I have three kids who were athletes at different Ivy schools. They practiced/played 20 hours per week and traveled on weekends on top of being science/math majors, with zero tutoring available to them (other than what was available to non-athletes). They also had to practice all summer in addition to their internships. They, and many of their teammates, definitely had high school academic profiles that were similar (often better) than the average student admitted to their schools. Some of their teammates also had work-study jobs on top of their already-packed schedules. So sorry -if you were too busy to study because you had 10-15 hours a week of class and a work-study job, you need better time management skills (which you would have learned growing up if you had played a club sport outside of your high school, like all the recruited athletes).

you know what - this is kinda an asshole response. some kids have up to 20+ hours work study and a subset of them have a side gig to supplement as the work study is not sufficient. a lot of these kids are not athletes b/c they could not afford the club/travel/pay to play circuit as kids.

i really hope i don't know you or that my kids were every friendly with yours if they share the same closeminded attitudes you have about life.

DP. I thought your response was the more asshole of the two responses, for what it's worth.

Why? For pointing out that most college athletes benefited from families able to pay for club/travel? The PP basically told the poster that they (a) sucked at time management and (b) were a loser for not playing a club sport outside of HS. If that is not closeminded - in addition to being smug and entitled - I don't know what is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a two Ds recruited and apply to college as athletes. D1 athlete was not on scholarship, so had some pressure to get recruited and get admitted. Team GPA was higher than the school’s average.

Second D played at the D3 level and team GPA was also higher than the school’s average. When she met with admissions, the admissions counselor said “she had everything they were looking for: academics, personal presentation, and her interest in sports and the school.”

Both applied ED. Both were full pay.

What we learned is that being an athlete and applying ED put the applications in a smaller pile.

I didn't think D3 had athletic scholarships....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What annoys me is the special treatment and perks the athletes get once in the school.

Athletes at my Ivy League school got free one-on-one tutoring and were allowed to skip classes and were given special notes and videos of the classes they missed. I had to work many hours at my exhausting work study job to make money. I would have liked a tutor to help make up for the time I also was too “busy” to study.

This is so far off base you must be a troll. I have three kids who were athletes at different Ivy schools. They practiced/played 20 hours per week and traveled on weekends on top of being science/math majors, with zero tutoring available to them (other than what was available to non-athletes). They also had to practice all summer in addition to their internships. They, and many of their teammates, definitely had high school academic profiles that were similar (often better) than the average student admitted to their schools. Some of their teammates also had work-study jobs on top of their already-packed schedules. So sorry -if you were too busy to study because you had 10-15 hours a week of class and a work-study job, you need better time management skills (which you would have learned growing up if you had played a club sport outside of your high school, like all the recruited athletes).

you know what - this is kinda an asshole response. some kids have up to 20+ hours work study and a subset of them have a side gig to supplement as the work study is not sufficient. a lot of these kids are not athletes b/c they could not afford the club/travel/pay to play circuit as kids.

i really hope i don't know you or that my kids were every friendly with yours if they share the same closeminded attitudes you have about life.

DP. I thought your response was the more asshole of the two responses, for what it's worth.

Why? For pointing out that most college athletes benefited from families able to pay for club/travel? The PP basically told the poster that they (a) sucked at time management and (b) were a loser for not playing a club sport outside of HS. If that is not closeminded - in addition to being smug and entitled - I don't know what is.

For attacking the character of her kids for no reason, wildly generalizing your experience (that seems suspect, to be honest) to all athletes, and wilfully misinterpreting what the other PP said.

You came across as the bigger jerk to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What annoys me is the special treatment and perks the athletes get once in the school.

Athletes at my Ivy League school got free one-on-one tutoring and were allowed to skip classes and were given special notes and videos of the classes they missed. I had to work many hours at my exhausting work study job to make money. I would have liked a tutor to help make up for the time I also was too “busy” to study.

This is so far off base you must be a troll. I have three kids who were athletes at different Ivy schools. They practiced/played 20 hours per week and traveled on weekends on top of being science/math majors, with zero tutoring available to them (other than what was available to non-athletes). They also had to practice all summer in addition to their internships. They, and many of their teammates, definitely had high school academic profiles that were similar (often better) than the average student admitted to their schools. Some of their teammates also had work-study jobs on top of their already-packed schedules. So sorry -if you were too busy to study because you had 10-15 hours a week of class and a work-study job, you need better time management skills (which you would have learned growing up if you had played a club sport outside of your high school, like all the recruited athletes).

you know what - this is kinda an asshole response. some kids have up to 20+ hours work study and a subset of them have a side gig to supplement as the work study is not sufficient. a lot of these kids are not athletes b/c they could not afford the club/travel/pay to play circuit as kids.

i really hope i don't know you or that my kids were every friendly with yours if they share the same closeminded attitudes you have about life.

DP. I thought your response was the more asshole of the two responses, for what it's worth.

Why? For pointing out that most college athletes benefited from families able to pay for club/travel? The PP basically told the poster that they (a) sucked at time management and (b) were a loser for not playing a club sport outside of HS. If that is not closeminded - in addition to being smug and entitled - I don't know what is.

For attacking the character of her kids for no reason, wildly generalizing your experience (that seems suspect, to be honest) to all athletes, and wilfully misinterpreting what the other PP said.

You came across as the bigger jerk to me.

