Athletes have such an edge

[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.

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.

And this is exactly why colleges should not recruit jocks like you who have no appreciation for more complex concepts. As you just demonstrated, those higher GPA/SAT scores and couple extra AP classes (maybe one was even on Logical Thinking?) really do make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

No, it doesn't.

[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.

I’m not but what does this have to do with anything?

Colleges want alums who are future leaders. Sports are a proven method of developing leaders.

Bingo.

This is such a BS line. So many people on here spouting the BS lines people use to justify what is really just capitalism at work. Sports bring in money and donors. That is all it is.

Leaders my butt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

. I guess but soccer is one of the most over monetized examples out there. Faux pro leagues with deluxe uniforms and "national" championships where players have to fly in. It's just gotten to the point of grossly exclusionary.

[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.

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.

And this is exactly why colleges should not recruit jocks like you who have no appreciation for more complex concepts. As you just demonstrated, those higher GPA/SAT scores and couple extra AP classes (maybe one was even on Logical Thinking?) really do make a difference.

I'm about as far away from an athlete as you can get. But I understand the proper use of terms like "ad hominem," unlike you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

. I guess but soccer is one of the most over monetized examples out there. Faux pro leagues with deluxe uniforms and "national" championships where players have to fly in. It's just gotten to the point of grossly exclusionary.

Which is particularly offensive bas it it should be a cheap and widely available sport. We have turned the sport for the masses into polo. That's an exaggeration but kinda we have.

[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.

You have not made a compelling argument here. *You* clearly think soccer players are interesting but many people could care less.

Anyone who decides who is interesting based on the stats you have limited yourself to above is clearly a snobby idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

No, it doesn't.

I’m OP. My friend’s son was admitted to Columbia and Vanderbilt. He has not even finished the common app - or any app - yet. 100% this happened. Highest math was precalc and then applied algebra. No AP classes. Sprinkling of honors.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if this thread is filled with a bunch of high schoolers with 4.1 GPAs who are mad they didn't get into the Ivies and their athlete classmates with 4.0s did get in. Admissions are coming out and these anti-athlete posters sound highly irrational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

No, it doesn't.

I’m OP. My friend’s son was admitted to Columbia and Vanderbilt. He has not even finished the common app - or any app - yet. 100% this happened. Highest math was precalc and then applied algebra. No AP classes. Sprinkling of honors.

Yeah, I don't believe you. Sorry, but this isn't believable. I am speaking as someone who used to be on an elite admissions committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

No, it doesn't.

I’m OP. My friend’s son was admitted to Columbia and Vanderbilt. He has not even finished the common app - or any app - yet. 100% this happened. Highest math was precalc and then applied algebra. No AP classes. Sprinkling of honors.

Yeah, I don't believe you. Sorry, but this isn't believable. I am speaking as someone who used to be on an elite admissions committee.

Well, it’s true. He keeps retaking the SAT bc the Naval Academy is his first choice. The last (there were 2) congressman who interviewed him suggested he try it one last time. Who could make up all these specific details?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

And this is exactly why colleges should not recruit jocks like you who have no appreciation for more complex concepts. As you just demonstrated, those higher GPA/SAT scores and couple extra AP classes (maybe one was even on Logical Thinking?) really do make a difference.

I'm about as far away from an athlete as you can get. But I understand the proper use of terms like "ad hominem," unlike you.

PP is not the "ad hominem" poster, I am.

Example 1: sports nut argues that anyone who disagrees with him must have a chip on his shoulder, so a personal attack rather than simply stating his argument
Example 2: again saying someone has no idea what they are talking about, again rather than actually speaking to his argument.

Where was it misused, but I am not an attorney like most on this site, so would love to see the proper usage as it is a common occurrence on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

. I guess but soccer is one of the most over monetized examples out there. Faux pro leagues with deluxe uniforms and "national" championships where players have to fly in. It's just gotten to the point of grossly exclusionary.

College coaches recruit players capable of playing in college. You can pay all you want, but if you can't play at that level, you aren't getting recruited

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

No, it doesn't.

I’m OP. My friend’s son was admitted to Columbia and Vanderbilt. He has not even finished the common app - or any app - yet. 100% this happened. Highest math was precalc and then applied algebra. No AP classes. Sprinkling of honors.

Vandy is an SEC schools with programs that are solidly DI. Columbia is an IVY league school with programs that are marginally DI. There are not many athletes who will ever be recruited by those two particular schools