Athletic Ivy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want a school filled with robotics team kids? Go to Caltech. That's the beauty of the marketplace.

Plenty of these athletic recruits and lots of other admits would get eaten alive at Caltech, MIT, etc. Unless you are a champion brainiac you will be crushed.

You’ve made my point. That’s the beauty of the marketplace. They can choose/pay for a school that is a good fit academically and athletically. If Harvard is a better fit than Caltech, that’s great. Let the robotics team kid choose/pay for Caltech.

And you made my point. Some of those Harvard students are not going to cut it when brain power counts.

Wrong. They do cut it. At Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

+100

So much sacrifice.

My kid would have hours of athletic practice, games, travel to games, travel out of state on weekends, all while balancing an all Honors/AP courseload, and even a summer job and active member of some Clubs.

He would be doing homework in the car on the way to practice. He would read assignments on the way to games out of state. This isn't any different from kids in marching band who have similar juggling of activities, and also get an admissions bump for their talent.

You have no idea how much work these kids are doing vs the kids that really only have to study after school, not do 4 hours of training.

Why should anyone care about that? Marching band kids aren’t skating into college because of it. At least recognize the difference. Plenty of kids who spend 4 hours doing other activities after school aren’t either. Your kids are and that’s fine. Just admit it.

If you think recruited athletes are “skating in” to elite schools (or any college) you are a total ignoramus who has never raised a child athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Athletes do get unearned advantage and appreciation in life. Just think of how a quarterback gets appreciated for one goal compared to the guy who won debate championship or theater award or math quiz.

Not only that but from high school principal to admission counselor, all are more focused on where he goes to college than on where their top 10 academic stars end up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want a school filled with robotics team kids? Go to Caltech. That's the beauty of the marketplace.

Plenty of these athletic recruits and lots of other admits would get eaten alive at Caltech, MIT, etc. Unless you are a champion brainiac you will be crushed.

Nearly all Ivy students, athletes or not, could not hack it at MIT or CalTech. Those schools are for the truly brilliant, unlike the Ivies.

NP: Your understanding of “brilliance “ is truly limited. While I don’t doubt that there are lots of brilliant students at the Tech schools that you’ve singled out, there are also brilliant students in many schools and in many fields. You might not realize how many students turn down Tech schools because they want to stretch their brilliance in academic environments that can support their often wide-ranging academic and creative interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Athletes do get unearned advantage and appreciation in life. Just think of how a quarterback gets appreciated for one goal compared to the guy who won debate championship or theater award or math quiz.

Same is true for physically attractive people or any other people who have qualities that most people (outside of a subset of parents on DCUM) admire or value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

+100

So much sacrifice.

My kid would have hours of athletic practice, games, travel to games, travel out of state on weekends, all while balancing an all Honors/AP courseload, and even a summer job and active member of some Clubs.

He would be doing homework in the car on the way to practice. He would read assignments on the way to games out of state. This isn't any different from kids in marching band who have similar juggling of activities, and also get an admissions bump for their talent.

You have no idea how much work these kids are doing vs the kids that really only have to study after school, not do 4 hours of training.

Why should anyone care about that? Marching band kids aren’t skating into college because of it. At least recognize the difference. Plenty of kids who spend 4 hours doing other activities after school aren’t either. Your kids are and that’s fine. Just admit it.

If you think recruited athletes are “skating in” to elite schools (or any college) you are a total ignoramus who has never raised a child athlete.

My brother was one of the top 5 recruits in the country for his sport and the ivies/service academies, etc passed on him because of his grades/test scores. Some offered to have him redshirt a year and being up at CC, but he went to a D1 of a lesser academic caliber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

+1

NP. I think there is one athlete-hater poster on DCUM who is obsessed beyond rationality with athletes. Their posts are exceptionally nasty and also they never listen to reason or evidence. It is rather sad.

Read the Harvard study. Oh wait every time that’s mentioned you get offended.

