Okay. I have nothing against athletes. I think its really great that they are good at what they do. However, I think it is extremely unfair that they get into all these top schools just because of it. For example, there’s this one girl at my school who sleeps through all of her classes and has less than a 3.0 GPA. She got in to Wellesley with 31K a year. Another girl is really good at soccer, but its not like she’s really smart or has a really high GPA or anything–I mean, she didn’t even try to take really hard classes throughout high school She is taking her first AP this year–and she gets into the Univ. of Chicago! Don’t get me wrong, I love them both, but why can’t non-athletes get a break like that!?
<p>Talents of the body deserve respect as do talents of the mind. Schools get a lot of money through sports programs, why shouldn't talented athletes get a break in the same way that naturally smart people do? Suck it up and quit complaining and focus on making your own application stellar.</p>
<p>the way i see it, the whole college process might not be fair but life itself also isn't fair. i enjoy the break from the whole affirmative action debates, though. i've been sorta amused by these threads since the biggest beneficiary group from AA is women, and no one's debating about that and all are focusing on race-based AA. i don't necessarily want one started (i.e. debate on gender AA), but i just find it weird why some CCers think that racism is worse than sexism, elitism (pref. for legacies or kids of big donors), etc. </p>
<p>anyway, on this topic (pref. for athletes), i guess i can't relate since the athletes at my school who got into amazing schools are also amazing students (4.+ gpa, 1500+ SAT, etc.). even if they weren't, i wouldn't really have a problem with them getting in just 'coz of their sports 'coz the way i see it, colleges want to create a diverse environment, so they'd want some people whose lives are sports and sports only, just like they'd want amazing musicians who might not have stellar grades, etc.. i am neither an athlete (only work out at home) nor a musician (the only instrument i can play is the recorder), but i personally am for a diverse environment. so if there are people who're picked over me at some schools just for their special talents, even if their academic stats aren't as stellar as mine, i wouldn't complain (just as long as i get into A school, hehehe [and i got a UVA likely already], otherwise how'm i supposed to enjoy the diverse setting i've been rooting for? hahaha). anyway, that's just my opinion. to those who don't care for diversity, then i'm sorry that the system's not working the way you'd want it to (hm... i noticed how this last sentence could be perceived as sarcasm, but i don't know how to rewrite it; i AM sincerely sorry for those people though).</p>
<p>The girl at Wellesley did not get 31K because she plays soccer as Wellesley has need based financial aid and does nto give out academic scholarships. She go the money because the school though she had a demonstrated need based on her families finances. </p>
<p>Since you do not know her whole story, you are simply making assumptions. Schools like Wellesley and U of Chicago looks at the entire applicant and makes a decision. In addition everey on is evaluated in context of the opportunites which they have had.Scores and grades are only part of the application process,You have no idea what the rest of her transcript looks like, her sat scores, her family back ground (if she is first generation college student from an improverished background, is she working to help support her self or her family). You problably know very little about the life they lead ourt side of school. You did not write their esssays nor do you know what their teachers and guidance counselors wrote in their recommendations. So it is really not fair of you , to be painting a picture using such broad strokes.
