<p>Well, besides the fact that I hadn’t seen her name on the signings lists or press release, the other reason I questioned it is because (if I’m not mistaken), in the video it says she was accepted to Stanford–not that she’s going. She most likely does plan to attend or the school wouldn’t be mentioned in the video and her parent’s friend wouldn’t be posting it here on CC. All the same, with a top athlete like that rumors tend to abound, and also kids change their minds too, such as when one school suddenly offers a better deal than another at the last minute.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>EMM1, let me give some concrete scenarios. A father contacts a university and indicates that he has a son who is interested in attending. The father is also interested in donating $1 million to the university. As long as the son’s record is not way below the cutoff for unhooked aplicants, he will get in. I would say that the son was accepted while some more-qualified applicants were rejected. Now you may say that this is different from the case with athletes, but I would argue that it is merely one point in a continuum. The football player brings in stadium revenue, acclaim and alumni donations. The cross country athlete who helps the team with the conference championship also brings acclaim. </p>
<p>Now consider a more germane example. Think of two HS seniors. They are taking the same courseload, and they have the same ECs. John has a 3.9 GPA, a 1500 SAT, and a 4:22 mile. Frank has a 3.8 GPA, a 1400 SAT, and a 4:10 mile. Suppose that Frank gets admitted to Princeton but John does not. I would call Frank less qualified. I am not calling Frank unqualified, just less qualified. </p>
<p>What do I mean by “qualified”? Obviously, the main criterion for me is the ability to perform in the classroom. That does not mean that athletics should be ignored in admissions. Athletics is one of many things I would look at if I were doing admissions. (I would also put weight on factors that are not directly predictors of success in the classroom.) Of course, someone should get credit for his athletic pursuits. Indeed, if John did not run and did not have any other ECs, I may well consider Frank better qualified. </p>
<p>I am a supporter of college athletics, and nothing I have written stands in opposition to that claim. Nothing I have written intimates that colleges should change their admissions procedures either.</p>
<p>TheGFG, I saw Ferrante’s name on this DyestatCal list. I wonder if she’s not listed by state and school at the main Dyestat site through some clerical error? </p>
<p>[03</a> Signings : February : News : TrackField : 2010 : DyeStatCal : The Internet Home of California High School Track, Field and Cross Country | DyeStatCal](<a href=“http://www.dyestatcal.com/?pg=dyestatcal-2010-TrackField-News-February-03-Signings]03”>http://www.dyestatcal.com/?pg=dyestatcal-2010-TrackField-News-February-03-Signings)</p>
<p>I sure wouldn’t want to turn this into a facsimile of the popular attributes of an Ivy-caliber student thread, but I would say that for most elite schools part of being “qualified” means having achieved a high level of excellence in at least one extra-curricular endeavor. So unless your buddy John did that in some other EC besides track, he simply doesn’t fit the bill. That EC pursuit could include being the national president of some student organization, it could be winning the Intel or Siemens competitions, it could be achieving first-chair in the highest level youth band in the region, etc. As has been pointed out a million times on CC, these schools use a holistic admissions system that can’t be reduced to a comparison of GPA and SAT scores. When people try to do that is when they get snarky about athletes and other hooked applicants. </p>
<p>The whole college admissions process is fraught with inequities, so it’s short-sighted to pick on just athletic talent. Socio-economics factors related to the family, school, and community is one important variable. Kids simply have different opportunities available to them and varying resources, and while some allowances can be made for that, it’s going to be pretty darn hard for some kid from a gang-ridden inner city public school to score over 2300 on the SAT.</p>
<p>For example, let’s examine a few details of the high school experience of the young lady featured in the video. Obviously, she is hardworking, very talented on a national scale and quite bright as well. She is exactly the type of kid you’d imagine deserves to be admitted to a top college. I doubt anyone would have cause for snarkiness in her case.</p>
<p>Still, let’s not think for a second that anyone could do what she did even assuming the same level of talent and drive. How many kids in America could play water polo if they chose to? Would it be available and affordable in their high school or community? How many children have parents who could fund regular trips across the country and expensive camps so they can pursue their EC nationally? How many kids live in a state like CA with great weather and whose athletic training isn’t restricted by the elements? How many kids operate under a flexible school or state athletic system which would even allow them to play that many sports at once? And for that matter, how many have guidance counselors who know them by name and could write a great rec letter for that scholarship she won? There’s just no way you can separate out the personal input in accomplisments from all the input over which that student had little or no control. Plug in music, drama, or community service in the equation and there would still be inequities as far as resources and access.</p>
