<p>OHM, could the sailing example be a well-chosen example of a sport that reeks of elitism? What say you about these activities that happen to the OP listed around here:</p>
<p>2nd Degree Black Belt
Varsity Golf (team captain, MVP)
JV/Varsity Basketball
Varsity Track and Field</p>
<p>Could one say that golf is also hardly cheap? The reality is that the price of activities is wide-ranging and sailing might not be as expensive in several areas of the US. The same could be said about fencing … as a low-income school managed to compile great results. </p>
<p>Many activities do cost money. Are we pretending that preparing for an Intel semi is really free? Academic camps? Music camps? </p>
<p>I understand your point, but that does not make the sourness of the grapes any sweeter. Blind attacks on athletes is something that happens every admission cycles, and as all generalities is mostly based on imperfect understanding. </p>
<p>That’s not exactly true. First off, you have to have access to certain resources, and that’s not just money. Sailing requires a body of water and someone to learn from, something in short supply in rural Nebraska. Lacrosse and squash are hardly played all across the country. Short people have little chance to excel at basketball, no matter how hard you try, if you aren’t tall you won’t succeed as a pitcher, top swimmers have a particular set of features they are able to draw on (e.g. Michael Phelps) and top mathletes are not just kids who study hard, they are kids who are naturally gifted at math who also study hard. In short, just about everyone who excels at the very highest level at something brings more than just hard work to the table, they also come with some natural advantage.</p>
<p>Also, no one is complaining about the guy who has a 33 ACT a 4.0 (Student A), and is an all-district standout who gets the golden ticket to Harvard - that in fact is the ideal, even more so that someone who just has a 36 ACT and a 4.0 with 12 APs (Student B). The question really is, if schools are supposed to be institutions oh higher learning, how can they justify admitting someone at the same school who took little in the way of difficult classes, got a 3.4 and a 25 ACT (Student C), but is really good with a ball? What justifies taking them over Student B when no other non-athlete gets in with less that a 3.8, tough course load, and a 32 ACT?</p>
<p>Let me anticipate an answer - they spent all their time becoming a great athlete, and that should be rewarded. But what about Student A? He’s just as good an athlete and got much better grades, so maybe it’s that Student C is a slacker. Should we be rewarding academic slackers, after all, if one student did it, can’t another through sheer hard work? Or so goes your original argument about kids who don’t measure up athletically.</p>
<p>The short answer really is, they let the athletes in because they’re fun to watch, by students and alumni alike. Who cares if they actually graduate, at least the rest of us will be entertained.</p>
<p>I agree that most activities cost money - kids form families with resources are ahead in a lot of ways, not just athletics for sure. By the way from your list, track is the only one that I think poor kids have a pretty equal shot at, though they can’t afford private coaches or whatever, they can run :)</p>
<p>The athlete attacks do get tiring, I agree. So do the “other” ones we see every year…</p>
<p>I think your first sentence is largely true, at least for some sports. IDK how crowded the water polo pool is on game days, or the fencing room, though. Or the river during crew meets, actually.</p>
<p>I could not agree more! I believe that every one of the attacks represents a poor reaction to the success of an applicants who did not “appear” to be deserving. The targets take various forms: the ultra rich and the ultra poor, the URM, the athlete, the well-connected, and the list goes on! </p>
<p>To be clear, I reacted to the post --and I invite everyone to read it again-- that claimed the kids would not have gotten in a school “half that good” without being an athlete who did well in sailing. And this came from an OP who described herself as a … varsity athlete and captain of a golf team. Was the message about having chosen the wrong sport in her area? </p>
<p>All in all, everything points to the school and their admission officers. They are the people who make the decisions and are tasked with evaluating the applications in their appropriate context. And, obviously, that does not mean that they can reward a kid for sailing if he is from Montana and dabbles in rodeos. But then being a rodeo champ might just set him apart! </p>
<p>My original reason for responding to the post had to do with the sweeping statements made by the OP, the rest of the dialogue in this thread has been great and very much on-point.</p>
<p>You’re both right and wrong - some of the attacks are unwarranted, but some are warranted - unfortunately, they warranted ones merge into unwarranted ones. Let’s be honest - there are bad admits all across the system of non-standard admissions, from athletes to URMs to developmentals to the well-connected. Not all of them, some are well deserved, but when you get more than a few really substandard admissions, everyone gets tarred. Without going too far down that road, that’s one case against AA, it makes the legit admits among URMs look illegitimate, the same way substandard admissions among athletes makes all athletes look bad.</p>
<p>To claim that all athletic admissions are deserved is just as incorrect as saying they are all undeserved. The truth is the system needs reforming and perhaps the best way to do that would be to make all admissions transparent, publish all the stats on who gets admitted and why - but I think a lot of people would be opposed to that because they benefit from the opacity.</p>
<p>@xiggi oh stop complaining. If you were in the same situation, you would have done the same thing. Cmon, someone’s basically offering you 250k…anyone would do that. </p>
<p>Now technically, the school is not “giving away” 250k. It’s fairly cheap to add one more kid to a class. All they have to fork over is the cost of food and housing and some miscellaneous expenses. </p>