We all know what happens when you assume.</p>
<p>i agree...life is unfair. Your co-worker might get that raise even though you deserved it more. Your friend might get that job even though you're better qualified. life isn't fair, and now is a perfect time to deal with it. Maybe you don't agree with it, but things aren't always unfair in your favor.</p>
<p>I totally understand the frustration....one student got into a very presitigase college prep in our town... played varsity bball as a freshman...kicked out of school after 1st semester...for a varity of reason...was thrown in WAY over his head....so unless a student can cut it in class at the college, they will not last....</p>
<p>the sports emphasis is unfair, I agree, but like so much, we are stuck with it, it is interesting when you read about athletes at some of the bigger schools that were recruited mostly for the sport, what is happening there....</p>
<p>my D is specifically applying to colleges that do NOT emphasize sports, the schools have sports, but it is not focus of the school....she is not interested in attending a school where jocks rule and get all the $$</p>
<p>I completely agree with fids. Whereas you've been focusing your attention on book matters, these athletes have been concentrating on a completely different talent. You have your talents and they have theirs. You're rewarded for you talents accordingly based on how you compare with others of your abilities and in turn so do the athletes.</p>
<p>I have no problem with recruited athletes in general. Many of them are bright students as well. What bothers me is when athletes who are terrible students get into Ivy League schools. Even the most academically gifted students have trouble securing a spot at the Ivies. Harvard constantly brags about the number of valedictorians and 1600's it rejects. From my school this year, three people were recruited EA to Harvard. One of them is at the bottom of my class academically. She has no other EC's besides soccer, no academic awards, laughable SAT's, etc. The people I know who were deferred were amazing students with impressive EC's and plenty of leadership. Is it fair that they didn't get in? The top schools should first and foremost select their students based on academic credentials (the purpose of college is, after all, advanced academic study). Of course, there are too many academically qualified students, which is why the intangible factors are becoming increasingly important. My main point is that people should not attend the top schools purely because of sports. They should have the proper academic credentials as well.</p>
<p>School is a place to learn, so to get in on pure athletics is really kind of sad....and unless they do well enough academically in college, then after college, it will show in their lives....all I can say is it not a good system and people saying don't complain are just closing their eyes. There is nothing wrong with griping about a bad system, that rewards physical skill over brains....as long as the griper does the best they can, they have every right to be upset....its the people that are so willing to say, oh well, that's just the way it is- those people are the ones that make me nervous, change comes with talking, discussing and complaining...look at history...some of you are very spoiled and haven't dealt with a whole lot of unfairness...when it strikes, you, too, will go, hey!!!!...</p>
<p>And was for being "rewarded for talents"- these schools show off high gpas, sat, and claim very high standards for "smarts" yet will recruit just for sports.....a bit of a hypocritical systems it apears</p>
<p>The standards for athletes in the Ivys are quite high compared to almost all other DI schools. I would be surprised if your school's soccer player is as weak academically as you say. It is not true that a lesser sport like soccer -even for women- would recruit a really bottom-level student. There are many parents and kids on these boards with a lot of knowledge on what it takes to be an Ivy or top LAC athlete. You have to be in at least the outfield of the ballpark academically. In fact, if an athlete is a terrible student, they will use their athletic ability to get merit money from a school which offers it, which is not going to be one of the Ivys!</p>
<p>The aforementioned person is weak academically in the context of the competitiveness of my private school. My school regularly sends between 15-20% of the senior class to the Ivies and Ivy-caliber schools (such as Stanford). That person was in the bottom 50 percent of the class. She wasn't a failing student, but she definitely was not anywhere close to Harvard material. The other two recruited athletes were academically qualified, so I have no complaints about them. And about merit money, she doesn't need it. She's one of the wealthiest people at my school.</p>
<p>I don't hold anything against athletes, they have to work just as hard as academically oriented people - if not harder. Yes, its true that some people are born to be athletes, but some people are also born geniuses, but they still have to work hard to achieve their potential.</p>
