<p>Most college coaches are regional in their recruiting by habit or department policy. In womens soccer it is easier to grab someone off the Slammers or West Coast FC and jam them through the admissions process than find the Rage or Sprits player with top stats. (All California Clubs) The real problem is database management. It takes good planning to find and keep track of recruits on a nationwide basis. The kids are there. Harvard Womens Soccer probably gets 2,000 letters and emails from sophomores every year, the coaches watch tournaments, they network with club coaches and they cant find 5 to 9 great students a year? </p>
<p>Today in the sports section The Oregonian reported a young woman received a $2,000 academic scholarship. She is probably the best female athlete (soccer & track) in Oregon. And she is ranked first in her class and has a top SAT score.</p>
<p>3pac
I came to Cal an uneducated son of Mexican immigrants and left an educated man Joe Kapp Cal 60 Rose Bowl Quarterback.</p>
<p>Momwaitingfornew</p>
<p>See my prior post about my daughters high school. The last two years athletes were the best math students. Elmer is 2007 USAMO Qualifier from her school. It should be interesting to see if he ends up being a better math student than the athletes are.</p>
<p>"I came to Cal an uneducated son of Mexican immigrants and left an educated man” Joe Kapp Cal 60 Rose Bowl Quarterback.</p>
<p>I don't debate the fact that athletes can also be intelligent and receive positive education, of course they can. My point is that universities were originally designed for academic purposes, not sports, so why should people less academically qualified as others be occupying places of others.</p>
<p>I have no idea who Joe Kapp is, but say he wasn't as academically qualified as other students, why does he deserve a place in an institution of higher learning over those who were academically more qualified?</p>
<p>Athletes can certainly be more qualified than others, and should be subjected to all kinds of athletic opportunities, but why should their athletic abilities mean more than academic abilities when applying to an academic institution?</p>
<p>I see why people can disagree with me, I just feel that it's a ridiculous system. In my opinion sports and schools should be separate. Of course the students can play sports, but why let sports dictate the school? If the school sports were simply made from the best athletes already at the school, it would be different, but when schools start accepting students BECAUSE they're athletes, that's a different story.</p>
<p>I should also probably add: What I'm saying isn't meant to apply to Ivies, I have no hope of getting into one of them anyways, I'm just talking about the whole sports-school connection in general. I just find it irritating to see people, whom I know aren't in the least bit serious about education nor are they particularly bright, getting into schools based on their ability to run fast. If the sports related income is such an issue, they could always have university sports academies, basically a sports academy ran by the school, but the athletes aren't necessarily students. Just an idea</p>
<p>Because just as the school may reserve some slots for talented painters, singers, or musicians, they reserve some for talented athletes. Universities have had sports since the 1800's so it's hard to say they were not designed for sports. Sports have been part of our university culture since you could drive a car to a game and before planes existed. Many had no women either be we changed that. All athletes have to be students too to some extent. Eligibility rules require it. Sports provide a unifying force like no other for most schools.</p>
<p>Nah, I'm all for sports based admission/scholarships. It's not because I'm a recruited athlete; in actual fact I'm highly uncoordinated and I really admire those who can play sports very competitively. While this kind of admission may hurt me next year...I can't say it isn't well deserved.</p>
<p>Do you really think sports dictate Harvard? They may dictate UOklahoma or other large state schools. But last I checked, the top football players (largest number of recruits per class, approx 30 at an Ivy) weren't going to Harvard.</p>
<p>If anything, you'd find that overall athletics (ie outside boutique sports like rowing or fencing) is average. The Ivies will never be football powerhouses. Thus, your class is going to be less than 10% of your class. And not all of those kids will have gotten official support from the athletics department that pushed them through.</p>
<p>Ok. I still believe that colleges have the right to admit anyone they want to and if they want to base it off athletic ability than let them do it. If you have such a big problem with them doing this then don't apply to that school. There are plenty of schools that don't place heavy emphasis on sports or have slots for athletes to be admitted. I just have problem when people say athletes aren't intelligent just because they don't have the top SAT score or high gpa. Does it take talent to succeed in school?? I'm sure plenty of people would say that it takes a lot of hardwork and commitment to get straight A's or have a high gpa. You can study and study and get an A on a test or revise and revise a paper and get an A. I'm sure the response to this will be that people can practice and practice and succeed. But it takes more "natural or god given talent" to excel at sports. </p>
<p>I think a bigger problem facing college athletics is Title IX. The number of college athletics programs are decreasing and taking away the chances for students at schools to play sports. I bet some of you are probable happy they are cutting sports so that means your son/daughter will have better chance to get into that college. Most schools who have cut sports recently aren't ivy league or top colleges so it might not matter to you.</p>
<p>*But it takes more "natural or god given talent" to excel at sports. *</p>
<p>LOL. No it doesn't. You obviously haven't been exposed to really brilliant people. The ceiling for academic ability is much higher than you imagine.
