<p>@bomerr may be true only if you go to a regular high school. For schools that require higher stats, the environment is more competitive and the students receive more work and are much more challenged. When applying to college, we’re competing against the other students in our grade, and all the students also have really good grades, test scores, etc. </p>
<p>This whole trope about athletes taking the spots of more ‘deserving’ candidates is incredibly tired. To the OP, you do realize that not everyone who plays a sport is automatically dumb right? Further, there is a lot to be said for the dedication that goes along with committing to competing in a sport at a high level. Doing so is not easy, and the experience teaches valuable life skills that many kids never learn. </p>
<p>When evaluating potential candidates for jobs I would much rather choose the person who has demonstrated competitive drive and has learned how to schedule their time and work as part of a team than someone who scored a couple of points higher on the ACT. </p>
<p>Also, don’t assume that a recruited athlete actually is academically inferior. I was a recruited athlete to an IVY and I can say from personal experience that my teammates were at least as qualified academically as the general student body. We also earned higher average GPAs while spending 3+ hours a day at practices. It would be disingenuous to suggest that no athletes with weaker academic profiles get in but it’s also absurd to completely discount the work that they do. </p>
<p>I don’t understand why anyone feels these colleges have any obligation to explain how they select their students. If Vanderbilt wants to accept “X” numbers of athletes, that’s their own prerogative. The schools are certainly entitled to determine the composition of their student body. Get over it.</p>
<p>Why have sour grapes because schools only want to accept a certain number of international applicants? I’m sure they all have similar guidelines for most criteria.</p>
<p>Private colleges, as recipients of Federal grants & subsidies, have only the LEGAL obligation to not discriminate on the basis of race.</p>
<p>I never said they discriminate based on race, but I would be surprised if they didn’t have some sort of limit for other criteria (geographic origin, potential major, etc…)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>============
That’s not necessarily a reflection on the student or his/her abilities. Even at a school that is not an athletic
powerhouse, it is often a challenge, if not an impossibility, to physically schedule labs around the practice schedule.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That is probably true. It’s hard to be a STEM major and not have any labs in the afternoons. I know that athletes typically have super-priority registration. </p>
<p>BTW…what are the typical “practice hours” of a college athlete? 2pm - 5pm? something else?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems to me a whole lot of people had a whole lot of problem with it 50 years ago when Vanderbilt only accepted certain kinds of students. The idea that any school has “slots” of any kind with substantially different academic criteria I find rather morally reprehensible. I’m all for the scholar-athlete ideal, but the emphasis should be on “scholar”, not “athlete”. And I thought schools were in the education business, not the sports business.</p>
<p>For the hours that athletes practice, check out the Northwestern unionization case for the number of hours a Div I schools requires (officially and unofficially) its athletes to practice, it can be huge and is an issue in the case. In a Div III league like NESCAC, it’s common that no practices are scheduled before the end of classes (usually 4 PM) and need to end before the dining halls close.</p>
<p>The Alumni will make huge donations to keep a good coach but will not have the same passion for a a great professor. We like to brag about our sports teams. When George Mason University’s Men’s Basketball team went to the Final Four in 2006 their number of student applications increased 40%. This allowed the school to become more selective in their admissions process and raised the accepted student profile. When you attract brighter students you attract research dollars and job recruiters. It don’t believe it is a question of fairness. It is just how the world turns. </p>
<p>Depends on the sport. For crew, we typically practiced from about 5pm to 8pm Monday through Friday, and 8am to noon on Saturday. This did not include additional technique or conditioning practices in the mornings. Practice load probably would have been around 25 hours per week. Winter break and spring break also were usually reserved for team practices. </p>
<p>I think there should be no athletic recruitment whatsoever. Everyone should apply on academic merit, and then try out for the team after they get there. Either that, or they should let something like swimming or football be a major just like dance or music can be a major. Why not? </p>
<p>redpoodles: what you’re describing is called Intramurals. But why your selective stance against inter-collegiate sports? If you bundle together say, the Cornell Mens Ice Hockey team – my guess is that their avg SAT is probably lower than this year’s avg admits to the Engineering college, right? Off with their heads then. Why not ban any steering of top musicians or visual artists or thespians to colleges? What if this group of people dilute the collective Cornell SATs a bit? Bar the doors too, right?</p>
