Athletes do get unearned advantage and appreciation in life. Just think of how a quarterback gets appreciated for one goal compared to the guy who won debate championship or theater award or math quiz.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

Lots of students with other talents are also academically qualified but a big chunk of spots go to these students that can also run fast or throw a ball. It is not logical. There is no basketball major at Harvard

It is perfectly logical from the school’s’ perspective. Lots of athletes leads to a healthier, happier student body with more wealthy, connected alums who donate more to the school and help build or maintain its brand. You only find it illogical because you are thinking either that Harvard, etc., should follow the admissions practices of universities in some other country or because to you, “logical” means ought to favor kids exactly like yours. This schools’ have sound reasons for liking athletics even if you are not objective enough to understand this.

Wow I didn’t realize the mere presence of an athlete made the rest of the student body healthier! A truly magical cohort.

And you say the PP isn’t being logical. At least she isn’t attributing all that is good in the world to athletes.

NP: I’d argue that the presence of athletes, the norm of having athletes as part of the student body, and having the facilities to support them might indeed make the rest of the student body healthier. As a student, I went swimming, took a dance class, and did a few things like that on my own. I ended up doing weight circuits, trying out the rowing tanks, and devoting quite a bit of time to ice skating, and even playing HORSE — because I had friends who were varsity athletes who encouraged me to broaden my interests. FWIW, some of the most academically accomplished students I knew were also varsity athletes, including at least one Rhodes Scholar.

Although in HS, I hated the contrast between the athletes getting trophies and dinners and letter jackets while the stellar scholars did not, in college I grew to appreciate what athletic programs can do to foster a diverse and well-rounded academically focused community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want a school filled with robotics team kids? Go to Caltech. That's the beauty of the marketplace.

Plenty of these athletic recruits and lots of other admits would get eaten alive at Caltech, MIT, etc. Unless you are a champion brainiac you will be crushed.

Nearly all Ivy students, athletes or not, could not hack it at MIT or CalTech. Those schools are for the truly brilliant, unlike the Ivies.

Yes, most students can't hack because brilliance comes in different forms, its not limited to STEM fields. The most brilliant fish can't climb a tree like an average monkey, same way most brilliant monkey can't learn basic swimming. Different brains are wired differently.

Anonymous wrote:This article shows percent international by sport. It’s quite shocking, tennis being the lead.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/demographics/2019RES_ISATrendsDivSprt.pdf

This. And it’s the worst kept secret in European and Canadian schools. Students in these countries excel athletically but aren’t expected to have the same high grades and test scores like kids from here. My kid was invited to attend an elite international training academy for her sport in Europe, and most of the local kids who attended were planning to apply to American Ivy League schools through athletic recruiting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

+100

So much sacrifice.

My kid would have hours of athletic practice, games, travel to games, travel out of state on weekends, all while balancing an all Honors/AP courseload, and even a summer job and active member of some Clubs.

He would be doing homework in the car on the way to practice. He would read assignments on the way to games out of state. This isn't any different from kids in marching band who have similar juggling of activities, and also get an admissions bump for their talent.

You have no idea how much work these kids are doing vs the kids that really only have to study after school, not do 4 hours of training.

Why should anyone care about that? Marching band kids aren’t skating into college because of it. At least recognize the difference. Plenty of kids who spend 4 hours doing other activities after school aren’t either. Your kids are and that’s fine. Just admit it.

Schools that care about marching bands do recruit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

+100

So much sacrifice.

My kid would have hours of athletic practice, games, travel to games, travel out of state on weekends, all while balancing an all Honors/AP courseload, and even a summer job and active member of some Clubs.

He would be doing homework in the car on the way to practice. He would read assignments on the way to games out of state. This isn't any different from kids in marching band who have similar juggling of activities, and also get an admissions bump for their talent.

You have no idea how much work these kids are doing vs the kids that really only have to study after school, not do 4 hours of training.

Why should anyone care about that? Marching band kids aren’t skating into college because of it. At least recognize the difference. Plenty of kids who spend 4 hours doing other activities after school aren’t either. Your kids are and that’s fine. Just admit it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

+100

So much sacrifice.

My kid would have hours of athletic practice, games, travel to games, travel out of state on weekends, all while balancing an all Honors/AP courseload, and even a summer job and active member of some Clubs.

He would be doing homework in the car on the way to practice. He would read assignments on the way to games out of state. This isn't any different from kids in marching band who have similar juggling of activities, and also get an admissions bump for their talent.

You have no idea how much work these kids are doing vs the kids that really only have to study after school, not do 4 hours of training.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ah the classic response when presented with the truth - some personal attack.

Athletic recruits are admitted in spite of their academics. I feel no need to make parents of athletes feel better about the stories they tell themselves in a desperate attempt to believe that their kid didn’t get some advantage. People have no problem criticizing URMs for their supposed academic shortcomings but athletes (largely rich and white) should get a pass?

