Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

“Recruited athlete”? What does that mean? My kid met the coach and then went to the school and decided to keep playing her sport, which she played at a national level and they had a spot in her position. Was she recruited? She didn’t get anything, but time with three programs in order to decide which to go with. She also spent time on her own understanding her department, major and career services of what she is interested in.

Have worked now for 25 years and met, hired and mentored many people in my field. If I want something done on time, correctly, a d someone that responds well to feedback (ie thanks coach, will fix that up), I’d absolutely go with a smart former athlete. So many sports for so many different types of people!
Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

My dd has two friends verbally committed to a top Ivy from her academically rigorous private. One has top grades in honors classes. The other is on the bottom third of her class.

Really? That’s amazing. The top privates in the DMV sends their top 10% to the ivies and similar. A bottom third getting in? Did they donate $$$$$?

Verbally committed means both girls are athletes. No other hooks.

Well,I wouldn't be so dismissive of " the bottom 3rd" of a HS class if it is, for example, NCS. Because an B at NCS is an A anywhere, including- probably-HYP, Stanford

And those schools know it.

Now, what you wouldn't have is Harvard taking the lower 3rd of class from Dunbar HS

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

I’m not going to say for privacy purposes but it is an Olympic sport, not one of the more popular team spo


Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

My dd has two friends verbally committed to a top Ivy from her academically rigorous private. One has top grades in honors classes. The other is on the bottom third of her class.

Really? That’s amazing. The top privates in the DMV sends their top 10% to the ivies and similar. A bottom third getting in? Did they donate $$$$$?

Verbally committed means both girls are athletes. No other hooks.

What sport? I know several athletes that were actively recruited by Ivies: what they all had in common were that they all had great grades, 1500+ SATs and they were nationally ranked in their sport usually the top 50 in the country for individual sports like cross country and within the top 200 for lacrosse. I have never heard of someone who did not poorly academically being recruited for any sport.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'd think their sports teams would be stronger in that case.

Right! They don’t value athletes the most, however they try to get them to be competitive.

Reading comprehension is key. This applies to the smart kids who are also strong athletes.

Exactly. My athlete is a 4.0 student while still working out 30-40 hours a week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

My dd has two friends verbally committed to a top Ivy from her academically rigorous private. One has top grades in honors classes. The other is on the bottom third of her class.

Really? That’s amazing. The top privates in the DMV sends their top 10% to the ivies and similar. A bottom third getting in? Did they donate $$$$$?

Verbally committed means both girls are athletes. No other hooks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

“Recruited athlete”? What does that mean? My kid met the coach and then went to the school and decided to keep playing her sport, which she played at a national level and they had a spot in her position. Was she recruited? She didn’t get anything, but time with three programs in order to decide which to go with. She also spent time on her own understanding her department, major and career services of what she is interested in.

Have worked now for 25 years and met, hired and mentored many people in my field. If I want something done on time, correctly, a d someone that responds well to feedback (ie thanks coach, will fix that up), I’d absolutely go with a smart former athlete. So many sports for so many different types of people!
Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

Anonymous wrote:Old study but some good data
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~banaji/research/publications/articles/2004_Aries_RHE.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter if the child plays for the HS or if they are on a club team not affiliated with the HS?

you kinda want kids playing for the schools

I wish the US would adopt a European approach to scholastic sports. Schools should have nada to do with it, it just detracts from their missions. Leave the sports to clubs.

What is the European approach? I agree it needs to change.

What I just described. The schools don’t sponsor athletics. Kids can, should and do play sports, but all the leagues are run independently of schools.

There are lots of smart athletes in the world, country and this city who are poor or raised by a single blue color mom or a grandmother. School and sports are a refuge, and athletics can be an equalizer. Get on the bus and get to practice. Coaches will help you if you put in the work and show some natural abilities. So many books out there on this.

The problem with this is its the selective colleges that go after athletes too. The privates are just trying to recruit the kids who can get accepted into them. Have to change sports at the college level and that ain't happening.

For good reason.
Study: College Athletes Have Better Academic, Life Outcomes

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/24/gallup-study-shows-positive-life-outcomes-college-athletes

This is confusing causality.

