Reply to Hating donut hole life: athletic recruiting version

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Hating donut hole life: athletic recruiting version"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]DD is at an Ivy playing her sport.  She got zero financial aid.  She's now a sophomore and has been a really hard road.  She doesn't get much playing time and doesn't get along with her teammates very much.  The students at the school are a little weird because they are so so smart and she still working on making friends.  The grass is not always greener.  In hindsight, I would have encouraged her skip to D1 and just go in-state as a regular applicant.  [/quote]

this is the problem when Ivies and other top schools relax the academic standards too much for athletes. Then if the kid doesn’t continue with the sport then they also don’t really fit in/match the level of the rest of the kids who got in on academic merit. This was my experience at one of the Ivies. [/quote]

Yes yes yes. Even when they continue it is a problem. The ivy kids who are recruited athletes are more commonly than not weaker students, sometimes signifciantly. They struggle to just be average in difficult "curved to the mean" classes paths such as physics, calc, econ, engineering. Most do not attempt such classes or if they do they switch out. To be fair, for the non-athletes it is nice to have a guaranteed group who cannot compete well, and you can beat. I realize that sounds harsh but with grades on curves it matters and the non-athletes/non-weaker other hooks are happy to have whatever advantage they can. [/quote]

[b]Easily 50% of all athletes…and more like 75% for sports like fencing or squash…have stats that are at the 50%ile+ for the Ivy school.[/b]  They have to for the academic indexes to balance out.

I don’t disagree they aren’t recruiting athletes with lower stats…but you are implying a much larger %age than is actual.

[/quote]
As do most rejected applicants. [/quote]

We get that…but PP implied most athletes are weaker students which isn’t true.[/quote]
You don’t get the point: the rejected pile (where most of these athletes would have been) does indeed consist of weaker students. [/quote]

No…they wouldn’t.  If most of the athletes have stats equivalent to 50% of all the non-athlete existing students…why would they be rejected?[/quote]
Huh? If the athletes were not athletes, they would join the non-athlete rejected applicants (who you already agreed had similar stats to the athletes) in……..(wait for it)….the rejection pile. [/quote]

wtf are you talking about?  Some of the athletes would get rejected and some accepted…just like the other students.

If there was no athletic recruiting then these kids would have done other things than devote so many hours to just their sport.

[/quote]

So they are doing it just to get recruited?[/quote]

Most enjoy their sport and realize they are strong enough for recruitment that gives them additional motivation.  Many kids are aiming for the top schools and play whatever angle can work best for them whether that’s sports or winning musical competitions or whatever.

Not really hard to understand this. [/quote]

The PP said if there was no recruiting, athletes would drop the sport and do something else. [/quote]

No…they wouldn’t devote as much time to it to allow for other things, but they would still play.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics