Reply to controversial opinions about college

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "controversial opinions about college"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete.  They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources.  Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is. [/quote]

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.[/quote]

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.[/quote]
Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and [b]wealthy[/b] — than these schools’ general student population. [/quote]

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.[/quote]

Not quite.

You act as if these selective D3 SLACs are all filled with private school students. For most selective colleges, the majority of admits come from public schools: the suburban schools populated by UMC whites. If you're rich, the student does not need a hook like sports: just pay the full freight tuition. Most of the athletic slots for a multitude of sports are filled by UMC whites that use the athletic recruiting as a hook to get admitted.

The athletic slots are not being filled by Asians, and contrary to opinion, not by many URMs either. UMC whites are the primary beneficiaries. And upwards of a third of an incoming freshman class being recruited athletes is a lot.

Aside from the athletic angle, who do you think is filling up the majority of these state schools, flagship or otherwise? UMC whites.

[/quote]

Swarthmore women’s tennis: from Calabasas, Princeton, Greenwich, U Chicago Lab school

Wellesley women's tennis: Beverly Hills, Seoul, Seoul, Pacific Palisades, Episcopal School of Dallas (Chang,Chu, Lee, Lee, Mu, Shen, and Tran on the roster)

Lots of these schools have teams made up of primarily foreign students too.

Money, money, money.

[/quote]

Cherry picking are you (women's tennis - only - for 2 schools)?

66% of Swarthmore's incoming class is from public / charter schools.

65% of Wellesley's incoming class is from public/ charter schools.

Historically, the percentage hasn't changed much.

UMC whites.

Now do your state school.

[/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