Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most athletes who are successful in their chosen sport spends hours and hours of training and have the discipline & work ethics to be successful.

Having a specific skill - a sport, musical instrument, singing, dancing is MUCH more rare than a kid with high stats.

Scarcity creates demand thus colleges will fight over an athlete much more than a kid with 1600 SAT/4.0+ GPA.

I have one kid who is academic and another who is athletic but I guild them not to be defined by it. You are more than your grades, school or sport.

Be a good person and kind to others!

Nobody is being unkind. They are just noting the significant imbalance toward recruited athletes. Who are going to be the doctors, scientists, micro-biologists, philosophers, data scientists, computer programmers of the future? It's the high stats kids. I would rather have my future surgeon be a smart kid who earned his/her way to college than someone recruited for athletics.

It has already been explained multiple times in this thread that your future and existing surgeons are in fact likely to be athletes given the higher-than-average representation of college athletes in surgical specialties.

Yes -- a large number of the doctors, scientists, lawyers, bankers are likely to be the athletes. It has always been thus. Not new. Old joke -- Harvard football team goes in to the huddle and they greet each other by saying Dr., Dr., Dr. -- that joke has been around since the 1940s.

Really? Never heard that growing up in a community heavily dominated by doctors, scientists, lawyers, bankers -- of course, we were a Jewish community and honestly understand that education is so much more important than sports. Yes, they have their place, but the American obsession is ridiculous.

Most my Jewish dr/lawyer friends played college sports. Only one played football though.

That's because we have different Friday night lights

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are talking about all sport like lacrosse or crew or field hockey, these recruits statistically will presumptively be successful in their chosen careers.

I’m not but what does this have to do with anything?

NP here. Because the odds are those athletes who do “well” in their careers = make a very high income, and thus are more likely to in return as alums give more money over a longer period of time back to their university. The schools are playing the long game here. By investing in their lacrosse programs, the schools are betting on those types of players, from certain family backgrounds, to go into high income careers after school and the school can cultivate them into high level school spirit and loyalty and hope they become boosters.

Know any college lax bros who are know investment bankers? Hedge fund managers? Developers? Entrepreneurs?

It’s a completely unfair statement and here is why: they don’t admit the kids with those lower stats (or exclude those with higher ones) - instead opting for the lower stats athlete. It’s then impossible to gather any data on how those kids would have fared had they been accepted or how they fared elsewhere.

PP here. It doesn’t matter if you think (or I think) it’s an unfair statement, it’s true. Lacrosse, for example, is the fastest growing sports (in terms of budget) in NCAA division 1 over the last 15 years. Why? Is it because of the revenue stream? Are schools making big bucks off of tv rights (I mean sometimes you can find a lacrosse game on ESPN123453827 but rarely, you have to stream the games)? Are they making money off of ticket sales? Are they making money from all the people buying their players’ lacrosse jerseys bought off of fanatics.com? From what?

It’s just a fact that UMC to Upper class high income kids play lacrosse. It’s an expensive sport to play, period. It’s a homogenous sport with very little diversity. Go to the lacrosse forum here on DCUM. These kids aren’t trying to play college lacrosse so they can become professional lacrosse players post college, get big endorsements, etc. These rich kids who play lacrosse and go onto college to play lacrosse statistically on average go on to high income careers (whether they work for mommy and daddy or go to business or law school and work in banking of big law for example). Statistically they just do. 100% of them, no, but a high percentage do. And when looking for return on investment or bang for your buck, colleges are betting on these kids to graduate and start donating back to their university in higher numbers than other sports. And history has proven this to be true and so the cycle continues.

I work in development/advancement. This is a well known strategy in higher ed. I’m sorry if you can find a few antidotes that go against the theory but by abs large it’s true.

Son and I went to a recruiting workshop and one of the panelists was a baseball coach at
Hopkins. I'll never forget one of his statements, "let your baseball talent get you into a school you otherwise wouldn't be accepted."

I don't disagree with you, but I find it hard to believe that many Ivy League athletes have academic profiles "better" than the average Ivy League admit. How do you quantify that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What annoys me is the special treatment and perks the athletes get once in the school.

Athletes at my Ivy League school got free one-on-one tutoring and were allowed to skip classes and were given special notes and videos of the classes they missed. I had to work many hours at my exhausting work study job to make money. I would have liked a tutor to help make up for the time I also was too “busy” to study.

Boo hoo. You should've been an athlete. And sorry your kid isn't one.

you know what - this is kinda an asshole response. some kids have up to 20+ hours work study and a subset of them have a side gig to supplement as the work study is not sufficient. a lot of these kids are not athletes b/c they could not afford the club/travel/pay to play circuit as kids.

i really hope i don't know you or that my kids were every friendly with yours if they share the same closeminded attitudes you have about life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are talking about all sport like lacrosse or crew or field hockey, these recruits statistically will presumptively be successful in their chosen careers.

I’m not but what does this have to do with anything?

NP here. Because the odds are those athletes who do “well” in their careers = make a very high income, and thus are more likely to in return as alums give more money over a longer period of time back to their university. The schools are playing the long game here. By investing in their lacrosse programs, the schools are betting on those types of players, from certain family backgrounds, to go into high income careers after school and the school can cultivate them into high level school spirit and loyalty and hope they become boosters.

Know any college lax bros who are know investment bankers? Hedge fund managers? Developers? Entrepreneurs?

It’s a completely unfair statement and here is why: they don’t admit the kids with those lower stats (or exclude those with higher ones) - instead opting for the lower stats athlete. It’s then impossible to gather any data on how those kids would have fared had they been accepted or how they fared elsewhere.

PP here. It doesn’t matter if you think (or I think) it’s an unfair statement, it’s true. Lacrosse, for example, is the fastest growing sports (in terms of budget) in NCAA division 1 over the last 15 years. Why? Is it because of the revenue stream? Are schools making big bucks off of tv rights (I mean sometimes you can find a lacrosse game on ESPN123453827 but rarely, you have to stream the games)? Are they making money off of ticket sales? Are they making money from all the people buying their players’ lacrosse jerseys bought off of fanatics.com? From what?

It’s just a fact that UMC to Upper class high income kids play lacrosse. It’s an expensive sport to play, period. It’s a homogenous sport with very little diversity. Go to the lacrosse forum here on DCUM. These kids aren’t trying to play college lacrosse so they can become professional lacrosse players post college, get big endorsements, etc. These rich kids who play lacrosse and go onto college to play lacrosse statistically on average go on to high income careers (whether they work for mommy and daddy or go to business or law school and work in banking of big law for example). Statistically they just do. 100% of them, no, but a high percentage do. And when looking for return on investment or bang for your buck, colleges are betting on these kids to graduate and start donating back to their university in higher numbers than other sports. And history has proven this to be true and so the cycle continues.

I work in development/advancement. This is a well known strategy in higher ed. I’m sorry if you can find a few antidotes that go against the theory but by abs large it’s true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does anyone on this endless thread care about athletes and colleges?

I'll answer: because (1) their kid isn't an athlete and they're convinced that this somehow affects their kid's admissions chances, or (2) they themselves weren't athletic and they're still insecure about it.

They're wrong about (1) and pathetic about (2)

The most predictive factor if your kid will be an athlete is if the parents were athletes. So if your kid is not athletic, blame your genes.

Many parents on this board are professionals which give your kids a BIG advantage to do well in school and be professionals themselves. Do we tell parents not to help their kids with working the system by getting good grades and test scores.



[/quote
Makes no sense as it relates to the op. Good athletes should get on good club teams. Good students should go to good schools.