Athletes have such an edge

[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".

That’s not true at all. Maybe just for you because you live in a wealthy area, like NWDC.

My kids attend a lower-income school and sports are a FANTASTIC way for kids to get scholarship money for colleges they otherwise would not have attended. Athletics has been awesome, especially for some of the Black and Brown kids, to expose them to the world out there.

[Anonymous]

I think it's great at D3 schools where athletics always take a backseat to academics whilst providing a supportive social environment. At the D1 level it seems that athletics become the primary function of the student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven’t figured out that our society values sports over education?

But you can get into a good school with amazing academics and zero athletics, but if you have amazing athletics you still need academics that are far above average.

It's higher EDUCATION...not higher athletics.

Then you don't understand EDUCATION.

I don't give a rats ass if my lawyer or my investment advisor or my doctor can catch a ball. I need their brains...period.

College athlete is still a great proxy for work ethic. There's a reason that they also have an edge when applying to jobs.

This. They can take feedback, work hard, be a teammate, and persevere through adversity. And they have great time management skills, because to get recruited to the best schools they need a strong academic transcript on top of the elite sports skill.

I think it's the time management. Its much easier to have a perfect academic transcript if you have a couple of clubs that take an hour or two a week, but you generally get home before 5:00 and have the entire evening to study and work vs. an athlete who can easily have practice four days a week ranging from an hour to several hours that may be a long drive from home and weekends packed with games and have the expectation of doing strength training, cardio, and skills training outside of practice.

[Anonymous]

Colleges are looking for specific seats to fill. They are not filling their whole class with athletes. They have x number of athlete positions open - which is fraction of the overall admitted class (unless SLAC). A lot of posts you read here it sounds like if you are an Athlete you get in. Not True. You have to be an athlete that is recruited for the particular team and that that number is very small. No athlete is taking a general admissions kid’s seat. The two are not competing against each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not athletes that have an advantage. It’s rich and UMC athletes that have the advantage. Do you think all that training and travel is free? Tying college admission to athletics is another way the rich keep a stranglehold on what they view as limited resources. Legacy being the other, of course.

You can spend tens of thousands trying, but if a kid isn't athletic they aren't getting recruited. The majority of travel players in any sport will not play in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not athletes that have an advantage. It’s rich and UMC athletes that have the advantage. Do you think all that training and travel is free? Tying college admission to athletics is another way the rich keep a stranglehold on what they view as limited resources. Legacy being the other, of course.

Lot of truth to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's great at D3 schools where athletics always take a backseat to academics whilst providing a supportive social environment. At the D1 level it seems that athletics become the primary function of the student.

And those athletes often become leaders. Being a Division I athlete at an academically demanding college requires incredible stamina, time management skills, and commitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges are looking for specific seats to fill. They are not filling their whole class with athletes. They have x number of athlete positions open - which is fraction of the overall admitted class (unless SLAC). A lot of posts you read here it sounds like if you are an Athlete you get in. Not True. You have to be an athlete that is recruited for the particular team and that that number is very small. No athlete is taking a general admissions kid’s seat. The two are not competing against each other.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's so easy why can't all the high SAT scorers also be world class athletes?

Stay on topic, please.

The topic is the edge, the schools want kids who are multi talented. Not singularly talented test takers.

If they accept kids who don’t even apply - no, they don’t. And before Dolty responds, I mean a real application. It just a meaningless paper trail.

They do apply. The email coaches, send film, do face to face interviews at camps and on the side lines of games. Their application is actually more in depth and intense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's great at D3 schools where athletics always take a backseat to academics whilst providing a supportive social environment. At the D1 level it seems that athletics become the primary function of the student.

35% of students at Williams play intercollegiate sports, 32 at Amherst and 20 percent at Swarthmore. I would be that very few of those kids decided to start playing in college. The majority are recruited, the only difference is a lack of scholarships and a higher academic bar they have to clear for admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven’t figured out that our society values sports over education?

But you can get into a good school with amazing academics and zero athletics, but if you have amazing athletics you still need academics that are far above average.

It's higher EDUCATION...not higher athletics.

Then you don't understand EDUCATION.

I don't give a rats ass if my lawyer or my investment advisor or my doctor can catch a ball. I need their brains...period.

And you get that, as med and law schools don't look at sports for admission.

They do consider it in an applicant though. If you ace the LSAT, and had top grades, plus played a varsity sport in college, and maybe also were the captain, that added time commitment and leadership on top of academic success does stand out to a law school as law requires excellent time management and leadership.

Thanks anyway but I want one that honed their time management skills with academic work and internships , not time on the field or in the pool or whatever.

That’s great the world need worker bees too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven’t figured out that our society values sports over education?

But you can get into a good school with amazing academics and zero athletics, but if you have amazing athletics you still need academics that are far above average.

It's higher EDUCATION...not higher athletics.

Then you don't understand EDUCATION.

I don't give a rats ass if my lawyer or my investment advisor or my doctor can catch a ball. I need their brains...period.

College athlete is still a great proxy for work ethic. There's a reason that they also have an edge when applying to jobs.

This. They can take feedback, work hard, be a teammate, and persevere through adversity. And they have great time management skills, because to get recruited to the best schools they need a strong academic transcript on top of the elite sports skill.

I think it's the time management. Its much easier to have a perfect academic transcript if you have a couple of clubs that take an hour or two a week, but you generally get home before 5:00 and have the entire evening to study and work vs. an athlete who can easily have practice four days a week ranging from an hour to several hours that may be a long drive from home and weekends packed with games and have the expectation of doing strength training, cardio, and skills training outside of practice.

I get that the athlete likes the sport and is good at it and has to manage their time to do it. I have one on that track.

But the kid that wants to use their free time in the pursuit of knowledge and learn to manage time doing that is the one I want for my employee, or advisor or surgeon, etc. But you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's so easy why can't all the high SAT scorers also be world class athletes?

Stay on topic, please.

The topic is the edge, the schools want kids who are multi talented. Not singularly talented test takers.

If they accept kids who don’t even apply - no, they don’t. And before Dolty responds, I mean a real application. It just a meaningless paper trail.

They do apply. The email coaches, send film, do face to face interviews at camps and on the side lines of games. Their application is actually more in depth and intense.

This is completely different. Yes, this is intense, but in a different way. It is NOT the same as random bright kids who have worked tirelessly for years who are all lumped together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven’t figured out that our society values sports over education?

But you can get into a good school with amazing academics and zero athletics, but if you have amazing athletics you still need academics that are far above average.

It's higher EDUCATION...not higher athletics.

Then you don't understand EDUCATION.

I don't give a rats ass if my lawyer or my investment advisor or my doctor can catch a ball. I need their brains...period.

And you get that, as med and law schools don't look at sports for admission.

They do consider it in an applicant though. If you ace the LSAT, and had top grades, plus played a varsity sport in college, and maybe also were the captain, that added time commitment and leadership on top of academic success does stand out to a law school as law requires excellent time management and leadership.

Thanks anyway but I want one that honed their time management skills with academic work and internships , not time on the field or in the pool or whatever.

That’s great the world need worker bees too.

Wow.

[Anonymous]

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.

They are tiny fraction of the people who are successful in their chosen careers. Tiny. Far more people in this world are successful and did not play those sports. In other words, playing lacrosse is not what makes a person successful.

Not presidents and CEOs.

The only scholar-athlete president tht comes to mind is Gerald Ford. Are there others? Don’t know much about CEOs. I don’t think Musk, Zuckerberg, or @jack played sportball. Please help me out with some household names.