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.

What a flimsy statement. I am sure kids who play lacrosse or crew are disproportionately from wealthy families and have grown up with lots of opportunities. They aren’t successful because of their sport. (Not even getting to what is the definition of success and what stats are you using).

Yes, OP, I find colleges favoritism to atheists to be so bizarre and frustrating. College is not an athletic endeavor.

Athletics help fund most of the fancy buildings your studious kids study in.

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.

What a flimsy statement. I am sure kids who play lacrosse or crew are disproportionately from wealthy families and have grown up with lots of opportunities. They aren’t successful because of their sport. (Not even getting to what is the definition of success and what stats are you using).

Yes, OP, I find colleges favoritism to atheists to be so bizarre and frustrating. College is not an athletic endeavor.

Athletics help fund most of the fancy buildings your studious kids study in.

No. Men’s basketball and football fund the fancy buildings. These athletes should be put into a different admission pile. I don’t understand why colleges still are recruiting athletes and giving athletic participants a leg up in admissions for minor sports teams barely anyone on campus goes to watch. Who goes and watches sports like swimming and tennis?

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.

What a flimsy statement. I am sure kids who play lacrosse or crew are disproportionately from wealthy families and have grown up with lots of opportunities. They aren’t successful because of their sport. (Not even getting to what is the definition of success and what stats are you using).

Yes, OP, I find colleges favoritism to atheists to be so bizarre and frustrating. College is not an athletic endeavor.

Athletics help fund most of the fancy buildings your studious kids study in.

Anonymous wrote:

Why? For pointing out that most college athletes benefited from families able to pay for club/travel? The PP basically told the poster that they (a) sucked at time management and (b) were a loser for not playing a club sport outside of HS. If that is not closeminded - in addition to being smug and entitled - I don't know what is.

Where did PP say that anyone was a loser for not playing club sports? I did not get that. Agree that it seems you deliberately misinterpreted the post and are the jerk with a big chip on your shoulder.j

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.

What a flimsy statement. I am sure kids who play lacrosse or crew are disproportionately from wealthy families and have grown up with lots of opportunities. They aren’t successful because of their sport. (Not even getting to what is the definition of success and what stats are you using).

Yes, OP, I find colleges favoritism to atheists to be so bizarre and frustrating. College is not an athletic endeavor.

Athletics help fund most of the fancy buildings your studious kids study in.

Why? For pointing out that most college athletes benefited from families able to pay for club/travel? The PP basically told the poster that they (a) sucked at time management and (b) were a loser for not playing a club sport outside of HS. If that is not closeminded - in addition to being smug and entitled - I don't know what is.

Anonymous wrote:So hating on athletes is the new hating on affirmative action? Many, many of the arguments here just sound so familiar....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is so far off base you must be a troll. I have three kids who were athletes at different Ivy schools. They practiced/played 20 hours per week and traveled on weekends on top of being science/math majors, with zero tutoring available to them (other than what was available to non-athletes). They also had to practice all summer in addition to their internships. They, and many of their teammates, definitely had high school academic profiles that were similar (often better) than the average student admitted to their schools. Some of their teammates also had work-study jobs on top of their already-packed schedules. So sorry -if you were too busy to study because you had 10-15 hours a week of class and a work-study job, you need better time management skills (which you would have learned growing up if you had played a club sport outside of your high school, like all the recruited athletes).

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.

DP. I thought your response was the more asshole of the two responses, for what it's worth.

Why? For pointing out that most college athletes benefited from families able to pay for club/travel? The PP basically told the poster that they (a) sucked at time management and (b) were a loser for not playing a club sport outside of HS. If that is not closeminded - in addition to being smug and entitled - I don't know what is.

For attacking the character of her kids for no reason, wildly generalizing your experience (that seems suspect, to be honest) to all athletes, and wilfully misinterpreting what the other PP said.

You came across as the bigger jerk to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is so far off base you must be a troll. I have three kids who were athletes at different Ivy schools. They practiced/played 20 hours per week and traveled on weekends on top of being science/math majors, with zero tutoring available to them (other than what was available to non-athletes). They also had to practice all summer in addition to their internships. They, and many of their teammates, definitely had high school academic profiles that were similar (often better) than the average student admitted to their schools. Some of their teammates also had work-study jobs on top of their already-packed schedules. So sorry -if you were too busy to study because you had 10-15 hours a week of class and a work-study job, you need better time management skills (which you would have learned growing up if you had played a club sport outside of your high school, like all the recruited athletes).

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.

DP. I thought your response was the more asshole of the two responses, for what it's worth.

Why? For pointing out that most college athletes benefited from families able to pay for club/travel? The PP basically told the poster that they (a) sucked at time management and (b) were a loser for not playing a club sport outside of HS. If that is not closeminded - in addition to being smug and entitled - I don't know what is.

Anonymous wrote:I had a two Ds recruited and apply to college as athletes. D1 athlete was not on scholarship, so had some pressure to get recruited and get admitted. Team GPA was higher than the school’s average.

Second D played at the D3 level and team GPA was also higher than the school’s average. When she met with admissions, the admissions counselor said “she had everything they were looking for: academics, personal presentation, and her interest in sports and the school.”

Both applied ED. Both were full pay.

What we learned is that being an athlete and applying ED put the applications in a smaller pile.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is so far off base you must be a troll. I have three kids who were athletes at different Ivy schools. They practiced/played 20 hours per week and traveled on weekends on top of being science/math majors, with zero tutoring available to them (other than what was available to non-athletes). They also had to practice all summer in addition to their internships. They, and many of their teammates, definitely had high school academic profiles that were similar (often better) than the average student admitted to their schools. Some of their teammates also had work-study jobs on top of their already-packed schedules. So sorry -if you were too busy to study because you had 10-15 hours a week of class and a work-study job, you need better time management skills (which you would have learned growing up if you had played a club sport outside of your high school, like all the recruited athletes).

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.

DP. I thought your response was the more asshole of the two responses, for what it's worth.

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.

What a flimsy statement. I am sure kids who play lacrosse or crew are disproportionately from wealthy families and have grown up with lots of opportunities. They aren’t successful because of their sport. (Not even getting to what is the definition of success and what stats are you using).

Yes, OP, I find colleges favoritism to atheists to be so bizarre and frustrating. College is not an athletic endeavor.