Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

I trust you don’t knock any other hooks then. They’re all qualified too.

Doesn't the recent Princeton data show their legacies have higher average SAT scores? Having a hook doesn't necessarily mean even pure numbers are lower.

All DCUM parents with access to a search engine should have reasonably known 20+ years ago that athletic excellence can help with college admissions when paired with academic achievement. I wonder why more didn't help put their kids in a position to succeed. So many parents on DCUM talk about putting kids first and sacrificing. Don't hate the players when you've known the game for decades. US colleges, elite academic schools included, have viewed athletic ability as merit for a long time.
Investing in some extracurriculars early on really is smarter than others if you are looking at it purely from a college admissions standpoint. I think people should let their kids do what they are passionate about but if you are just looking for the best admissions combo, there has been clear data out there since The Shape of the River that excellence in sports is the way to go.

That’s all fine but either all hooks are good or all hooks are bad. You shouldn’t pick and choose based on whether it helps your kid. You’ve already admitted institutional priorities matter.

But this is DCUM, where common sense and logic are dropped once you click on the forum website.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

I trust you don’t knock any other hooks then. They’re all qualified too.

Doesn't the recent Princeton data show their legacies have higher average SAT scores? Having a hook doesn't necessarily mean even pure numbers are lower.

All DCUM parents with access to a search engine should have reasonably known 20+ years ago that athletic excellence can help with college admissions when paired with academic achievement. I wonder why more didn't help put their kids in a position to succeed. So many parents on DCUM talk about putting kids first and sacrificing. Don't hate the players when you've known the game for decades. US colleges, elite academic schools included, have viewed athletic ability as merit for a long time.
Investing in some extracurriculars early on really is smarter than others if you are looking at it purely from a college admissions standpoint. I think people should let their kids do what they are passionate about but if you are just looking for the best admissions combo, there has been clear data out there since The Shape of the River that excellence in sports is the way to go.

That’s all fine but either all hooks are good or all hooks are bad. You shouldn’t pick and choose based on whether it helps your kid. You’ve already admitted institutional priorities matter.

To all who are bashing the recruited athletes, here is a question for you. If your kid was good enough at sports to be a recruited athlete, would you take advantage of that hook? Or are you going to stand on your principles outlined here in this thread and say "no, you can't try to get recruited because it isn't fair to everyone else."
The reality is you would take advantage of the hook to get into a school you want to attend.
There are plenty of athletes that are fully academically qualified and did just that, leveraged a hook to increase their odds of acceptance at a school they wanted to attend. And not in "obscure, racist sports", as some social justice keyboard warriors contend.
And don't move the goalposts about "the meat head athlete who took basic algebra instead of AP Calc." That is not what we are talking about here. LACs are more selective than that. The meat head athlete you are referring to can hopefully get recruited to play their sport at a lower tier, state flagship, or something along those lines. Every athlete that leverages the recruiting hook has to go through an academic pre-read. Yes, it is an advantage to know early, to get specialized attention, and have support of a coach. But that advantage is a result of years of hard work honing their skills to get to the point of being a person the school desires. While simultaneously maintaining very high academic standards. Does that take money? Sure. But there are plenty of scholarship opportunities at the youth and high school level to give similar means to others that are financially not as well off.

All of this angst is directed at a small minority of students. Instead of complaining about a hook that you would take advantage of if you could, how about focusing on yourself and your kid so they can stand out in the admissions process. Or, dust off your copy of Animal Farm and keep complaining. Your choice. But the athletic hook for admissions isn't going away any time soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an athlete, but I am fine with athletes getting a leg up because that is a legitimate metric of effort, organizational skills, hard work, team work etc. It's legacy and race advantages that I have major issues with.

Ok, but then by that standard, any kid who plays four years on a high school team and/or club team, should get extra consideration regardless their plans to play in college.

It’s more impressive and meaningful if you are good at your sport and have good grades too. It really shows that you have grit, work ethic and smarts too. I hire at a bank and my favorite hires are grads from top colleges who were athletes or in the army. Over my 24 year career, they have been consistently the best employees.

Ie my favorite hires are WASP candidates from top colleges.

You don’t even see your implicit racism.

I’m sure non athleties from top colleges would perform as well, unless your bank has a competitive squash team required to hit your numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 40% set-aside for athletes is just a massive loophole for students who probably would not otherwise get in.

It doesn’t exist, but otherwise you are spot on.

NP. Obviously, a large percentage of the athletes at SLACs are not recruited/have no hooks, and make the teams once they are admitted on their academic merits. I’m curious about whether anyone can quantify the percentage of non-recruited athletes playing on varsity teams? Are these stats kept?

What SLACs? Certainly not NESAC. I know kids who were recruited and still couldn't get playing time

Anonymous wrote:The 40% set-aside for athletes is just a massive loophole for students who probably would not otherwise get in.

