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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

CalTech and MIT do not have designated slots for athletics. They do not offer prereads or likely letters, the athletes go through the admissions process like every other applicant.

[Anonymous]

Just ask Aunt Becky!

These threads are contantly started and pumped by the same group of coaches and travel teams who want to sell you private coaching lessons. These threads are not legitimate dialogs. They are advertisements by coaches preying on affluent parents of middle school kids who possess mediocre grades and athletic abilities.

[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.

Newsflash: so do plenty of other people who were not college athletes. The blind worship of college athletes is unbelievable on a board where cynicism reigns over everything else.

[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.

Yes. Colleges can value whatever they want, so STFU about URMS and adversity scores on the SAT. Let the colleges decide what they want, including allowing athletes and legacies.

[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?

OMFG, READ THE ARTICLE!! Tired of some of you spewing misinformation due to low reading comprehension. T

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just ask Aunt Becky!

These threads are contantly started and pumped by the same group of coaches and travel teams who want to sell you private coaching lessons. These threads are not legitimate dialogs. They are advertisements by coaches preying on affluent parents of middle school kids who possess mediocre grades and athletic abilities.

No. Go back to the soccer forums. These threads are started by parents who think URMs, athletes, and/or legacies are stealing the Ivy admissions spots their kids are entitled to or the parents of URMs, athletes, and/or legacies who are sick of people suggesting that their kids are not qualified for the spots they got.

[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.

Yes. Colleges can value whatever they want, so STFU about URMS and adversity scores on the SAT. Let the colleges decide what they want, including allowing athletes and legacies.

Eh....we found the angry idiot.

[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.

Yes. Colleges can value whatever they want, so STFU about URMS and adversity scores on the SAT. Let the colleges decide what they want, including allowing athletes and legacies.

Eh....we found the angry idiot.

In what way is this statement idiotic?

[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.

Yes. Colleges can value whatever they want, so STFU about URMS and adversity scores on the SAT. Let the colleges decide what they want, including allowing athletes and legacies.

Eh....we found the angry idiot.

The idiots are the ones who go on for 40 pages complaining about the adversity scores as if posting their outrage on this forum will somehow stop colleges from using the adversity score. A huge number of unhooked white kids get into top schools. If your kid doesn't make it, it's on them. My kids won't benefit from the adversity score, but I don't begrudge some poor kid who might benefit. I'm also not delusional enough to think URMs will be the cause if my kids don't get into a good school.