Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s well known that academic standards are lower for athletes. I can’t believe someone is trying to argue this isn’t the case, might as well argue the earth isn’t round. Of course, some athletic admits might meet normal admission standards.

My kids have gone to a "big3" in DC. Between their two grades and various team mates of various sports, I can pretty much attest that to an applicant, every one these kids are as academically qualified as any "regular" academic student, the only difference being they are bringing a sport to the table as an applicant. Obviously there is the rare Allen Iverson, but you are kidding yourself if you think all of the athletes admitted, particularly to D3 and IVY schools are dumb jock not worthy of the academic slot.

DP. Not the point. They are just as smart as their classmates who don't get in, but they have a leg up for reasons unrelated to how well they will do on their college academics relative to the also academically great classmate who isn't a recruited athlete. This is true even if that classmate also spends hours each week participating on the exact same sports teams and is on the Championship teams too. In other words, both have the academic chops and all the hallmarks of an athlete that PPs tout as valuable in college, the workplace, and beyond. So that isn't the special something colleges are recruiting for or they'd take any old competitive, 20-hour practice, year round swimmer without regard to national time standards. In the end, colleges want to put up strong athletic teams. It has nothing to do with academics or that special athletic attitude. They stand apart because they are better at sports, not because they spent more time at it or wanted it more or are a better person than the kid who came in 6th or 20th or didn't get to play because he had to babysit his sister.

They work hard at their sports. It's not like they are born and are just better at it than others. You really need to re-read what you wrote and check yourself.

So, just out of curiosity,

Do those you who argue that it's unfair that kid can get a boost to Harvard based on a combination of raw athletic talent, opportunity, and hard work, also acknowledge that it's unfair that some kids get to go to college because of a combination of raw academic talent, opportunity, and hard work?

If you're a parent of a kid who got lucky in the IQ lottery, and lucky to be born into a family that could afford good schools, and provide help with HW, do you also acknowledge that it's unfair if your kid gets in? Or do you somehow think that being good at math is a virtue, while being good at throwing a baseball isn't?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

They don't need to. Legacy is a product of being born. Being a recruited athlete is a combination of having the genes to achieve at said sport and hard work. Same as perfecting an instrument of having a lab breakthrough at a ridiculously early age.

I personally find it funny that the “sour grapes” posters are trying to claim academic standards are the same for athletes. What a joke! Many schools limit the majors available to athletes and require tutors. I’m sure junior is a genius but that is just not the case for the vast majority of athletic recruits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s well known that academic standards are lower for athletes. I can’t believe someone is trying to argue this isn’t the case, might as well argue the earth isn’t round. Of course, some athletic admits might meet normal admission standards.

My kids have gone to a "big3" in DC. Between their two grades and various team mates of various sports, I can pretty much attest that to an applicant, every one these kids are as academically qualified as any "regular" academic student, the only difference being they are bringing a sport to the table as an applicant. Obviously there is the rare Allen Iverson, but you are kidding yourself if you think all of the athletes admitted, particularly to D3 and IVY schools are dumb jock not worthy of the academic slot.

DP. Not the point. They are just as smart as their classmates who don't get in, but they have a leg up for reasons unrelated to how well they will do on their college academics relative to the also academically great classmate who isn't a recruited athlete. This is true even if that classmate also spends hours each week participating on the exact same sports teams and is on the Championship teams too. In other words, both have the academic chops and all the hallmarks of an athlete that PPs tout as valuable in college, the workplace, and beyond. So that isn't the special something colleges are recruiting for or they'd take any old competitive, 20-hour practice, year round swimmer without regard to national time standards. In the end, colleges want to put up strong athletic teams. It has nothing to do with academics or that special athletic attitude. They stand apart because they are better at sports, not because they spent more time at it or wanted it more or are a better person than the kid who came in 6th or 20th or didn't get to play because he had to babysit his sister.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

I’m a parent of a recruited athlete and I freely admit that my kid got special advantages in admissions to a top school, and to OP’s point, needed to do far less of the drudgery of college admissions-related work than kids with no athletic hook. His status also meant he took the SAT a single time and was perfectly happy with a score he could presumably have increased by 100+ points had he done any prep.

