<p>There you go again, calling me “elitist”. Is this based on my name also? I told you to stop making assumptions on my name. FYI, I am pro-affirmative action for minorities and people from lower economic backgrounds. Those students actually add to diversity, and contribute to one’s education with their points of view. Athletes and legacies, on the other hand, are not unique in their perspectives. They cannot “educate” non-athletes and non-legacies, respectively. They contribute much more to the social atmosphere and sense of community at the college, as xiggi pointed out in post #192. </p>
<p>I am not underestimating athletes who score in the 1800’s and get B’s. I never said they would not be able to contribute to discussions. I said that academically, they will not be able to perform as well as their peers with higher scores. Consequently, they contribute less to the educational atmosphere. I was using the example of Vassar vs. community college to show how class discussions change based on the grades/scores on the students in the class. I was NOT comparing people in the 85th percentile of the SAT to students at community colleges - just like I was NOT comparing Vassar to an Ivy - as you assumed. My point is: accepting athletes with lower academic stats does not contribute to the education that the Ivy Leagues were founded to provide.</p>
<p>I agree wrt legacy kids. At the rate things are going some of these Ivies are going to have to start applying a legacy penalty to keep these kids out. Although on the other hand much of the strategies these parents use to make their kids so appealing are swiftly becoming mainstream, so perhaps we’ll never get to that point.</p>
<p>However, there will always be backdoor slots for very rich kids. There is a reason Harvard does not release 100 point SAT score breakdowns in the CDS as most other colleges do.</p>
<p>You’ve mentioned in post #150 that being around these lowly “bare minimum” athletes decreases the quality of education of others because there is peer learning, group projects, classroom discussions, etc in which these student athletes apparently “underperform” and negatively “affect the students around them.”</p>
<p>That’s why I’m calling you elitist. I’m calling you elitist because you think being in the presence of someone who scored an 1800, in the top 80% of SAT test takers, will decrease the quality of the education received by the 2250 SAT takers around them. What a joke. Some of the greatest intellectuals in the world wouldn’t have scraped a 2000 out of the SAT. Getting an 1800 and a B average in no way means you can’t contribute as much to the intellectual environment, and it’s sad that you think so.</p>
<p>The Ivy League educates athletes. How is that not contributing to their mission? If you actually READ the mission statements of these schools instead of making assumptions about what they were “founded to do,” admitting athletes that have slightly lower SAT scores is in no way working against their mission. In fact, if you REALLY look at what these universities were “founded to do,” you’ll see that they should be doing little more than teaching people how to read and training religious leaders… Lolz</p>
<p>YZamyatin, its 95% vs 85% because the lowest scoring athletes falls around the the 80% or 85% level on the SAT whereas the average accepted student falls around the 95% level.</p>
<p>Pancaked, I am surprised at the logic of your posts every time you respond. If thinking that my posts are superior to yours qualifies me as an elitist, then I admit that I am one. Your definition of an “elitist” doesn’t make any sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Few? I don’t think you realize how prevalent this is. If you read the article that started this thread, an estimated 13% of the students at Ivies are recruited athletes. There are nearly 60,000 students currently at the 8 Ivies, that means there are roughly 7,800 recruited athletes. That’s not counting other hooks like URM’s and legacies - and that’s ONLY counting not the Ivies, not the other Div1 colleges who also lower academic standards for certain groups of students. Of those 7,800, I truly wonder how many would have been accepted if they didn’t play a sport.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This problem is not limited to the 8 Ivies. Personally, I’ve just been using Ivies as an example, because they’re supposedly some of the best colleges in the world, and are known for their academics. Also, the stereotypical B / 1800 students can be more easily set apart at the Ivies, because compared to their peers, they are very much in the minority. At other Div1 schools, an 1800 might in the middle 50% of students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t respond to this before, because I didn’t feel it deigned a response. Of course, I don’t think these things. In the foreseeable future, the Ivies will be known for their academics more than their athletics throughout the world. But as long as the Ivies lower their academic standards for certain athletes, people will always question why they prioritize athletics over academics in these cases. And no, most athletes don’t do their sport just to get in an Ivy. The problem isn’t that students prioritize athletics over academics - they are certainly free to do this. The problem is that top academic institutions are rewarding kids for doing this.</p>
<p>The flaw in your argument is that you’re using intellectuals with low SAT scores and grades as examples. The athletes who are accepted with lower scores and grades are accepted because they have a HOOK. They’re accepted primarily BECAUSE of their athleticism. For the most part, they are NOT accepted because they’re “hidden intellectuals” who just happen to get lower grades and scores. </p>
<p>I have no problem with bad test-takers getting into the Ivies. But this just doesn’t happen. The only reason top colleges accept B / 1800 students is because they have hooks, like they are athletes and the like. So I do believe that certain people who score in the 85th percentile of the SAT can contribute to an intellectual environment. Einstein got bad grades and was certainly extremely intelligent. But the athletes with low grades being accepted are not accepted for being Einstein’s, they are accepted because they are top-ranked in the nation for their sport. Do you see my point now?</p>
