Athletes are the real reason your kid can't get into the elite colleges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a school like MIT, they do not lower the admissions standards for recruited athletes. But, if you meet their standards, and are recruited, you will be admitted.

As an example, I know someone who was recruited to elite schools. She got admitted and will be going....And, she used her skills to be admitted, but she had nearly all A's with nearly all honors and AP, and 1500+ on the SATs, and a National Merit Semifinialist. The thing is that is the average student at an elite school. And they could accept 100% 4.0 UW with 1600 SATs. The sport set her apart.

This is also true for CalTech - the bar is just as high for their athletes as it is for everyone else. Why do people think that athletes cannot be academic? My DC was a high performing athlete and also a National Merit Finalist. DC also had top grades and scored a 35 on the ACT as a sophomore. There are plenty of highly academic kids who also play sports at a competitive level. I'm not talking NBA/NFL/NHL level though - that's a completely different level of athleticism.

No it is not. Why would the CalTech admissions office need to set aside 23% (or 15% at MIT) of the slots for athletic recruits if they were just as strong as the other admits and would get in anyways? The fact is that they are far weaker than the rest of the admitted pool. At least in the Ivies, the Academic Index requires some academically stronger athletes to balance off the really weak ones. And the Ivies are explicit in their desire for a holistic mix and the fact that it is an athletic conference. On the other hand, CalTech and MIT claim to be all about academic merit, when that is clearly not the case. It's also absurd because what is the point of athletics there?

Like OP, you completely misread the article, or didn't read it at all. The percentages you cite (23% for CalTech and 15% for MIT) refer only to how many kids are participating in varsity athletics at the school. It should be obvious that that's a different statistic than the number of slots the school has for recruited athletes, but the article and earlier posts in this thread makes that clear as well. At a school like CalTech, virtually all of the kids who make up that 23% will be walk-ons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a school like MIT, they do not lower the admissions standards for recruited athletes. But, if you meet their standards, and are recruited, you will be admitted.

As an example, I know someone who was recruited to elite schools. She got admitted and will be going....And, she used her skills to be admitted, but she had nearly all A's with nearly all honors and AP, and 1500+ on the SATs, and a National Merit Semifinialist. The thing is that is the average student at an elite school. And they could accept 100% 4.0 UW with 1600 SATs. The sport set her apart.

This is also true for CalTech - the bar is just as high for their athletes as it is for everyone else. Why do people think that athletes cannot be academic? My DC was a high performing athlete and also a National Merit Finalist. DC also had top grades and scored a 35 on the ACT as a sophomore. There are plenty of highly academic kids who also play sports at a competitive level. I'm not talking NBA/NFL/NHL level though - that's a completely different level of athleticism.

No it is not. Why would the CalTech admissions office need to set aside 23% (or 15% at MIT) of the slots for athletic recruits if they were just as strong as the other admits and would get in anyways? The fact is that they are far weaker than the rest of the admitted pool. At least in the Ivies, the Academic Index requires some academically stronger athletes to balance off the really weak ones. And the Ivies are explicit in their desire for a holistic mix and the fact that it is an athletic conference. On the other hand, CalTech and MIT claim to be all about academic merit, when that is clearly not the case. It's also absurd because what is the point of athletics there?

That was answered earlier in the thread... here is the answer


Caltech and MIT have some of highest suicide rates in the country. In large part that’s because they could admit a class of entirely high school valedictorians, HALF of whom would then be BELOW AVERAGE. A good number of those kids then get depressed. Harvard’s percent of reserved seats, between legacies, rich-people donations, athletes, and unique-star kids (top musicians, etc) is about FIFTY percent. By design.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They're better athletes than run of the mill students, and sure they had to work at it, but what does the fact that they're the 1000th best football player in the country bring to the school? At the end of the day what real value do they bring to the school?

Why don't you ask the people who admit them? Because obviously they feel they do bring value to the school. Unless you are claiming they don't know what they are doing over there in Cambridge.

Of course, when you run a college, you will get to decide what that college derives value from.

I think the point is, why do people question the decision makers when they think racial diversity is important, but say they know what they're doing when they think having athletes is important. It's hypocrisy to question one decision and then give deference to the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They're better athletes than run of the mill students, and sure they had to work at it, but what does the fact that they're the 1000th best football player in the country bring to the school? At the end of the day what real value do they bring to the school?

Why don't you ask the people who admit them? Because obviously they feel they do bring value to the school. Unless you are claiming they don't know what they are doing over there in Cambridge.

Of course, when you run a college, you will get to decide what that college derives value from.

I think the point is, why do people question the decision makers when they think racial diversity is important, but say they know what they're doing when they think having athletes is important. It's hypocrisy to question one decision and then give deference to the other.