But you lose me when you suggest there was something “unfair” about this process or that I or his or similar universities need to “justify it”. Those things might be true if this university had marketed itself as one that chose students only on the basis of their demonstrated academic achievements, as I gather many universities in Europe, China, and India do. But no Ivy or other elite private school (perhaps with the exception of CalTech?) does so. Quite the opposite in fact; they all make crystal clear that they want to admit students from a wide range of backgrounds with a wide range of impressive achievements, including non-academic ones. Perhaps you don’t think ability to play a sport at the college level is an impressive achievement, but it actually doesn’t matter what you think because the schools openly advertise their desire to admit student-athletes of a certain level.

For the same reasons, I don’t get agitated about kids with other hooks or see a reason why a college needs to justify prioritizing admissions for legacies, URMs, etc. A bizarrely large percentage of parents who are ambitious on their kids’ behalf somehow have deluded themselves into thinking that colleges should only want high stats kids with ECs obtainable by any very bright, hard-working kids. But again, that’s not how elite schools see it, nor have they ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

Can you see the difference? Your kid did nothing to achieve double legacy status. It is purely his or her good luck to have been born to parents who attended the school and made donations. An athlete trains for years to achieve a chance at being recruited. That's hard work, not pure luck.

I'm not arguing that the system is fair, but those two admissions preferences aren't comparable.

She can't. The fact that PP can't understand the hard work, sacrifice, discipline, and value of athletics is very scary. To think that's an unfair advantage and being an athlete is an unfair advantage is truly insane.

The fact that you think athletics has some sort of monopoly over hard work, sacrifice and discipline that other ECs (which don't get the same admissions preference) don't is insane.

I was comparing the advantage of being an athlete vs being a legacy. Quite accurately. A recruited athlete has more value and is more deserving than a legacy. All day long.

Other ECs require those qualities and that's great. My point wasn't that other ECs don't require them. It was that being a legacy does not.

Colleges are allowed to have priorities, just like you are. They also invest more to recruit professors in comp sci compared to classics. So what?

-Mom of legacy kids with no athletic ability

Anonymous wrote:And my senior DD is in the midst of application hell and stress. Athletic recruitment really pisses me off. That’s all.

It's frustrating, OP. I get it.

Good luck to you and your daughter. It will be in your rearview mirror in a few months. And she'll be off to college and you'll be grateful it's over and proud of her for the woman she's becoming.

/signed/ Mom of college freshman

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports crazy parents need to add up all the roster spaces at the top private colleges. Far less than lottery odds your kid is one of them. And all of teams give the nod to filthy rich families over random joe blow striver from the DMV. Talent is a secondary consideration.

I bet you all laugh and make fun of “dumb” poor people for wasting money on scratch off lottery tickets.

If your good not great athlete plays at “the next level” it’s prob going to be some podunk crap college nobody has ever heard of. And they’ll most likely quit the team after a year and transfer to the state university all their friends are at. I’ve seen this play out hundreds of times.

You think there are a lot of posters (any posters?) on the DCUM College and University forum who show up to post at all if their kid ends up at a “podunk crap college” for whatever reason? Is this your first time on DCUM?

Delusional strivers lie to themselves until the very end that their kid will con their way into a "T20" and/or play "at the next level." Well, for 99% of student-athletes, the next level is some backwater degree mill in some podunk town. I've seen it happen hundreds of times.

I’m sure this happens in some communities where sports are valued over academics and the parents are uneducated, and/or unsophisticated, and/or can only afford to send their kids to college with the help of an athletic scholarship. That community is very far removed from the communities where posters on this particular DCUM forum live. 90+% of the people here complaining about admissions hooks for athletes are p*ssed because an athletic UMC kid who attends the same school as the UMC poster’s child will be waltzing into an Ivy-level school as an athletic recruit while their little genius is “stuck” going to UVA, William & Mary or some other great but not as brag-worthy school. So, while you are welcome to mock whomever you please, I don’t know why you are addressing your mockery to this group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

Can you see the difference? Your kid did nothing to achieve double legacy status. It is purely his or her good luck to have been born to parents who attended the school and made donations. An athlete trains for years to achieve a chance at being recruited. That's hard work, not pure luck.