It's not about getting an "A" or even an "A+" in some class.</p>
<p>Is your starting running back have the same talent as Reggie Bush?
Is the top person on your math team as naturally brilliant as Einstein?</p>
<p>Did Hemingway just keep revising his novels and that's how he became what he was? Not much natural talent there.</p>
<p>There is a continuum of talent between someone like Einstein and your average tenured professor in physics and all the way down to your average valedictorian.</p>
<p>I agree about how masterful einstein or hemingway is but you comparing things that aren't comparable. This whole topic is based on admission to top schools or ivy league schools for athletics. You compare a college athlete( which I agree was amazing) to two people who have proven themselves over their lifetime. How can you compare a high school student's intelligence to Einstein or hemingway. By the way, college admissions has a lot to do with gettting A's in some class. I don't see many top schools taking people who are "brilliant" who received C's and D's. Grades have a big impact on admission. This is what the topic is about. Admission to college and the athletic skills that help people.</p>
<p>But collegealum, the really brilliant people do get into whatever school they want. There is one of those really brilliant people at my daughter's school. He got a perfect score on the SATI, all SATIIs he took, and all AP tests, without taking prep classes, on the first try. Needless to say, not having to spend time studying freed him up to do all sorts of other things, so his resume was very impressive. He applied to HYPS, with Columbia as his "safety". Got in everywhere he applied. (Without any parent or college counselor help on his applications. His parents didn't even know he applied.) No university out there is trying to choose between the really brilliant people and the really gifted athlete. And, as some point out, sometimes the really brilliant people are the really gifted athlete. Again, if you don't have to study you have a lot of time on your hands, which you can choose to pour into whatever interests you, including athletic endeavors.</p>
<p>I think the discussion here is not about the really brilliant people, it's about the really dedicated people. If you are really dedicated to a sport, and don't have the extra time to put into test prep or extra studying, should you get the same advantages as someone who is really dedicated to SAT prep, and take the tests over and over until they get a good score? I'm siding with the universities, as I believe the person who spends their extra time on sports is learning more life skills than one who spends their extra time on standardized tests. But I certainly can understand that those who have a passion for perfection in scores might disagree.</p>
<p>I got to an Ivy. I'm an athlete. I find these constant debates idiotic. Most that comment about the "underqualified" athletes at Ivies know neither the rules for admittance, nor actually attend Ivies. Worry about yourselves and your own admittance and stop blaming others for your own possible failure to gain admittance. Life is tough and simply finding excuses will not change that fact.</p>
<p>College athletics is a huge part of the healthy, competitive American "psyche." Why would you want to do away with that?</p>
<p>Aside from its impact on current students, a good portion of America enjoys and gains some benefit from attending, watching and following college football and basketball. Imagine what a long winter it would be without our Bowl games and March Madness!</p>
<p>Even NCAA Track and Field is now televised, and it is fascinating and impressive to watch.</p>
<p>POIV, perhaps if you would take an interest in college sports, you will come to appreciate its value for everyone.</p>
<p>Ray192 wrote: "What I'm wondering is how admission officers compare athletic powerhouses to, say, national science bowl winners."</p>
<p>Well, given the very unique nature of these achievers, their "hook" would be greater than the many 1000s of D-1 aspiring athletes, don't you think? </p>
<p>Heck, it's a great honor for the schools to get them. They are much more rare.</p>
<p>w/o athletes..... where would the school get so much money?? tickets sell..... the thing is... anyone can learn to play an instrument.... anyone can learn some science facts and make an experiment... but athletics is a MUCH RARER sometimes....natural born ability..</p>
<p>there are more ppl in the world who study science than there are athletes.</p>
<p>I hate to say it....no one cares what you think a University's business is. Basically....I am all for sports based admission even though it would hurt me.</p>
<p>Here is an 8th grader!!!! being offered a scholarship to USC!!!! 4 years ahead of time, and he does not even know where he is going to High School this Fall.</p>