In Div I, soccer is an equivalency sport (as are all sports except football, basketball, women’s tennis, women’s gymnastics, and women’s volleyball, so all scholarships are not full scholarships. Div I schools have 12 women’s soccer scholarships and 9.9 men’s soccer scholarships to give out. Coaches are able to divide up the scholarships as they choose. As Stanford’s W soccer roster is 24 players, the more likely scenario is that your cousin’s D and all other members of the team received a half scholarship. Just shedding light on the free ride for all athletes misconception.</p>
<p>My cousin’s d received a 250K scholarship. I don’t know how or why they did that. But it did happen. More power to her, but it feels like she got what someone else could have used to me. I think I would feel more in tune with it if schools could just hire athletes. Just hire them. </p>
<p>As far as stringing up (upper?) middle class white kids, no. This is my own family! I just don’t believe in athletic scholarships. I don’t care what class or color… </p>
<p>And no, not bitter or envious at all. She’s A GREAT KID and I’m very proud of her. But I still don’t think the way the school doles out money for athletics is right. Sorry to offend.</p>
<p>I will delete my posts if possible over the next day or so because I feel like I’ve revealed too much and someone could identify this kid. Hopefully those interested in my response got a chance to read it. Peace to all.</p>
<p>Full athletic scholarships to anything other than football or basketball are exceedingly rare to all but the most outstanding athletes - we’re talking Olympic or World Cup caliber. I hear plenty of stories about kids getting an “athletic scholarship” to School X, and everyone assumes it’s a full ride, but most of the time once you get past the initial hype, it’s only a partial. A quarter scholarship to an OOS directional - whoo hoo! Anyone who gets a full scholarship to a top school is a truly elite athlete and a school is basically bribing them to come play for their team because they are a key player at a national level.</p>
<p>Studies have shown that even for athletes that do get the scholarships, if you took all the money and gas and time parents dedicate to getting their kid that scholarship - other than the admission, most of the time the parents would have been better off putting the money in a savings account rather than having their kid play the sport. Athletic scholarships are a lousy way to pay for school when you consider what you have to do to get them. And there’s no guarantee you’re going to get them or they are going to wind up at a third rate school to get anything.</p>
<p>no, i did not know that no ivy leagues offer athletic scholarships. honestly, i don’t know much about it. i just am voicing my feelings based on what i’ve seen in my own little corner of the world and that is admittedly limited. </p>
<p>my roommate in college was an athlete too. she was an extremely hard worker and i have nothing but good things to say about her but she did struggle and ended up dropping out junior year. on a flip side of the coin, she was constantly promised more financial incentive if she could only beat a certain time (she was on the track team). she signed up for this as a recruited 17 year old, not knowing how hard it would be. she was extremely disheartened when she didn’t achieve the goal they set for her, and thus never got the money promised they would give her “later” when she “made it”. through her i saw a lot of icky stuff about how athletes are pressured and treated. of course, i went to chapel hill where they had that long running scandal… </p>
<p>i feel like no one can accept an alternate opinion. to me it’s like mixing church and state. i guess you can, but to me it’s better not to.</p>
<p>as a mom, i would never let my daughter accept the deal my old roommate had.</p>
<p>If you think atheletes are given a preference why not just become one? Schools have every right to prioritize one skill over another. They are transparent about it. So go become an accomplished athlete and reap the benefits instead of complaining.</p>
<p>(also, to respond to Mr. Mom, my cousin’s d is not an Olympic athlete but she is in that circle and might be one one day? even SHE thinks of it as a bribe!!!)</p>
<p>I don’t have the ability to edit my previous post but i just had a memory of my roommate–</p>
<p>back in that time, at that place… all of the athletes were required to go to “study hall” every night, from like 7-10, where they had special tutors and got help writing their papers, etc. it was part of the culture. she told stories of football players who could barely read. but they sure could play! they also had “note takers” who went to class with them and took their notes. now, of course, not everyone was like that–but, in my opinion, no one should be like that. athletes should be matched with a school that is at or near their natural academic level. i just don’t trust that this really happens. there are so many ways to get around it…</p>
<p>I come from a large family of athletes who are recruited to Ivy League and other elite universities every year. However, I am the black sheep of the family in that I was not graced with the athletic gene. For the longest time, I was incredibly jealous of my cousins. I didn’t think it was fair that they received preferential treatment during the admissions process just because of their ability to run really fast, kick a soccer ball, or shoot hoops, etc. </p>
<p>However, after having long, heartfelt discussions with them this past Thanksgiving, I have let go of my envious feelings. As a matter of fact, I am now very sympathetic to all student athletes. They are so limited in their academic opportunities due to sports obligations… and what’s the point of going to an Ivy League university if you can’t take the classes that interest you? Also, because athletics are so time consuming, you very rarely make friends outside of your team. That just doesn’t sound like a college experience that I’d like to have. And yet, for my cousins, all of these sacrifices are worth it because of their love for the game. </p>
<p>I understand why universities do this- it puts money in their pocket. As long as they are upfront with the statistics and don’t try to hide anything, it doesn’t affect me or my education. I admit, it is annoying when I think about it, but I just try to stay focused on what I’m here at school for.</p>