<p>I'm actually contemplating using this as one of my admissions essay topics.</p>
<p>At least I was, until I realized it's more or less insulting the school I'm applying to :D</p>
<p>^^^lol....</p>
<p>I will state right now that I am a junior in high school who plays three sports. Right now, I am looking at attending a lot of school that I would be on the bubble of admittance at without the bump that being a recruited athlete could give me. Athletics tell me a whole lot more about a person than someone who devotes all their time to academics. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that since everybody has different priorities and passions, but personally I'd rather accept a well-rounded student. For those of you that don't play sports on a very competitive level, there is a lot more work and dedication than you would realize. While others can be off at college prep programs during the summer, I will be working out daily, attending numerous camps, playing summer baseball, and playing in basketball tournaments with my team. So when I send in my application to colleges I will not have a "Harvard Summer Program" or anything on there because my summer was spent improving myself at something I love. I'd much rather be someone that pursued my passion to the fullest than did something so it looked better on an application. During the year, I make daily sacrifices to become the best I can be. I don't have 8 hours a night to do homework like others. During football season, I usually end up with about 2 hours by the time practice, film, and lifting are over. This is a sacrifice I'm willing to make, but it just bothers me when people look down on athletes because they don't have the stellar academics like others, even though they may be just as qualified, because they choose to pursue something else that will make them a better person. I have a lot of respect for those athletes who have a 3.8 GPA while balancing that with sports. It tells me that they have learned to balance their time and get done what they need to. In most cases, they will be better prepared to handle college work after doing it all through high school. Basically, my point is that you should look down on an athlete because their skills give them an extra boost in admission. They have been doing something right to even be admissable with athletics at these top schools.</p>
<p>"While others can be off at college prep programs during the summer, I will be working out daily, attending numerous camps, playing summer baseball, and playing in basketball tournaments with my team."</p>
<p>Why do you think this makes you a better candidate for a top school admission over a student who is doing college pre programs (more suitable for university education) and still doing daily workout, 4 days a week Tai Kwon Do, Weekend swimming and tennis but not doing 10 hours basketball or baseball tournaments?</p>
<p>Your case is different if you're "on the bubble of admittance" without your athletics. I'm talking about kids who get in on sports yet would have absolutely no chance based on their academics.</p>
<p>And I've played competitive soccer, I was even in the Super-Y national championships one year (hell, i even scored!), but I stopped playing due to my own personal reasons. I understand the work and dedication sports take, and it should be rewarded. My point is, however, why are we rewarding it with educational opportunities? Reward sports ability with an opportunity to improve that ability (i.e. sports academies). This is how it's done in many other countries. They don't put their top athletes in schools, they put them in special academies for sport. If the athlete wants an education at the same time, they have to enroll in a local university.</p>
<p>No, I think that whatever a person decides to do with their time is their decision. I just think, on this board especially, that people look down upon activities that are not purely academicly based. Colleges are a place of higher education, and diversity is very important to broadening your education. This is not only racial diversity, but also having people with a wide variety of interests. Like another poster said, if everyone on campus was exactly the same it would make for a quite boring school. It sounds like your son or daughter is doing a great job balancing their academics while still being involved in athletics.</p>
<p>dh5123: I'm not saying that colleges should not have the flexibility of filling their class with diverse population but the norms should be same for all.</p>
<p>You should have the academic base and along with that you do the sports or any other extra curricular activity.</p>
<p>The athletic admission bypasses that norms and that is what the issue with the program.</p>
<p>I think that schools get a bad repuation for relaxing their academic requirements too much for athletes. The schools that do this are mainly large public schools that only care about athletes that can qualify through the NCAA. Better academic schools are certainly not that way. In reading Lou Holtz's autobiography, he describes what the President of the University told him about getting the players he wanted at Notre Dame. He told him he was the football coach and that they had an admissions department. He told him that athletes that could be admitted would be and if an athlete was turned down it was not his place to go down to admissions and lobby for an athlete. I'd also encourage you to read about schools like Vandy who eliminated their athletic department altogether and tied it in to the rest of the Student Affairs department or something like that. Schools in the Ivy League are not going to admit a person who they feel cannot keep up at the University. It's not in their best interest to admit someone who will only end up being academically ineligible. Most excellent academic schools are not relaxing their standards to nearly the point that some think. In reading a NCAA Self-Study by one Ivy League university posted on another board, the average SAT score of an athlete was within 100 points of the average of all other students. I don't see that as being too much of a stretch where the athlete is undeserving of attending that university.</p>
<p>
[quote]
3pac : Cool, that was indeed the question? ; the thread is getting some support now.