<p>For the record, the quotation in coase’s post was from paceight, not me (not that I disagree with the sentiment). But in any event, the claim is that “what do I mean by “qualified”? Obviously, the main criterion for me is the ability to perform in the classroom.” Fine, if you want to run a college, you can use that admissions process (Caltech, Reed, and a few others do that). But that’s not the only plausible criterion for excellence in a university or its students. Indeed, businesses don’t think that way and studies have shown that participation in intercollegiate athletics is the best predictor of success. So if you’re goal is to train future leaders, why not choose those who have proven to be most successful at the best predictor of success?</p>
<p>But in any event, you are at a distinct disadvantage in this argument. I readily concede that your criterion is plausible; on the other hand you (as well as the more rabid proponents of the “it’s not fay-er” theory) have to demonstrate conclusively that choosing the students with the most outstanding academic credentials is the “best” way to distribute the scarce places in elite universities. And simply repeating the claim does not prove the point. It’s just a matter of opinion.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link, riverrunner. I figured you must have seen it somewhere, but wondered if word of this discussion had gotten out to the parties involved and then perhaps the reference was quickly taken down due to a change in the decision. That’s odd that it’s not up other places, though. Another future Olympian for Stanford!</p>
<p>riverrunner and The G, does the information on the link to dyestat come from the various signees or the universities? I would assume it comes from the signees and therefore is not official.</p>
<p>i like this example: “John has a 3.9 GPA, a 1500 SAT, and a 4:22 mile. Frank has a 3.8 GPA, a 1400 SAT, and a 4:10 mile. Suppose that Frank gets admitted to Princeton but John does not. I would call Frank less qualified. I am not calling Frank unqualified, just less qualified.”</p>
<p>but the last sentence is wrong.</p>
<p>12 seconds is a lot in a mile race!. Frank runs it in a 4:10. So college admissions finds Frank “more qualified” because he can demonstrate a higher athletic performance than John because that 12 seconds requires more training and dedication combined with a fair amount of pain. Time he could have spent getting a 4.0+ and a higher SAT score. So with Frank the college is actually getting a better academic student while also getting a harder worker!</p>
<p>this seems right to me. my d is 3.8 lots of honors and AP, calc, etc. in a highly competitive prep school where 100% of the student body matriculates to college, and 87% to a 4 year college. And she’s training or competing 30 hours a week, sometime 40. 1 week off at christmas and 1 month off in the summer, for 4 years. just imagine what her gpa would be with no sport. So I have a Frank:) And if she turned it on academically against John, well…“she may lose, but he’ll have to bleed to beat her” (couldn’t resist reposting my fav Steve Prefontaine quote:)</p>
<p>what I also like about Coase’s example is it’s real world. The kids (and parents of) with a 3.2 and two years of high school sports are not disgruntled with the system and my daughter’s multiple offers/acceptances from elite colleges. It’s the “John’s” that Coase is referring to that are upset. there are two dozen 4+ and 2300 type kids at our school who will either not get the opportunities or the range of opportunities that my daughter and the other top scholar athletes got. the difference academically in these two groups is .2 on the gpa and 20 to 40 points on the SAT. academically it’s very close. but EC’s and athletics there’s a big gap (we don’t have any john and frank runners who didn’t BOTH get in to fab schools).</p>
<p>but who’s better, more worthy, more well qualified??? who will do more with the opportunity? who should get an acceptance letter?</p>
<p>btw: the reason I think Pre is an appropriate athlete to quote (two posts up) is because he was a scrawny kid from Coos Bay Oregon with no athletic ability. He made himself into a world class athlete with hard work and determination, he didn’t get any DNA help. And most of the athletes I know are more like Pre than born with it. They work hard everyday!</p>
<p>pacheight, GFG, EMM1, and others, thanks for your responses to coase’s comments, so that I can limit this response. I agree with you completely. Personally, though, pacheight, I liked your example in #68 before you edited it, but I still feel it applies.</p>
<p>The groups of colleges CC obsesses over look for demonstrated excellence/passion in an extracurricular pursuit in additional to academic accomplishment, and one of these avenues could be athletics. Only here would you see parsing between a 3.8 and a 3.9 GPA, or even the two exceptional SAT scores. If one wanted college admissions to go strictly by GPA/SAT, there are schools more inclined to that thinking, but for those that are holistic, much more is going to be taken into account. What makes a student qualified holistically is different than what makes a student qualified academically. Besides, GPA is extremely variable by school, and standardized tests are shown to favor certain groups. Btw, this is coming from an athlete who was more similar to your John.</p>
