<p>My point is that it’s the stigma of the “less academically qualified athlete” that is being encouraged here. </p>
<p>And, you have to wonder how many kids currently attending the Ivies who are thinking the same thing? </p>
<p>You don’t really know whether the kid next to you in your Chem class is a National Merit Scholar or an Intel winner or helped win the FIRST Robotics competition or whatever, but assume that they have the credentials to get in and perform.</p>
<p>However, you see an athlete in your classes, and what is your first instinct? To believe that they are lesser qualified and that they stole someone’s spot, someone else who deserved to be there? Is an 1800 or 1900 or 2000 SAT score going to signify anything but how well they took a test on one particular Saturday? It’s a test of logic and some people will do extraordinarily well on it, and some will not. No matter what. </p>
<p>For most of us, once we are in college, nobody will ever ask what our GPA was in high school, or what our SAT or ACT scores are. It’s where your degree is from, and if you did the work.</p>
<p>What an absurd discussion. Athletes are accepted for their talent in the same way the straigth-A-perfect-SAT student is accepted for his/her talent. Because they have something to contribute to the school. And let’s face it, there IS a sports scene at the Ivies. Someone has to play in the Harvard-and-Yale game, at which point I doubt anyone in the stands cares a whole lot just what kind of GPA the full back had back in high school. </p>
<p>If you guys are really all about academic PURITY, about lowering academic STANDARDS you should be getting all hot and bothered about the DOZENS and DOZENS of rich dumb kids who get into the Ivies every single year.</p>
<p>@katliamom the two aren’t mutually exclusive by any means. the fact that “rich dumb kids” get into Ivies doesn’t mean that admitted athletic recruits with low stats shouldn’t be something we don’t consider to be fair.</p>
<p>As far as I’m concerned, there will always be controversy over athletics in the role of admissions and college life. To begin with, one must already have the right body to be any decent in athletics, whereas with academics, that’s not at all necessary. There is also a general feeling that athletes tend to get special treatment because of their status, and that just doesn’t bode well with some people.</p>
<p>Elite, you misunderstood me. I’m saying that your “bare minimum” athletes are perfectly capable of success in the ivy league, and that they should be pitied. I was correct in saying you’re perpetuating that it takes an outstanding student to do well there. It doesn’t. It takes a good student. The student athletes, even the “bare minimum” ones, being admitted to the Ivy League are goods students.</p>
<p>Anyways this is going nowhere. The opinions of born2dance and Elite will probably change once they’re done with admissions. I had similar views about athletes and URMs back when I was applying. Once you’re actually in college and meet them and get a better understanding of college academics, you’ll cool your jets about it.</p>
<p>This will sound ridiculous to you now but won’t in about a year. Good luck, hope your “spot” in elite schools isn’t “taken” by an athlete who is “unqualified” and is too stupid to “contribute” to discussions and is doomed to be “unsuccessful” in life.</p>
<p>If an athlete has to meet a certain academic standard (even if that standard is a little lower than for non-athlete applicants), does that really mean “athletics are MORE important than academics”?</p>
<p>You are going to have a very rough time coping in the real world if you cannot handle the fact that some people are treated differently than others because of what they do or contribute, especially if what they are doing doesn’t measure up to your limited standards of importance.</p>
<p>“Clearly, anyone who is a recruited athlete or whose kid is a recruited athlete (or best friend or relative, etc.) is going to think the system is great. Most other people will not think so.” </p>
<p>Source for this bolded word,too, please?</p>
<p>My kids are both recruited athletes, I think think the system is imperfect. Does that disprove your assertion?</p>
<p>The above text should be the perfect epitaph for this thread. </p>
<p>While the frustration that arises during the application process is understandable, it will vanish within a few days of attending school. Not everyone gets in his or her first choice, but based on accounts here and in real life, almost everyone realizes that the system worked and that the “chosen” school is close to ideal. The next step is to find out that the admission people did a VERY good job in populating the freshman class with a balance that helps “most” everyone to find happiness. For some it will be at a corner of the coffee shop to engage in political discussions, for others it will be at the labm or at the library. </p>
<p>And finally, many will look forward to join others at athletic or artistic functions where the sense of community is alive. Soon enough, you will find yourself discussing the rivalries for big sports or even obscure ones, and discover that true school spirit transcends academic reputation. After all, college students do talk about the recent BCS rankings a LOT more than about the latest USNEWS rankings! </p>
<p>If you have any doubts, ask recent Stanford students how they have felt about football in the last 3 years. And ask yourself, if the admission officers should have accepted Andrew Luck had he NOT been the stellar student he was --Valedictorian among other achievements.</p>
<p>“However, you see an athlete in your classes, and what is your first instinct? To believe that they are lesser qualified and that they stole someone’s spot, someone else who deserved to be there?”</p>
<p>No. We know that the system brings in athletes with lower academic credentials than would be tolerated in a student with equivalent talent in a different area. But we don’t know that about any individual athlete, and that’s one reason why it’s never much of an issue within the student body. Bad behavior on campus is the only thing that brings it up, and then only in relation to the misbehavers.</p>
<p>You’re another poster who assumes things based on my name. Like I told Bay in post #178, I would appreciate if posters would keep arguments related to the thread, instead of making assumptions based on my name. FYI, I’m already in college. I go to Vassar, and I am perfectly happy here. But just because the college admissions process is over for me, doesn’t mean I’m going to stand back in La La Land and ignore an injustice (in my opinion, of course) in the process that millions of other students will have to go through.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Athletes and non-athletes are on two different playing fields, as countless of other people on this thread have mentioned. They could not have taken my spot like you’re saying. By the way, like Bay who I called out for doing this very same thing in post #154, you’re twisting my words into something that can be more easily attacked. </p>
