Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why so many make the assumption that recruited athletes have lower scores? Sure, maybe somewhere like Ohio State, they will take someone who passed the Clearinghouse for the football team, but that isn't the norm.

This at all schools but esp the Ivies and top SLACs! signed - parent of athlete being recruited currently - very rare that athletes aren't in the 25-75% band for the school they land at - only if they are truly in the top tier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT football has been pretty stellar the past couple of years.

And so what, why not take kids who excel in the classroom and on a field or court?

OP makes an assumption that recruited athletes are somehow lesser students.

Why assume URMs are lesser students?

Who said anything about URM's? Athletes come in all colors and genders.

White people gripe constantly about how URMs are taking their spots and are less qualified, which they assume for all URMS. Well, the reality (as the TITLE of the thread says) is that athletes are the real reason their precious little white kid doesn't get in. there is demonstrated evidence that recruited athletes ARE lesser students.

URMs have lower quantitative metrics than the average admitted student but I wouldn’t refer to them as “lesser students”. Likewise I wouldn’t use that pejorative on recruited athletes. And if you look at the available data you will find that the handicap for URMs is considerably higher than for athletes.

The Ivy League schools apply something called the academic index which ensures that recruited athletes are within range for admission. It's calculated by weighting grades and scores.

The Ivy League schools apply something called the academic index which ensures that recruited athletes are within range for admission. It's calculated by weighting grades and scores.

Anonymous wrote:Pp here.

Don't confuse varsity athletes with recruited athletes.

Re-read:
BELOW “the two charts are data from colleges in response to The Post survey on the share of admission offers given to recruited athletes.”

The headline with text above and position of table is very misleading / click-bait-y

This. I was a "varsity athlete" in my high school class of 200. Most anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that I'm a total non-athlete and just did track because it wasn't particularly competitive and I could manage to run in a circle.

College sports are extras. College tuition is higher than its ever been and outpacing increases in the cost of living.

If colleges gave a damn about affordability (which I don't think they do) athletics would be club level only. Athletics are great; so are dance, theatre, music, model UN and so forth.

I would probably make exceptions for D1 schools where the big programs bring in enough money to more than pay for their programs and support other university activities.

These are both DIII schools, and hence do no offer athletic scholarships. Are they admitting students with slightly worse stats if they are athletes? Yes. Still, those scores have to be high and kids are still accomplished. No way they admit a student that will clearly not be able to actually play their sport if they don't have a high GPA in their classes. GPA mandates if a student can actually play a sport. They would be shooting themselves in the foot in they let kids in that can't cope with the curriculum, and wasting a lot of time on those kids. Low gpa=not playing in college, them the rules.

Exercise gives you endorphins. Endorphins make you happy. Happy people just don't kill their husbands. They just don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It takes a ton of discipline and hard work to excel in athletics and academics. Why wouldn't a top school want someone like this rather than a student who only excelled in academics? As an employer, I would take the scholar/athlete over the scholar (with slightly higher stats) any day of the week because it's simply harder to be excellent at both than to be a little bit better at just academics.

This. The few elite athletes I know have been playing their sport since elementary school for many hours per week and to the exclusion of many other activities. Don't underestimate the drive it takes. That is something that should be considered in college admissions.

Agree!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT football has been pretty stellar the past couple of years.

And so what, why not take kids who excel in the classroom and on a field or court?

OP makes an assumption that recruited athletes are somehow lesser students.

Why assume URMs are lesser students?

Who said anything about URM's? Athletes come in all colors and genders.

White people gripe constantly about how URMs are taking their spots and are less qualified, which they assume for all URMS. Well, the reality (as the TITLE of the thread says) is that athletes are the real reason their precious little white kid doesn't get in. there is demonstrated evidence that recruited athletes ARE lesser students.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why so many make the assumption that recruited athletes have lower scores? Sure, maybe somewhere like Ohio State, they will take someone who passed the Clearinghouse for the football team, but that isn't the norm.

The Ivy League has an academic index that mandates that the average Academic Index for recruited athletes cannot be more than one standard deviation below the index of the previous four freshmen classes. The fact that this exists seems to be strong circumstantial evidence that they have lower scores and that coaches, if allowed, would get athletes with even lower scores.

More concretely, at Harvard, the data has shown that recruited athletes with an academic rating of 4 (on a 1 to 6 scale) had an acceptance rate of 70.46 percent, nearly a thousand times greater than the 0.076 percent admit rate for non-athletes with the same academic rating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT football has been pretty stellar the past couple of years.

And so what, why not take kids who excel in the classroom and on a field or court?

OP makes an assumption that recruited athletes are somehow lesser students.

Why assume URMs are lesser students?

Who said anything about URM's? Athletes come in all colors and genders.

They have clearly never seen MIT's football roster.

Someone who plays sports well enough to be recruited, at Division 1 to 3, has physical gifts that most people simply do not. My kid could work at a sport for 6 hours a day year round and would still not be recruitable or competitive (has some mild disabilities that affect coordination).

He is also a nationally ranked debater but that only checks an extra-curricular box. No recruiting or admissions tip.

I think the notion of admissions preference rankles people because it rewards those genetically blessed in one particular realm.

I don't understand why so many make the assumption that recruited athletes have lower scores? Sure, maybe somewhere like Ohio State, they will take someone who passed the Clearinghouse for the football team, but that isn't the norm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT football has been pretty stellar the past couple of years.

And so what, why not take kids who excel in the classroom and on a field or court?

OP makes an assumption that recruited athletes are somehow lesser students.

Why assume URMs are lesser students?

Who said anything about URM's? Athletes come in all colors and genders.