<p>Ferrante has outstanding achievements, congrats to her, and I’m sure she’ll receive many other accolades (maybe a Sammy?) in the near future.</p>
<p>With regard to NCAA graduation rates, I read an article in the USA Today yesterday about the same topic. Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, wants to require teams to have a 40% graduation rate to prevent academic probation. Currently, 12 men’s teams in the tournament would have violated this standard. Maryland, as mentioned before, only has a graduation rate of 8%!! for it’s men’s basketball program. Here’s the kicker, that number DOES NOT include students who leave early to go pro or transfers, and gives them 6 years to graduate. I just find it unbelievable, IMO this is the school’s fault, it shows clearly where it’s priorities are, and they are doing a huge disservice to these young men as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d like to see the entering GPA/SAT scores of the team.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think requiring varsity athletes to be in some specific percentage of the entering class in GPA/SAT would solve a lot of this (upper 3/4, 1/2, whatever). Also, get rid of the four year playing limit - allow the athletes an additional year or two of playing (at the college’s expense) to compensate for the tremendous amount of time they put into their sports.</p>
<p>“Also, get rid of the four year playing limit - allow the athletes an additional year or two of playing (at the college’s expense) to compensate for the tremendous amount of time they put into their sports.”</p>
<p>It is possible to redshirt, allowing five years in school for four years of playing. I believe that it is most common in football.</p>
<p>“Also, get rid of the four year playing limit - allow the athletes an additional year or two of playing (at the college’s expense) to compensate for the tremendous amount of time they put into their sports.”</p>
<p>It is possible to redshirt, allowing five years in school for four years of playing. I believe that it is most common in football.</p>
<p>A lot of football players are allowed even 6 yrs sometimes. 5 years is common, almost as common as 4</p>
<p>It is mostly for football reasons though, when they see they won’t be playing their freshman yr.</p>
<p>In my mind the problem with redshirting is it’s selective. The allowance of an extended (and paid) time till graduation should be the norm and not the exception I think for those students committing that time towards varsity play - this would allow from the first day a more lenient, and planned, schedule towards graduation requirements.</p>
<p>I agree with you, Thrill. The amount of time and energy that college athletes put in to their sports is huge. And even though most sports are non-revenue producing, they do add to the prestige of the school. Having all athletes on an academic 5-yr plan would do a lot to help these athletes meet graduation requirements.</p>
<p>That plan would kill the non-revenue sports! How would colleges come up with the extra money to fully fund that 5th year for all their athletes? As it is, many Div. 1 athletes do not receive a cent of athletic money, and universities are cutting their sports programs to address budget deficits.</p>
<p>WE cannot afford to have our student take 5 yrs to graduate and I do think that schools should realize that our kids are STUDENT-athletes…and in most cases the sport is the EC not the profession.
Our student cannot go “pro” in the sport/earn a living.
It is inherently wrong to penalize/delay a person’s academic growth because a team wants a kid playing so much the kid can’t get to class/study.</p>
<p>I do wish that all students playing a varsity sport and giving those kinds of hours got schdueling help and tutoring help like the “recruited” ones. I know at one school kiddo looked at–there are tons of great benefits for “recruited” kids…first pick on dorms, first pick on classes, athletic trainers/athletic medecine, tutoring etc. Great great perks so the recruited kids can get the classes they need and are able to be at practice. Kiddo will still apply there and can play - however if not recruited, won’t get those perks.
Those perks are pretty enticing --we haven’t heard of anything ike that at the super-selective schools…though these super-selectives expect ALOT from the athletes and we are not hearing much about support.</p>
<p>Frankly if kiddo could be recruited at this particular D1 with the perks/support system vs one of the ivies (which appears to have little in the way of overt support for Var athletes)–it would give us pause to consider graduation rates, and what does kiddo get (really) for the commitment to play for the ivy beyond a jersey with that name one it…and what will it mean after graduation (would that be more than 4 yrs)</p>
<p>fogfog, you’ll also have to decide if the ivy education/experience is worth more than the perks/support at another D1. I’m not saying everyone should choose one or the other, but part of your process will have to be about that.</p>
<p>One example: D1 had a paid summer internship last year, at a time when students were having a heck of a time finding anything. It was a good fit for her area of study, paid well, and she was given a lot of responsibility. Her boss was an alum and former member of the team she now competes for. The employment network is strong.</p>