NCS college admissions if kid is not a legacy, URM, or athletic recruit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the undergraduate experience at a school with no athletes and only academic grinds. Sounds like fun!

how many students at MIT or Yale attend the typical game there? Check the attendance at the average baseball or lacrosse game. It's less than 1% probably. No one would miss it.

so sad that your definition of 'fun' limited to going to a game. you should get out more.

Have you been to sporting events at Yale or MIT? Obviously not. Especially at Yale, sports bring the normal people out and together. Yes, the nerds probably avoid it, but the smart, mainstream kids make it part of their experience. I know this firsthand, not from assumptions.

+1 and I’ve attended sporting events at both of those schools.

I’m not sure anyone on this thread has pointed out the benefits particularly to women of participating in sports- greater confidence, better grades, and less depression. These factors absolutely contribute to lifelong success. I can’t tell you how impressive my Ivy League womens crew teammates have been in the sciences, business, medicine, and law twenty years on. Total rockstars who know how to work hard and stay focused.

if this is true, then sports at college should be open to all students, since they can all benefit from it. recruiting athletes runs counter to this - admit the kids who are actually qualified and let them benefit from this.

There is still active club-level sports and rec sports in college. The club water polo and hockey teams have a blast. Broomball too. And club soccer.
You don’t have to sit around and play dungeons and dragons in college. Wake up.

so that should more than sufficient to provide the benefits athletics give to women. no need to admit the marginally qualified athlete.

There you go again assuming college applicants are marginal students or marginal athletes. You need to expand your orbit, maybe alumni interview or volunteer at some strong public or private high schools.
We know top academic athletes who chose club teams for a friend circle and sport, and thus have more time for other things, study abroad, double major plus pre med. oh, they also took relevant AP tests and got 5 so bypassed some pre reqs, at an Ivy.

[Anonymous]

They are not all marginal.
They are not all stellar.
The ones who are stellar students and stellar athletes or whatever EC may get in. URM too, better odds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the undergraduate experience at a school with no athletes and only academic grinds. Sounds like fun!

how many students at MIT or Yale attend the typical game there? Check the attendance at the average baseball or lacrosse game. It's less than 1% probably. No one would miss it.

so sad that your definition of 'fun' limited to going to a game. you should get out more.

Have you been to sporting events at Yale or MIT? Obviously not. Especially at Yale, sports bring the normal people out and together. Yes, the nerds probably avoid it, but the smart, mainstream kids make it part of their experience. I know this firsthand, not from assumptions.

we know this firsthand as well, and there is lackluster attendance at best. don't try to make it something it's not. It might make you feel better to label people as 'nerds' and outside of the 'mainstream' but you're just showing your bias.

Oh but you're not? By bashing young student athletes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the undergraduate experience at a school with no athletes and only academic grinds. Sounds like fun!

how many students at MIT or Yale attend the typical game there? Check the attendance at the average baseball or lacrosse game. It's less than 1% probably. No one would miss it.

so sad that your definition of 'fun' limited to going to a game. you should get out more.

Have you been to sporting events at Yale or MIT? Obviously not. Especially at Yale, sports bring the normal people out and together. Yes, the nerds probably avoid it, but the smart, mainstream kids make it part of their experience. I know this firsthand, not from assumptions.

+1 and I’ve attended sporting events at both of those schools.

I’m not sure anyone on this thread has pointed out the benefits particularly to women of participating in sports- greater confidence, better grades, and less depression. These factors absolutely contribute to lifelong success. I can’t tell you how impressive my Ivy League womens crew teammates have been in the sciences, business, medicine, and law twenty years on. Total rockstars who know how to work hard and stay focused.

if this is true, then sports at college should be open to all students, since they can all benefit from it. recruiting athletes runs counter to this - admit the kids who are actually qualified and let them benefit from this.

Exactly. When Univ football coaches are paid several multiples of the Univ Presidents' salaries, you can tell what is wrong with the whole system.

But help me understand what is wrong with it? Just because you and/or your kids don't like or aren't skilled at sports, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them. Thousands and thousands of alumni stay connected to their alma maters largely through sports. I know I do. I was a magna cum laude grad and former lacrosse player from a top 10 university. I am now a successful adult who stays connected to my school and supports it through the sports programs. People like me make it possible for many students to attend the university. What do you do for yours? How are you supporting the less privileged Ivy league students? If sports are a pathway to a great education and a life of purpose, please tell me, what is wrong with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the undergraduate experience at a school with no athletes and only academic grinds. Sounds like fun!

how many students at MIT or Yale attend the typical game there? Check the attendance at the average baseball or lacrosse game. It's less than 1% probably. No one would miss it.

so sad that your definition of 'fun' limited to going to a game. you should get out more.

Have you been to sporting events at Yale or MIT? Obviously not. Especially at Yale, sports bring the normal people out and together. Yes, the nerds probably avoid it, but the smart, mainstream kids make it part of their experience. I know this firsthand, not from assumptions.

