Reply to Do athletic recruits get decisions before ED?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Do athletic recruits get decisions before ED?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]What hasn't been discussed yet is the element of trust inherent in athletic recruiting. When a student commits to a school, they're committing to the process and typically stop pursuing other options. Any problems that arise between the commitment and official acceptance, and/or official signing for scholarship athletes can leave the athlete scrambling to apply elsewhere at the last minute.

[b]Some recruited athletes at highly selective schools are often admitted with lower academic credentials than non athlete applicants.[/b] These athletes may receive likely letters indicating they'll be admitted if certain conditions are met, which can feel like preferential treatment. If you don’t like it, either get recruited as an athlete or protest by not applying to schools that recruit athletes.  
[/quote]

Agree with this. Disagree that it feels like preferential treatment. It is preferential treatment.

Yes, that’s the way it works. Why do parents of recruited athletes try to pretend it’s so hard and athletes work for the hook. They don’t work for the hook. As PPs have said, the hook is the decision made by the school to give preferential treatment to athletes. Athletes don’t earn that institutional thumb on the scale.

It works for you. Own it.
[/quote]

Preferential treatment implies that they are less capable.  The reality is that schools are building communities and developing leaders, in addition to teaching content.

Athletes can have different, equally valuable skills.  The kid who wins the Westinghouse science fair (or whatever it's called now) might make a great scientist and go on to get a PhD in physics because of their intellectual rigor, diligence, precision. The captain of the HS soccer team might make a great CEO because of their decisiveness, lack of analysis-paralysis, ability to build comraderie in a group of disparate people, etc.

People complain that George W Bush shouldn't have gotten into Yale, that it's legacy preference, but the man had the family connections and likeability to become President!  Yale probably understood that this was a possibility, and thought it was worth their while to keep him in the fold and educate him as best they could.  Why should Yale be obligated to accept a higher stats kid, when in their estimation, accepting a legacy brat instead might have a more significant impact on the future of the US?

If they think an athlete with lesser grades is more likely to impact the world than some other random high stats kid, that isn't preferential treatment, it is them placing a bet, and for all you know, they are 100% correct.  There are plenty of underemployed PhD's in the world, maybe they don't want to generate more.[/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