Reply to You can't spell "lacrosse" without SLACs

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "You can't spell "lacrosse" without SLACs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Really I think what people are complaining about is the differential admissions standards applied to athletes at many schools.

It would be one thing if the admissions slots reserved for lax/ hockey at these schools were filled by students who had more or less the same grades/ test scores/ academic profile as everyone else.

But this is objectively *NOT* the case. Study after study shows that being a recruited athlete confers an admissions advantage equivalent to ~150 SAT points or more, or perhaps a whole point of GPA. Athlete routinely make up the lowest part of the admitted "stats" ranges for most schools. Don't protest about how your DS or DD athlete has great grades...this is just objectively a fact.

If schools are going to do this, reserving "slots" for otherwise unqualified athletes needs to become a *much* more restricted practice. Fine, bring in a few low GPA/SAT ringers. But I think everyone would feel better about selective college athletic if coaches were generally forced to build the rest of their teams out of walk-ons from the general pool of smart kids. In a school the size of many SLACs, where there may be only 700 or so total male students, special preferences for lacrosse (~50 students) and ice hockey (~40 students) and football (~60+ students) add up fast.  The solution is not to abandon sports altogether, but to significantly, if not totally, eliminate the influence of coaches in recruiting and admissions.

Make it about character, sportsmanship, and fun, rather than winning. The way it was always supposed to be.   [/quote]

100% agree and I'm the poster above who said something similar (my post was deemed post of the year!).

The problem is telling this to the coaches. They have gained a lot of power with admissions. If their livelihood depends on winning, then they are going to push to have as much flexibility as possible. SLACs don't have as short a leash on their coaches as major D1 schools, but if a lax coach goes 3-10 a few years in a row, his job security is going to be limited.

I'm not sure what the right answer is. But I fully agree it has gone too far in the wrong direction. One big step would be getting rid of the pre-read process for athletes. But that isn't going to happen.

Also note that there are plenty of athletes on these teams who are good academic fits, or very close. We should not overly generalize. But there are way too many who aren't. As you noted, if it was 1-2 per year, it would be less of a concern. But it is more.[/quote]

I’m so happy that these colleges take athletically gifted students for their sport. I couldn’t care less about their grades. When I watch their games, I want to watch a competitive game between skilled players. Not a bunch of nerds who have 2 left feet who “play for fun and show good sportsmanship.”[/quote]

How many people who are not related to the participants actually go to these games? 12? That is the irony of all this. All this effort to get in and play these sports yet there were probably more people attending their high school games than college.

I went to a major D1 sports school and had friends on various non-revenue sports teams so actually went. Some of these teams were top 20 nationally. There was usually no one there.[/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