You mean students with a hook might not get in if they didn't have the hook?

Is this some kind of revelation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an athlete, but I am fine with athletes getting a leg up because that is a legitimate metric of effort, organizational skills, hard work, team work etc. It's legacy and race advantages that I have major issues with.

Ok, but then by that standard, any kid who plays four years on a high school team and/or club team, should get extra consideration regardless their plans to play in college.

It’s more impressive and meaningful if you are good at your sport and have good grades too. It really shows that you have grit, work ethic and smarts too. I hire at a bank and my favorite hires are grads from top colleges who were athletes or in the army. Over my 24 year career, they have been consistently the best employees.

Yeah mastering a Bach concerto doesn’t take any grit or work ethic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an athlete, but I am fine with athletes getting a leg up because that is a legitimate metric of effort, organizational skills, hard work, team work etc. It's legacy and race advantages that I have major issues with.

Ok, but then by that standard, any kid who plays four years on a high school team and/or club team, should get extra consideration regardless their plans to play in college.

It’s more impressive and meaningful if you are good at your sport and have good grades too. It really shows that you have grit, work ethic and smarts too. I hire at a bank and my favorite hires are grads from top colleges who were athletes or in the army. Over my 24 year career, they have been consistently the best employees.

Selingo’s book recounts that the whole point of athletics as a hook for admissions was to skirt around Federal law and merit admittance criteria that had started to fill the ranks with smart Jewish admits; the restore the balance to their original mission for WASP education, they devised new “merit” criteria that tilted the balance against short Jewish admits who did not thrive at sports. It’s just their luck it also worked against short Asian applicants too.

Being essentially rooted in a racist and classist position, especially in the expensive niche sports with very little participation by minorities or lower income families, I can see why OP feels put out.

Anonymous wrote:Why are people complaining that 30-40% of the students are athletes? That means 60-70% are not. They are artists, musicians, actors, whatever. That’s the majority. If anything the athletes should complain that there are too many non-athletes on their campus. Ridiculous.

Uh, there is no automatic ED acceptance and a staff person at the university campaigning admission for admittance. They need to fill all the instruments of an orchestra, but the conductor doesn’t get to hound admissions with his “slots to fill” like the coaches.

It’s totally different.

OP I suspect you talk of nothing else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 40% set-aside for athletes is just a massive loophole for students who probably would not otherwise get in.

It doesn’t exist, but otherwise you are spot on.

NP. Obviously, a large percentage of the athletes at SLACs are not recruited/have no hooks, and make the teams once they are admitted on their academic merits. I’m curious about whether anyone can quantify the percentage of non-recruited athletes playing on varsity teams? Are these stats kept?

This poster fundamentally doesn't get it. NO ONE gets admitted purely on "academic merits." That is a major fallacy. They look at everyone's ECs, leadership, possible campus community contributions, and application specific responses and writing ability. Schools are also trying to admit people with great potential.
Sports are a hook and are the most valued EC to a school that I can think of, but don't kid yourself that anyone is admitted just based on #s.
Try getting 10 people on DCUM to agree on what "academic merits" means when it comes to admissions too

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

I trust you don’t knock any other hooks then. They’re all qualified too.

Doesn't the recent Princeton data show their legacies have higher average SAT scores? Having a hook doesn't necessarily mean even pure numbers are lower.

All DCUM parents with access to a search engine should have reasonably known 20+ years ago that athletic excellence can help with college admissions when paired with academic achievement. I wonder why more didn't help put their kids in a position to succeed. So many parents on DCUM talk about putting kids first and sacrificing. Don't hate the players when you've known the game for decades. US colleges, elite academic schools included, have viewed athletic ability as merit for a long time.
Investing in some extracurriculars early on really is smarter than others if you are looking at it purely from a college admissions standpoint. I think people should let their kids do what they are passionate about but if you are just looking for the best admissions combo, there has been clear data out there since The Shape of the River that excellence in sports is the way to go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 40% set-aside for athletes is just a massive loophole for students who probably would not otherwise get in.

It doesn’t exist, but otherwise you are spot on.

NP. Obviously, a large percentage of the athletes at SLACs are not recruited/have no hooks, and make the teams once they are admitted on their academic merits. I’m curious about whether anyone can quantify the percentage of non-recruited athletes playing on varsity teams? Are these stats kept?

From the sites mentioned earlier, it looks like roughly 1/3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 40% set-aside for athletes is just a massive loophole for students who probably would not otherwise get in.

It doesn’t exist, but otherwise you are spot on.

NP. Obviously, a large percentage of the athletes at SLACs are not recruited/have no hooks, and make the teams once they are admitted on their academic merits. I’m curious about whether anyone can quantify the percentage of non-recruited athletes playing on varsity teams? Are these stats kept?