Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes get better jobs and are reliable donors. As are their parents.

+1 this

Has this trope ever once been quantified and verified anywhere? At all?

Yes, across many studies.

I, pp, was not able to find a single well designed study. I work in a research adjacent medical specialty, so I’m pretty competent in searching databases

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if colleges committed to devote athletic recruits 100% to URM, FG, and LI. Our next president should have a compact with colleges.

+1000

The pipeline to athletics recruits is designed to be the least inclusive and the least equitable. Zero effort is made to train, reach out to, and recruit URM, FG, and LI. It’s a disgrace.

So colleges are now supposed to train kids in athletics for possible recruitment in the future? In what world does this make sense?

It makes sense because there is huge barriers for disadvantaged kids. All the money, the coach, the facilities, the travel, the equipment, or even as simple as the clothing, for an "athlete" is unimagineable to the disadvantaged kids. My son's volleyball team has a black teammate, the club team waived all the fees for him thanks to the donation, but he couldn't afford travelling so we volunteered to take that responsibility. But his athletic talent is 10x of my son's yet they are playing in the same club.

The high school sports are essentially inaccessible to disadvantaged kids. Everyone knows that yet colleges continue this inequitable practice. Rick Singers are busy working since the kids were five...

High school sports are essentially free and many require nothing to be purchased by the student except for shoes. An excellent athlete that can’t afford club sports will likely find scholarship opportunities for clubs and private schools as well as they are always looking for an edge. I wouldn’t be worried about disadvantaged kids finding athletic opportunities, but I would be worried about the youth sports machinery talking advantage of disadvantaged kids (and stupid wealthy kids for that matter). See Michael Oher.

So...it is expensive and inaccessible. You literally just repeated their point.
Most sports don't have the scholarship or other funding opportunities as football/basketball. You need money to compete competitively in tennis, for example.

I going to simplify this for you: If a kid can ball, then there will be plenty of chances to play ball regardless of financial circumstances. The revenue sports are very accessible to everyone.

I live in a large CA urban area, and this just isn’t true, especially in the early developmental years before middle school and HS. Lots of opportunity on our wealthy suburban periphery though. Average young athletes out there can be nurtured into possible D3 admits.

They did a research study in 2012 on basketball. You have to pay for the full research results but here was the punchline:

The popular image of the African American National Basketball Association (NBA) player as rising from the ‘ghetto’ to international fame and fortune misleads academics and publics alike. This false image is fueled, in part, by critical shortcomings in empirical research on the relationship between race, sport, and occupational mobility. They found that the majority of NBA players were from relatively advantaged social class backgrounds: 65.68% of Black players and 92.85% of White players were from UMC backgrounds.

The eye test works. Just go to some basketball, football, soccer and swim meets at your average public HS.

Meaning what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if colleges committed to devote athletic recruits 100% to URM, FG, and LI. Our next president should have a compact with colleges.

+1000

The pipeline to athletics recruits is designed to be the least inclusive and the least equitable. Zero effort is made to train, reach out to, and recruit URM, FG, and LI. It’s a disgrace.

So colleges are now supposed to train kids in athletics for possible recruitment in the future? In what world does this make sense?

It makes sense because there is huge barriers for disadvantaged kids. All the money, the coach, the facilities, the travel, the equipment, or even as simple as the clothing, for an "athlete" is unimagineable to the disadvantaged kids. My son's volleyball team has a black teammate, the club team waived all the fees for him thanks to the donation, but he couldn't afford travelling so we volunteered to take that responsibility. But his athletic talent is 10x of my son's yet they are playing in the same club.

The high school sports are essentially inaccessible to disadvantaged kids. Everyone knows that yet colleges continue this inequitable practice. Rick Singers are busy working since the kids were five...

High school sports are essentially free and many require nothing to be purchased by the student except for shoes. An excellent athlete that can’t afford club sports will likely find scholarship opportunities for clubs and private schools as well as they are always looking for an edge. I wouldn’t be worried about disadvantaged kids finding athletic opportunities, but I would be worried about the youth sports machinery talking advantage of disadvantaged kids (and stupid wealthy kids for that matter). See Michael Oher.

So...it is expensive and inaccessible. You literally just repeated their point.
Most sports don't have the scholarship or other funding opportunities as football/basketball. You need money to compete competitively in tennis, for example.