I’m not offended. I’ve read it and unlike you, I have the education to understand it. You are the one who seems to not understand reason or evidence, however. I sort of love how you keep talking about a study you clearly can’t understand. It’s like watching a toddler have a temper tantrum.

So explain this:

“An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.“

Are you really this slow? Do you truly not understand what those numbers mean? I don’t think I can actually help you.

So you can’t. I get it.

Lol, no. You just aren’t well educated. I’m sorry but I can’t educate you.

It is amusing to watch you tantrum.

I’m sure you’ll explain it when you explain how the 2020 election was stolen.

Weird take. Maybe you truly are slow? I’m actually a Democrat campaign volunteer. I’m also staunchly in favor of affirmative action.

And I’m also well-educated in data analytics, which you obviously aren’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want a school filled with robotics team kids? Go to Caltech. That's the beauty of the marketplace.

Plenty of these athletic recruits and lots of other admits would get eaten alive at Caltech, MIT, etc. Unless you are a champion brainiac you will be crushed.

Nearly all Ivy students, athletes or not, could not hack it at MIT or CalTech. Those schools are for the truly brilliant, unlike the Ivies.

NP: Your understanding of “brilliance “ is truly limited. While I don’t doubt that there are lots of brilliant students at the Tech schools that you’ve singled out, there are also brilliant students in many schools and in many fields. You might not realize how many students turn down Tech schools because they want to stretch their brilliance in academic environments that can support their often wide-ranging academic and creative interests.

Okay. You can tell yourself that. The fact remains that while most MIT and CalTech students could excel at the Ivies, the reverse is not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

+100

So much sacrifice.

My kid would have hours of athletic practice, games, travel to games, travel out of state on weekends, all while balancing an all Honors/AP courseload, and even a summer job and active member of some Clubs.

He would be doing homework in the car on the way to practice. He would read assignments on the way to games out of state. This isn't any different from kids in marching band who have similar juggling of activities, and also get an admissions bump for their talent.

You have no idea how much work these kids are doing vs the kids that really only have to study after school, not do 4 hours of training.

Why should anyone care about that? Marching band kids aren’t skating into college because of it. At least recognize the difference. Plenty of kids who spend 4 hours doing other activities after school aren’t either. Your kids are and that’s fine. Just admit it.

If you think recruited athletes are “skating in” to elite schools (or any college) you are a total ignoramus who has never raised a child athlete.

My brother was one of the top 5 recruits in the country for his sport and the ivies/service academies, etc passed on him because of his grades/test scores. Some offered to have him redshirt a year and being up at CC, but he went to a D1 of a lesser academic caliber.

And? That is fine. These are schools not sports camps.

Some very bright athletes do get an advantage if they have the academics over other very bright students with other talents. It does not make much sense IME, but this is just the way it is. My athlete is committed to spend a great deal of time with their sport that can not be spent in academic pursuits or accessing some of the other incredible opportunities available to students at top universities.

My non athlete is exploring all kinds of new interests. It is worth it to use athletics to access the institution but IMO, it is much better if you can get in without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

+100

So much sacrifice.

My kid would have hours of athletic practice, games, travel to games, travel out of state on weekends, all while balancing an all Honors/AP courseload, and even a summer job and active member of some Clubs.

He would be doing homework in the car on the way to practice. He would read assignments on the way to games out of state. This isn't any different from kids in marching band who have similar juggling of activities, and also get an admissions bump for their talent.

You have no idea how much work these kids are doing vs the kids that really only have to study after school, not do 4 hours of training.

Why should anyone care about that? Marching band kids aren’t skating into college because of it. At least recognize the difference. Plenty of kids who spend 4 hours doing other activities after school aren’t either. Your kids are and that’s fine. Just admit it.

If you think recruited athletes are “skating in” to elite schools (or any college) you are a total ignoramus who has never raised a child athlete.