<p>What I simply can't stand is the blatant bias towards URMs because of "affirmative action." Granted I'm probably venting because I'm not an URM(And I'm asian - thats probably even worse lol, overrepresentation). </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the URMs that get into colleges because of their skin color, its the whole idea of affirmative action that gets to me, and the freakin colleges that care about their ratios. Its like racism to balance out the scale. It just gets to me that some kid, who is not as well qualified as me may get a spot at a prestigious university instead of me.</p>
<p>Sports are still a part of the college experience, whether you're an athelete or you're out there expressing your school spirits (while inherently benefiting from the revenue the sport generates for the school through ticket sales, sports merchandising, etc). These atheletes again have talents like one has book smarts and I see their path as analogous to say a premed student- a premed student's goal is to get into medical school while an athelete may aspire to go pro one day: in both cases some make it while a great majority don't. When colleges recruit such atheletes, its not as if they don't take their high school academics into consideration- rarely if ever do you hear of colleges accepting some 2.0 gpa, 500 combined SAT student. Spkrl, perhaps the athelete doesn't have the time to pursue the amount of AP classes that you are taking. They have to practice everyday and they have games afterschool whereas you have all the time you want to study.</p>
<p>Sentient89: What you bring up is a completely different matter. Affirmative action is discrimination, no ifs ands or buts about it, but its "discrimination in reverse" because these URMs have been discriminated out of the "system" for so long. Before you hastily jump to conclusions, you need to actually look at the reasonings behind the idea and why these minorities are underrepresented, as well as why colleges fight so hard to keep the notion (In CA, it was banned by a public vote, but the UCs have inherently re-established it under the guise of "comprehensive review"). I believe personally there is no contest that affirmative action is required, but the basis of which (race vs economics) is where the line becomes iffy. As an asian, you know nothing of the degree of discriminations that say blacks have experienced the majority of their lives, whether it be implicitly or explicitly and the compounded effects that the history of which has in today's world. In general, they do not have the same opportunities afforded to you due to differing circumstances. Essentially, diversity is important in college: there is more to education than what you can get out of a textbook.</p>
<p>I'm not making any assumptions here--i know them very well. I mean, I just feel that it is unfair to receive such a huge break when there are people who work just as hard as they do (if not harder) to be rejected at these same schools. </p>
<p>And fids, I'm not complaining, just expressing what I am constantly seeing in my senior class...k? </p>
<p>ForeverZero: "What bothers me is when athletes who are terrible students get into Ivy League schools. " Exactly. There is also a kid at my school who dropped all of his classes except 2 beginning art classes. Because of swimming, he now has a full scholarship plus stipend to Florida (I know Univ of Florida isn't spectacular or anything, but in my state, you're lucky to go even to Arizona.)</p>
<p>citygirlsmom: "all I can say is it not a good system and people saying don't complain are just closing their eyes. " Thank you!</p>
<p>MomofWildChild: The soccer player is not horrible academically. Its just that she's breezed through high school by taking regular classes (thus maintaining a decent GPA) and this year she has attempted her first AP. </p>
<p>Bottom Line: It just seems as if they've got things too easy. There are people out there pulling all nighters almost every night and barely having time to breathe.
I understand that college has to be diverse, and sports are a big part of that. I can't change the system, but you have to admit that much, much more credit and leeway are given towards sports than academics. So all I am saying is that I just wish they would lesson that gap.</p>
<p>What you're gauged upon as a nonathelete is your academic ability. What atheletes are gauged upon are predominantly their athletic ability in light of their academics. Just like how you are judged on how well you do academically, these atheletes are judged based on how well they perform athletically. Colleges don't recruit mediocre sports players just as they don't recruit academic underachievers who spent their time doing nothing outside of the classroom. These atheletes must perform in the classroom in spite of the lack of outside time due to their sport, whereas you have the luxury of time on your side to study for class. Atheletes are given a "leeway" because of this point, and they earn the attention of recruiters through their stellar atheletic abilities. If you were given an academic leeway when your concentration in high school is academics, what can you bring to a college and what will differentiate you from the crowd? Credit and leeway are given when they are due, because again, colleges rarely if ever recruit a 2.0 gpa student with a 500 combined SAT score.</p>