I going to simplify this for you: If a kid can ball, then there will be plenty of chances to play ball regardless of financial circumstances. The revenue sports are very accessible to everyone.

I live in a large CA urban area, and this just isn’t true, especially in the early developmental years before middle school and HS. Lots of opportunity on our wealthy suburban periphery though. Average young athletes out there can be nurtured into possible D3 admits.

They did a research study in 2012 on basketball. You have to pay for the full research results but here was the punchline:

The popular image of the African American National Basketball Association (NBA) player as rising from the ‘ghetto’ to international fame and fortune misleads academics and publics alike. This false image is fueled, in part, by critical shortcomings in empirical research on the relationship between race, sport, and occupational mobility. They found that the majority of NBA players were from relatively advantaged social class backgrounds: 65.68% of Black players and 92.85% of White players were from UMC backgrounds.

The eye test works. Just go to some basketball, football, soccer and swim meets at your average public HS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if colleges committed to devote athletic recruits 100% to URM, FG, and LI. Our next president should have a compact with colleges.

+1000

The pipeline to athletics recruits is designed to be the least inclusive and the least equitable. Zero effort is made to train, reach out to, and recruit URM, FG, and LI. It’s a disgrace.

So colleges are now supposed to train kids in athletics for possible recruitment in the future? In what world does this make sense?

It makes sense because there is huge barriers for disadvantaged kids. All the money, the coach, the facilities, the travel, the equipment, or even as simple as the clothing, for an "athlete" is unimagineable to the disadvantaged kids. My son's volleyball team has a black teammate, the club team waived all the fees for him thanks to the donation, but he couldn't afford travelling so we volunteered to take that responsibility. But his athletic talent is 10x of my son's yet they are playing in the same club.

The high school sports are essentially inaccessible to disadvantaged kids. Everyone knows that yet colleges continue this inequitable practice. Rick Singers are busy working since the kids were five...

High school sports are essentially free and many require nothing to be purchased by the student except for shoes. An excellent athlete that can’t afford club sports will likely find scholarship opportunities for clubs and private schools as well as they are always looking for an edge. I wouldn’t be worried about disadvantaged kids finding athletic opportunities, but I would be worried about the youth sports machinery talking advantage of disadvantaged kids (and stupid wealthy kids for that matter). See Michael Oher.

So...it is expensive and inaccessible. You literally just repeated their point.
Most sports don't have the scholarship or other funding opportunities as football/basketball. You need money to compete competitively in tennis, for example.

I going to simplify this for you: If a kid can ball, then there will be plenty of chances to play ball regardless of financial circumstances. The revenue sports are very accessible to everyone.

I live in a large CA urban area, and this just isn’t true, especially in the early developmental years before middle school and HS. Lots of opportunity on our wealthy suburban periphery though. Average young athletes out there can be nurtured into possible D3 admits.

They did a research study in 2012 on basketball. You have to pay for the full research results but here was the punchline:

The popular image of the African American National Basketball Association (NBA) player as rising from the ‘ghetto’ to international fame and fortune misleads academics and publics alike. This false image is fueled, in part, by critical shortcomings in empirical research on the relationship between race, sport, and occupational mobility. They found that the majority of NBA players were from relatively advantaged social class backgrounds: 65.68% of Black players and 92.85% of White players were from UMC backgrounds.

Anonymous wrote: A CEO of a $100B+ market cap company once told me that he loves to hire one-time student athletes. He’s exact words were “they know how to compete and succeed, and they know how to do it on a team, without just stepping over their peers.”

He didn’t mention the musical theater or band kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes get better jobs and are reliable donors. As are their parents.

+1 this

Has this trope ever once been quantified and verified anywhere? At all?

It never controls for family income to begin with. It’s just a self-fulfilling prophecy to make the squash kids and their rich parents feel like their unfair edge is justified by “hard work.”

If the goal is to increase donations, why would you control for family income?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if colleges committed to devote athletic recruits 100% to URM, FG, and LI. Our next president should have a compact with colleges.

+1000

The pipeline to athletics recruits is designed to be the least inclusive and the least equitable. Zero effort is made to train, reach out to, and recruit URM, FG, and LI. It’s a disgrace.

So colleges are now supposed to train kids in athletics for possible recruitment in the future? In what world does this make sense?