<p>Sports aren’t perfect and need lots of oversight/reform, that’s granted. But you’re getting a little heavy handed no? How would your “no recruitment” dictum be accomplished? Government fiat?</p>
<p>Actually, NESCAC and the Ivy League both have recruiting restrictions on how low their recruits can be - a little too low, in my estimation, but it’s at least a trend in the right direction. I suspect some of the other less than powerhouse leagues that contain elite schools probably have similar restrictions.</p>
<p>@redpoodles How do you define ‘Academic Merit’? Is this going to be based purely on SAT/ACT scores, GPA, perceived difficulty of coursework? What about the extra difficulty of spending evenings during high school working a job for grocery money, or playing in competitive sports leagues? Both of those activities may make it more difficult to achieve the same grades as someone who has the freedom of more time to study. Trying to boil everything down to a series of scores is never going to make the process seem fair.</p>
<p>I’ve spent a lot of time speaking and working with admissions offices at top boarding schools and universities and the reality is that they receive more than enough applicants who fit the description of ‘top student’ based on test scores, grades, and class rank. What helps someone get in is having the ability to stand out from that pack. This could mean making the US math olympic team, it could also mean being the only competitive sailor that applies.</p>
<p>Athletics at Vandy (a power 5 conference Div 1 school) is very different that athletics at an Ivy school. However, even at Vandy, less than 3% of the undergrads are Div 1 athletes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s actually an interesting point. At larger schools, the number of athletes getting in on reduced scores is a tiny part of the admitted class. At small schools, the percentage is much, much higher. At a school like Amherst or Bowdoin, recruited athletes are about 15% of the incoming class.</p>
<p>Mine is just an opinion. My own daughter spends 25-40 hours a week at her “sport” however I do not think even she should be “recruited” for it, and if she were to continue, it would not be in a college setting, it would be in a professional or pre-professional setting where she could focus on that and truly give it her all. 15% of an incoming class reserved for athletes is too high. I know one of these kids going to Amherst. He is a star athlete but is definitely not prepared for that school academically and I think they hired someone to write his essay. Again, just an opinion. AN OPINION.</p>
<p>Also, to be fair, my cousin’s daughter was recruited for Stanford soccer, 250K scholarship. Now both her parents are doctors and she possibly could have gotten in on her own. But she didn’t. In my OPINION she should have just applied to the schools she wanted to go to and then applied to play on the team. 250K scholarship for the overprivileged kid of two doctors… think of who else could have used that money, someone who really needed it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Want a direct answer? Nothing precluded you to learn how to sail. That or making sure you could differentiate yourself sufficiently to become a “recruited” athlete or mathlete. </p>
<p>And, fwiw, there are LOTS of students who happen to have very good academics and a specialty. The school do recognize the talent and dedication it requires to compile such a record. The schools also recognize that the athletes they have admitted might have contributed a lot more during their stay at the school than the others who did not bring a history of being a team player from their HS. Schools are composing classes that balance many different objectives. Some have a hard time to figure out that the composition that works is one that does beyond mere grades and test scores. </p>
<p>Ever thought how the recruited athletes who also happened to be the val of heir school and compile 99 percentile test scores feel about the kids who could not manage to best them in the field or the classroom? And feel about the bile spewed by the envious? </p>
<p>
So with that logic, she should also turn down merit scholarships because her parents can afford full freight?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, insufficient resources would for a lot of families. In order to sail you need, at minimum, access to a sailboat. And a lot more than that if you want to excel at it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ditto for a lot of sports, though mathletes probably can swing that without a lot of club team fees, equipment, etc.</p>
<p>Sports are expensive, especially to pursue at the level that kids get recruited for playing them. Some more than others, of course. Football players don’t have club teams or private coaches, perhaps, but most other sports require time and money beyond what is provided by the school. </p>
<p>I believe most recruited athletes are wealthier than average, in some sports a lot wealthier than average.</p>