Athletes have such an edge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It seems you are mistaken about the underlying premise of this thread. Many PPs are saying that getting into college should be really about academics, which of all things you seem to snidely dismiss. No need to be rude about other kids with good scores.

And on the flip side, college admissions should not be about something randoms like sports, which has NOTHING to do with academics. Imagine if colleges gave a massive preference to Pokemon card collectors. You'd be screaming about arbitrary the process is.

It's great your kid knows how to throw a ball, so send him to a football recruiting camp instead of college. But don't steal a college spot from an academically gifted kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It seems you are mistaken about the underlying premise of this thread. Many PPs are saying that getting into college should be really about academics, which of all things you seem to snidely dismiss. No need to be rude about other kids with good scores.

And on the flip side, college admissions should not be about something randoms like sports, which has NOTHING to do with academics. Imagine if colleges gave a massive preference to Pokemon card collectors. You'd be screaming about arbitrary the process is.

It's great your kid knows how to throw a ball, so send him to a football recruiting camp instead of college. But don't steal a college spot from an academically gifted kid.

You do know there are preferences for top e-game players.

Athletics is not random. It was found that many students in top schools that fell in the bottom 50% had problem adjusting. They also found the students that did not have issues were athletes and artists. It was found that having skills in addition to academics were a good combination for success and drop
Out rates are lower for these students.

[Anonymous]

You all act like kids who are great athletes but have a 2.3gpa and 700 on the sats are getting into harvard for sports. Not surprising none of your kids were getting into their top choices.

[Anonymous]

How many "dumb" jocks are taking these coveted spots? not many. stop trying to make them out to be people who are preventing your kid form getting accepted.

[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.

I'd like to know how often this really happens. For real. Posters act like top colleges are routinely offering admission without even applying to athletes who are complete morons. I'd like to see links to actual data, not silly anecdotes. Hell, even the phony athletes in the Varsity Blues scandal had to apply at least.

Y'all sound like Trumpster with your conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It seems you are mistaken about the underlying premise of this thread. Many PPs are saying that getting into college should be really about academics, which of all things you seem to snidely dismiss. No need to be rude about other kids with good scores.

And on the flip side, college admissions should not be about something randoms like sports, which has NOTHING to do with academics. Imagine if colleges gave a massive preference to Pokemon card collectors. You'd be screaming about arbitrary the process is.

It's great your kid knows how to throw a ball, so send him to a football recruiting camp instead of college. But don't steal a college spot from an academically gifted kid.

And this is where the fallacy lies. No one is "stealing" a spot from anyone, because (1) no one is entitled to any spot and (2) admissions decisions aren't made on the basis of one-to-one comparisons. No college is going to say "we can take either this athlete or this top student -- which is it going to be?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

If you don't like it, run for political office and change it if/when you get elected. Until then, stop complaining because that's just the way it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all act like kids who are great athletes but have a 2.3gpa and 700 on the sats are getting into harvard for sports. Not surprising none of your kids were getting into their top choices.

Lol, right.

Every athlete I've known who has gone to an Ivy is a strong student. A few were also the top student in the class, but most are in the top with GPAs and test scores that are sufficient for them to gain admission in light of their talent.

[Anonymous]

The point is - if there weren't athletes their academic grades and scores would not get them in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If you don't like it, run for political office and change it if/when you get elected. Until then, stop complaining because that's just the way it is.

If you don't want to hear other opinions what are you doing in a chat forum? Lots of questionable things are " just the way it is" and should be discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If you don't like it, run for political office and change it if/when you get elected. Until then, stop complaining because that's just the way it is.

If you don't want to hear other opinions what are you doing in a chat forum? Lots of questionable things are " just the way it is" and should be discussed.

This. + get a new mantra. You say this all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It seems you are mistaken about the underlying premise of this thread. Many PPs are saying that getting into college should be really about academics, which of all things you seem to snidely dismiss. No need to be rude about other kids with good scores.

And on the flip side, college admissions should not be about something randoms like sports, which has NOTHING to do with academics. Imagine if colleges gave a massive preference to Pokemon card collectors. You'd be screaming about arbitrary the process is.

It's great your kid knows how to throw a ball, so send him to a football recruiting camp instead of college. But don't steal a college spot from an academically gifted kid.

And this is where the fallacy lies. No one is "stealing" a spot from anyone, because (1) no one is entitled to any spot and (2) admissions decisions aren't made on the basis of one-to-one comparisons. No college is going to say "we can take either this athlete or this top student -- which is it going to be?"

You're kidding yourself, because that's exactly how it works. A college has X spots and that's it. There is obviously a trade-off between one more sports jock vs. one more academically gifted kid, even if the admissions office makes it sound all nice and individualized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point is - if there weren't athletes their academic grades and scores would not get them in.

Here's the thing: at top colleges no student gets in solely on the basis of grades and test scores. This is America, not Asia. That's not how things work here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all act like kids who are great athletes but have a 2.3gpa and 700 on the sats are getting into harvard for sports. Not surprising none of your kids were getting into their top choices.

Lol, right.

Every athlete I've known who has gone to an Ivy is a strong student. A few were also the top student in the class, but most are in the top with GPAs and test scores that are sufficient for them to gain admission in light of their talent.

This.

It isn't a choice between a 2.3/900 kid versus a 3.9/1550 kid.

It is a choice between two kids with the latter higher states, where one is also an elite athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It seems you are mistaken about the underlying premise of this thread. Many PPs are saying that getting into college should be really about academics, which of all things you seem to snidely dismiss. No need to be rude about other kids with good scores.

And on the flip side, college admissions should not be about something randoms like sports, which has NOTHING to do with academics. Imagine if colleges gave a massive preference to Pokemon card collectors. You'd be screaming about arbitrary the process is.

It's great your kid knows how to throw a ball, so send him to a football recruiting camp instead of college. But don't steal a college spot from an academically gifted kid.

And this is where the fallacy lies. No one is "stealing" a spot from anyone, because (1) no one is entitled to any spot and (2) admissions decisions aren't made on the basis of one-to-one comparisons. No college is going to say "we can take either this athlete or this top student -- which is it going to be?"

You're kidding yourself, because that's exactly how it works. A college has X spots and that's it. There is obviously a trade-off between one more sports jock vs. one more academically gifted kid, even if the admissions office makes it sound all nice and individualized.

No.

It is a choice between two academically gifted or high stats kids, where one is an athlete and the other is just another high stats kid.