Athletes have such an edge

[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.

This is simply not true. Top colleges with major athletic programs set aside a certain number of spots for each of their sports teams, and aspirants for those teams compete against each other for spots -- and also must have a certain minimum academic profile to get in.

Your "more academically gifted kid" -- who, by the way, may not actually be "more academically gifted" than a kid competing for a spot on an athletic team -- is considered in the general applicant pool. They're not being pitted against each other or compared to each other.

[Anonymous]

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

Yep, and colleges even create dumbed down majors so that academically challenged athletes don't flunk out.

So it's a net negative all around: (1) Jocks take away college spots from academically gifted kids, (2) regular students must subsidize fancy sports facilities with their tuition, and (3) the kids who got in to play a sport don't even get a real education.

[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.

Luckily for you that doesn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply not true. Top colleges with major athletic programs set aside a certain number of spots for each of their sports teams, and aspirants for those teams compete against each other for spots -- and also must have a certain minimum academic profile to get in.

Your "more academically gifted kid" -- who, by the way, may not actually be "more academically gifted" than a kid competing for a spot on an athletic team -- is considered in the general applicant pool. They're not being pitted against each other or compared to each other.

Your response makes no sense and is contradictory in of itself. Those set-asides you mention for the sports teams are seats that could have gone to academically stronger students.

I gather you got into college on a football scholarship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply not true. Top colleges with major athletic programs set aside a certain number of spots for each of their sports teams, and aspirants for those teams compete against each other for spots -- and also must have a certain minimum academic profile to get in.

Your "more academically gifted kid" -- who, by the way, may not actually be "more academically gifted" than a kid competing for a spot on an athletic team -- is considered in the general applicant pool. They're not being pitted against each other or compared to each other.

Different poster: It is definitely true. You just need to look at the acceptance rate and the General stats (gpa and testing + class placement) and add that to rigorous or easy course load in HS and know that they are getting in based on sports alone AND taking a spot from someone more academically qualified. The only thing you need to know is they are offered spots without applying. That never happens any other instance but sports and is insane.

[Anonymous]

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

The point is, this is generally wrong. At Ivies, all teams have Academic Index requirements. Research it. There may be a couple kids on the low end of the general student distribution, but then those are balanced by kids at the extreme high end. Way too many people commenting on this thread who have no actual knowledge of the rules and what actually happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The point is, this is generally wrong. At Ivies, all teams have Academic Index requirements. Research it. There may be a couple kids on the low end of the general student distribution, but then those are balanced by kids at the extreme high end. Way too many people commenting on this thread who have no actual knowledge of the rules and what actually happens.

It is not wrong. A kid I know was offered a spot at Columbia, Vanderbilt and Wesleyan without applying. NO application has been filled out. He’s taken the SAT three times and his super score is not even over 1000. He’s at a small public school with As, Bs and Cs. He hasn’t filled out a single college application yet. Zero. No common app. Nothing. He has taken a sprinkling of honors classes, zero AP classes. He’s played football all four years. Zero other activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True but the athletic path to top colleges has been corrupted by money like so many other things. Not every sport, but many have been monetized to the max and function as exclusionary clubs for the athletes with the discretionary income to afford it.

My athlete is in one of the sports so I see it first hand. The league is not full of the most gifted athletes.....it is full of the most gifted athletes that can pay the money....and many of them are excellent....but many are simply not involved due to the cost. And it is clearly intentional to get kids from this demographic. The kids have to buy PLANE tickets, regularly to participate. WTF? That serves no real purpose on terms of learning or improving or excelling at the sport. It serves to keep kids out. It's been corrupted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The point is, this is generally wrong. At Ivies, all teams have Academic Index requirements. Research it. There may be a couple kids on the low end of the general student distribution, but then those are balanced by kids at the extreme high end. Way too many people commenting on this thread who have no actual knowledge of the rules and what actually happens.

It is not wrong. A kid I know was offered a spot at Columbia, Vanderbilt and Wesleyan without applying. NO application has been filled out. He’s taken the SAT three times and his super score is not even over 1000. He’s at a small public school with As, Bs and Cs. He hasn’t filled out a single college application yet. Zero. No common app. Nothing. He has taken a sprinkling of honors classes, zero AP classes. He’s played football all four years. Zero other activities.

