Why do they bother playing college sports and not just go directly to the professional leagues?

Professional leagues for lacrosse, swimming, squash, crew, skiing, sailing and water polo? The only leagues are SLAC and IVY.

Big time sports recruiting at SLACs and IVYs for the golf, swimming, squash, crew, water polo, tennis and ski teams. The athltic hook indeed.

You forgot lacrosse. Everyone seems to think that hockey, basketball and football are the only folk benefiting form hooks at Ivys and the like.

Big time sports recruiting at SLACs and IVYs for the golf, swimming, squash, crew, water polo, tennis and ski teams. The athltic hook indeed.

Anonymous wrote:What does "point taken" mean? If it's 85% Asians, so be it.

+1

(FYI - in 1993, the computer science program at UMD was 99% asian).

That will be a lot more persuasive when top basketball programs start affirmatively recruiting shrimpy intellectual kids who can't jump in order to provide beneficial "diversity" on their basketball teams! It is funny how diversity arguments apply to the academics but not to sports teams.

I suspect this poster is still a child and does not remember the days in college and professional basketball recruiting (1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s) when the players on the top teams at all levels were not even the best athletes or highest jumpers in the land. I remember those days...affirmative action of another kind (also in the highest eductional establishments of the land). I do not understand the poster's argument here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh...it must be autumn.

The leaves are turning, kids are starting to apply to college, and their parents are on DCUM complaining about how they are so disadvataged compared to the athletes, the legacies and the URM's.

All I will say is that "qualified" takes on many forms. I think the admissions people understand how to populate their schools.

That will be a lot more persuasive when top basketball programs start affirmatively recruiting shrimpy intellectual kids who can't jump in order to provide beneficial "diversity" on their basketball teams! It is funny how diversity arguments apply to the academics but not to sports teams.

And if you think that the shrimpy intellectual kid is competing for a spot at that university against that basketball player - then you do not have a clue as to how it works. Maybe you should have pointed out all the international students in the applied science and engineering programs. That may have made more sense to your argument - but I doubt it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh...it must be autumn.

The leaves are turning, kids are starting to apply to college, and their parents are on DCUM complaining about how they are so disadvataged compared to the athletes, the legacies and the URM's.

All I will say is that "qualified" takes on many forms. I think the admissions people understand how to populate their schools.

So, which is your kid? Athlete, legacy or URM? I'm guessing there's a reason for your smugness: one of these is working for you. And of course you need to put any idea if unfairness out of your mind by blaming other DCUM posters. You sound like a real winner yourself.

PP here. I have one kid who is an athlete at top SLAC in New England (who was well within the admission standards) and another who is a non-athlete (with no other hook) at a top 10 university on the West coast. My point is people ALWAYS work themselves into a tizzy this time of year. That is why I was smug. Because it is an annual ritual in DCUM.

Unfairness? As I said, "qualified" takes on many forms. Colleges and universities are very quick to tell you that HS grades and test scores are not the only criteria they use and that HS grades and test scores are not indicative of college success. And as I have said many times, the parents in this area are misguided. In preparing their kids for college, they make their kids "average". They all have the same academic and social resumes. As a former interviewer, I can tell you that most of the kids from this area have the same profile.

PP, cite your source please for the 30% reserved slots for legacies. You are referring to UVA in particular or the Ivies? Potted Ivies like Williams or Amherst? Crunchy "FlyoverErgo" colleges like Kenyon, Grinnell or Oberlin? TIA

Anonymous wrote:Ahh...it must be autumn.

The leaves are turning, kids are starting to apply to college, and their parents are on DCUM complaining about how they are so disadvataged compared to the athletes, the legacies and the URM's.

All I will say is that "qualified" takes on many forms. I think the admissions people understand how to populate their schools.

So, which is your kid? Athlete, legacy or URM? I'm guessing there's a reason for your smugness: one of these is working for you. And of course you need to put any idea if unfairness out of your mind by blaming other DCUM posters. You sound like a real winner yourself.

Anonymous wrote:Ahh...it must be autumn.

The leaves are turning, kids are starting to apply to college, and their parents are on DCUM complaining about how they are so disadvataged compared to the athletes, the legacies and the URM's.

All I will say is that "qualified" takes on many forms. I think the admissions people understand how to populate their schools.

That will be a lot more persuasive when top basketball programs start affirmatively recruiting shrimpy intellectual kids who can't jump in order to provide beneficial "diversity" on their basketball teams! It is funny how diversity arguments apply to the academics but not to sports teams.

Does any S. Ct. case only apply to state schools? In other words, can a private institution continue to admit based, in part, of race, even if the S. Ct. strikes down the practice for state schools?

What's the issue in the S Ct case? The news hasn't gotten the rock I live under.

Anonymous wrote:Ahh...it must be autumn.

The leaves are turning, kids are starting to apply to college, and their parents are on DCUM complaining about how they are so disadvataged compared to the athletes, the legacies and the URM's.

All I will say is that "qualified" takes on many forms. I think the admissions people understand how to populate their schools.

I am the original poster with a 7th and 9th grader. My children are obviously not applying to college this year. This post is about the Fisher vs Unv of Texas which is being decided by the supreme court. The court is majority conservative and seem to be leaning in favor of Fisher.

I'm not taking any sides but everyone will have to deal with the reality of changes to college admission.

Ahh...it must be autumn.

The leaves are turning, kids are starting to apply to college, and their parents are on DCUM complaining about how they are so disadvataged compared to the athletes, the legacies and the URM's.

All I will say is that "qualified" takes on many forms. I think the admissions people understand how to populate their schools.

Anonymous wrote:Why do they bother playing college sports and not just go directly to the professional leagues?

Professional lacrosse? Professional crew?

For the football and basketball players, it's probably to have a backup plan when they get too old to play.

I don't like the athletic preferences either. The justification, however, is supposedly that it raises a lot of money for the school. Alumns like to attend games when the team is winning, then they donate.