Reply to The real affirmative action but let's blame the browns and blacks. It's ok as long as it's white

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "The real affirmative action but let's blame the browns and blacks. It's ok as long as it's white"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why obsess over athletes? What about tuba players?[/quote]

Yes, I don't get that. Based on all the studies I have seen, athletes go on to do very well as a group after elite college, on average. I don't really understand the insistence that they are somehow lesser contributors to the college or do worse. My understanding is that as a group, they do better in life than their Ivy League peers.

I am pro-affirmative action, FWIW.

[/quote]

Most of the posters here who trash athletes are likely ones who have a very narrow view of acceptable extracurriculars for their kids. High academic achievement is a must, obviously, and music is acceptable along with academic competitions and a few others. Their kids don’t tend to achieve in sports, and they tell themselves that those kids who do are less intelligent and less prepared for rigorous academics regardless of any evidence to the contrary. And they don’t enjoy watching sports so they don’t believe athletic talent could ever be an important asset to the community.  If they read any of the studies describing how athletes in most sports are, on average, more successful in their chosen careers than non-athletes, then that’s more evidence to them that something is wrong with the country. [/quote]

1.  You're literally posting this in a thread about a study titled:  "Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard"

2.  This study says:

"We find that a white non-ALDC applicant with a 10% chance of admission would see a five-fold increase in admissions likelihood if they were a legacy; more than a seven-fold increase if they were on the dean’s interest list; and [b]that they would be admitted with near certainty if they were a recruited athlete[/b]"

"In our preferred model, the similar increases in odds are substantially higher at over eight (legacies) and [b]five thousand (athletes) times[/b]"

"Table 8 compares the ratings received by recruited athlete admits to those received by non-ALDC applicants and admits, focusing on the overall rating and the four profile ratings with the exception of the athletic rating.71 With the publicly available documents, we are able to form meaningful bounds on the ratings of recruited athletes.72 [b]Recruited athlete admits are universally weaker than non-ALDC admits on these ratings[/b]"

"In many cases—and in contrast to LDC admits—recruited athlete admits are weaker than non-ALDC applicants. Non-ALDC applicants on average have higher academic and extracurricular ratings than admitted recruited athletes of the same race for all groups except Hispanics on the academic rating"  <--- Note this says non-ALDC [b]applicants[/b] have higher academic and extracurricular rating than [b]admitted[/b] athletes.

So when you're talking about evidence, here it is.  The statement has never been they are less intelligent, but are they less qualified?  Yes.

3.  The question of how athletes do AFTER college is not relevant to if they should be admitted to college in the first place.  Yes, it's great that they got this chance because they could hit a ball, but they took that chance away from someone else, and who knows what that person would have done if only  they had the opportunity.

4.  Athletics isn't just another extracurricular.  There is no music preference or painting preference.  There are no special admissions procedures for students who excel at debate.  You cannot compare these to immense advantage athletic applicants get in every way.

5.  Even taken as athletes, the athletes getting these preferences are not the cream of the crop.  You're not getting the best football players, soccer players, baseball players, etc.  You're getting athletes who are, for the most part, good, but not great.  What is the value then?  Being pretty good at something is enough to vault you over all other more qualified applicants?

6.  As to whether we enjoy watching sports - we do.  We just don't think watching mediocre sports (and 95% of sports at the Ivy League level are mediocre) is worth letting less qualified students into a school.  And in the case of the Harvard community, the numbers speak for themselves - the average attendance at a home football game last year (Yale excluded) was about 9800.  and more people attend football games than any other sporting event.  No one cares.  If you think they do, see how many people are watching a Harvard baseball game and you can probably introduce yourself to every spectator by the end of the 2nd inning.

[/quote]

The study is flawed.

Athletic kids don't take the SAT more than once, they don't test prep. Once they know they are in it doesn't matter. So you are comparing apples and oranges.

Also, it's not about attendance it's about former Yale athletes hiring current Yale athletes. It's a thing, the boosters love sports. They are going to give these kids more internships and jobs.

They did not take the chance from somebody else. They got the spot and they thrive after, it shows the other measurements are not that great at determining who will be successful. [/quote]

I love this.

The study is flawed, but only in the ways that I don't like.

Athletic kids know the SAT [b]doesn't matter[/b]. (as an aside, they're mostly rich white kids, so if the SAT is biased by race and wealth, they should be doing well) I suppose their grades don't matter either.  So what is the point of the exercise?  You can really tell the difference between the athlete who scored a 1200 because they didn't care and one who scored a 1200 because that's the best they can do?  You said earlier that they were no less intelligent or prepared, but now you say it doesn't matter to them.  I don't understand the course of the argument here.

Not only do athletes get a boost getting into college, they get a boost going out.   If we don't care whether it's a meritocracy on the way out, why do we care it's not on the way in?  I get it now.

They don't take the chance from someone else?  How do you figure that?  This is class with a fixed number of posts, so someone's not getting in, and chances are it's a poor white kid or an Asian kid.

Rich white kids have enough advantages in life.  Do they really need this one, too?[/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