<p>Regardless of what one calls it, the question remains. </p>
<p>If born2dance (and others) fully believe that admitting athletes is NOT maintaining academic quality, then logic dictates that the negative of ‘maintaining’ must be true. Thus, my question to you and others? Is there evidence that the Ivies are not maintaining academic quality? Or, are you/born suggesting that academic quality would be even higher without recruited athletes? (If so, one would need numbers per class to make the case. Many Ivy courses are large, so does it matter if a few jocks are in attendance?)</p>
<p>Are you truly concerned that the education of students in the Ivy League is being damaged because there are lower scoring/lower GPA athletes around campus? Are students there concerned about this??</p>
<p>Maybe you should actually ask people if this is the case. Have you taken classes with athletes and experienced this? I have taken one class with several athletes and did not experience this at all… In fact, I found them to be more vocal in discussions and gave MUCH mechanically cleaner final presentations than many of the international, shy, or antisocial kids who end up at elite universities and don’t like talking in front of a class… I guess if they had been regularly admitted unhooked athletes, they may have contributed a little more on a group project… But that certainly hasn’t decreased the quality of my education.</p>
<p>Let’s be honest, athletes usually take the route of the easiest majors and classes, and take several of their classes during the summer semester (not because they’re dumb of course, but because of the time issues). They spend the majority of their time with the team, whether its socializing or doing group projects. </p>
<p>So even if athletes actually DO, as you suggest, have the potential to decrease the quality of education of those around them, I severely doubt it would actually happen in practice…</p>
<p>Bluebayou, first I want to clarify that I’m not speaking for born2dance94. This is just MY interpretation of what she meant, which she can clarify later if I’m wrong.</p>
<p>She said that accepting athletes (with lower academic stats) is not maintaining the quality of college academic standards. I support this statement, because the Ivies aren’t maintaining their standards during admissions, they’re lowering them for certain athletes. Maintaining has many opposites; declining, lowering, I think they would work for these instances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, the statement that academic standards are not maintained and are being lowered for certain athletes does NOT mean that we believe the overall quality of education at the Ivies is lowered by these instances. I agree that the quality of an Ivy education is being maintained. You seem to think that we presume changes to the “quality of academic standards” will equal changes to the “quality of undergrad education at the Ivies”.</p>
<p>I think the overwhelming majority of the kids who play sports in the Ivy League are the “well rounded students who have worked hard in both athletics and academics” as someone recently posted upstream. There are a small number of athletes at each school who are in the lowest band of AI scores who arrive with relatively weak demonstrated academic ability. I will grant you that these kids may well be some of lowest academic achieving students admitted to these schools, but their numbers are not great enough to dilute the academic experience of the general student body; moreover, their presence at the school may even enhance the educational experience the school provides. They often have other qualities beyond running fast, tenacious defensive play or a booming slap shot from the point. They know they’re not the typical student, they know they’ll have to work harder to get by than most and yet they want to be there and they do, typically, succeed. That’s grit and determination and it’s probably more valuable in life and in the marketplace than pure intellect. </p>
<p>Admissions to these schools is a lottery. Outstanding athletes who are academically capable certainly have an advantage in admissions. Same goes with URMs, legacies, developmental cases. No one “deserves” to get in, not even the HS academic all star with the perfect record. The wise student will learn to appreciate that every guest at the party has something to offer otherwise the school wouldn’t have invited them.</p>
<p>If the two are not connected, why would anyone care? After all, the ultimate purpose of college is education (however defined) and since the athletes are undergrads, they can only impact (or not) undergraduate education. If their attendance has zero impact on undergraduate education, what is point? Or, am I misinterpreting your use of ‘academic environment’ from above post?</p>
<p>@ Pancaked, you have yet to respond to my previous response to you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly, this whole spiel of mine was in response to bluebayou, who I still believe misinterpreted born2dance94’s words. We’re concerned with the lowering of academic standards during admissions, not the quality of education at the Ivies overall - which I’m sure is being maintained. Like I said in before in #218, we (the people on my side) are much more concerned with the Ivies prioritizing athletics over academics during the admissions process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now who’s stereotyping?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s just end this whole discussion here. My spiel about “impact on quality of one’s education” was in response to bluebayou, and it was just to prove that accepting athletes of a lower academic caliber COULD potentially decrease the quality of education of those around them. I even started that post with “just to humor you”. After I posted that, Pancaked, I believe the rest of my posts were attacking the logic of your arguments - which I am still amazed at. I admit any impact will probably be minimal and leave no lasting damage. And no, I don’t believe that admitting these athletes will impact the overall quality of undergrad education at the college. I was just saying it could happen. To answer your question, I am MUCH more concerned about the Ivies accepting these students than I am about these these students impacting the educations of other students.</p>
<p>Have you read the posts in this forum? The reason we care is because the Ivies are prioritizing athletics over academics, which we see as “morally wrong” because they are academic institutions. Even if the athletes of lower academic caliber have no effect on other students, we still think it is wrong that they are accepted. </p>