+1 and I’ve attended sporting events at both of those schools.

I’m not sure anyone on this thread has pointed out the benefits particularly to women of participating in sports- greater confidence, better grades, and less depression. These factors absolutely contribute to lifelong success. I can’t tell you how impressive my Ivy League womens crew teammates have been in the sciences, business, medicine, and law twenty years on. Total rockstars who know how to work hard and stay focused.

if this is true, then sports at college should be open to all students, since they can all benefit from it. recruiting athletes runs counter to this - admit the kids who are actually qualified and let them benefit from this.

Exactly. When Univ football coaches are paid several multiples of the Univ Presidents' salaries, you can tell what is wrong with the whole system.

But help me understand what is wrong with it? Just because you and/or your kids don't like or aren't skilled at sports, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them. Thousands and thousands of alumni stay connected to their alma maters largely through sports. I know I do. I was a magna cum laude grad and former lacrosse player from a top 10 university. I am now a successful adult who stays connected to my school and supports it through the sports programs. People like me make it possible for many students to attend the university. What do you do for yours? How are you supporting the less privileged Ivy league students? If sports are a pathway to a great education and a life of purpose, please tell me, what is wrong with that?

And students who are not athletes are not successful, connected and supportive? Why would you imply that the PP does nothing for their school - or at least less than you do for yours because you were an athlete?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the undergraduate experience at a school with no athletes and only academic grinds. Sounds like fun!

how many students at MIT or Yale attend the typical game there? Check the attendance at the average baseball or lacrosse game. It's less than 1% probably. No one would miss it.

so sad that your definition of 'fun' limited to going to a game. you should get out more.

Have you been to sporting events at Yale or MIT? Obviously not. Especially at Yale, sports bring the normal people out and together. Yes, the nerds probably avoid it, but the smart, mainstream kids make it part of their experience. I know this firsthand, not from assumptions.

+1 and I’ve attended sporting events at both of those schools.

I’m not sure anyone on this thread has pointed out the benefits particularly to women of participating in sports- greater confidence, better grades, and less depression. These factors absolutely contribute to lifelong success. I can’t tell you how impressive my Ivy League womens crew teammates have been in the sciences, business, medicine, and law twenty years on. Total rockstars who know how to work hard and stay focused.

if this is true, then sports at college should be open to all students, since they can all benefit from it. recruiting athletes runs counter to this - admit the kids who are actually qualified and let them benefit from this.

There is still active club-level sports and rec sports in college. The club water polo and hockey teams have a blast. Broomball too. And club soccer.
You don’t have to sit around and play dungeons and dragons in college. Wake up.

so that should more than sufficient to provide the benefits athletics give to women. no need to admit the marginally qualified athlete.

There you go again assuming college applicants are marginal students or marginal athletes. You need to expand your orbit, maybe alumni interview or volunteer at some strong public or private high schools.
We know top academic athletes who chose club teams for a friend circle and sport, and thus have more time for other things, study abroad, double major plus pre med. oh, they also took relevant AP tests and got 5 so bypassed some pre reqs, at an Ivy.

I have interviewed for 20 years. two of the lowest quality interviewees that I ever had were a recruited athlete and a kid asked to take a gap year (z-list). they both got in.

you know there is actual data on this from the Harvard lawsuit. your anecdotes are cute, but the data doesn't lie. Recruited athletes are at the bottom of the barrel for academic ratings.

[Anonymous]

Uses anecdotes in the first sentence, bashes anecdotes in the second sentence. DCUM in a nutshell right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uses anecdotes in the first sentence, bashes anecdotes in the second sentence. DCUM in a nutshell right there.

i was answering a question in the first sentence. but i would happily discount my anecdotes in favor of the data, which is unambiguous: recruited athletes are marginally qualified, at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[Recruited athletes are at the bottom of the barrel for academic ratings.

Whether or not this is true -- and it almost certainly isn't, because I know for a fact that plenty of recruited athletes graduated with better grades than non-athlete me at our HYPS school -- is beside the point.

Clearly we disagree about whether recruited athletes add value to a university. You say no, I say yes. No one is claiming that you can't have that opinion.

The boards of trustees running colleges and universities in this country stand overwhelmingly on the side of recruited athletes adding value. Those like you who want things to be a different way, have at it. The free market has spoken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the undergraduate experience at a school with no athletes and only academic grinds. Sounds like fun!

It is fun…if you are an academic grind.

I was an academic grind but I liked having athletes around. Also activiata, actors, artists, musicians, etc. I went to a top university that's routinely mocked for admitting unqualified athletes. I preferred that environment to Chicago, John's Hopkins, etc., although those places looked kinda fun too.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. Being at a school with only academic grinds like me would be horribly boring. A big part of the college experience is social and I learned more from those who arrived with much different lives and interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[Recruited athletes are at the bottom of the barrel for academic ratings.