What other PP? I was only responding to the PP in the thread. I wrote IF the kids share, not YOUR kids share. "Wildly generalizing about my experience" - when did I claim it was my experience? I wrote "some kids," not "me." And, not surprising, you are not even touching pay-to-play high school sports.

[Anonymous]

The PP you responded to, obviously. And I note you won't touch the fact that you attacked the character of kids you don't even know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So hating on athletes is the new hating on affirmative action? Many, many of the arguments here just sound so familiar....

Yuck. In some sports, many of the athletes are very fortunate and privileged. These club sports are really stupid expensive with lots of travel and are designed for an affluent market. To equate these privileged students with the disadvantaged students targeted by affirmative action is hollow and seems like a weak and ineffective strategy.

[Anonymous]

Why? For pointing out that most college athletes benefited from families able to pay for club/travel? The PP basically told the poster that they (a) sucked at time management and (b) were a loser for not playing a club sport outside of HS. If that is not closeminded - in addition to being smug and entitled - I don't know what is.

Where did PP say that anyone was a loser for not playing club sports? I did not get that. Agree that it seems you deliberately misinterpreted the post and are the jerk with a big chip on your shoulder.j

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are talking about all sport like lacrosse or crew or field hockey, these recruits statistically will presumptively be successful in their chosen careers.

What a flimsy statement. I am sure kids who play lacrosse or crew are disproportionately from wealthy families and have grown up with lots of opportunities. They aren’t successful because of their sport. (Not even getting to what is the definition of success and what stats are you using).

Yes, OP, I find colleges favoritism to atheists to be so bizarre and frustrating. College is not an athletic endeavor.

Athletics help fund most of the fancy buildings your studious kids study in.

The vast majority of college athletics programs lose money and require student fee support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why? For pointing out that most college athletes benefited from families able to pay for club/travel? The PP basically told the poster that they (a) sucked at time management and (b) were a loser for not playing a club sport outside of HS. If that is not closeminded - in addition to being smug and entitled - I don't know what is.

Where did PP say that anyone was a loser for not playing club sports? I did not get that. Agree that it seems you deliberately misinterpreted the post and are the jerk with a big chip on your shoulder.j

I didn't get that either. That PP clearly has a weird chip on her shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are talking about all sport like lacrosse or crew or field hockey, these recruits statistically will presumptively be successful in their chosen careers.

What a flimsy statement. I am sure kids who play lacrosse or crew are disproportionately from wealthy families and have grown up with lots of opportunities. They aren’t successful because of their sport. (Not even getting to what is the definition of success and what stats are you using).

Yes, OP, I find colleges favoritism to atheists to be so bizarre and frustrating. College is not an athletic endeavor.

Athletics help fund most of the fancy buildings your studious kids study in.

No. Men’s basketball and football fund the fancy buildings. These athletes should be put into a different admission pile. I don’t understand why colleges still are recruiting athletes and giving athletic participants a leg up in admissions for minor sports teams barely anyone on campus goes to watch. Who goes and watches sports like swimming and tennis?

[Anonymous]

As always, the only appropriate response to a stupid post like OP’s is: “sorry your kid sucks at sports and is a mediocre student.” It’s sour grapes, nothing less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are talking about all sport like lacrosse or crew or field hockey, these recruits statistically will presumptively be successful in their chosen careers.

What a flimsy statement. I am sure kids who play lacrosse or crew are disproportionately from wealthy families and have grown up with lots of opportunities. They aren’t successful because of their sport. (Not even getting to what is the definition of success and what stats are you using).

Yes, OP, I find colleges favoritism to atheists to be so bizarre and frustrating. College is not an athletic endeavor.

Athletics help fund most of the fancy buildings your studious kids study in.

No. Men’s basketball and football fund the fancy buildings. These athletes should be put into a different admission pile. I don’t understand why colleges still are recruiting athletes and giving athletic participants a leg up in admissions for minor sports teams barely anyone on campus goes to watch. Who goes and watches sports like swimming and tennis?

You are dense. If a school has a team it needs athletes to put on the team. You should be saying schools shouldn’t have tennis or swim teams. Continuing with that logic you would be left with just basketball and football as the only sports in college. That is a terrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are talking about all sport like lacrosse or crew or field hockey, these recruits statistically will presumptively be successful in their chosen careers.

What a flimsy statement. I am sure kids who play lacrosse or crew are disproportionately from wealthy families and have grown up with lots of opportunities. They aren’t successful because of their sport. (Not even getting to what is the definition of success and what stats are you using).

Yes, OP, I find colleges favoritism to atheists to be so bizarre and frustrating. College is not an athletic endeavor.

Athletics help fund most of the fancy buildings your studious kids study in.

This is incorrect and profoundly stupid if you know even a bit about university funding.

[Anonymous]

My ivy first year is rooming with several students 2 of the 4 are athletes. One has taken the time to befriend all the roommates and makes the effort to build a relationship and share with the all the quad. The other only spends time and energy with the team. Nice enough kid but is deep in the team group and has not branched out at all and will put no effort into any type of typical roommate realationship.

Wasted opportunity in my view...the others have made time to take small excursions and explore the local area a bit and generally take advantage of getting to know other interesting people.

To each their own but one seems to be at college to go to college and also participate in a sport. While the other seems to be at college to play their sport and maybe fit in a little education here and there. I think there are all kinds with recruited athletes.