I'm not arguing that the system is fair, but those two admissions preferences aren't comparable.

She can't. The fact that PP can't understand the hard work, sacrifice, discipline, and value of athletics is very scary. To think that's an unfair advantage and being an athlete is an unfair advantage is truly insane.

The fact that you think athletics has some sort of monopoly over hard work, sacrifice and discipline that other ECs (which don't get the same admissions preference) don't is insane.

Dear Geniuses,

The fact that you know of this board, post on it, read about it, and have some additional knowledge of college admissions to share with your child is a huge advantage over MANY MANY other students in this country and a MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM for inequities is college admissions than some colleges wanting hard working athletes on their campuses. The fact that you CARE is an advantage many students don't have. That you KNOW what is possible if you play your cards right.

You. Me. If you are here, it is us. I'm also "not rich."

Insisting your privilege is fine and dandy but others' is not is extremely stupid and hateful.

Sincerely,
Yo Momma

Why a school takes an athlete over other qualified candidates? Top athletes have several qualities readily apparent to any admissions officer which are- Leadership, perseverance, teamwork, and competitiveness. Other applicants can’t easily demonstrate these qualities in an application or interview. So if the athlete has the grades and test scores (even if slightly lower) the admissions also knows it is getting these other qualities.

The US is the only country in the world that heavily investment in sports at the HS and college level. The US is also the most competitive and successful country in the world. I think there is a relationship between the two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone of these parents complaining about this would happily accept the preferred athletic treatment if their kid was offered it.

Maybe, but I'd at least acknowledge the preferential treatment, which some people seem unable to do here. All I see is protests of sour grapes, they work hard, it's just as stressful for athletes just in other ways, it's just the same as another other EC.....

My kid is a double legacy at a top school which definitely gives special treatment to legacies. Who knows if that will be in place by the time my kid gets to applying, but I freely acknowledge that it is unfair and there is no justification for it at all. Despite the fact that I might benefit, for the system as a whole, I don't think it makes sense.

Can parents of student athletes do the same?

Can you see the difference? Your kid did nothing to achieve double legacy status. It is purely his or her good luck to have been born to parents who attended the school and made donations. An athlete trains for years to achieve a chance at being recruited. That's hard work, not pure luck.

I'm not arguing that the system is fair, but those two admissions preferences aren't comparable.

She can't. The fact that PP can't understand the hard work, sacrifice, discipline, and value of athletics is very scary. To think that's an unfair advantage and being an athlete is an unfair advantage is truly insane.

Anonymous wrote:This to me is it. It is bizarre -- the elevation of athletics over any other activity connected to the university community (arts, debate, chess, science, what have you). It is uniquely American.

They don't care about sports. The sports are used to backdoor rich kids and URMs, netting donations and promoting the diversity line. And the crap colleges most student-athletes end up at only have the doors open because they prey on saps, letting their kid "play at the next level." Parents and bratty student-athletes can't admit all of the sports obsession ends after 12th grade, so they go to some laughing stock in the middle on nowhere to keep the sports dream alive. It's actually sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports crazy parents need to add up all the roster spaces at the top private colleges. Far less than lottery odds your kid is one of them. And all of teams give the nod to filthy rich families over random joe blow striver from the DMV. Talent is a secondary consideration.

I bet you all laugh and make fun of “dumb” poor people for wasting money on scratch off lottery tickets.

If your good not great athlete plays at “the next level” it’s prob going to be some podunk crap college nobody has ever heard of. And they’ll most likely quit the team after a year and transfer to the state university all their friends are at. I’ve seen this play out hundreds of times.

You think there are a lot of posters (any posters?) on the DCUM College and University forum who show up to post at all if their kid ends up at a “podunk crap college” for whatever reason? Is this your first time on DCUM?

Delusional strivers lie to themselves until the very end that their kid will con their way into a "T20" and/or play "at the next level." Well, for 99% of student-athletes, the next level is some backwater degree mill in some podunk town. I've seen it happen hundreds of times.