<p>My whole tirade about the “possibility that they affect other student’s educations” (which I still think is likely although the effect is minimal) was in response to you, because YOU brought up the “slipping quality of undergrad education”. I think I’ve demonstrated to you effectively how no one previously had been talking about it. My arguments with Pancaked and other posters (from which you got the above quote) were a result of me responding to you. So yes, other people care about this issue that don’t care about the impact on undergrad education.</p>
<p>It’s a valid stereotype. You can look for yourself at the studies, news reports, etc about college athletes and their majors, or take a look around elite schools.</p>
<p>I agree that 3.0/1800 admissions seem wrong, and I’ll readily admit that my athlete kids benefited from pro-athlete admissions policies, but both of them are academic matches for their schools.</p>
<p>As I’ve already stated in this thread, what bothers me about this discussion is that it perpetuates the stereotype that all Ivy athletes are underqualified.</p>
<p>EliteUHopeful, look at it this way. You’re a male a Vassar, a school that has is purported to have relaxed admissions standards for men in order to keep it’s gender ratio somewhat balanced, which it considers a valid institutional goal. Maybe you benefited from that policy, maybe you didn’t. I don’t know. And, for what it’s worth, I think the gender balance goal is laudable.</p>
<p>To state it again, what bothers me about this discussion is that it perpetuates the stereotype that all Ivy athletes are underqualified.</p>
<p>Similarly, I would expect you to be bothered by a thread that perpetuated the stereotype that all Vassar males are underqualified.</p>
<p>This just gives me another reason to pity varsity athletes in D1 colleges. Instead following their passion and learning for learning’s sake, athletes are being discouraged from majoring in “hard majors”, which leads to clustering in specific majors. Whether people in the athletic department are actively discouraging them or the athletes are choosing these majors because they have no time for more time-consuming ones is irrelevant. I think it’s terrible the academic institutions are placing more emphasis on athletics than academics, leading to these students not being able receive the education that they are entitled to. This is just another argument point for those of us who are against student-athletes being accepted who are on the lower end academically. With the extra burden of a varsity sport, they will undoubtedly be unable to reach their full academic potential in college.</p>
<p>What bothers me about this point is that I’ve yet to see a single poster say that all Ivy athletes are underqualified. In fact, the vast majority of people raising concerns with the Ivy admissions policies regarding athletes have specifically stated that they do not believe all Ivy athletes are underqualified. It is, however, a fact that the standards are lower and that therefore some athletes admitted wouldn’t have been considered qualified by normal standards and therefore are arguably underqualified.</p>
<p>^ Agreed. sherpa, I understand your point. But born2dance94 and I, and other posters on our side, have posted countless times that we are not referring to all athletes. We aren’t perpetuating the stereotype. In every post of mine, I’ve tried to be specific to the group that I’m referring to. If people assume that we mean all athletes, that is their own mistake. We can’t just not talk about the problem because people are apt to misinterpret what we say. </p>
<p>You know what WOULD stop the stereotype of “academically underqualified Ivy athlete”? If the Ivies stopped accepting these athletes. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, which is why I don’t see the stereotype going away anytime soon either. But this thread is not actively encouraging it.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s ironic that when I said, several pages back, that I myself chose a school that didn’t have a big sports emphasis, in fact no football team, it was Vassar I was referring to…back in 1984.</p>
<p>Are standards in fact lower for men? I understand they’re at 60/40 F/M and that’s not too far off other LACs.</p>
<p>@ ohiobassmom, it’s definitely easier for men to get in, although the administration denies that men and women are held to different standards. Here’s a great recent article from the Misc on the matter: </p>
<p>The whole athletic recruiting process at Ivy league schools is such a scam. I mean, the problem is that these schools preach that athletes are held to the same standards as ordinary students, which is clearly not true. If they would at least admit to lowering their standards for athletes, that would begin to solve the problem. I do understand that colleges want to admit a diverse group of students, and that athletics are the way that many students contribute to the atmosphere on a college campus. I also understand that a lot of people with “sub-par” grades and test scores are admitted because they play a musical instrument, are related to a trustee, or because they posses some bizarre talent. Additionally, some recruited athletes are very talented people, and this should not be overlooked. What bothers me is athletes who play sports and are not very good at them, and manage to get in. For example, my high school is one of very few high schools in America to have a crew team, and as a result, hoards of literally incompetent students are admitted from my school to the Ivy League because they row crew. These are some totally average athletes who get to the Ivy league by being neither smart or unusually talented. For example, an average rower from my school was admitted to Yale last week from my school with a 29 ACT and a 3.0 GPA (and no AP classes). I feel like this is just an insult to people like me who had to take 10+ AP classes and earn much higher test scores to get to the same place, especially because I am equally good at my respective sport; it’s just harder to get recruited in my sport. Yale is turning down people who would make good use of their resources to admit students who will struggle for four years.</p>
<p>That’s with current admissions policies, though. I’m not saying that they are or aren’t easier on men, but if they are, the gender ratio might be even more skewed towards women if they stopped that practice.</p>
<p>It’s too bad that if Ivies only recruited talented, academically qualified athletes, they wouldn’t have enough athletes left to sustain successful athletic programs. Colleges are businesses, too, and they want to make money. I would think that sports like basketball and football are pretty lucrative (ticket sales, alumni donations, etc.), not to mention that a school that is strong in academics and athletics is extra appealing to those who want a well-rounded college experience. So unfortunately, I don’t think that this issue is going to change any time soon.</p>
<p>See, it all works out, just like they say. You found a college you love that does not admit athletes for being athletes. And those who want a college that has athletes can find their love too.</p>