Are you against Sports based Admission/Scholarships?

Applying to College
121

<p>
[quote]
But if you go thru the post all the people who are shouting against the thread are for sports to be primaryfactor.

[/quote]
POIH ... umm ... master of logic ... where did I ever come close to saying sports should come first over academics. </p>

<p>One reason I like CC is I like debates and the discussions on CC bring clarity to me about my position on many topics after reading the back and forth arguments. I understand how you rate you logic ability ... personally I'm going to side on the side of the CC community. The folks in here come from very disperate backgrounds and bring differing beliefs and philosophies to discussions and, for the most part, discuss/argue things respecfully. People are far from compliant, they are intelligent, and they are articulate ... me personally, I go with the mob.</p>

122

<p>"QUOTE:
"Don't mix and match."</p>

<p>Sorry. This is the the preference of American universities, to mix & match. There are colleges & U's in this country where sports is minor or nonexistent. Choose those, then.</p>

<h2>Having a variety of activities, including sports, including other e.c.'s, also draws people with great academics who want <em>secondarily</em> to do the e.c.'s while primarily doing academics."</h2>

<p>Actually, in the past few years the ivy leagues have changed their policy about the recruitment of athletes. I read an article that said representatives of the ivies met and agreed that they should only admit athletic recruits that are the same academic quality as the regular admits. I don't know whether things have actually changed, though. It is true, though, that the idea of recruiting athletes to colleges is a very American idea. This is probably why POIH, who I'm guessing was born in a foreign country, finds this idea bizarre. In Europe, they often have special university set up just for the pursuit of athletic activities and sports-related studies.</p>

<p>BTW, I think the mocking of POIH that's going on in this thread is disgusting. I haven't seen any great displays of logic by anyone on this thread; I wonder how people justify such arrogance.</p>

123

<p>"They think paying $5 Mil bonus to a coach is justified with paying $200K to Nobel prize winner professor."</p>

<p>In your eyes, its not justified, but there are way more people out there who care about sports than a Nobel prize winner. People fill up stadiums week in and week out to watch sports, not science competitions or book readings. Whether fair or not, thats just the way it is.</p>

124

<p>
[quote]
BTW, I think the mocking of POIH that's going on in this thread is disgusting. I haven't seen any great displays of logic by anyone on this thread; I wonder how people justify such arrogance

[/quote]
My take is that some people are responding to shots taken at them (you're not smart enough to understand my logic) ... but thats just me.</p>

<p>.</p>

125

<p>And my take is that the OP doesn't want to discuss and learn. It only wants to spew its own viewpoint. </p>

<p>If, in fact, there was a demand for Sports Academies, there would <em>be</em> sports academies. Actually, the demand is for the "total college experience" that includes academics and athletics. It seems to me there is a college noted as the place "where fun goes to die." It's available to any bright kidlet who can't be bothered with non-academic fluff.</p>

126

<p>Cnp55, POIH has stated in other threads that he wouldn't pay a dime of Chicago's tuition if his daughter wanted to go there. (Kind of ironic huh?)</p>

<p>As for the debate, while POIH may be extreme on one side, those arguing that there's nothing wrong with 'the way things are' need to realize that even the institutions themselves realize something's not right. From a review of Reclaiming the Game on Amazon:</p>

<p>Book Description</p>

<p>In Reclaiming the Game, William Bowen and Sarah Levin disentangle the admissions and academic experiences of recruited athletes, walk-on athletes, and other students. In a field overwhelmed by reliance on anecdotes, the factual findings are striking--and sobering. Anyone seriously concerned about higher education will find it hard to wish away the evidence that athletic recruitment is problematic even at those schools that do not offer athletic scholarships. </p>

<p>Thanks to an expansion of the College and Beyond database that resulted in the highly influential studies The Shape of the River and The Game of Life, the authors are able to analyze in great detail the backgrounds, academic qualifications, and college outcomes of athletes and their classmates at thirty-three academically selective colleges and universities that do not offer athletic scholarships. They show that recruited athletes at these schools are as much as four times more likely to gain admission than are other applicants with similar academic credentials. The data also demonstrate that the typical recruit is substantially more likely to end up in the bottom third of the college class than is either the typical walk-on or the student who does not play college sports. Even more troubling is the dramatic evidence that recruited athletes "underperform:" they do even less well academically than predicted by their test scores and high school grades. </p>

<p>Over the last four decades, the athletic-academic divide on elite campuses has widened substantially. This book examines the forces that have been driving this process and presents concrete proposals for reform. At its core, Reclaiming the Game is an argument for re-establishing athletics as a means of fulfilling--instead of undermining--the educational missions of our colleges and universities.</p>

