Reply to dont be in the 60th to 99th percentile in income

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "dont be in the 60th to 99th percentile in income"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I just read this article. Super interesting. It said athletic preferences tend to pull in rich kids because many sports are only played by rich kids. [/quote]

Nah. The vast majority of athletes are certainly in the un-preferred 60th to 99th income percentile.

Coaches have a limited number of athletes they can ask for admissions preference. They hate using a roster slot to make an offer and then the kid doesn't attend. If athletes tend to be "richer" it is because coaches are more willing to extend offers to kids who are sure to be able to afford attending. A college making an ED admission offer and then the parents say "oops we actually can't afford this" is a thing that can happen even for non-athletes.[/quote]

This is just false. The vast majority of college athletes play lacrosse, golf, squash, swimming, fencing, sailing, etc... The number of football and basketball players is smaller when you combine the other categories.  
[/quote]

Wrong. Your ignorance is stunning and hilarious.

The vast majority (85%) of male college athletes play baseball, basketball, football, soccer, cross country / track, and wrestling. These are not rich kid sports. Lacrosse, Golf, Hockey, Tennis, Volleyball, Water Polo etc. are only 15%. And I don't even agree you have to be wealthy to play lacrosse (which is most of the 15%) so that's being generous to your argument.

The number of athletes in "very expensive" sports is totally trivial. Fencing (about 1,400 men and women), Sailing (about 1,600 men and women), Equestrian (about 2,000 men and women), Squash (about 1,000 men and women).

https://scholarshipstats.com/varsityodds

[/quote]

Lax is a rich kid sport. Youth lacrosse is built on a pay-to-play model and clubs are often all about the $$ since they don't have much outside support like many do in basketball and soccer.

I see what you were thinking though. You were mostly tying expense to equipment costs, which just isn't right.
You also have to remember that large portions of some teams are not American.

The group that is arguably discriminated against more than any other is the non-full-pay international applicants. Even many elite schools are not need blind in their review.[/quote]

Hate to break it to you, but soccer is also very much a rich person sport.  It is the original 'pay-to-play' model of youth sports in the US. The top teams---parents are paying close to $5k/year flat fee ---not including all the traveling--extensive traveling, fees for charter buses or flights, hotel rooms, etc.  Then, most kids at this level are also paying for outside training.  It is a ton of $.  [/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