My brother was one of the top 5 recruits in the country for his sport and the ivies/service academies, etc passed on him because of his grades/test scores. Some offered to have him redshirt a year and being up at CC, but he went to a D1 of a lesser academic caliber.

And? That is fine. These are schools not sports camps.

Some very bright athletes do get an advantage if they have the academics over other very bright students with other talents. It does not make much sense IME, but this is just the way it is. My athlete is committed to spend a great deal of time with their sport that can not be spent in academic pursuits or accessing some of the other incredible opportunities available to students at top universities.

My non athlete is exploring all kinds of new interests. It is worth it to use athletics to access the institution but IMO, it is much better if you can get in without it.

You really hate your athlete kid, don’t you? You post all the time, and your derision for your child shines through. I’ve read your posts in multiple threads, and gosh, I feel for your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

+100

So much sacrifice.

My kid would have hours of athletic practice, games, travel to games, travel out of state on weekends, all while balancing an all Honors/AP courseload, and even a summer job and active member of some Clubs.

He would be doing homework in the car on the way to practice. He would read assignments on the way to games out of state. This isn't any different from kids in marching band who have similar juggling of activities, and also get an admissions bump for their talent.

You have no idea how much work these kids are doing vs the kids that really only have to study after school, not do 4 hours of training.

Why should anyone care about that? Marching band kids aren’t skating into college because of it. At least recognize the difference. Plenty of kids who spend 4 hours doing other activities after school aren’t either. Your kids are and that’s fine. Just admit it.

If you think recruited athletes are “skating in” to elite schools (or any college) you are a total ignoramus who has never raised a child athlete.

My brother was one of the top 5 recruits in the country for his sport and the ivies/service academies, etc passed on him because of his grades/test scores. Some offered to have him redshirt a year and being up at CC, but he went to a D1 of a lesser academic caliber.

And? That is fine. These are schools not sports camps.

Some very bright athletes do get an advantage if they have the academics over other very bright students with other talents. It does not make much sense IME, but this is just the way it is. My athlete is committed to spend a great deal of time with their sport that can not be spent in academic pursuits or accessing some of the other incredible opportunities available to students at top universities.

My non athlete is exploring all kinds of new interests. It is worth it to use athletics to access the institution but IMO, it is much better if you can get in without it.

You really hate your athlete kid, don’t you? You post all the time, and your derision for your child shines through. I’ve read your posts in multiple threads, and gosh, I feel for your kid.

Do you make a living with an overpriced lax club or a tennis academy or something? How much more time and money do you want to suck out of these families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

+100

So much sacrifice.

My kid would have hours of athletic practice, games, travel to games, travel out of state on weekends, all while balancing an all Honors/AP courseload, and even a summer job and active member of some Clubs.

He would be doing homework in the car on the way to practice. He would read assignments on the way to games out of state. This isn't any different from kids in marching band who have similar juggling of activities, and also get an admissions bump for their talent.

You have no idea how much work these kids are doing vs the kids that really only have to study after school, not do 4 hours of training.

Why should anyone care about that? Marching band kids aren’t skating into college because of it. At least recognize the difference. Plenty of kids who spend 4 hours doing other activities after school aren’t either. Your kids are and that’s fine. Just admit it.

If you think recruited athletes are “skating in” to elite schools (or any college) you are a total ignoramus who has never raised a child athlete.

My brother was one of the top 5 recruits in the country for his sport and the ivies/service academies, etc passed on him because of his grades/test scores. Some offered to have him redshirt a year and being up at CC, but he went to a D1 of a lesser academic caliber.

And? That is fine. These are schools not sports camps.

Some very bright athletes do get an advantage if they have the academics over other very bright students with other talents. It does not make much sense IME, but this is just the way it is. My athlete is committed to spend a great deal of time with their sport that can not be spent in academic pursuits or accessing some of the other incredible opportunities available to students at top universities.