Let me add he’s been accepted the several others but I listed the best ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The point is, this is generally wrong. At Ivies, all teams have Academic Index requirements. Research it. There may be a couple kids on the low end of the general student distribution, but then those are balanced by kids at the extreme high end. Way too many people commenting on this thread who have no actual knowledge of the rules and what actually happens.

It is not wrong. A kid I know was offered a spot at Columbia, Vanderbilt and Wesleyan without applying. NO application has been filled out. He’s taken the SAT three times and his super score is not even over 1000. He’s at a small public school with As, Bs and Cs. He hasn’t filled out a single college application yet. Zero. No common app. Nothing. He has taken a sprinkling of honors classes, zero AP classes. He’s played football all four years. Zero other activities.

Let me add he’s been accepted the several others but I listed the best ones.

You sound like you're the kid's classmate and are just seething with jealousy. I sure hope you're not a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The point is, this is generally wrong. At Ivies, all teams have Academic Index requirements. Research it. There may be a couple kids on the low end of the general student distribution, but then those are balanced by kids at the extreme high end. Way too many people commenting on this thread who have no actual knowledge of the rules and what actually happens.

It is not wrong. A kid I know was offered a spot at Columbia, Vanderbilt and Wesleyan without applying. NO application has been filled out. He’s taken the SAT three times and his super score is not even over 1000. He’s at a small public school with As, Bs and Cs. He hasn’t filled out a single college application yet. Zero. No common app. Nothing. He has taken a sprinkling of honors classes, zero AP classes. He’s played football all four years. Zero other activities.

Let me add he’s been accepted the several others but I listed the best ones.

But he has filled out “applications” they are just different. He had to email coaches, do on site interviews on sidelines, go to camps, have his coach call coaches, etc.

I call BS on “taking the test 3 times” why would he if he is already in by your own post. I don’t know 1 recruited athlete that takes it a bunch of times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True but the athletic path to top colleges has been corrupted by money like so many other things. Not every sport, but many have been monetized to the max and function as exclusionary clubs for the athletes with the discretionary income to afford it.

My athlete is in one of the sports so I see it first hand. The league is not full of the most gifted athletes.....it is full of the most gifted athletes that can pay the money....and many of them are excellent....but many are simply not involved due to the cost. And it is clearly intentional to get kids from this demographic. The kids have to buy PLANE tickets, regularly to participate. WTF? That serves no real purpose on terms of learning or improving or excelling at the sport. It serves to keep kids out. It's been corrupted.

Same with academics, best neighborhood, best schools, best teachers.

[Anonymous]

Might I add that I hear so many parents and children saying that they are choosing their university based on the "rah rah" school spirit factor generated by the teams. Think Michigan, Wisconsin, Duke, etc. The great sports teams attract a lot of students so there is that side as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True but the athletic path to top colleges has been corrupted by money like so many other things. Not every sport, but many have been monetized to the max and function as exclusionary clubs for the athletes with the discretionary income to afford it.

My athlete is in one of the sports so I see it first hand. The league is not full of the most gifted athletes.....it is full of the most gifted athletes that can pay the money....and many of them are excellent....but many are simply not involved due to the cost. And it is clearly intentional to get kids from this demographic. The kids have to buy PLANE tickets, regularly to participate. WTF? That serves no real purpose on terms of learning or improving or excelling at the sport. It serves to keep kids out. It's been corrupted.

Same with academics, best neighborhood, best schools, best teachers.

Absolutely. The game is rigged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is simply not true. Top colleges with major athletic programs set aside a certain number of spots for each of their sports teams, and aspirants for those teams compete against each other for spots -- and also must have a certain minimum academic profile to get in.

Your "more academically gifted kid" -- who, by the way, may not actually be "more academically gifted" than a kid competing for a spot on an athletic team -- is considered in the general applicant pool. They're not being pitted against each other or compared to each other.

Your response makes no sense and is contradictory in of itself. Those set-asides you mention for the sports teams are seats that could have gone to academically stronger students.

I gather you got into college on a football scholarship?

Ha ha, hardly. I'm a total dork who couldn't throw or catch a ball to save my life, and neither can any of my kids. And I'm not contradicting myself at all. The point isn't that the set-asides "could have" gone to academically stronger students -- it's that there are separate pools. No kid -- not yours, and not an athlete -- is guaranteed a spot at any top school.