<p>Harvard (and probably other Ivies) does not require a high school diploma for admission. Neither do they have a minimum required SAT score. In fact, the admissions director has stated in the past that anyone scoring 600 on the CR is qualified to do the work there.</p>
<p>Therefore, if rather than starting from the premise that Harvard is required to accept only the top-scoring GPA/SAT applicants, you start from the premise that anyone with a 600 CR will be considered to fill the class, it may cause you less consternation. Applicants with something special to offer will be accepted. H wants the applicants who have achieved something extraordinary in certain and varied areas with the highest stats. Not the other way around. I don’t think H generally accepts any high scoring applicants who have nothing else to offer. Even the “well-rounded” admits will be exceptionally well-rounded. That is my impression.</p>
<p>No, I don’t see your point. An B/1800 will contribute to the academic environment just like a A/2300 would. These are scores and grades. They measure little more than your academic work ethic, your knowledge of archaic diction, and your mastery of 6th grade algebra.</p>
<p>I’m using intellectuals with “low” (top 20%) SAT scores and “low” (above average) grades as examples because it is my belief that the majority these people are intellectuals. It is your belief that the majority of them are simply not intellectuals, which is why I consider you an elitist. You seem to believe an 1800 is either a “hidden intellectual” who is a bad test taker, or just not an intellectual. This is a very closeminded determination to make.</p>
<p>By the way, I used the word “few” because as many have made light of, only a small number of the recruited athletes are “bare minimum.” The rest are more on par with the academic standards.</p>
<p>By the way, as I alluded to, the gap between student athletes and students SAT scores is much larger at other D1 universities. It’s not “more noticeable” in the Ivy League.</p>
<p>I just don’t see this as a “problem” as you insist. For anyone.</p>
<p>EliteUhopeful,I sincerely doubt that you will believe this but once you are out of school, you will not be able to tell which of your associates scored above 1800 on the SATs, what their hs gpa’s were, or where they attended college. I really hope you will gain some perspective by then.</p>
<p>People often get jobs for reasons other than the schools issuing their diplomas or their undergrad gpa’s. Studies show that people who are on average taller or considered handsome or beautiful are advantaged in almost all aspects of their lives, too. Why does the fact that athletic achievement coupled with academic talent is attractive to top rated schools bother you so? Given that you are already attending a fine school, I just don’t get why you are so worked up about this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What exactly are you basing this statement on; your extensive experience at community colleges? Of course I’m assuming that you are implying that the level of discourse will be at a much higher level at Vassar, but if you meant the opposite then I apologize for what I’m about to say.</p>
<p>This is one of the most elitist statements I’ve read on this forum. You may well end up working for someone who has attended a community college someday, so you might want to keep this attitude to yourself for your own good.</p>
<p>I was going to stop posting, because at this point, I’m tired of people re-stating the same arguments. It’s pretty clear we’re just going in circles. But I’ll reply to Joblue because you addressed me directly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have taken a total of 7 classes in 2 local community colleges. I wouldn’t call this “extensive”, but I know what the level of discourse is like. Why do you assume I have never been in a community college? Yes, I am implying that the level of intellectual discourse will be at a higher level at Vassar than at most community colleges. If you think that a student taking the same course at both colleges will receive an equivalent education, you are sorely mistaken. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have nothing against people who graduate from community colleges. My parents graduated from community colleges. Personally, I do not believe that I am elitist, because I believe that all people are equal and should be treated equally. However, the discussions that take place in a 100-level class in a community college differ greatly from the the discussions in an equivalent class in a top liberal arts college; they are NOT equivalent. I honestly can’t believe that I have to defend this statement. Have YOU yourself taken classes at both & experienced no difference whatsoever?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do believe this. Your point is…?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I told Pancaked in post #194, just because I’m not directly affected by a problem anymore does NOT mean that I’m going to stand back in La La Land and pretend it no longer exists. It still happens, and I am still bothered by it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please read my other posts on this thread. I’m not the only one who is bothered by this either, so there are other posts besides mine. Just to clarify though, if you consider B students with 1800’s to have academic talent, then how do you justify ONLY athletes, URM’s, and legacies getting in with these grades/scores? Shouldn’t other “academically-talented” students with these grades/scores get into Ivies without having to fit into these categories?</p>
