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]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. [b]A hook is a hook and no one is more justifiable than the other[/b].[/quote]

Well said![/quote]

I disagree that all hooks are the same. Whatever one might personally think about whether the emphasis on athletics is good or bad, the combination of work and talent to be a D-1 athlete is something that the applicant actually achieved himself/herself based on merit. In contrast, URM status on the one end and legacy status on the other hand are attributes that applicants are born with and have nothing to do with merit. That’s the major difference - people can quibble about the value of sports, but ultimately, being a top athlete is still a merit-based achievement with largely objective standards in the same manner as academic achievements. As a result, that is very different from a hook that is based on an attribute from birth as opposed to merit. [/quote]

One kid likes skating, spends 4 hours a day on that, another kid likes playing violin 4 hours a day, the third kid likes playing video games 4 hours a day and is actually pretty good at it. Why should any of these be relevant to college admissions?
[/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