Reply to NYTs: if affirmative action goes, say buy-bye to legacy, EA/ED, and most athletic preferences

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "NYTs: if affirmative action goes, say buy-bye to legacy, EA/ED, and most athletic preferences"

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][quote=Anonymous][b]They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team.  It makes no sense.[/b]

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions .  The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,  [/quote]

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges.  Much better things to spend the money on. [/quote]

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.[/quote]
How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth. [/quote]

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports. [/quote]

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills. [/quote]

If you think playing team sports is important then you should give the hook to anyone who played team sports in high school. Why do they need to be good?[/quote]

What? No one is talking about being good at sports, we're talking about whether sports improves leadership skills. I'm saying they don't.[/quote]

New to this discussion but I disagree with you. If you have ever been part of a team that is run by a good leader (includes captains and coaches) and you buy into it, you learn A LOT about what it takes to be a good leader.  And if you are a good teammate, you know that it is important to emulate those leaders in their absence, whether it be on the team or in other situations in life. I've never been on a huge team like football, but for smaller teams it's really important (soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, basketball, ice hockey, baseball)  I've been on adult league teams that are run very well and others that aren't. It's a HUGE difference and affects everyone on the team. It had taught me a lot, even as an adult, and has made me a better person and a better leader (at work, home, play)[/quote]

That's a good point, and I agree that just being led by good leaders can help students learn about what makes a better leader.

It does not mean, however, that those students that weren't captains are themselves leaders, because they haven't demonstrated that leadership.

[b]IMO the only reasons colleges look favorably on athletic extracurriculars is that it's a proxy for wealth (sports from a young age is [i]expensive[/i] and requires heavy parental involvement) and physical attractiveness (due to being physical fit, except for football players). 
[/b]
Sports might also show a level of grit, drive and competitive spirit but frankly, so do academics or even video games. I don't think it shows leadership at all but it might show decision-making (again except football, where there is very little decision-making by players).[/quote]

This is in the top 10 ostupidest things I have read on DCUM. Many sports do not cost much family money at all if your child shows promise, or in most places outside of wealthy urban areas: basketball, track, baseball, and football are a few examples.

And colleges like athletes because it clearly demonstrates a kid has grit, work ethic, commitment, fire, good health, and usually a cooperative attitude and willingness to follow directions (coaching). Further athletic success, beyond just the revenue sports, inspires alum to give money. In fact the whiz kids of Wall Street and high powered lawyers with money to burn love to see their college succeed in niche spirts like lacrosse, golf, crew, tennis, etc. Its a huge benefit to development. [/quote]

How do children show promise if they don't play the sport to begin with? And whether are these clubs that provide free football, basketball, etc. for 5-13 year olds with travel included? 
We are not talking about high school. High school is far too late to get good enough at a sport to be varsity-level (at a good school).

Willingness to follow directions is the exact opposite of leadership. So for all this pining about how sports builds leadership, it turns out that sports actually builds following orders and conformity to the group?

Grit, work ethic, commitment, fire are all demonstrated by academics (and video games). Good health is exactly what I said about physical fitness, so it's nice to see that you agree there.

We are talking about college applicants using sports for extracurriculars, not college-level student athletes.[/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