Reply to Which schools accepted your 4.3

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Which schools accepted your 4.3 - 4.4 TJ kid?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Always fun to see the jock sniffers come out of the woodwork to defend athletic recruiting.

All of your wonderful pronouncements and stories aside, the Harvard data analysis led to the conclusion that on average, [b]admitted [/b]athletes had lower academic qualifications than the average [b]applicant[/b], that an academic profile that for a non-athlete yielded a sub 1% acceptance rate yielded a 85%+ acceptance rate for recruited athletes and, again, that 90% of athletes would not have been admitted on their academic qualifications. but sure, tell me again how athletes are equally qualified. it's not for nothing that the into to geology course at Harvard was called "rocks for jocks".

The argument that athletes bring something else to the table is an old one. That's a value judgment that you're making, and it's fine. But you should realize that then that justifies the colleges making other value judgments, such as the value of diversity. 
As for the future success argument, that's simply not proven, and if you substituted all of the recruited athletes were better qualified students, maybe you'd do even better.

I would wager the vast majority of people who donate to Harvard or Yale or Cornell are not doing so for sports. This isn't USC. Have you ever seen the attendance at a Harvard men's soccer game? You could probably count the spectators on your hands. No one cares.

in the end, you all want to defend the hooks that benefit you or fit your particular worldview. but let's not be hypocrites about it. A hook is a hook and no one is more justifiable than the other.[/quote]

You are living in a delusional bubble convinced of your own fake reality and your envy of successful student athletes is glaringly obvious lol.

The athletics are a core fundamental component of the ivy league culture, has been for centuries and will be as long as they exist.  Not only do the alumni network support this but the large big ticket donors are laser focused on athletics as well.  While you are correct that the spectator audience is comically small it has no bearing on the funding, financial support and priority provided to these programs - look at some of their athletic facilities and in many cases they are better than big time D1 sports program facilities paid for by donors that get their name on a shiny plaque on the facilities.

[b]As an example, over 20% of Princeton's undergraduate student body are D1 athletes, Harvard is 10%, Dartmouth 21%, Yale 16%, compared to Ohio State 2.5%, Penn State 3.0%.  In fact, in many ways what distinguishes the Ivy League from other good colleges are that athletics are valued to a greater degree and more ingrained into the student/alumni culture.[/b]

So you can tell yourself that you don't think the ivies should care about athletics and since you think that way you want to force your lie into a perceived reality.

The reality is that the ivies prioritize students that exhibit strong (maybe not top 1%) academics + D1 level athletic abilities to the extent that they literally get priority in admissions and often get "soft" acceptances their junior year of high school.  [b]They are looking for exceptionalism which comes in many forms[/b] to include proven accomplishments in both academics + athletics.
[/quote]

thank you for proving my point.  You are simply saying athletic recruiting is ok because the schools want to do it.  I agree that it's a value judgment the schools are making. So if you think this is ok then other hooks are equally acceptable if the school places that kind of value on it. Nothing is wrong because the school gets to choose.

[/quote]

Precisely, its a value judgement that the schools make not the parents or applicants.  But in the case of the ivies the athletic component a tradition that started at inception and continues to this day.[/quote]

Harvard has been around since 1636. Harvard started playing football in 1874. Let’s take it down a notch, Sparky. [/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