It makes sense because there is huge barriers for disadvantaged kids. All the money, the coach, the facilities, the travel, the equipment, or even as simple as the clothing, for an "athlete" is unimagineable to the disadvantaged kids. My son's volleyball team has a black teammate, the club team waived all the fees for him thanks to the donation, but he couldn't afford travelling so we volunteered to take that responsibility. But his athletic talent is 10x of my son's yet they are playing in the same club.

The high school sports are essentially inaccessible to disadvantaged kids. Everyone knows that yet colleges continue this inequitable practice. Rick Singers are busy working since the kids were five...

High school sports are essentially free and many require nothing to be purchased by the student except for shoes. An excellent athlete that can’t afford club sports will likely find scholarship opportunities for clubs and private schools as well as they are always looking for an edge. I wouldn’t be worried about disadvantaged kids finding athletic opportunities, but I would be worried about the youth sports machinery talking advantage of disadvantaged kids (and stupid wealthy kids for that matter). See Michael Oher.

So...it is expensive and inaccessible. You literally just repeated their point.
Most sports don't have the scholarship or other funding opportunities as football/basketball. You need money to compete competitively in tennis, for example.

I going to simplify this for you: If a kid can ball, then there will be plenty of chances to play ball regardless of financial circumstances. The revenue sports are very accessible to everyone.

I live in a large CA urban area, and this just isn’t true, especially in the early developmental years before middle school and HS. Lots of opportunity on our wealthy suburban periphery though. Average young athletes out there can be nurtured into possible D3 admits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if colleges committed to devote athletic recruits 100% to URM, FG, and LI. Our next president should have a compact with colleges.

Translation: it would be great if colleges cared about exactly what I care about and the government should force them to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if colleges committed to devote athletic recruits 100% to URM, FG, and LI. Our next president should have a compact with colleges.

+1000

The pipeline to athletics recruits is designed to be the least inclusive and the least equitable. Zero effort is made to train, reach out to, and recruit URM, FG, and LI. It’s a disgrace.

So colleges are now supposed to train kids in athletics for possible recruitment in the future? In what world does this make sense?

It makes sense because there is huge barriers for disadvantaged kids. All the money, the coach, the facilities, the travel, the equipment, or even as simple as the clothing, for an "athlete" is unimagineable to the disadvantaged kids. My son's volleyball team has a black teammate, the club team waived all the fees for him thanks to the donation, but he couldn't afford travelling so we volunteered to take that responsibility. But his athletic talent is 10x of my son's yet they are playing in the same club.

The high school sports are essentially inaccessible to disadvantaged kids. Everyone knows that yet colleges continue this inequitable practice. Rick Singers are busy working since the kids were five...

High school sports are essentially free and many require nothing to be purchased by the student except for shoes. An excellent athlete that can’t afford club sports will likely find scholarship opportunities for clubs and private schools as well as they are always looking for an edge. I wouldn’t be worried about disadvantaged kids finding athletic opportunities, but I would be worried about the youth sports machinery talking advantage of disadvantaged kids (and stupid wealthy kids for that matter). See Michael Oher.

So...it is expensive and inaccessible. You literally just repeated their point.
Most sports don't have the scholarship or other funding opportunities as football/basketball. You need money to compete competitively in tennis, for example.

I going to simplify this for you: If a kid can ball, then there will be plenty of chances to play ball regardless of financial circumstances. The revenue sports are very accessible to everyone.

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps, someone has mentioned this, but who originated the fiction that a college without recruited athletes is one without sports? One overrun with quirky nerds?

Most schools have athletic facilities for students with rec leagues at various competitive levels in many sports. Student participation is high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.

It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.

This experiment exists....it is called Reed college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes get better jobs and are reliable donors. As are their parents.

+1 this

Has this trope ever once been quantified and verified anywhere? At all?

Yes, across many studies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes get better jobs and are reliable donors. As are their parents.

+1 this

Has this trope ever once been quantified and verified anywhere? At all?

So your answer is no, you don’t have any data to back up your feelings and biases?

Athletes are taller better looking than average. That is a huge advantage in the work world.

It would not surprise me if they have more school spirit and donate more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes get better jobs and are reliable donors. As are their parents.

+1 this

Has this trope ever once been quantified and verified anywhere? At all?

It never controls for family income to begin with. It’s just a self-fulfilling prophecy to make the squash kids and their rich parents feel like their unfair edge is justified by “hard work.”