127

<p>Re Post 122,
You actually need to lighten up. Some of us were referring more to the amusing banter, with a lot of tongue-in-cheek & ironic twists, when we described the thread as entertaining. Personally, I have no apology about finding a statement such as 'I won't care after my D gets in' quite amusing coming from the same person who is arguing on the basis of principle (supposedly not expediency).</p>

<p>Further, many people were just returning to the OP some of the dismissive tone & semi-insulting remarks he was handing out to others (logic, brain, etc). What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There have often been foreign born posters who genuinely want their information questions answered, but one can't have it both ways: seek to be informed while making absolutist statements about areas in which you need a lot of information still.</p>

<p>Interesting that you quote me for some reason. Others were far more specific about athletics.</p>

<p>As to the information about the high-achieving athletes, that may not be news to some posters on this thread, & is certainly not news to me. I've talked about it, the poster AdOfficer has talked about it, etc.<br>
(P.S. Next time, you should probably pick someone less informed to, um, "argue" with.)</p>

128

<p>ramses 2 ... good post in #126 ... this topic has been discussed many times on CC in depth and with understanding of the complexity of the situation. This discussion started with a simplistic complaint not well grounded to any real situation. This is a topic worthy of debate ... and it can be interesting debate ... when it gets to real info on real situations.</p>

<p>Recruiting and sports at sports giants like The Ohio State University bear little resemblence to the situation at an IVY league school or a NESCAC school. Very different issues, very different realities, and very different arguements ... all worthy discussions.</p>

129

<p>I seem to have read that legacies underperform URMs or recruited athletes and have the most difficulty at elite institutions.</p>

130

<p>I need to clarify certain things on this thread.</p>

<ol>
<li> Since I’ve not gone thru the US university system, I really don’t understand why the sports take this much attention over Academics.</li>
<li> There are genuine issues with this approach and I wanted to discuss that.</li>
<li> I don’t resort to personal attacks; some just can’t tolerate differing opinion.</li>
<li> Problem with this approach is that students who want to take amateur sports as an extra curricular activity at the university level won’t be able to do it.</li>
<li> I represented sports teams starting at my middle school thru post graduation (MS) level at university but was never a professional player.</li>
<li> I can’t dream of my daughter being able to make it on the swim team anywhere in this university system as the teams are decided at the time of admissions itself.</li>
<li> At my D’s high school if she is willing she can participate in any sports as the school is not allowed to recruit athletes. This provide much stronger environment as students can experiment with different sports as there hobbies.</li>
<li> But I have seen here parent pushing their children into one particular sport that they like at an early age around 5 years. Do you think children at that age are able to consent what they like? </li>
</ol>

<p>The idea of the thread is to discuss the topic. I’ve an opinion and would like to know why it should be changed.</p>

131

<p>
[quote]
2. There are genuine issues with this approach and I wanted to discuss that.

[/quote]
agreed</p>

<p>
[quote]
3. I don’t resort to personal attacks; some just can’t tolerate differing opinion.

[/quote]
I don't agree ... I, for one, read your comments about how we can't understand your logic as incredibly dismissive and insulting. I'm a pretty smart guy ... I undertood what you're trying to say ... I don't think it was well argued and I do not think you had information to back up your points ... and didn't agree.</p>

<p>BTW - the post just above was, in my opinion, markedly better ... it invited discussion by stating opinions and also highlighting where you do not have expertise.</p>

<p>
[quote]
4. Problem with this approach is that students who want to take amateur sports as an extra curricular activity at the university level won’t be able to do it.

[/quote]
Far from true ... almost all schools have intramural sports as well as their varsity interscholastic teams ... the intramural teams are kids from the school playing against other teams of kids from the school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
6. I can’t dream of my daughter being able to make it on the swim team anywhere in this university system as the teams are decided at the time of admissions itself.

[/quote]
also not true ... there are thousands of colleges in the US ... a handfull will have varsity swim teams totally comprised of recruited swimmers ... a few hundred more will recruit but also allow "walk-ons" who can tryout for the squad ... and the vast majority of schools will be praying for walk-ons to fill their squads since minor sports (like swimming) take a minor role at the schools. This is not guarenteeing a walk-on will make a team but in all but a few instances they will have a chance to make a team.</p>

<p>
[quote]
7. At my D’s high school if she is willing she can participate in any sports as the school is not allowed to recruit athletes. This provide much stronger environment as students can experiment with different sports as there hobbies.

[/quote]
depending on the size of the school that is just not viable alternative. At a HS with a few hundred kids allowing everyone to join the swim team probably is manageable ... at my kids school with 1500 students the swim team has about 50 kids on it. If The Ohio State University (65,000 students) had the same open policy and the same parcipation rate the swim team would have over 2000 kids on it ... this obviously does not work ... teams need to be limited to sizes that make for good experiences ... and, in general, colleges are bigger than high schools so there are more limitations.</p>

<p>
[quote]
8. But I have seen here parent pushing their children into one particular sport that they like at an early age around 5 years. Do you think children at that age are able to consent what they like?