[/quote]
hmm ... we're starting to mix and match atheletics college topics ... and they have very different issues.</p>
<p>At one end of the spectrum we have schools providing D1 scholarships ... and in some cases these students have qualifications no where similar to their "classmates" at school ... and often make minimal progress towards graduation. These are certainly the extreme of admitting students who NEVER would have been admitted without sports. That said in almost all cases these are very big schools with a minimal # of scholarships .... so, in effect, admitting below typical students has virtually no effect on any other student's application. So arguments about others affected realy do not have a lot of basis ... although a discussion on big-time sports associated with colleges is certainly fair game and should schools focus on these activites and allocate resources in this manner.</p>
<p>At the other end are the schools like the IVYies and the NESCAC schools where atheltic recruits make up a substantial portion of the student base but also are typically as good or close to as good acedemically as the non-athletic-recruit students. For these guys they really do not spend a lot of bucks on sports (compared to the D1 schools) but they sometime alter the feel of the student body. Is having such a large percentage of student-athletes who can handle the school but may have not been the highest scoring acadmic candidate a good approach? Again, a good discusion but a very different one than the D1 scholarship discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting perspective, 3pac. We've done this for so long in our culture that perhaps we've stopped questioning.</p>
<p>Sports are important at the college level because they boost school spirit, which then, theoretically, translates into returning alumni and donations. Americans like to watch sports, particularly football, and the group dynamics of hundreds or thousands of people sitting in the stands cheering for their team form bonds between strangers. Imagine OSU or Penn State or any other big university without football. So why does sports recruiting occur even in the limited-spectator sports? To remain equitable, I think. Of course, there's not much money in those programs, not compared to football anyway.</p>
<p>The Ivy League consists of private colleges -- and they can do whatever they want with their admissions decisions, short of illegal discrimination. If they decide to admit 100 students with C averages every year, they could. But they don't. Instead, they admit athletes who must do the same work that their non-athletic classmates must. At the Ivies, there is no athlete track; it's all the same. </p>
<p>Before anyone jumps to any conclusions about the inadequacy of athletes at Ivy Leagues and other top colleges, keep in mind that both Sen. Bill Bradley and the current president of Moravian College, Christopher Thomforde, were star basketball players at Princeton. I believe George Bush Sr. played baseball for Yale. Sen. Jack Kemp played football at Dartmouth. Gerald Ford played football at the University of Michigan (a state school, but still competitive in admissions.) </p>
<p>Oddly enough, few people complain about sports recruiting in the state schools, and <em>they</em> are publicly funded.</p>
<p>D1 revenue sports are all about money. A school makes more money and gains more reputation through winning athletics than academics could ever bring. When I talk about revenue sports I'm mainly referring to basketball and football. Sure, these athletes are not usually the top students, but they are truly segregated from the rest of the student body. Having 80 football players in a school of 30,000 is not going to affect the school as a whole. </p>
<p>Ivies and other "academically focused" schools are completely different. At the large schools if you qualify athletically you can usually get in. At Ivies and NESCAC, you can't be far off from a "regular" applicant. It's simply not worth it to them to admit students to help them win athletically when there are not millions at stake like the USC's and Florida's of the world. There academic reputation is much more important. </p>
<p>Momwaitingfornew, excellent point about former athletes doing great things after there careers are over. I truly believe that sports teach you more about life than you can ever learn in the classroom. Why do you think that so many leaders, in politics and the business world, have an athletic background. They learn to be competitive, leaders, hardworkers, and so many other intangibles that make them successful. That's what I was alluding to when I said that college is a place of higher education, which goes beyond books and academics. There are so many bright people that never reach their potential because they lack the people skills or leadership that's essential to rise to the top of their profession.</p>
<p>Let the schools do what they want. Most of the schools you guys are talking about are private schools and have the right to admit anybody they want. If they want to give special treatment to athletes, URM, or legacies than let them do it. They have the right to do it and the right to value a student's athletic skills. </p>
