Reply to I feel like we don't talk enough that top LACs are 40%+ recruited athletes.

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "I feel like we don't talk enough that top LACs are 40%+ recruited athletes. "

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.[/quote]

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients. [/quote]

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.[/quote]

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it. [/quote]

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?[/quote]

I trust you don’t knock any other hooks then. They’re all qualified too. [/quote]

Doesn't the recent Princeton data show their legacies have higher average SAT scores? Having a hook doesn't necessarily mean even pure numbers are lower.

All DCUM parents with access to a search engine should have reasonably known 20+ years ago that athletic excellence can help with college admissions when paired with academic achievement. I wonder why more didn't help put their kids in a position to succeed. So many parents on DCUM talk about putting kids first and sacrificing. Don't hate the players when you've known the game for decades. US colleges, elite academic schools included, have viewed athletic ability as merit for a [i]long[/i] time. 
Investing in some extracurriculars early on really is smarter than others if you are looking at it purely from a college admissions standpoint. I think people should let their kids do what they are passionate about but if you are just looking for the best admissions combo, there has been clear data out there since The Shape of the River that excellence in sports is the way to go.[/quote]

That’s all fine but either all hooks are good or all hooks are bad. You shouldn’t pick and choose based on whether it helps your kid. You’ve already admitted institutional priorities matter. [/quote]

All hooks don't have to be good or bad. Many people view athletes as having merit in terms of admissions (their talent and academic profiles combine to get them in). In contrast, legacies don't have a cultivated talent (they are lucky in birth). It could be perfectly reasonable to distinguish between these hooks. Schools like MIT and Hopkins make this distinction. [/quote]

When I see a kid who is recruited, I think this kid has parents who could afford to take them around for tournaments and afford private coaches. There is not much talent requird to hit the ball against a wall since age 6. Fencing and squash are played by very few kids. Access to facilities is a real issue. In addition, these kids take less rigorous courses to keep up their GPA. Most athletes dont take up rigorous majors. [/quote]

Not true-  my son is a D3 swimmer at a competitive school.  Most of the teammates are engineering or pre med.  they work hard and are very good at time management. [/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