[/quote]
I'm with you on this one ... one of my quests in youth sports in my town is encouraging kids to try/play as many sports (and do as much other stuff also) as they want when they are younger ... they can pick their focus (or not) when they get older</p>

132

<p>Thank you for asking for clarification, POIH, so I'll provide my own perspective from my own knowledge-base. (Disclaimer: my children, while "athletic" in a general sense, did not pursue high school sports, preferring to channel their physical energy into other physical e.c.'s) I do not have direct experience with the recruiting <em>process</em> (high school to college).</p>

<p>However, it is true (as I think one other poster on this thread said), that almost always, in order to get to a point of being recruited for <em>college</em>, that the student would need to have developed that body & those skills far in advance of that. For some, that could mean as early as age 5, yes. From what I've seen, there is as much variety in that decision-making as there is for any other e.c.: meaning, some parents "push," others do not. An active child may be very capable & desirous of starting an athetlic "career" early. True, how's a child to resist pressure at such a young age? But the same could be said for musical instruments chosen by the parent, not the child, or ballet "decided" for by the parent.</p>

<p>The truth is, most 17- & 18-year olds who are quite accomplished in one or more e.c.'s, have started that process long before high school. In the case of one of my daughters, she began at age 3, completely out of her own desire. (Not sports!) OTOH, I have heard of students who have liimited crew, golf, or another sport to the h.s. 4 years, yet have been recruited. It's just a little more unusual.</p>

<p>Regarding sports on the college level, my understanding is that many colleges still have intramurals for the non-recruited. Someone more knowledgeable about sports at Ivies can weigh in on whether that's true there.</p>

<p>I don't quite understand your point #7. (High school not allowed to recruit.) I thought that most high schools don't recruit their freshman anyway, including for sports. (Is that what you meant? Perhaps I misunderstood.) The process at private high schools I'm familiar with (many) is that every student wanting Varsity level must audition for it. If you do not make that, you would be playing Jr. Varsity (depending on requirements for that) or intramurals, when there's a third tier. (Some high schools are too small for a 3rd tier; there would not be enough players, guaranteeing that anyone not playing Varsity will be playing JV.)</p>

<p>I honestly don't think that at most U.S. Universities, sports are valued <em>more</em> than Academics. The business of the U is academics. The e.c.'s, including sports, serve a variety of supporting functions to those academics. (Even students who never participated in a sport in high school often state that they want to go to a school where sports are prominent, the teams are quite good, it's a D1 school. Some of them relate sports to school spirit & a school "identity.") This isn't important to my own children, but I can definitely understand why it's important to many.</p>

133

<p>“don't quite understand your point #7. (High school not allowed to recruit.) I thought that most high schools don't recruit their freshman anyway, including for sports.”</p>

<p>The point was that private high schools are not allowed to recruit athletes. It is true that you be allowed to audition and if you are not good you will be put on Junior Varsity.</p>

<p>That is what should be the norm at university too. But if you are competing with professional level athletes that were recruited to the university just on the basis of their ability to participate in that sport you will never get a chance to play.</p>

134

<p>The other problem associated with this sports based admission is the prevailing usage of drugs/steroids at the high school level.</p>

<p>Since the stakes of being a good sports person are too high there is lot more manipulation happening at the high school sports level in terms of using drugs/steroids to boost the performance.</p>

135

<p>Many high schools drug test athletes. Can't do that for regular students who use more drugs than athletes.</p>

136

<p>^^^ There is issue with policies of drug testing at MLB, how can you defend High school drug testing.</p>

137

<p>I would suggest that there's an unreal level of manipulation of the area of academic performance, at least as much as in athletics, if not more so. At fiercely competitive high schools, students & families will often go to great lengths to complain about Val selection, try to get grades changed, elbow their way into unauthorized AP classes, beat out their competitors in all kinds of ways, etc., & engage in various kinds of posturing, including families donating money in hopes of favorable award selection, teacher recs, etc. (I'm not saying that those techniques always work; for the last one, they usually don't, but they are tried galore.)</p>

<p>...and that's without even addressing the significant problem of cheating, plagiarizing, etc.</p>

138

<p>I think drug testing is fine in HS athletics. Nip it in the bud (pun intended).</p>

139

<p>epiphany : So, in your view one wrong justifies another.</p>

140

<p>Jerome Karabel (Cal Berkley, Department of Sociology) in his 2005 book The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton makes the same point about athletics in the Ivy League. Sports take up slots more deserving students should get. </p>

<p>On high school recruiting, it is everywhere. See the movie Finding Forrester or Oregon HS Girls Basketball where recruiting is open. Funny it is the private schools and the best academic public schools doing it.</p>

<p>On your drug point I worry a lot more about cocaine and crack killing kids based on recent events at Portland’s top public high school.</p>