<p>sorry, i havent read the entire thread, but</p>
<p>for a really good college, here's the athletic/academic comparison</p>
<p>recruited athlete = national merit finalist + valedictorian
varsity athlete = "typical" 3.8, 1400 kid
play for fun = non-honors</p>
<p>before we bash athletes, let's realize that at the recruited level, it is equivalent to someone who is a national merit finalist on the academic side. these kids are cream of the crop in sports, and their talent CAN NOT be reproduced/replaced by many. someone complaining that it is unfair should look at it this way: a regular varsity athlete complaining that he's not getting as much recruiting exposure as the all-state athlete is much like the 3.8, 1400 complaining that he deserves to be at X University more than the 4.0/1600/natl merit/superb EC's guy. </p>
<p>ok so some people were blessed with more athletic talent. so what? they had to work their butt off through many years of practice and training to get to this level. just like academics... perhaps one is more academically gifted, but still has to work hard to get into the college the appropriately fits his/her academic level. </p>
<p>actually, if you ask a recruited athlete, they will tell you that they DO work very hard academically, to the best of their ability while balancing a huge time commitment. </p>
<p>also, this country values athletics, that's why they get recruited and colleges get so much exposure off athletics, especially from football and basketball. if you dont value athletics as much, then go to a school that doesnt. im sure u dont want the extreme: go to asia where your college acceptance is based solely on a entrance exam score. </p>
<p>jyancy, i believe the SAT minimum for NCAA is 900. im not sure if there's a gpa minimum, but most high schools wont let you participate in athletics if your gpa is less than 2.0. </p>
<p>last note... i thought university of chicago doesnt field any competitive athletic teams.</p>
<p>oh final thought... is it fair that you're born with more academic ability than others? that you're raised in a nurturing, supportive, safe, and financially stable environment? is it fair that you're born with more willingness to work hard? perhaps you should realize how lucky you are to be able to talk about college while many others were not even offered the same opportunity as you have.</p>
<p>*"What bothers me is when athletes who are terrible students get into Ivy League schools. " *</p>
<p>No school (ivy or otherwise) is going to recruit a student who can not obtain passing grades, because they would be ineligible to play thus being a wasted recruit. Maybe the student is not a stellar student in your opinion of what a good student should be, which is why most elite schools look at other factors besides grades.</p>
<p>S has gotten up in the dark for years to train for his sport- alone! He puts in hours of training time, survives injuries and disappointments in competition, while at the same time maintaining top grades at a prep boarding school. He trains with his team in the afternoons. He does NOT take all APs, but he takes AP level classes in the areas in which he has a strong interest. He loves his sport and he loves to learn in the classroom and from his peers. His school happens to be the leading school in the nation in a different sport. The kids in that sport compete at a post-high school level. They sacrifice school vacations to go to tournaments or to remain on campus to train. They also have to maintain good grades so that they can stay in the school. If a college wants this kind of kid and is willing to lower their admission standards for them, it is fine with me! I think there is a real stereotype that a recruited athlete is some bonehead who happens to be able to dunk a basketball or hit a baseball a long way. We aren't talking about OU football here.
That said, I know it is frustrating for non-athletes to see kids they regard as lesser qualified applicants get into these schools. However, these kids have earned their way.</p>
<p>Yes, life is unfair. But remember: that's GOOD. It means you can have more than other people, it means you can have anything.
Now stop whining (no offense) and turn this 'unfairness' to your advantage (by the way I believe this athelte recruiting situation has nothing unfair to it).</p>
<p>Harvard already has thousands of very bright kids with high SAT scores; they want to create a diverse, dynamic, exciting environment, and of course that will include athletes, some of whom may not be incredibly academically inclined. I, for one, think that being an incredible athlete is every bit as impressive as scoring a 1600 on your SATs. Nowadays, especially, with all the test prep services available for priveleged kids, any mildly intelligent kid with rich parents can do terrifically on the SAT. I know a girl who I honestly feel is one of the most vapid, idiotic girls I have ever met...her family spent $6,000 on SAT prep, and she ended up with a 1600. Do I feel that she is any more deserving of a Harvard education than a 1200 SAT athletic recruit? No, not remotely.</p>
<p>Suck it up and stop being sour and haul your butts to get into a good college and forget about other people.</p>