<p>If you're a really good football or basketball player you can get recruited by some of the most prestigous schools in America (i.e. USC, Notre Dame, Duke, Texas). To even get into any of those schools mentioned, you have to be at the top of your class, have at least a 3.8 GPA, and score at least a 30 on your ACTs. I don't know if those are the exact requirements, but you get my drift. But, if you're recruited by any of those schools and are offered a full scholarhsip, the minimum you have to score on your ACTs to be eligible to play and get in is 18. I'm not saying that colleges wont look at class rank and GPA, but if you're a good athlete, you'll probably get in...even if it means that you're not the brightest bulb in the world. So do you guys think that this is fair or unfair? Personally, I don't mind. I think it works. I'm saying this because I got accepted to U of I and I don't wanna be cheering for a crappy basketball team.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To even get into any of those schools mentioned, you have to be at the top of your class, have at least a 3.8 GPA, and score at least a 30 on your ACTs. I don't know if those are the exact requirements, but you get my drift. But, if you're recruited by any of those schools and are offered a full scholarhsip, the minimum you have to score on your ACTs to be eligible to play and get in is 18. I'm not saying that colleges wont look at class rank and GPA, but if you're a good athlete, you'll probably get in...even if it means that you're not the brightest bulb in the world.
[quote/]
</p>
<p>Actually that's what the NCAA says. Most schools have higher standards than the NCAA minimum. Maybe a lot higher.</p>
<p>i don't know.. im really really biased becasue a girl from our school got recruited for lacrosse to stanford.. i knew her reasonably well, and while she's awfully nice, really popular (not that has to do with anything) and somewhat smart, im sorry, stanford isn't really her level academically. my school isn't known for accepting ppl to stanford, so she might have taken my spot</p>
<p>but yeah.. i think it's somewhat fair, as long as the stats for the athlete aren't terribly lower.. maybe only a couple points of the ACT.. </p>
<p>after all, if ur nationally recognized at something else, ur other stats might be a little lower and u'll still get in.. so as long as sports isn't treated as anything more that any other national recognition, it's fine by me.</p>
<p>I think that athleteic scholarhsip are definitely fair. Becoming a world class athlete good enough to play at one of those schools to mentioned takes LOTS of time, dedication, hard work, etc. While some people might work very hard to earn good grades, athletes work on this in addition to practices, workouts and other sports events. If dedication and excellence in a sport is not a good enough reason to get into a college I don't know what is. Also, it is by no means easy for athletes once they are in the college, as they have to split their time among class, studying, practices, games. They deserve some credit for juggling all of this and I think a scholarship is just that.</p>
<p>And at most schools, you still need good grades to get in, maybe not great ones, but good ones nonetheless.</p>
<p>By the way, I am not a recruited athlete. I am a high school varisty athlete and I know I dedicate lots of time to my sports when in season and I know the amount of work that goes into becoming a really great athlete.</p>
<p>I am not biased but...
Athletes are made to entertain in this world, thus they have large incomes.
Athletes in college bring in the bucks, thus they are offered large scholarships.
Intellectuals drive this world, thus they are underpaid.
Intellectuals do not earn large bucks for a college, thus large scholarships are few and far between. (THINK: When is the last time you have seen the National Math Competition, Math Bowl, nationally televised?)</p>
<p>It takes hours of training to become an athlete. Most individuals (if determined) could become an athlete.
It takes a predetermined gift to be an intellectual. Therefore, everyone cannot be an intellectual.</p>
<p>What a screwed up world we live in!</p>
<p>Though hard work is essential, it definetely takes more than that to become a great athlete. And even if it only took hard work, I would reward that quicker than i would reward some abstract intellectual gift.</p>
<p>"It takes hours of training to become an athlete. Most individuals (if determined) could become an athlete.
