Athletes have such an edge

[Anonymous]

Interesting people are more likely to find others interesting.

And then there are those that reduce complexity to academic stats and athletic accomplishments

[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.

Classy, doubling down on the ad hominem attack. 2 additional APs are significant on their own, and why are you automatically discounting what are likely community service or drama clubs as well as chess. Chess is a game just like soccer by the way.

And OMFG, who in the world would call a soccer player "interesting"? Sure I like watching sports as much as the next one, and a game can be fun and entertaining, but "interesting"? They like playing a game which they happen to be good at, that is hardly earth shattering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In Virginia, UVA runs an athletics deficit even with student fees. Virginia Tech has a slight athletics surplus, but they do it with student fees. If they didn't have student fees, they would have a deficit. The number of schools that can run athletics surpluses without student fees is very, very small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes. Hence the debate about why sport is more valuable than chess. It sure costs more...thousands and thousands more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting people are more likely to find others interesting.

And then there are those that reduce complexity to academic stats and athletic accomplishments

Like admissions committees?

[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.

What the heck does kicking a ball have to do with doing "interesting" things in life?! Soccer players are a dime a dozen. Athletes are recruited because college teams need players so they can make money for coaches, not because there is anything uniquely interesting about them.

Also, my dog is really good at fetching a stick, so does that mean he should also get into college now? Again, how does kicking a ball have anything to do with higher learning?

[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.

DP. I disagree. I think it's a very compelling argument.

[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.

Classy, doubling down on the ad hominem attack. 2 additional APs are significant on their own, and why are you automatically discounting what are likely community service or drama clubs as well as chess. Chess is a game just like soccer by the way.

And OMFG, who in the world would call a soccer player "interesting"? Sure I like watching sports as much as the next one, and a game can be fun and entertaining, but "interesting"? They like playing a game which they happen to be good at, that is hardly earth shattering.

If student B had been an exceptional chess player, this would be a different conversation. But as described, B isn't notable in the scale of Ivy candidates.

Also you don't understand what "ad hominem" means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But A is even less exceptional. Kicking a ball is not a life skill and has nothing to do with higher learning. It only matters because the sports nuts in this country say it matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In Virginia, UVA runs an athletics deficit even with student fees. Virginia Tech has a slight athletics surplus, but they do it with student fees. If they didn't have student fees, they would have a deficit. The number of schools that can run athletics surpluses without student fees is very, very small.

i.e. Big 10 and SEC as well as Texas (soon to be SEC), Notre Dame and maybe a few others

[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.

This is a terrible example and here is why:

1. Student A is offered admission without any consideration about his grades, course load, gpas, or anything else.

2. Student B usually has far, far more AP courses and more difficult classes (higher level math, high level science) and student A usually has the opposite - as in most of the time.

It’s more like this:

Student A is a very good soccer player and is offered admission to multiple schools without actually applying to any of them and without consideration of his academic achievements or any other factor other than his soccer achievement. A doesn’t fit the acceptance stats at all.

Student B is a much better student than A, took much harder courses than A, took multiple ECs and did lots of service hours compared to A, and has a much higher SAT/ACT than A. B fits the typical acceptance stats perfectly. B applies to the school.

A is admitted without applying and no real consideration of anything other than soccer. B is rejected.

That’s the complaint. You make it sound like they are apples to apples - close but soccer edges one out. This is. Or what’s happening most of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But A is even less exceptional. Kicking a ball is not a life skill and has nothing to do with higher learning. It only matters because the sports nuts in this country say it matters.

It matters because it demonstrates dedication and perseverance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes. Hence the debate about why sport is more valuable than chess. It sure costs more...thousands and thousands more.

Chess is very expensive at the exceptional levels. Ivies are absolutely interested in exceptional chess players, but not someone who is mediocre at chess.

[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.

DP. I disagree. I think it's a very compelling argument.

Because you think being a great soccer player is interesting and and valuable and deserving of an ivy league education. I disagree with that emphasis on soccer skills as being important to who best benefits from higher 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.

This is a terrible example and here is why:

1. Student A is offered admission without any consideration about his grades, course load, gpas, or anything else.

2. Student B usually has far, far more AP courses and more difficult classes (higher level math, high level science) and student A usually has the opposite - as in most of the time.

It’s more like this:

Student A is a very good soccer player and is offered admission to multiple schools without actually applying to any of them and without consideration of his academic achievements or any other factor other than his soccer achievement. A doesn’t fit the acceptance stats at all.

Student B is a much better student than A, took much harder courses than A, took multiple ECs and did lots of service hours compared to A, and has a much higher SAT/ACT than A. B fits the typical acceptance stats perfectly. B applies to the school.

A is admitted without applying and no real consideration of anything other than soccer. B is rejected.

That’s the complaint. You make it sound like they are apples to apples - close but soccer edges one out. This is. Or what’s happening most of the time.

Your scenario is an absolute fantasy. I have no idea where you are getting this from, but it doesn't happen for the Ivies or Stanford. You live in a bizarre imaginary world.