Athletes have such an edge

[Anonymous]

I think it's especially frustrating in my NW DC community because a number of the kids I know who are exceptional athletes are just the one that had a ZILLION dollars poured into the in the form of private coaching from age 7/8/9. My kids play travel soccer and baseball
and have teammates who are now getting offers (we've known since they were young). are the ones in families. Many also had a dad who worked very little or not at all (inherited wealth). Their kid or kids athletic career
became their job. I can think of 10 kids in this scenario. These kids were not self-directed in as much as they were pliable (because I recognize that not all kids would agree to 20 hours a week of private lessons).

It's kind of crazy to observe--to be honest---you throw enough lessons/money at a kid for 15 years and you really can create a very high level player if your starting material is reasonably athletic. Watching this over the years I sort of laughed at it and wondered how it
would turn out. Turns out it actually works quite well.

****Lest I get jumped on*** this is not the case for a large percentage of college athletes (even college athletes from this area). Many are self motivated and/or naturally talented. But it is a phenomenon in pockets of NW DC and other very wealthy areas. Pour the money and time
into your kid and you can create an elite athlete. These kids are now the ones signing at UVA and Dartmouth and whatnot (over other kids who are far, far better students who are not and will not get in (again just observed in MY circle). There is definitely a feeling of "DAMN IT. The wealthy win again. Life is easy when you're born on third base".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend’s son has many offers from good schools - only one application submitted - and just committed to a school where he hadn’t applied.

There is no way they didn’t apply. They might have applied after a verbal offer but they still filled out the forms and sent their transcripts etc . . .

They haven’t applied yet - just accepted the offer. But really, is that the point you want to make? Who cares if they still have to apply, they are essentially in, barring a rare occurrence.

Depending on the school that is not necessarily true. I know someone who was a recruited athlete to UVA (OOS) and received her commitment her freshman year of HS. She was not a great student and she had to have extensive tutoring for her SAT testing to ensure it was "in range" for UVA or she would have not gotten admitted - sports or no sports. She was able to get it into the 1300 or even 1400s, was accepted and attends. (quit the sport btw)

You are just ill-informed. My son is an athlete at UVA with a HS GPA of 2.8 and 1050 on the SAT.

The NCAA does allow for 5% of athletic recruits to fall in the lowest band of the academic requirement, but it's rare. Congrats on having a child in that band.

[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?

NP here. Because the odds are those athletes who do “well” in their careers = make a very high income, and thus are more likely to in return as alums give more money over a longer period of time back to their university. The schools are playing the long game here. By investing in their lacrosse programs, the schools are betting on those types of players, from certain family backgrounds, to go into high income careers after school and the school can cultivate them into high level school spirit and loyalty and hope they become boosters.

Know any college lax bros who are know investment bankers? Hedge fund managers? Developers? Entrepreneurs?

It’s a completely unfair statement and here is why: they don’t admit the kids with those lower stats (or exclude those with higher ones) - instead opting for the lower stats athlete. It’s then impossible to gather any data on how those kids would have fared had they been accepted or how they fared elsewhere.

PP here. It doesn’t matter if you think (or I think) it’s an unfair statement, it’s true. Lacrosse, for example, is the fastest growing sports (in terms of budget) in NCAA division 1 over the last 15 years. Why? Is it because of the revenue stream? Are schools making big bucks off of tv rights (I mean sometimes you can find a lacrosse game on ESPN123453827 but rarely, you have to stream the games)? Are they making money off of ticket sales? Are they making money from all the people buying their players’ lacrosse jerseys bought off of fanatics.com? From what?

It’s just a fact that UMC to Upper class high income kids play lacrosse. It’s an expensive sport to play, period. It’s a homogenous sport with very little diversity. Go to the lacrosse forum here on DCUM. These kids aren’t trying to play college lacrosse so they can become professional lacrosse players post college, get big endorsements, etc. These rich kids who play lacrosse and go onto college to play lacrosse statistically on average go on to high income careers (whether they work for mommy and daddy or go to business or law school and work in banking of big law for example). Statistically they just do. 100% of them, no, but a high percentage do. And when looking for return on investment or bang for your buck, colleges are betting on these kids to graduate and start donating back to their university in higher numbers than other sports. And history has proven this to be true and so the cycle continues.