Participation in demanding travel sports, often required from a young age correlates to as wealthy supportive parents (often a SAHM to shuffle kids to all those early practices and many weekend games) to encourage sports; as well being successful at sports often includes greater height. Fit people are perceived as more attractive so advantages in labor and dating market.

If the controlled for those parameters, (FOB wealth, height, weight) I bet the sports advantage dwindles precipitously.

Come survey my neighbor’s kids’ travel hockey team. Due to all the dual working families and world bank travel on it (precovid) the elaborate car pool and snack systems are impressive. Really naive and insulting to say you have to be a SAHp to get your kid to practice. Think harder pP.
yes it’s not effortless, and yes even the parents (gasp!) have to be more organized and do a base level of planning ahead! Parenting is hard.

Hahahaha. World Bank travel, you are hilarious. Yes you can substitute money for SAHP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

The Ivy League very tightly regulates who can be offered a "likely letter " tip in Admissions to student/ athlete recruits who a no more than 2-3 standard deviations away from non- athlete Admit AND they stagger it to apply the strictest limit to those applicant student- athletes who's SAT/ ACT and GPA are 3 STD off.

For example, if typical Harvard admit ( non-athlete recruit/ non- legacy, non URM ) has a 1570 SAT or 35/36 ACT ( yes, Athletes still have to mandatory show scores even if non-athletes don't) AND a 3.9 GPA , then Harvard is only allowed 1-2 who are 3 STD off of that for its FB team and then maybe several more who are 2 STD off of that and the greatest number offered Admit who are just 1 STD off of that.

It is titrated of course down for the less popular sports. For example, Crew or Ice Hockey or FB may be allowed more Athletic tips for HS seniors who are 3 STD off of average Harvard Admit, but Track is only allowed those who are 2 STD's or 1 STD off

Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

+1

90% of recruited athletes at Harvard don’t have low academic ratings. No one goes there because they have a great football program that will get them into the NFL or be recruited by the NBA. Why would they? Harvard, etc gets top athletes in things like squash and cross country who also happen to be excellent students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter if the child plays for the HS or if they are on a club team not affiliated with the HS?

you kinda want kids playing for the schools

I wish the US would adopt a European approach to scholastic sports. Schools should have nada to do with it, it just detracts from their missions. Leave the sports to clubs.

What is the European approach? I agree it needs to change.

What I just described. The schools don’t sponsor athletics. Kids can, should and do play sports, but all the leagues are run independently of schools.

The problem with this is its the selective colleges that go after athletes too. The privates are just trying to recruit the kids who can get accepted into them. Have to change sports at the college level and that ain't happening.

For good reason.
Study: College Athletes Have Better Academic, Life Outcomes

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/24/gallup-study-shows-positive-life-outcomes-college-athletes

I’m not saying don’t play sports. On the contrary, actually. It just shouldn’t be the schools sponsoring the teams. It’s the athletic kids and their parents who favor HS and colleges continuing to sponsor sports because it gives them a hook.

Do you understand how ingrained Friday night lights is in American culture? Didn't you ever pack a gym to cheer for your high school basketball team?

Maybe for large public schools. Most elite privates certainly at the middle school level (since you are talking about admissions) do not have enough students to field the teams at that level - sports are for fun, not particularly to help with admissions to high schools and our school sends kids to the top NE boarding schools. Our school discourages playing on travel teams and wants kids to play on the schools teams.

My kid goes to an all boys’ private middle school (not DMV) where sports is everyday and mandatory and the main sport they recruit for is ice hockey and even that takes second place after academics. The teachers at the school also coach sports and many of them played sports in college like football at Amherst, squash at Yale, etc not exactly Friday night lights.

Which is precisely why high schools have to be selective and recruit in order to field teams

Lol! The sports teams are mandatory and for fun. If they can play, they are in. The level of selectivity is not high at all. Also, it’s middle school and many kids get introduced to sports they have never tried before and their skill level is beginner. Athletics is not high on the admissions criteria except for hockey.

My kid is one of the top players in the area in a valued sport and got waitlisted at a big 3z

How was their academics? Grades and test scores?