A lot of people question all the hook categories, and are bitter thinking that anyone had preference over their kids because of URM, legacy, or recruited athlete status. Others can offer justifications for some or all of the hooks. It's not as if there is any kind of general agreement among all white people that a recruited athlete preference is OK but an URM one is not--it just totally depends on the person you are dealing with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think the point is, why do people question the decision makers when they think racial diversity is important, but say they know what they're doing when they think having athletes is important. It's hypocrisy to question one decision and then give deference to the other.

Fine. But who does that exactly?

Colleges get to value whatever they want is the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT football has been pretty stellar the past couple of years.

And so what, why not take kids who excel in the classroom and on a field or court?

OP makes an assumption that recruited athletes are somehow lesser students.

Why assume URMs are lesser students?

They usually are. Elite schools have a hard time making their quota with URMs with high stats.

Same could be said for athletes. Evidence says athletes are admitted with lesser scores.

So what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the point is, why do people question the decision makers when they think racial diversity is important, but say they know what they're doing when they think having athletes is important. It's hypocrisy to question one decision and then give deference to the other.

Fine. But who does that exactly?

Colleges get to value whatever they want is the point.

They take Federal dollars, and therefore the public (whose dollars they are receiving) should have some input into their admissions process and criteria.

[Anonymous]

CalTech and MIT coaches have zero pull with admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the point is, why do people question the decision makers when they think racial diversity is important, but say they know what they're doing when they think having athletes is important. It's hypocrisy to question one decision and then give deference to the other.

Fine. But who does that exactly?

Colleges get to value whatever they want is the point.

They take Federal dollars, and therefore the public (whose dollars they are receiving) should have some input into their admissions process and criteria.

Sigh... the old "federal dollars" canard.

They deliver services for what they get (research, educations, etc.), they are not on the federal dole. Your argument is invalid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT football has been pretty stellar the past couple of years.

And so what, why not take kids who excel in the classroom and on a field or court?

OP makes an assumption that recruited athletes are somehow lesser students.

Why assume URMs are lesser students?

They usually are. Elite schools have a hard time making their quota with URMs with high stats.

Same could be said for athletes. Evidence says athletes are admitted with lesser scores.

So what?

Academic aptitude is a major part of college admissions but ?? its ?? not ?? the ??only ?? factor. There are so many other factors that go into a successful career/life, including off the top of my head, perseverance, leadership, teamwork. Athletes have these qualities in spades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the point is, why do people question the decision makers when they think racial diversity is important, but say they know what they're doing when they think having athletes is important. It's hypocrisy to question one decision and then give deference to the other.

Fine. But who does that exactly?

Colleges get to value whatever they want is the point.

They take Federal dollars, and therefore the public (whose dollars they are receiving) should have some input into their admissions process and criteria.

Sigh... the old "federal dollars" canard.

They deliver services for what they get (research, educations, etc.), they are not on the federal dole. Your argument is invalid.

Colleges get free labor via the federal work study program. Kids get jobs, government pays, college gets no cost workers. Colleges also count those funds as part of any financial aid package they offer. It would be far more efficient just to give students the funds via a federal grant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT football has been pretty stellar the past couple of years.

And so what, why not take kids who excel in the classroom and on a field or court?

OP makes an assumption that recruited athletes are somehow lesser students.

Why assume URMs are lesser students?

They usually are. Elite schools have a hard time making their quota with URMs with high stats.

Same could be said for athletes. Evidence says athletes are admitted with lesser scores.

So what?

Academic aptitude is a major part of college admissions but ?? its ?? not ?? the ??only ?? factor. There are so many other factors that go into a successful career/life, including off the top of my head, perseverance, leadership, teamwork. Athletes have these qualities in spades.

Exactly. So what if they have lower scores (and not all do anyway)? Scores aren't the only thing that contribute to an engaging classroom experience or college experience or work experience or life experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They take Federal dollars, and therefore the public (whose dollars they are receiving) should have some input into their admissions process and criteria.

Sigh... the old "federal dollars" canard.

They deliver services for what they get (research, educations, etc.), they are not on the federal dole. Your argument is invalid.

Colleges get free labor via the federal work study program. Kids get jobs, government pays, college gets no cost workers. Colleges also count those funds as part of any financial aid package they offer. It would be far more efficient just to give students the funds via a federal grant.

And they deliver educations in return for it. And it greatly benefits the student. Ya wanna criticize the work study program, fine go ahead, but the idea that participation requires a college to admit people based on criteria YOU select -- well that's just crazy.

[Anonymous]

I am fine with preference given to athletes - the kid worked hard and admitted based on his/her talents/hard work. Same w musicians. What I am against is legacies/development - nothing to do with kid but parents. On URM - I wish they would change that to be based on ‘economic disadvantage’ as poverty knows no race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with preference given to athletes - the kid worked hard and admitted based on his/her talents/hard work. Same w musicians. What I am against is legacies/development - nothing to do with kid but parents. On URM - I wish they would change that to be based on ‘economic disadvantage’ as poverty knows no race.

I don't really have a problem with any of these hooks but I get tired of the various beneficiaries denying that the hooked students have substantially lower stats than the average admitted applicant.