<p>Anyone can contribute to class discussions. But I wonder if the discussions taking place in English 101 at Vassar will differ from those taking place in local community college. I think so. Also, I never said that unqualified athletes won’t be successful in life. I said that, in my opinion, people who do well in school (A’s instead of B’s) and have higher SAT’s are more likely to be academically successful in college than those who could not achieve these things. Success in life cannot be measured, but I think the people who work hard to earn good grades in college will be rewarded for their efforts.</p>
<p>I do agree that this is a much more serious problem. However, I don’t agree with your implication that athletes’ academic credentials don’t matter at all. Were they simply being hired to play sports, that would be fine. Their academic credentials still matter if they’re to succeed at a rigorous institution like the Ivies, and that’s obviously why the standards are lowered instead of eliminated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reply to this from the previous page: They’re still going to get lower grades when tests make up the bulk of the course grade. If there’s a final exam worth 40% and you’re bad at tests, your overall grade is clearly going to suffer. It’s not like high school where you can fail tests and still get As.</p>
<p>Comparing Vassar to a community college isn’t exactly the same as comparing a 95% SAT taker to a 85% SAT taker. You’re vastly underestimating the intelligence and ability of your “bare minimum” athletes and you need to stop. It’s embarrassingly elitist.</p>
<p>Dozens and dozens of rich dumb kids? Really? Lowered academic standards at the Ivies? </p>
<p>What decade are you living in? </p>
<p>The day of the rich dumb kid is over at the top-ranked schools, and has been for years. The speed with which this, and every other discussion about legacy, has morphed into one about athletes, is testament to the degree to which legacy and connections and money don’t matter anymore, in the sense of lowering standards. Every successful legacy I know of has rock-solid, well-above-average stats, and many with fabulous stats are denied. The top ivies can get all the rich smart kids they want, they don’t have to take dumb ones, and the test scores of the entering classes show it. The only advantage a legacy has is that he might get preference over an equally-qualified kid who is not a legacy. This may be unfair, but it won’t lead to lowered standards. Whether a rich somewhat-dumber athlete has an advantage is a more compelling question, to me: being able to be an athlete, particularly in the more rarified sports, usually requires a minimum socio-economic status that I was glad to see acknowledged earlier in the thread. I think there is sometimes an assumption that athletics offers a chance for poorer kids to “earn” their way onto campus; I find this both troubling (because I don’t think they should have to earn their acceptance on campus–all students should be assumed to be there on equal, academic, grounds) and false (because taking part in sports takes more money and privilege than many people realize).</p>
<p>I see your point now. It’s a shame then that these brilliant students who are simply bad test-takers are typically not accepted into elite colleges. The ones who are accepted usually have to have hooks, such as athleticism, URM, legacy, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it does. If athletes are accepted who have met the non-athlete academic standards, there is nothing wrong with that. The very fact that academic standards are lowered for certain athletes means that FOR THOSE APPLICANTS, colleges are prioritizing athletics over academics. We’re not saying that athletics is more important than academics OVERALL for these colleges; it’s just these specific cases that send the wrong message.</p>
<p>Not to start a side argument, but the majority of highly recruited sports are school sponsored and don’t require much in the way of money or socioeconomic status…</p>
<p>Elite, it still simply astounds me that you’re worked up about the admission of a few students sending the wrong message about academics… It’s the Ivy League… These students are still in the top 80% of SAT takers… They are among the most disciplined students in the entire applicant pool… Of ALL the schools to complain about sending the wrong message about academics, you’re picking the best schools in the world that hold their athletes to higher academic standards than practically any other school? The schools where the gap between students and recruited athletes is significantly narrower, and average scores much higher, than practically any other Div1 school?</p>
<p>Like I asked pages back, do you REALLY think kids are looking at Ivy League and thinking that athletics are more important than academics? Do you REALLY think students are going to put academics on hold and pick up a sport to get in? If academics weren’t paramount at these schools, they wouldn’t be in the Ivy League. Anyone who wants to twist a few admissions into a case for the contrary is going out of their way to misinterpret the message and intentions of these schools.</p>
<p>My interest is more statistics-curiosity than moral outrage. I am in the camp that these are private organizations that can do whatever they please. But aren’t we really talking more about 99.5% vs 85%? Isn’t that what people are getting bent out of shape about? These aren’t just smart kid schools that let in a few slightly less smart kids. These are genius kid schools that set aside a large number of slots for non genius kids. At least from a public perception standpoint.</p>
<p>When I first started learning about these things I was shocked at the percentage of slots that are set aside for hooked applicants at colleges. I was only slightly less shocked at the degree to which academic index-type metrics were set aside to fill these slots (obviously this can only be estimated as the raw numbers are closely held secrets). I have seen many references to ‘slighly’ reduced academic standards. I think this is popular conventional wisdom that the colleges themselves promote but on average is absolutely wrong. If the average athletic AI is a full standard deviation below that of the entire class, how far is it below that of the unhooked portion of the class? Multiple standard deviations, considering the mean will be higher and the standard deviation of the unhooked-only cohort will be much much lower.</p>
<p>Although I don’t agree with the moral outrage on logical grounds, I completely understand it on emotional grounds. The old hats on CC are surely tired of the debate but for most people new to the admissions game I can understand how it seems unfair.</p>