Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
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:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It will be interesting to see whether the ruling prohibits consideration of gender. I don’t see why colleges would eliminate preference for athletes if affirmative action is banned. What’s the rationale? I understand why ED and legacy could be eliminated but it may not be in the colleges’ interests to do so. [/quote] Right - I think the OP’s topic headline doesn’t reflect the article. It did refer to ED and legacy admissions being at risk, but not athletic preferences at all. Colleges definitely do NOT look at them the same way. [b]If anything, colleges are going to rely upon athletic preferences even more because that’s a clear race-blind way that can have the effect of increasing underrepresented minority students.[/b][/quote] PP here - except that the VAST majority of college athletes are white. There are a few, disproportionately popular sports where Black athletes are overrepresented, but they represent a small portion of college athletes. Sports like soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, tennis, cross country, squash, fencing, sailing, crew, golf, swimming and diving—they’re all overwhelmingly white. That’s part of why athletic preferences are part of the debate: many privileged, white kids get admissions preferences because of athletics. [/quote] At the end of the day, though, athletic achievement IS merit-based (or at least should be outside of Varsity Blues scandal-type situations), which is vastly different than legacy programs that are based on being lucky enough to be born with alumni parents or born into a financial situation where they don’t need to worry about financial aid and apply ED. My point is that athletic preferences are actually *not* a debate at these colleges. They might be part of the debate on forums like this one for the reasons that you’ve given (e.g. the “country club sports”), but they are NOT being looped into the same category as legacy preferences and ED. Once again, the OP misrepresented the article, which mentioned legacy and ED admissions being under scrutiny but not a single word about athletic preferences being under scrutiny.[/quote] It’s not merit-based if the only students who can afford to compete in the sports are the ones whose parents have the resources to support them. Do you think these sports are pretty much all-white because white people are better at them? And why do college athletics exist? A small number do for financial reasons—football and basketball bring in money (like legacy students and donor kids). Many of the others exist, arguably, to give rich white kids a(nother) path into elite schools. That’s why Varsity Blues was possible; it just took what was already going on over a criminal line. All I’m saying is…athletics are part of this conversation about, even if the NYT article didn’t focus on it.[/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