Athletes have such an edge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just look at the avenues that were chosen for exploitation in the varsity blues scandal.....athletics and test scores.

[Anonymous]

Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

[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.

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.

Your BS meter is off. He’s taken it 3x because he wants to get into one school that he’s not in yet…and over a 1300 would make a big difference.

Please stop saying these athletes have filled out applications but in a different way. They have not filled out the admissions applications that are required of everyone else, where all stats are considered. Just admit that the title to this post is correct and they certainly don’t look at the whole person when looking at an athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

How in the world do you deduce this, and nice preemptive ad hominid attack about chip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

That is not clear at all. You could have hardly made a less compelling argument.

[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.

How is this different from academics in general? Kids get paid tutors, outside math courses, parents buy expensive houses for good schools, etc. I don't disagree that there is corruption, but it extends far, far beyond athletics.

Our best universities have never been filled with the most gifted students. They are filled with the students whose parents could buy the best education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

That is not clear at all. You could have hardly made a less compelling argument.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the miniscule difference in GPA and test scores makes any difference whatsoever in outcome has no idea what they are talking about. There is nothing interesting about B. A, on the other hand, is interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

Actually, you can’t even explain different outcomes because in your scenario sports is a proxy for wealth: in general you need to have a part time or SAHM to support early and long travel soccer career, as well as the money to support the skill, so student A showered money to build soccer career. Meanwhile, Student B focused on academics and participated in low cost on campus activities, probably because they could only take the late bus while parents worked and there was no money for academy and travel etc.

[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.

How is this different from academics in general? Kids get paid tutors, outside math courses, parents buy expensive houses for good schools, etc. I don't disagree that there is corruption, but it extends far, far beyond athletics.

Our best universities have never been filled with the most gifted students. They are filled with the students whose parents could buy the best education.

The main difference is that one is exploiting academic ability and the other in exploiting athletic ability. Is the academic ability more valuable than the athletic ability? That is a legit question. But both are corrupted by money and resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

Actually, you can’t even explain different outcomes because in your scenario sports is a proxy for wealth: in general you need to have a part time or SAHM to support early and long travel soccer career, as well as the money to support the skill, so student A showered money to build soccer career. Meanwhile, Student B focused on academics and participated in low cost on campus activities, probably because they could only take the late bus while parents worked and there was no money for academy and travel etc.

Student B had far more free time than student A and only managed to get marginally better results. I would expect that student A is actually the stronger student because of the time constrains placed on their academic work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

Actually, you can’t even explain different outcomes because in your scenario sports is a proxy for wealth: in general you need to have a part time or SAHM to support early and long travel soccer career, as well as the money to support the skill, so student A showered money to build soccer career. Meanwhile, Student B focused on academics and participated in low cost on campus activities, probably because they could only take the late bus while parents worked and there was no money for academy and travel etc.

Make HHI of A and B the same HHI and from the same HS then. A is clearly the more interesting student and the more likely to do well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

That is not clear at all. You could have hardly made a less compelling argument.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the miniscule difference in GPA and test scores makes any difference whatsoever in outcome has no idea what they are talking about. There is nothing interesting about B. A, on the other hand, is interesting.

Lol. Says you. I find b more interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

Actually, you can’t even explain different outcomes because in your scenario sports is a proxy for wealth: in general you need to have a part time or SAHM to support early and long travel soccer career, as well as the money to support the skill, so student A showered money to build soccer career. Meanwhile, Student B focused on academics and participated in low cost on campus activities, probably because they could only take the late bus while parents worked and there was no money for academy and travel etc.

Student B had far more free time than student A and only managed to get marginally better results. I would expect that student A is actually the stronger student because of the time constrains placed on their academic work

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

That is not clear at all. You could have hardly made a less compelling argument.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the miniscule difference in GPA and test scores makes any difference whatsoever in outcome has no idea what they are talking about. There is nothing interesting about B. A, on the other hand, is interesting.

Lol. Says you. I find b more interesting.

+1. Go with B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

That is not clear at all. You could have hardly made a less compelling argument.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the miniscule difference in GPA and test scores makes any difference whatsoever in outcome has no idea what they are talking about. There is nothing interesting about B. A, on the other hand, is interesting.

Lol. Says you. I find b more interesting.

Perhaps to you, but admissions at Ivies want people who are exceptional and there is nothing exceptional about B.