<p>I honestly can’t believe you wrote that first sentence. If their contributions to the academic environment are the same, then why aren’t they getting the same grades? It’s because they’re NOT equivalent students! Using your own definition of SAT scores/grades, the B/1800 student has a worse academic work ethic, less knowledge of archaic diction (which can studied in any SAT prep book), and less knowledge of 6th grade algebra. So no, I don’t believe the A/2300 student and the B/1800 student are interchangeable in terms of contributions to the academic environment. We can argue this forever, but I’d like to see some proof for your argument. You basically proved my points with your definition of scores and grades.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You stated my argument correctly, and I understand yours now, so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. However, I’d like to pose the same question that I posed to Joblue in my previous post. If 1800 - 2400 SAT scorers are all intellectuals, how do you justify to yourself that the only reason a B / 1800 student would be admitted is if they had a hook? Shouldn’t all types of students you consider intellectuals be able to make it into the Ivies without having to fit into those categories?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Ivies are known for your academics and world-class education. Even if the gap is smaller, people like me will always question the Ivies more (over other D1 universities), because we would think that THEY of all colleges would value their academics over all else. Also, many high school overachievers with high stats aim for the Ivies and are understandably disappointed when athletes of a lower academic caliber than them get accepted. That’s why the fuss is over the Ivies instead of other D1 colleges.</p>
<p>I’d be more inclined to validate the athlete-bashers’ points if they were actually speaking from experience at an Ivy League college. The most vocal critic on this thread does not even attend a Div. I school let alone an Ivy, so she is harping about dumbed-down class discussions in Ivies when she has no knowledge of whether they even take place.</p>
<p>A kid from my school got recruited to Penn for tennis two years ago. He had like a 4.2/2150. He may not have gotten in without tennis, but he is certainly smart. A friend of mine got recruited to Brown last year. He had about the same stats as the kid from Penn. He may not have gotten in without tennis, but he was definitely smart.</p>
<p>I didn’t read all the posts for this thread, so sorry if this is redundant, but I thought I’d share my story of Ivy athletic recruiting:
I’ve been extremely focused on academics for as long as I can remember. I never played a team sport until seventh or eighth grade. If you had told me then that I would be recruited to do a D1 sport, I would have laughed. I started rowing the summer before my freshman year, and it turned out that I was pretty good at it. As the years went on, it became clear that I could continue the sport in college, maybe even on a D1 team. It just so happened that some of the schools I was interested, including the Ivy that I will be attending next year, also had competitive crew teams. So I was recruited by a couple schools, but chose “Ivy X” because it was really strong in the field I wanted to go into, and I loved the environment, the campus, and the city. The good crew team was just a plus. I have a 4.2 unweighted GPA and a 2210 SAT. I was a national merit semifinalist, and academics will always come first for me. Would I have gotten into Ivy X without being recruited? Maybe, maybe not. But I don’t think it is wrong for Ivy League schools to reward well-rounded students who have worked hard in both academics and athletics.</p>
<p>@ dfree124, the two students you mention are NOT who the “athlete bashers” are bashing. @ pianoforte308, not you either. You are perfectly right that it’s not “wrong for the Ivy League schools to reward well-rounded students who have worked hard in both academics and athletics”. For athletes who we don’t feel deserve to be accepted, please see posts #15, #49, #80, & #117. We’ve been stereotyping them as B/1800 students, but those are some actual examples.</p>
<p>By the way, we are not “athlete bashers”. There’s nothing wrong with athletes putting athletics ahead of academics. We are more “Ivy league athlete policy - bashers”, because we are against academic institutions rewarding kids for putting academics second, and lowering academic standards significantly for certain athletes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously, this takes the cake. I’m a DUDE. Stop assuming things & making personal attacks on posts (ad hominem). I called you out for this in post #178. By the way, I know you’re referring to me, because I’m the only one “harping about dumbed-down class discussions in Ivies” - and that’s only because bluebayou brought up the “slipping quality of undergrad education” when he/she misquoted born2dance94 in post #149. (See the beginning of post #154 for my explanation of what happened.) In addition, I never said that discussions would be dumbed-down because of a few athletes of lower academic caliber. Pancaked actually summarized my point the best in post #203: being around these lowly bare minimum athletes decreases the quality of education of others because there is peer learning, group projects, classroom discussions, etc in which these student athletes apparently underperform and negatively affect the students around them. (Note that this is my view, not Pancaked’s.)</p>
<p>The other critics though are NOT “harping” about this, and this is not the major crux of our position. We’re MUCH more concerned that academic institutions are prioritizing athletics over academics during admissions, which we feel is wrong because they were founded to be and still are ACADEMIC institutions. And you have yet to respond directly to my responses to your posts. So I’d rather if you didn’t make snide comments about me that don’t add to the discussion.</p>
<p>Au contraire. I asked a question. The question mark in my post is the normal sign… :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The word I used was “slipping”, but that was in the form of a question. So, it can’t be out context. My question (“context”) was a clarification, and since you seem to indicate that you know what bord2dance meant previously, perhaps you can clarify for me?</p>
<p>btw: if the Ivies are not “maintaining” the quality (by admitting athletes), what term would you prefer to use to describe the negative/opposite of “maintaining”? Perhaps, “discontinue” the quality? (“Discontinue” shows up in Webster’s as an antonym of “maintaining”.)</p>
<p>Please ignore my previous post. I misunderstood you again. The main reason that I say you misquote her (as I explain in post #150), is because no one previously was talking about the quality of undergrad education at the Ivies. She meant academic standards in terms of what applicants are held up to during the admissions process. You might have misunderstood “academic standards” = “quality of education”, which we weren’t arguing before.</p>
<p>born2dance94, please correct me if I misunderstood you!</p>