Anonymous wrote:A recruited athlete has shown merit to a school, which isn't like a legacy or someone given a preference for something they can't change (like where they were born or their racial category).
You may want schools to limit their teams or even eliminate sports (keeping some of the ultra-elite ones is questionable at best but ask Stanford about trying to get rid of them) but you should recognize there is a clear difference when someone has an actual skill that has been developed that is valued by American colleges.

Doesn't the fact that athletes graduate at high rates from the most elite schools (like most everyone else does too) make people think the purely academic portion of applicant profiles really should play less of a role in admissions decisions? Schools should be doing more in admissions for standouts in the top few % nationally and internationally in areas like debate, orchestra, band, dance and art rather than less for athletes (though I do think the number of sports should go down at most schools). Those people can impact the campus community too and offer a lot post-graduation with some of the same EQ and team building you get as an athlete. The recruited athlete discussion here misses a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I get that legacy admissions mostly helps white kids, this also prevents URM kids whose parents went to these schools get in on the system.

URMs legacy advantage at top schools is negligible. Whites had hundreds of years of a head start. The pipeline is already baked in.

Let’s change that to Christian Whites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

Apparently, you don't know the hook a recruited athlete has in college admissions regardless of division, and especially for the selective Division 3 colleges like Wesleyan.

We're not merely talking about Johnny or Sally playing a high school sport as an extracurricular activity.

Yes, I do understand that recruited athletes have a huge leg up I college admissions. What I’m challenging is your assertion that 800 Wes students are RECRUITED athletes. I seriously doubt that. You haven’t provided any evidence for that.

It’s possible that 800 of the students might say they play a sport, but that doesn’t mean that they were all recruited in the admissions sense.

NP: is recruited athlete the same as varsity athletes? According to this link 25% of the students at Wesleyan are varsity athletes.

https://www.koppelmangroup.com/blog/2023/4/1/college-athletic-recruiting-for-wesleyan

PP again: according to an 2017 article 10% of each incoming class is recruited athletes: approximately 330 of the student body.

https://slate.com/culture/2017/12/wesleyan-university-football-is-good-business.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

Apparently, you don't know the hook a recruited athlete has in college admissions regardless of division, and especially for the selective Division 3 colleges like Wesleyan.

We're not merely talking about Johnny or Sally playing a high school sport as an extracurricular activity.

Yes, I do understand that recruited athletes have a huge leg up I college admissions. What I’m challenging is your assertion that 800 Wes students are RECRUITED athletes. I seriously doubt that. You haven’t provided any evidence for that.

It’s possible that 800 of the students might say they play a sport, but that doesn’t mean that they were all recruited in the admissions sense.

NP: is recruited athlete the same as varsity athletes? According to this link 25% of the students at Wesleyan are varsity athletes.

https://www.koppelmangroup.com/blog/2023/4/1/college-athletic-recruiting-for-wesleyan

PP again: according to an 2017 article 10% of each incoming class is recruited athletes: approximately 330 of the student body.

https://slate.com/culture/2017/12/wesleyan-university-football-is-good-business.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

Apparently, you don't know the hook a recruited athlete has in college admissions regardless of division, and especially for the selective Division 3 colleges like Wesleyan.

We're not merely talking about Johnny or Sally playing a high school sport as an extracurricular activity.

Yes, I do understand that recruited athletes have a huge leg up I college admissions. What I’m challenging is your assertion that 800 Wes students are RECRUITED athletes. I seriously doubt that. You haven’t provided any evidence for that.

It’s possible that 800 of the students might say they play a sport, but that doesn’t mean that they were all recruited in the admissions sense.

NP: is recruited athlete the same as varsity athletes? According to this link 25% of the students at Wesleyan are varsity athletes.

https://www.koppelmangroup.com/blog/2023/4/1/college-athletic-recruiting-for-wesleyan

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

Apparently, you don't know the hook a recruited athlete has in college admissions regardless of division, and especially for the selective Division 3 colleges like Wesleyan.

We're not merely talking about Johnny or Sally playing a high school sport as an extracurricular activity.

Yes, I do understand that recruited athletes have a huge leg up I college admissions. What I’m challenging is your assertion that 800 Wes students are RECRUITED athletes. I seriously doubt that. You haven’t provided any evidence for that.

It’s possible that 800 of the students might say they play a sport, but that doesn’t mean that they were all recruited in the admissions sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Rumor was that Mike Bloomberg leaned hard into getting Hopkins to abolishing legacy.