<p>What makes a great academic student?? A high GPA and high SAT scores?? Well, I know plenty of students who can raise there SAT score up with multiple SAT prep courses. What makes a student who retook the SAT with a couple prep course to increase there score by a couple hundred points better qualified athlete who has no time increase their score by the prep course. Most recruited athletes weekend are filled with games or practice so they usually don't have the chance to take prep course. I know many people will disagree with my logic above but the SAT can be altered with studying and test taking skills. Whenever I see someone on this board say an athlete isn't qualified, they always point to their SAT scores. It's just a test that can be improved over time but most athlete don't have the time to do it.</p>
<p>I agree with that 100%, Person A and the athlete are no different but because of that it looks like the athlete is less qualified. There is a lot more to a person that GPA and SAT scores.</p>
<p>Sports bring in the money, so it is what it is and always will be. </p>
<p>Plus, I've seen a documentary fairly recently (last couple of years) that addressed this issue. And according to that source, these jocks who receive the scholarships know up front that they are working for the school - they put in countless hours devoted to their sport and training. Very little time is left over to attend class and study. Although the school tries to help them with tutors and such, they are there to do a job - play ball. If anything, I see it as unfortunate for the player - all that free education and little time to devote to it. Who is winning here the most? The college, ultimately.</p>
<p>"Well, I know plenty of students who can raise there SAT score up with multiple SAT prep courses."</p>
<p>Well, you can just as easily raise your performance in a sport by weight training.</p>
<p>"Well, you can just as easily raise your performance in a sport by weight training". </p>
<p>Haha. That shows how uninformed and how little you know about sports. Most sports have little to do with pure strength and how much you can lift. Just because you have huge muscles doesn't mean you can hit a baseball. You still need hand eye coordination and lifting weight won't do that. Being big won't improve your jump shot in basketball, improve your accuracy on your throw if your a quaterback. Most top athletes have raw ability that are in their genes when they are born.</p>
<p>whatever...</p>
<p>I was a two sport athlete in high school...in one of them, i had the top position (#1 singles) in my high school and a decent record vs. other schools. When I was younger, I won the county championship in diving and was almost as good at swimming (top 6 in county in 4 or 5 events.)</p>
<p>I also ended up being a good division 1 athlete in another sport.</p>
<p>The idea that people keep using--that academic achievements don't mean much because you can improve your scores by studying--is worthless. It is exactly the same as saying the training or praciticing at sports makes you better at them.</p>
<p>Yeah, you're right...if you don't have talent, you're not going to become a great athlete simply by putting in the hours. In the same way, if you don't have academic talent, you're not going to get in the 700-800 range on the math SAT. Or make USAMO in math. I don't understand why people seem to get the first point--that you can't be a top athlete without a lot of talent-- and don't get the second point. Success in athletics and academics is pretty analagous.</p>
<p>I would just like to add that most of my posts are tongue-in-cheek. I don't actually believe Ohio State should get a bunch of well-rounded initellectuals and put them in their backfield. </p>
<p>I am just applying the same stupid arguments people are making about the shortcomings of intelligence and applying them to athletics.</p>
<p>I think most people on CC understand that great academic achievement does not come through SAT prep courses. It comes through hard work and talent. Success in sports comes from the same combination.</p>
<p>If anything, CC is one of the few places that respects academic achievement--one reason, I suspect, that so many ambitious students hang out here. The problem arises when people start assuming that athletes cannot possibly have the same level of intelligence that Math Olympiad students have. (I've seen the same attitude toward URMs on this site.) If you judge an athlete to be "inferior" because of 80 points on the SAT, then, yes, the college prep class example holds, not because intelligence comes from test prep but because higher test scores come from test prep.</p>
<p>More to add:</p>
<p>I don't believe for a minute that <em>all</em> athletes are smart, just as I don't believe that all students are smart. However, to assume that an athlete is not worthy of admission simply because he is an athlete is wrong.</p>