Posts like these are false and inflammatory. All Ivy schools must comply with AI standards, so while there may be students whose academic qualifications are a standard deviation below the stats of the average admitted student, that just means another athlete on the same team has to be a level above. I believe my kids had an advantage by being recruited athletes at Ivy schools, but that advantage was limited to pulling them out of a pile of other qualified students - it did not get them in the pile in the first place! They got there by being valedictorian/NMSF or commended/SATs above 2300, taking rigorous classes, being on school teams and clubs, doing volunteer service . . . The same way other qualified students put their names in that pile of qualified applications.

Of course you do. And that’s the problem - you can’t even admit your good fortune. That’s the problem - not athletic recruiting per se - but the stubborn refusal of those who benefit from it to admit the extent to which they benefitted.

Here’s what I don’t get: you keep referring to the athletes as having “good fortune.” As if they just woke up one day and were really good at, say, field hockey. Do you have any idea how hard an athlete admitted to a top 20 university had to work? They had to excel athletically and also academically. Maybe they are a standard deviation from the student admitted on academics alone, but they still do something far and away more impressive than many of those students. It’s not luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

+1

NP. I think there is one athlete-hater poster on DCUM who is obsessed beyond rationality with athletes. Their posts are exceptionally nasty and also they never listen to reason or evidence. It is rather sad.

Read the Harvard study. Oh wait every time that’s mentioned you get offended.

I’m not offended. I’ve read it and unlike you, I have the education to understand it. You are the one who seems to not understand reason or evidence, however. I sort of love how you keep talking about a study you clearly can’t understand. It’s like watching a toddler have a temper tantrum.

So explain this:

“An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.“

Are you really this slow? Do you truly not understand what those numbers mean? I don’t think I can actually help you.

So you can’t. I get it.

Lol, no. You just aren’t well educated. I’m sorry but I can’t educate you.

It is amusing to watch you tantrum.

I’m sure you’ll explain it when you explain how the 2020 election was stolen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want a school filled with robotics team kids? Go to Caltech. That's the beauty of the marketplace.

Plenty of these athletic recruits and lots of other admits would get eaten alive at Caltech, MIT, etc. Unless you are a champion brainiac you will be crushed.

NP here: that was the poster’s point. There’s a place for everyone. If you don’t want your kid to attend a college with athletes who you believe were admitted unfairly, send them to a school that doesn’t do that. Personally, I would hate for my kid to be in either of those environments—even for just four years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

+1

NP. I think there is one athlete-hater poster on DCUM who is obsessed beyond rationality with athletes. Their posts are exceptionally nasty and also they never listen to reason or evidence. It is rather sad.

Read the Harvard study. Oh wait every time that’s mentioned you get offended.

I’m not offended. I’ve read it and unlike you, I have the education to understand it. You are the one who seems to not understand reason or evidence, however. I sort of love how you keep talking about a study you clearly can’t understand. It’s like watching a toddler have a temper tantrum.

So explain this:

“An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.“

Are you really this slow? Do you truly not understand what those numbers mean? I don’t think I can actually help you.

So you can’t. I get it.

Lol, no. You just aren’t well educated. I’m sorry but I can’t educate you.

It is amusing to watch you tantrum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

+1

NP. I think there is one athlete-hater poster on DCUM who is obsessed beyond rationality with athletes. Their posts are exceptionally nasty and also they never listen to reason or evidence. It is rather sad.

Read the Harvard study. Oh wait every time that’s mentioned you get offended.

I’m not offended. I’ve read it and unlike you, I have the education to understand it. You are the one who seems to not understand reason or evidence, however. I sort of love how you keep talking about a study you clearly can’t understand. It’s like watching a toddler have a temper tantrum.

So explain this:

“An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.“

Are you really this slow? Do you truly not understand what those numbers mean? I don’t think I can actually help you.

So you can’t. I get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want a school filled with robotics team kids? Go to Caltech. That's the beauty of the marketplace.

Plenty of these athletic recruits and lots of other admits would get eaten alive at Caltech, MIT, etc. Unless you are a champion brainiac you will be crushed.

Nearly all Ivy students, athletes or not, could not hack it at MIT or CalTech. Those schools are for the truly brilliant, unlike the Ivies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

I went to an Ivy and wasn’t a jock sniffer and I can say that they do lower admissions standards quite substantially for athletes in all sports.

Jock sniffer, eh? Thanks for proving that even an education cannot instill class in some people.

Oh I’m sorry does “people who irrationally worship and make excuses for athletes” make you feel better?

In fact it is the hatred of college athletes and constant efforts to represent them as academically unqualified that is irrational.

+1

NP. I think there is one athlete-hater poster on DCUM who is obsessed beyond rationality with athletes. Their posts are exceptionally nasty and also they never listen to reason or evidence. It is rather sad.

Read the Harvard study. Oh wait every time that’s mentioned you get offended.

I’m not offended. I’ve read it and unlike you, I have the education to understand it. You are the one who seems to not understand reason or evidence, however. I sort of love how you keep talking about a study you clearly can’t understand. It’s like watching a toddler have a temper tantrum.

So explain this:

“An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip.“

Are you really this slow? Do you truly not understand what those numbers mean? I don’t think I can actually help you.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone pls post the Harvard study?

NP here.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w26316