From my own experience over a decade ago, there were lots of kids of means and boarding school brats in Krieger A&S who didn't belong there. But their family had gone to Hopkins for multiple generations and the kid was the heir to some dynasty that invented the zipper. Nonsense like that.

And, frankly, with the rise of mega-donors in the billionaire class and 10-figure endowments, these big name universities are no longer as reliant on the blue bloods or inherited wealth trading on their family name.

Maybe so, but as an alum. I have no inclination to donate to Hopkins since they dropped the legacy preference. Fortunately for them, Bloomberg is willing to be very generous.

Anonymous wrote:While I get that legacy admissions mostly helps white kids, this also prevents URM kids whose parents went to these schools get in on the system.

Anonymous wrote:
Rumor was that Mike Bloomberg leaned hard into getting Hopkins to abolishing legacy.

From my own experience over a decade ago, there were lots of kids of means and boarding school brats in Krieger A&S who didn't belong there. But their family had gone to Hopkins for multiple generations and the kid was the heir to some dynasty that invented the zipper. Nonsense like that.

And, frankly, with the rise of mega-donors in the billionaire class and 10-figure endowments, these big name universities are no longer as reliant on the blue bloods or inherited wealth trading on their family name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wes is a big TO school, and majority of athletes go that route. Although my DC has encountered some truly bright athletes, very few rocket scientists in that cohort - and a few legitimate dopes

I went to Wes so this thread caught my eye. I don’t know what TO means, but I knew some recruited athletes when I was there. As background, I got a lot of As and went into medicine, but I am no athlete.

While some of the athletes I knew were challenged by the work, essentially all of them have gone on to be very, very successful - usually in business.

In fact, DCUM would categorize the “athletes who struggled” as far, far more successful than me because those guys make a lot more money than any doctor ever could.

Success is complicated, and some of the skills honed by team sports are critically important for success in the business world and life. So I’m not sure that it’s s bad idea to get some diversity in that way. I also think there are benefits to interacting with peers who have varied interests and passions, be it sports, art, or computer science.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I get that legacy admissions mostly helps white kids, this also prevents URM kids whose parents went to these schools get in on the system.

URMs legacy advantage at top schools is negligible. Whites had hundreds of years of a head start. The pipeline is already baked in.

Legacy generally only applies to the parent, not earlier ancestors. The idea that the elite colleges are filled with spoiled white kids whose family attended for six+ generations is laughable if you had any exposure to these schools. At most we are talking about very few students who fall into that category. The big changes towards meritocracy in admissions starting in the 1960s pretty much ended most of that type of legacy admission, the "gentleman's c" aka Bushes and Gores.

By the time I arrived on campus in the very late 1990s, the typical legacy admit was already more likely to be a nice Jewish kid whose parent(s) went to the school as a first gen in their family in the 1960s.

If schools end legacy, it'll be interesting to see the effect on donation dollars. My guess is that it'll dry up substantially. After all, what's the point? But schools are definitely not getting rid of donor admits. You donate $100M, your kid is getting in.

Look up when these elite colleges started and get back to us.

#clueless

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I get that legacy admissions mostly helps white kids, this also prevents URM kids whose parents went to these schools get in on the system.

URMs legacy advantage at top schools is negligible. Whites had hundreds of years of a head start. The pipeline is already baked in.

Legacy generally only applies to the parent, not earlier ancestors. The idea that the elite colleges are filled with spoiled white kids whose family attended for six+ generations is laughable if you had any exposure to these schools. At most we are talking about very few students who fall into that category. The big changes towards meritocracy in admissions starting in the 1960s pretty much ended most of that type of legacy admission, the "gentleman's c" aka Bushes and Gores.

By the time I arrived on campus in the very late 1990s, the typical legacy admit was already more likely to be a nice Jewish kid whose parent(s) went to the school as a first gen in their family in the 1960s.

If schools end legacy, it'll be interesting to see the effect on donation dollars. My guess is that it'll dry up substantially. After all, what's the point? But schools are definitely not getting rid of donor admits. You donate $100M, your kid is getting in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I get that legacy admissions mostly helps white kids, this also prevents URM kids whose parents went to these schools get in on the system.

URMs legacy advantage at top schools is negligible. Whites had hundreds of years of a head start. The pipeline is already baked in.