Athletes have such an edge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4 kids, all recruited athletes, all got into much better schools than scores would predict including Ivies. They spent just as much time and effort on their craft as a concert pianist or robotic designer. No apologies.

Well you and many others place this huge value on sports. I just do not get want us so inherently valuable about sports even though I have a recruited athlete. IMO there was way too much emphasis on sports in HS years. to the detriment of academics in many students that I observed although that was not going to fly in my house.


I pointed out before..my public district voted to spend millions on a deluxe new turf facility for sports and practically zero on upgrading the computer education offerings. Stupid!!!!! To what end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4 kids, all recruited athletes, all got into much better schools than scores would predict including Ivies. They spent just as much time and effort on their craft as a concert pianist or robotic designer. No apologies.

Well you and many others place this huge value on sports. I just do not get want us so inherently valuable about sports even though I have a recruited athlete. IMO there was way too much emphasis on sports in HS years. to the detriment of academics in many students that I observed although that was not going to fly in my house.


I pointed out before..my public district voted to spend millions on a deluxe new turf facility for sports and practically zero on upgrading the computer education offerings. Stupid!!!!! To what end?

I think anybody that follows a passion shows value.

Our world needs athletes and artist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4 kids, all recruited athletes, all got into much better schools than scores would predict including Ivies. They spent just as much time and effort on their craft as a concert pianist or robotic designer. No apologies.

Well you and many others place this huge value on sports. I just do not get want us so inherently valuable about sports even though I have a recruited athlete. IMO there was way too much emphasis on sports in HS years. to the detriment of academics in many students that I observed although that was not going to fly in my house.


I pointed out before..my public district voted to spend millions on a deluxe new turf facility for sports and practically zero on upgrading the computer education offerings. Stupid!!!!! To what end?

I think anybody that follows a passion shows value.

Our world needs athletes and artist.

Sure.

How many recruited HS artists have you ever heard of?

How many HS's build new arts facilities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4 kids, all recruited athletes, all got into much better schools than scores would predict including Ivies. They spent just as much time and effort on their craft as a concert pianist or robotic designer. No apologies.

Well you and many others place this huge value on sports. I just do not get want us so inherently valuable about sports even though I have a recruited athlete. IMO there was way too much emphasis on sports in HS years. to the detriment of academics in many students that I observed although that was not going to fly in my house.


I pointed out before..my public district voted to spend millions on a deluxe new turf facility for sports and practically zero on upgrading the computer education offerings. Stupid!!!!! To what end?

I think anybody that follows a passion shows value.

Our world needs athletes and artist.

The pendulum has swung way too far over to athletes and away from artists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental question is should schools have sports teams? If you answer Yes, then admissions has to show preference to athletes because of unique skill sets required and limited number of candidates.

No. No reason it can't function like public HS sports where the team is composed of students at the school...not recruited athletes. The point is healthy and learning how to play a sport and be part of a team. Not trying to win meaningless games and championships by giving valuable academic spots to athletes that are not even focused on the their academic educations

This.

How would this work? Schools are on their honor system to not look at athletic achievement? Sports by its nature is competitive and this would turn into under the table recruitment.

New poster: I have no issue with looking at athletics the same way an eagle scout is looked at or an artist. What I do object to is the recruiting where athletes are offered spots at schools where they normally wouldn't get in based on every single other factor (tests, grades, essay, etc.) but for the athletics AND are offered spots without even applying. No other accomplished kid gets that handed to him, no one. Not perfect SAT kids, not #1 in class kids, no one. That is my problem with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4 kids, all recruited athletes, all got into much better schools than scores would predict including Ivies. They spent just as much time and effort on their craft as a concert pianist or robotic designer. No apologies.

Well you and many others place this huge value on sports. I just do not get want us so inherently valuable about sports even though I have a recruited athlete. IMO there was way too much emphasis on sports in HS years. to the detriment of academics in many students that I observed although that was not going to fly in my house.


I pointed out before..my public district voted to spend millions on a deluxe new turf facility for sports and practically zero on upgrading the computer education offerings. Stupid!!!!! To what end?

I my county everyone down to first grade is issued a laptop. Millions and Millions spent. I guess you live in the wrong neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4 kids, all recruited athletes, all got into much better schools than scores would predict including Ivies. They spent just as much time and effort on their craft as a concert pianist or robotic designer. No apologies.

Well you and many others place this huge value on sports. I just do not get want us so inherently valuable about sports even though I have a recruited athlete. IMO there was way too much emphasis on sports in HS years. to the detriment of academics in many students that I observed although that was not going to fly in my house.


I pointed out before..my public district voted to spend millions on a deluxe new turf facility for sports and practically zero on upgrading the computer education offerings. Stupid!!!!! To what end?

I think anybody that follows a passion shows value.

Our world needs athletes and artist.

Computing has revelutionized the world and fundamentally altered so many industries. Football is the basically same darn sport as it was when we went to HS ( except it much more clear how dangerous it is). Yet we need new turf and no computers. Ok..that makes sense. Not!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental question is should schools have sports teams? If you answer Yes, then admissions has to show preference to athletes because of unique skill sets required and limited number of candidates.

No. No reason it can't function like public HS sports where the team is composed of students at the school...not recruited athletes. The point is healthy and learning how to play a sport and be part of a team. Not trying to win meaningless games and championships by giving valuable academic spots to athletes that are not even focused on the their academic educations

This.

How would this work? Schools are on their honor system to not look at athletic achievement? Sports by its nature is competitive and this would turn into under the table recruitment.