I work in development/advancement. This is a well known strategy in higher ed. I’m sorry if you can find a few antidotes that go against the theory but by abs large it’s true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is our culture. I agree it makes no sense. Really what do sports have to do with pursuit of higher education? I don't think.any other countries play collegiate sports like we do. But you have to accept it as it is just the way it is here.

I do accept it but it’s crazy. His sat is about hundreds below the average accepted sat there.

You cannot compare athletics with regular kids. Sports, whether you like it or not, brings a lot of revenue to colleges and their admission has nothing to do with admission process of regular students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's especially frustrating in my NW DC community because a number of the kids I know who are exceptional athletes are just the one that had a ZILLION dollars poured into the in the form of private coaching from age 7/8/9. My kids play travel soccer and baseball
and have teammates who are now getting offers (we've known since they were young). are the ones in families. Many also had a dad who worked very little or not at all (inherited wealth). Their kid or kids athletic career
became their job. I can think of 10 kids in this scenario. These kids were not self-directed in as much as they were pliable (because I recognize that not all kids would agree to 20 hours a week of private lessons).

It's kind of crazy to observe--to be honest---you throw enough lessons/money at a kid for 15 years and you really can create a very high level player if your starting material is reasonably athletic. Watching this over the years I sort of laughed at it and wondered how it
would turn out. Turns out it actually works quite well.

****Lest I get jumped on*** this is not the case for a large percentage of college athletes (even college athletes from this area). Many are self motivated and/or naturally talented. But it is a phenomenon in pockets of NW DC and other very wealthy areas. Pour the money and time
into your kid and you can create an elite athlete. These kids are now the ones signing at UVA and Dartmouth and whatnot (over other kids who are far, far better students who are not and will not get in (again just observed in MY circle). There is definitely a feeling of "DAMN IT. The wealthy win again. Life is easy when you're born on third base".

It is odd you don't observe the exact same thing with kids that do well in school. They are born on 3rd base, go to the best schools in the world, get the best tutors and yet you think they "deserve" to "get in".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's especially frustrating in my NW DC community because a number of the kids I know who are exceptional athletes are just the one that had a ZILLION dollars poured into the in the form of private coaching from age 7/8/9. My kids play travel soccer and baseball
and have teammates who are now getting offers (we've known since they were young). are the ones in families. Many also had a dad who worked very little or not at all (inherited wealth). Their kid or kids athletic career
became their job. I can think of 10 kids in this scenario. These kids were not self-directed in as much as they were pliable (because I recognize that not all kids would agree to 20 hours a week of private lessons).

It's kind of crazy to observe--to be honest---you throw enough lessons/money at a kid for 15 years and you really can create a very high level player if your starting material is reasonably athletic. Watching this over the years I sort of laughed at it and wondered how it
would turn out. Turns out it actually works quite well.

****Lest I get jumped on*** this is not the case for a large percentage of college athletes (even college athletes from this area). Many are self motivated and/or naturally talented. But it is a phenomenon in pockets of NW DC and other very wealthy areas. Pour the money and time
into your kid and you can create an elite athlete. These kids are now the ones signing at UVA and Dartmouth and whatnot (over other kids who are far, far better students who are not and will not get in (again just observed in MY circle). There is definitely a feeling of "DAMN IT. The wealthy win again. Life is easy when you're born on third base".

The wealthy will always have more options and opportunities.......get over it.

Just because someone has wealth, does not mean their kids will turn out well.......look at all the rich and famous people's kids (all mess up). Sometimes having everything is not a good thing.

Having coaching does not mean someone will be good enough for college.....the kid still needs to work for it (not varsity blues).

Team sports especially teach working together and life is not fair.......not everyone can be a star and not every kid gets a trophy.