My non athlete is exploring all kinds of new interests. It is worth it to use athletics to access the institution but IMO, it is much better if you can get in without it.

You really hate your athlete kid, don’t you? You post all the time, and your derision for your child shines through. I’ve read your posts in multiple threads, and gosh, I feel for your kid.

Do you make a living with an overpriced lax club or a tennis academy or something? How much more time and money do you want to suck out of these families?

No. I have nothing to do with club sports. I am not even an athlete myself. I’m just a regular DCUM mom who has noticed your distinctive posts and your seething resentment and hatred for your poor athlete kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Athletes do get unearned advantage and appreciation in life. Just think of how a quarterback gets appreciated for one goal compared to the guy who won debate championship or theater award or math quiz.

🙄 Oh fer chrissake the quarterback earned his appreciation by being good enough to make the college team and leading the team when he’s there.

Just because fewer people appreciate debate geeks or theater geeks or math geeks (which one were you, lol) doesn’t mean the quarterback didn’t earn it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

+100

So much sacrifice.

My kid would have hours of athletic practice, games, travel to games, travel out of state on weekends, all while balancing an all Honors/AP courseload, and even a summer job and active member of some Clubs.

He would be doing homework in the car on the way to practice. He would read assignments on the way to games out of state. This isn't any different from kids in marching band who have similar juggling of activities, and also get an admissions bump for their talent.

You have no idea how much work these kids are doing vs the kids that really only have to study after school, not do 4 hours of training.

Why should anyone care about that? Marching band kids aren’t skating into college because of it. At least recognize the difference. Plenty of kids who spend 4 hours doing other activities after school aren’t either. Your kids are and that’s fine. Just admit it.

If you think recruited athletes are “skating in” to elite schools (or any college) you are a total ignoramus who has never raised a child athlete.

My brother was one of the top 5 recruits in the country for his sport and the ivies/service academies, etc passed on him because of his grades/test scores. Some offered to have him redshirt a year and being up at CC, but he went to a D1 of a lesser academic caliber.

And? That is fine. These are schools not sports camps.

Some very bright athletes do get an advantage if they have the academics over other very bright students with other talents. It does not make much sense IME, but this is just the way it is. My athlete is committed to spend a great deal of time with their sport that can not be spent in academic pursuits or accessing some of the other incredible opportunities available to students at top universities.

My non athlete is exploring all kinds of new interests. It is worth it to use athletics to access the institution but IMO, it is much better if you can get in without it.

You really hate your athlete kid, don’t you? You post all the time, and your derision for your child shines through. I’ve read your posts in multiple threads, and gosh, I feel for your kid.

Do you make a living with an overpriced lax club or a tennis academy or something? How much more time and money do you want to suck out of these families?

No. I have nothing to do with club sports. I am not even an athlete myself. I’m just a regular DCUM mom who has noticed your distinctive posts and your seething resentment and hatred for your poor athlete kid.

lol. seething resentment and hatred? that is so ridiculous. I think this sports worship is bull crap and has robbed my beloved kid of some opportunities is all. But you don't know what you don't know. I would do it differently if i could do it over. But we can post about our experiences and frustrations on mom forums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

+1

NP. I think there is one athlete-hater poster on DCUM who is obsessed beyond rationality with athletes. Their posts are exceptionally nasty and also they never listen to reason or evidence. It is rather sad.

Read the Harvard study. Oh wait every time that’s mentioned you get offended.

I’m not offended. I’ve read it and unlike you, I have the education to understand it. You are the one who seems to not understand reason or evidence, however. I sort of love how you keep talking about a study you clearly can’t understand. It’s like watching a toddler have a temper tantrum.

So explain this:

“An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.“

The explanation is the athletes are recruited. That means the coaches go out and find them. Then the admissions committee does a “pre read” to see if the athlete is qualified academically to be at Harvard. If not, they don’t apply. So what that number means is Harvard coaches have an 86% success rate at picking athletes who are qualified to be at Harvard.