It takes a predetermined gift to be an intellectual. Therefore, everyone cannot be an intellectual."</p>
<p>Hey, think you're profound?</p>
<p>i'm not saying that all athletes don't work hard for their grades, in fact, i know some rather smart athletes who manage to play two or three sports and still have a 3.8 or a 4.0 but the ones who are getting c's and barely pulling trhough, they don't deserve to waste space at a good academic college because they can play sports when someone who worked really hard all through high school gets stuck at their second choice. so in the end. unfair.</p>
<p>Right on MissSara</p>
<p>Eny,
That is where we differ. I can see your argument, however; I would award intellectuals more than athletes. Intellectuals further society. Athletes entertain society. Society needs both.</p>
<p>"It takes hours of training to become an athlete. Most individuals (if determined) could become an athlete.
It takes a predetermined gift to be an intellectual. Therefore, everyone cannot be an intellectual."</p>
<p>I think you mean </p>
<p>"It takes hours of reading to become an intellectual. Most individuals (if determined) could become an intellectual.
It takes a predetermined gift to be an athletic. Therefore, everyone cannot be an athletic."</p>
<p>Many would be shocked to learn that many very good schools( Syracuse, BC, U of Florida, Duke, UNC, Georgetown, to name a few) have athletes with SAT scores that are 400 or more points lower than the schools average.</p>
<p>I dont know how you "be an athletic", but I would say that there is something true about both of those statements. You can't be the best of the best without some innate talent.</p>
<p>Sympth,
Running forms the body. Weightlifting produces muscles.<br>
Reading creates thought. Natural aptitude causes intellectuals.</p>
<p>Therefore, athletes are formed, intellectuals are born.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"i'm not saying that all athletes don't work hard for their grades, in fact, i know some rather smart athletes who manage to play two or three sports and still have a 3.8 or a 4.0 but the ones who are getting c's and barely pulling trhough, they don't deserve to waste space at a good academic college because they can play sports when someone who worked really hard all through high school gets stuck at their second choice. so in the end. unfair."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My argument is that athletes DO work really hard in high school. So it makes sense if their grades/scores might be a little lower because they are working at school and sports, as opposed to most who just focus on school.</p>
<p>Justin... that's dumb. Genetics can make one much more capable of building muscles when compared to someone else who works just as hard.</p>
<p>Which is how intelligence works as well. You are born with a gift, though it needs cultivation.</p>
<p>Aeggie,
Hands down, that is correct (Genetics part).
Why reward an athlete, whose main job is to entertain, more than a potential scientist, doctor, or philosopher, whose main job is to further society such as finding cures for Cancer, AIDS, or HIV? It seems logical to further society more than entertain it.</p>
<p>Rewarding an athlete rewards the school... Ever wonder why a school is willing to spend $50 million on a stadium? Because it is an investment that will be repaid. They reward potential scholars as well, because boosting their prestige is a healthy undertaking, but these are, really, risks. Anyone can buy an SAT score, true, but nobel laureates, those world-changing students that will always be remembered... how can you pick those people out of a crowd at 18? </p>
<p>The athlete is simply a much less risky endeavour, so they are more often recruited.</p>
<p>Sounds fair to me.</p>
<p>It's a little unfair.</p>
<p>I spent lots of time in a sport and unfortunately I'm not that great at it. So that will never be rewarded. If I had natural talent in that area, of course it would be.</p>
<p>My natural talent lies in music. Whenever I'm off season, I'm working my butt off on clarinet/piano. But do college recruit musicians? No. It's not that big of a money maker.
AND I'm maintaining a very high GPA. But no.</p>
<p>Someone I know is being recruited at two ivy leagues I am applying to and know I will be rejected from. I'm incredibly jealous.</p>
<p>I'm of the opinion that if you've earned it, then good for you. It takes talent to be an athlete of the caliber necessary to be recruited. Sure, they may not add anything to classroom discussions, but they'll still learn from the experience. And I am a little jealous of one girl in my class, who is not that smart, but is going to UNC on a full ride for lacrosse. But, hey, good for her. I wish I knew where I was going. </p>
<p>It's a college's prerogative to admit whomever will add the most to the college atmosphere, be that athletes, musicians, or scholars.</p>
<p>totally unfair, only a small percent of college athletes will go on to become pro, so they got into the school with a crap gpa, and come out of the school feeling like they got a easy ride, and they get an equal shot at a job as of a hardworking student, not to stay athletes arent hard working, but it's kinda unfair because so called american dream, study hard in school = success, there are always loopholes, watever</p>