"Not a Meritocracy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is a meritocracy you just don’t like the measuring stick they use.

Everyone on DCUM who whines about legacies athletes and rich kids getting in “without merit” would never complain about URMs getting in without merit.

URM’s don’t get in without merit you just don’t like the measuring stick used.

And you must be new to DCUM, because people constantly whine about "unqualified" URMs taking their DC's rightful spots.

[Anonymous]

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hence, the side door.

And the back door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

Read what they posted again. And the data shows these students have lower stats than the average population at selective schools.

In fact during the 1965-98 period cited by PP as the golden age of meritocracy, athlete admissions in the Ivy League were so compromised that they had to create the Academic Index in 1985 to curb the abuses.

We should all find a spouse who defends us to the bitter end like athletic recruits get defended on this board. Never have so many claimed a hook is not a hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

more like 200+

The vast majority of athletes end up as normal people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

more like 200+

The vast majority of athletes end up as normal people.

The vast majority of college students end up as normal people. The majority of women in c suites of fortune 500s are former athletes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

more like 200+

The vast majority of athletes end up as normal people.

More like -1000. If we’re just going to make up stuff.

The vast majority of people end up as normal people. That’s why it’s called “normal”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

Only in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

more like 200+

The vast majority of athletes end up as normal people.

The vast majority of college students end up as normal people. The majority of women in c suites of fortune 500s are former athletes

It really is amazing how companies outside of the US manage to find CEOs without a pool of ex college athletes from which to choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

more like 200+

The vast majority of athletes end up as normal people.

More like -1000. If we’re just going to make up stuff.

The vast majority of people end up as normal people. That’s why it’s called “normal”.

Indeed, but a PP or you seem to insinuate that recruited athletes end up "special" or something ie, " a better indicator of future success ".

The point is that the majority end up normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

Only in America.

Which is where all the non-Americans seem to flock for education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

Only in America.

Which is where all the non-Americans seem to flock for education.

And questioning the contribution of student athletes to the quality of our higher education is legitimate. You think athletics is important to higher education and others do not. Not giving so many sports to tennis players means more spots available to students with higher level academic interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are athletes lumped in here? Don't they display merit in having to essentially meet an athletic and academic bar (even if the academic bar is a little different)? It is so strange to see people talk about a group that clearly has a long-developed and in-demand skillset in the same way as someone who was born to parents who happened to attend a college.


Because they are the ultimate hook. Even you admit it’s a different bar.

NP, but PP did not say a different bar - what she described is actually an additional bar. If a kid meets or exceeds the academic standards AND can contribute athletically, why are you suggesting that shouldn’t matter? Very often those kids have equal or better stats than the student population at large, and they are bringing a skill set that the average applicant does not have.

It is fine to question if that additional bar has any value. College sports are an American thing, unimportant to higher education anywhere else. Some think athletic skill is important and some think it is no consequence to higher education.

Some think that participation in college athletics is a better indicator of future success than an extra 75 points on the SAT

Only in America.

Which is where all the non-Americans seem to flock for education.

Because the jobs here are best, not the education. Many countries rank ahead of America in education and the universities are strong on the backs of $$$ and a super smart foreign contingent in the student bodies