Reply to Do not waste ED on a SLAC. Very few unhooked (non-athlete, non-FGLI, non-legacy/donor) get in.

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Do not waste ED on a SLAC. Very few unhooked (non-athlete, non-FGLI, non-legacy/donor) get in."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.[/quote]

Notice that there was no mention that any of them were not [b]academically qualified[/b], because they were and they met an institutional priority.

People constantly want these schools to adjust their priorities to meet their preferences. Seems a bit like affirmative action to me.[/quote]
This needs to stop. 90% of applicants are “academically qualified.” The phrase means nothing. They got in because they were athletes, and “but for” the fact they were athletes, they would not have gotten in — just like the 90% of applicants (80% of whom are “academically qualified”) get rejected.[/quote]

What are you trying to say "needs to stop"?

If you mean the [b]propagation[/b] that recruited athletes are somehow unqualified to attend you are absolutely correct.

If you mean people trying to impose their preferences on private institutions because as institutions they have every right to their priorities again you would be correct.

If you mean anything else then you are incorrect.
[/quote]
Your word salad propagates like tribbles.[/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