Reply to Recruited athletes don’t have lower stats!

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Recruited athletes don’t have lower stats!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote] The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.[/quote]

I think the only thing that’s funny is that an adult sees things in such a black and white way. How do you account for kids like mine, both Ivy athletes, one who was valedictorian and NMSF and one who graduated from college summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa? The schools may have taken them to fill a need, because they do need to fill their athletic rosters, but my kids - and many of their teammates- were most certainly academically qualified.  But keep your false narrative, for whatever comfort it provides you.[/quote]

Here’s what you don’t get:

1. Many athletes have the minimum, lower end, of who is accepted.

2. Many students applying hve much better stats than the athlete applicant.

3. The athlete gets a boost up. Even if you take a high stats athlete and compare his application to a high stats athlete, the athlete gets a boost in admissions and an edge. A big one.

To cherry pick out an example of an athlete who is super smart and really athletic does not mean that is how most athlete applicants are. Those are the minority. And even when they are, they still got a major boost over their competitors. [/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