Whether or not this is true -- and it almost certainly isn't, because I know for a fact that plenty of recruited athletes graduated with better grades than non-athlete me at our HYPS school -- is beside the point.

Clearly we disagree about whether recruited athletes add value to a university. You say no, I say yes. No one is claiming that you can't have that opinion.

The boards of trustees running colleges and universities in this country stand overwhelmingly on the side of recruited athletes adding value. Those like you who want things to be a different way, have at it. The free market has spoken.

This is a good point. Substitute "URM" 'legacy" "first gen" or whatever else you want in for "recruited athletes" and it should be equally valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the undergraduate experience at a school with no athletes and only academic grinds. Sounds like fun!

how many students at MIT or Yale attend the typical game there? Check the attendance at the average baseball or lacrosse game. It's less than 1% probably. No one would miss it.

so sad that your definition of 'fun' limited to going to a game. you should get out more.

Have you been to sporting events at Yale or MIT? Obviously not. Especially at Yale, sports bring the normal people out and together. Yes, the nerds probably avoid it, but the smart, mainstream kids make it part of their experience. I know this firsthand, not from assumptions.

+1 and I’ve attended sporting events at both of those schools.

I’m not sure anyone on this thread has pointed out the benefits particularly to women of participating in sports- greater confidence, better grades, and less depression. These factors absolutely contribute to lifelong success. I can’t tell you how impressive my Ivy League womens crew teammates have been in the sciences, business, medicine, and law twenty years on. Total rockstars who know how to work hard and stay focused.

if this is true, then sports at college should be open to all students, since they can all benefit from it. recruiting athletes runs counter to this - admit the kids who are actually qualified and let them benefit from this.

There is still active club-level sports and rec sports in college. The club water polo and hockey teams have a blast. Broomball too. And club soccer.
You don’t have to sit around and play dungeons and dragons in college. Wake up.

so that should more than sufficient to provide the benefits athletics give to women. no need to admit the marginally qualified athlete.

There you go again assuming college applicants are marginal students or marginal athletes. You need to expand your orbit, maybe alumni interview or volunteer at some strong public or private high schools.
We know top academic athletes who chose club teams for a friend circle and sport, and thus have more time for other things, study abroad, double major plus pre med. oh, they also took relevant AP tests and got 5 so bypassed some pre reqs, at an Ivy.

I have interviewed for 20 years. two of the lowest quality interviewees that I ever had were a recruited athlete and a kid asked to take a gap year (z-list). they both got in.

you know there is actual data on this from the Harvard lawsuit. your anecdotes are cute, but the data doesn't lie. Recruited athletes are at the bottom of the barrel for academic ratings.

What portion are recruited versus non recruited or walk ons?

Not every scholar athlete chooses to not wants to play in college. Or at least not more than 1 or 2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the undergraduate experience at a school with no athletes and only academic grinds. Sounds like fun!

how many students at MIT or Yale attend the typical game there? Check the attendance at the average baseball or lacrosse game. It's less than 1% probably. No one would miss it.

so sad that your definition of 'fun' limited to going to a game. you should get out more.

Have you been to sporting events at Yale or MIT? Obviously not. Especially at Yale, sports bring the normal people out and together. Yes, the nerds probably avoid it, but the smart, mainstream kids make it part of their experience. I know this firsthand, not from assumptions.

+1 and I’ve attended sporting events at both of those schools.

I’m not sure anyone on this thread has pointed out the benefits particularly to women of participating in sports- greater confidence, better grades, and less depression. These factors absolutely contribute to lifelong success. I can’t tell you how impressive my Ivy League womens crew teammates have been in the sciences, business, medicine, and law twenty years on. Total rockstars who know how to work hard and stay focused.

what a surprise. minimally qualified Ivy League athlete trumpets success of other minimally qualified athletes. Hard work and the ability to stay focused totally don't present themselves in non-athletes. Good lord, are you implying that all the other non-athletes at your school didn't experience success?

Women can participate in sports without being recruited athletes - you realize that of course?

Ha- I was an unrecruited coxswain who got in “on grades.” I walked onto the team as many do in crew. Would you also like to know my test scores and various accomplishments or do you already feel insecure enough?

My point was about recruited athletes going on to be successful in life. Again, people on this forum don’t seem to understand that elite colleges admit the applicants they believe are the most likely to be future leaders.

[Anonymous]

as to the rest of your post, your kids benefitted from the ultimate hook. why can't you just admit that? the data from Harvard is unambiguous- 85-90% of recruited athletes would not have been admitted to Harvard based on their academic rating.

Why do you assume that athletes aren't qualified academically? In the vast majority of cases, that's just not true. Educate yourself. The Ivy League uses the Academic Index, which guarantees team averages for recruited members are observed. Stop kidding yourself. There are plenty of kids with 2350 SAT who are valedictorians and National Merit finalists and editors of the school paper, and who have service hours on top of that, who also excel athletically. I lived with some of them.