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

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/12/varsity-athletes-admissions-enrollment-top-colleges/?utm_term=.282712c7fa13

The amazing stats that jumped out to me are that 23% of Caltech and 15% of MIT slots are reserved for recruited athletes! So much for their vaunted "pure" race-neutral meritocracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/12/varsity-athletes-admissions-enrollment-top-colleges/?utm_term=.282712c7fa13

The amazing stats that jumped out to me are that 23% of Caltech and 15% of MIT slots are reserved for recruited athletes! So much for their vaunted "pure" race-neutral meritocracy.

Wait, are you implying that all athletes are the same race?! So I really need to tell you that there are successful athletes of all races. A racist rant is. It what I expected of this header.

[Anonymous]

I’m confused- what does race have to do with allocated spots for athletes?

[Anonymous]

I'm fairly certain the reason my kid couldn't get into an elite college is his grades.

But if you want to blame other things, go right ahead!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/12/varsity-athletes-admissions-enrollment-top-colleges/?utm_term=.282712c7fa13

The amazing stats that jumped out to me are that 23% of Caltech and 15% of MIT slots are reserved for recruited athletes! So much for their vaunted "pure" race-neutral meritocracy.

Yikes. What a scam.

[Anonymous]

So what? If a school wants some of their students to be competitive athletes, that’s their prerogative.

No one has a right to a spot at a top school. The schools decide what kind of a class they want to put together and choose accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Misread that as “atheists.” Looked interesting for just a moment...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/12/varsity-athletes-admissions-enrollment-top-colleges/?utm_term=.282712c7fa13

The amazing stats that jumped out to me are that 23% of Caltech and 15% of MIT slots are reserved for recruited athletes! So much for their vaunted "pure" race-neutral meritocracy.

I think you need to actually read the article. You are not interpreting the table correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/12/varsity-athletes-admissions-enrollment-top-colleges/?utm_term=.282712c7fa13

The amazing stats that jumped out to me are that 23% of Caltech and 15% of MIT slots are reserved for recruited athletes! So much for their vaunted "pure" race-neutral meritocracy.

That doesn't sound right to me. Or if they are "reserved" for recruited athletes, I doubt either school admits that many recruited athletes. Both of those schools have largely terrible sports team (except for fencing). But anyway, I'd rather a recruited athlete who at least has talent in one domain than a legacy admit whose only talent is to be born to an alum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Misread that as “atheists.” Looked interesting for just a moment...

[Anonymous]

Pp here.

Don't confuse varsity athletes with recruited athletes.

Re-read:
BELOW “the two charts are data from colleges in response to The Post survey on the share of admission offers given to recruited athletes.”

The headline with text above and position of table is very misleading / click-bait-y

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.