Better for our kids to learn that early and if they want a trophy, go work for it rather than complain about the inequality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is our culture. I agree it makes no sense. Really what do sports have to do with pursuit of higher education? I don't think.any other countries play collegiate sports like we do. But you have to accept it as it is just the way it is here.

It’s about money.

Coaches have to win games to keep their jobs. At the higher level in academia, development folks have to ask for money, and donors prefer to support a winning school.

It seems simple to me. A lot of this is not about educating your child. It’s about gaining power, prestige, and money. If we live in DC, we should know that by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend’s son has many offers from good schools - only one application submitted - and just committed to a school where he hadn’t applied.

There is no way they didn’t apply. They might have applied after a verbal offer but they still filled out the forms and sent their transcripts etc . . .

They haven’t applied yet - just accepted the offer. But really, is that the point you want to make? Who cares if they still have to apply, they are essentially in, barring a rare occurrence.

Depending on the school that is not necessarily true. I know someone who was a recruited athlete to UVA (OOS) and received her commitment her freshman year of HS. She was not a great student and she had to have extensive tutoring for her SAT testing to ensure it was "in range" for UVA or she would have not gotten admitted - sports or no sports. She was able to get it into the 1300 or even 1400s, was accepted and attends. (quit the sport btw)

You are just ill-informed. My son is an athlete at UVA with a HS GPA of 2.8 and 1050 on the SAT.

The NCAA does allow for 5% of athletic recruits to fall in the lowest band of the academic requirement, but it's rare. Congrats on having a child in that band.

Hahha I am not ill-informed. It’s a family member and I have spoken to her personally. I’m sure it does depend on the sport. This kid was not in a “money sport” like football, basketball, perhaps yours is? Or your kid brought something very unique to a niche sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is our culture. I agree it makes no sense. Really what do sports have to do with pursuit of higher education? I don't think.any other countries play collegiate sports like we do. But you have to accept it as it is just the way it is here.

I do accept it but it’s crazy. His sat is about hundreds below the average accepted sat there.

But the average don’t have his athletic ability. See how that works. Sports can generate a lot of revenue for the school. Nerds do not.

[Anonymous]

To be honest, I would be embarrassed if my kid had to take this route to get into a good college.

Plus, I would worry that he would have time and/or the capability to do well there (i.e., that he might eek through, but fail to actually gain a strong education).

[Anonymous]

It's interesting...athletics isn't a big deal at Canadian universities. But the government actually funds their colleges so they don't rely on raising money the same way US colleges do.

I love American college sports, though.

[Anonymous]

I have two kids in college -- one is a recruited athlete (crew) and is an Ivy. The other (much better student, just as much hard work in the ECs she cares about) is at a school that is definitely a tier down.

In terms of the college application process, the athlete did spend a lot of time researching programs, talking to coaches, etc., but that in no way compares to the time my other kid spent writing essays, doing an activities list, etc.

Also, I'm pretty sure that crew is a financial drain not a financial benefit for the athlete's school.

We worked the system, but I will own the fact that athletic recruiting (especially in the "country club" sports) is basically affirmative action for rich white kids. I don't understand why people can't just admit that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be honest, I would be embarrassed if my kid had to take this route to get into a good college.

Plus, I would worry that he would have time and/or the capability to do well there (i.e., that he might eek through, but fail to actually gain a strong education).

No you wouldn't. You'd be bragging to anyone and everyone. Green eyed monster.

[Anonymous]

People need to STFU. Focus on what you CAN control and forget about things beyond your control. UMC and rich kids do not play lacrosse, it is either golf or tennis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you even knew everything an athlete had to do during the commitment process you would not be complaining.

Wow! the score is 100 less, bfd.

Athlete GPA's are higher than the average GPA than the average college student.

Reading comprehension fail.

Quote: His sat is about hundreds below the average accepted sat there.

FAIL

Do you see an s? HUNDREDS less. A 1000 on the sat is nowhere near a 1400.