New poster: I have no issue with looking at athletics the same way an eagle scout is looked at or an artist. What I do object to is the recruiting where athletes are offered spots at schools where they normally wouldn't get in based on every single other factor (tests, grades, essay, etc.) but for the athletics AND are offered spots without even applying. No other accomplished kid gets that handed to him, no one. Not perfect SAT kids, not #1 in class kids, no one. That is my problem with it.

Legacy kids and big donor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental question is should schools have sports teams? If you answer Yes, then admissions has to show preference to athletes because of unique skill sets required and limited number of candidates.

No. No reason it can't function like public HS sports where the team is composed of students at the school...not recruited athletes. The point is healthy and learning how to play a sport and be part of a team. Not trying to win meaningless games and championships by giving valuable academic spots to athletes that are not even focused on the their academic educations

This.

How would this work? Schools are on their honor system to not look at athletic achievement? Sports by its nature is competitive and this would turn into under the table recruitment.

New poster: I have no issue with looking at athletics the same way an eagle scout is looked at or an artist. What I do object to is the recruiting where athletes are offered spots at schools where they normally wouldn't get in based on every single other factor (tests, grades, essay, etc.) but for the athletics AND are offered spots without even applying. No other accomplished kid gets that handed to him, no one. Not perfect SAT kids, not #1 in class kids, no one. That is my problem with it.[/quote

Say it with me: Alumni money!! These athletes are WAY more likely to donate after grad than an artist with the perfect SAT score. Sports bring in REVENUE. Your study bug son doesn't.

[Anonymous]

It always seems like these kinds of threads are driven by people who think their very bright, hard-working, high stats kids deserve a spot at top schools and are upset when kids with lower stats get accepted instead. The thing is, most of these high stats kids have absolutely nothing exceptional about their applications. They may be accomplished in several areas, but they typically have the same ECs, interests, and achievements as scores of other high stats kids at their schools or communities and as tens of thousands of similar kids around they country. While the bulk of top schools are, in fact, made up of students like this, that doesn’t mean any one kid of this sort is likely to get the nod as they are typically fairly indistinguishable from the similar kids in this enormous category of students all applying to the same schools. I’m not in any way criticizing these kids, my eldest was one with perfect scores and grades and good ECs.

If your student is as talented academically as my younger one is at sports, and has put the same level of time into the pursuit of excellence, your student will stand out above the crowd and be sought after by top schools on the basis of academics alone. My kid’s freshman roommate was one such highly accomplished genius, and through him he’s met others. The good things that can happen when the genius network and sports networks connect is a topic for another post, but it has helped me understand why top schools seek out kids with very high achievements in a variety of areas, including non academic ones. Another thing you see if you’ve actually gone through this process is that the average excellent high stats kids do well wherever they go, and can easily have college experiences that equal or exceed those of their peers who made it into the more coveted schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4 kids, all recruited athletes, all got into much better schools than scores would predict including Ivies. They spent just as much time and effort on their craft as a concert pianist or robotic designer. No apologies.

Well you and many others place this huge value on sports. I just do not get want us so inherently valuable about sports even though I have a recruited athlete. IMO there was way too much emphasis on sports in HS years. to the detriment of academics in many students that I observed although that was not going to fly in my house.


I pointed out before..my public district voted to spend millions on a deluxe new turf facility for sports and practically zero on upgrading the computer education offerings. Stupid!!!!! To what end?

I think anybody that follows a passion shows value.

Our world needs athletes and artist.

Computing has revelutionized the world and fundamentally altered so many industries. Football is the basically same darn sport as it was when we went to HS ( except it much more clear how dangerous it is). Yet we need new turf and no computers. Ok..that makes sense. Not!

Say it with me: Alumni money!! These athletes are WAY more likely to donate after grad than an artist with the perfect SAT score. Sports bring in REVENUE. Your study bug son doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental question is should schools have sports teams? If you answer Yes, then admissions has to show preference to athletes because of unique skill sets required and limited number of candidates.

No. No reason it can't function like public HS sports where the team is composed of students at the school...not recruited athletes. The point is healthy and learning how to play a sport and be part of a team. Not trying to win meaningless games and championships by giving valuable academic spots to athletes that are not even focused on the their academic educations

This.

How would this work? Schools are on their honor system to not look at athletic achievement? Sports by its nature is competitive and this would turn into under the table recruitment.

New poster: I have no issue with looking at athletics the same way an eagle scout is looked at or an artist. What I do object to is the recruiting where athletes are offered spots at schools where they normally wouldn't get in based on every single other factor (tests, grades, essay, etc.) but for the athletics AND are offered spots without even applying. No other accomplished kid gets that handed to him, no one. Not perfect SAT kids, not #1 in class kids, no one. That is my problem with it.

Say it with me: Alumni money!! These athletes are WAY more likely to donate after grad than an artist with the perfect SAT score. Sports bring in REVENUE. Your study bug son doesn't.

[Anonymous]

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).

My recruited athlete daughter travels to away games wed - sun. Not just the weekends. Then has to ask friends for notes etc. No specials.

[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.

NP

Source for this claim?

Eh, usually it's actually the other way around. Regular students are paying special "facilities fees" to subsidize fancy new stadiums, locker rooms and even massage parlors for the foopball buffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP

Source for this claim?

Eh, usually it's actually the other way around. Regular students are paying special "facilities fees" to subsidize fancy new stadiums, locker rooms and even massage parlors for the foopball buffs.

Yep, the only exceptions are SEC, Big 10 schools, and a few other outliers. Remember, despite being in the ACC and taking in enormous sums as a result Maryland's athletic department ran such a deficit that they had to cut sports and switch to a conference that none of their alumni wanted to be in.