<p>
Joining science olympiads or robotics team or debate team or other time and effort-consuming academic teams do all of the above as well. It’s insulting and egotistical to believe that only the activity you or your child does-- in this case sports-- has any value and ability to teach life skills and lessons.</p>
<p>bottom line: clearly there’s something about being a top 10 - top 50 athlete (depending on the sport of course since those stats mean very different things in football compared to squash), which is highly valued by the Ivy institutions (and others of that ilk) even if some of posters don’t see it that way. </p>
<p>Obviously some athletes have remarkably high academic stats and others, well not so much. This argument could go back and forth for years and, I believe, it has. There is no big mystery or conspiracy however. If you think you have what it takes to contribute to a top school in a way that THEY see as desirable, go for it. Apply! The private school of your dreams can then do what they wish…</p>
<p>Am I missing something in this thread? Where was it postulated that the time it takes to participate in ‘science olympiads or robotics team or debate or other academic teams’ is less important/time consuming/valuable as athletics? You are comparing apples and oranges. That admissions tries to include the vast interests/talents of their applicants into a dynamic class is a fact. Your anger towards the process ignores all of the components used to build a class whose strength comes from its diversity.</p>
<p>Just because these schools banded together based on an athletic conference does not mean that academic quality should be compromised. They did not start a sports complex to play sports first with academics second. These schools were schools first. There is no other extracurriculer activity which gives a pass to lower academic quality. I have no problem with sports as an extracurricular activity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Presidents and Board members of such schools disagree with you, and have for generations. Why is your ‘position’ correct and theirs’ incorrect (according to you)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why should they? What makes you the arbiter of what private colleges should do? Would you say the same about Julliard (accept academics over ‘music’ quality)? What about NYU’s Tisch? What about Wharton (forgo math geeks for balanced lit/hume majors)?</p>
<p>
The post I quoted in my response said exactly that! He said that just because things take the same amount of time, it does NOT mean they are equal. He “postulated” that though many activities take the same amount of time, the reason schools take sports into account is because of the lessons and skills learned from it, which he implied are NOT learned from other activities, regardless of the time commitment.</p>
<p>My response had nothing to do with the purpose of this thread so far (whether some recruited athletes should be given academic leeway). I was merely responding to his post, and letting him know that academic teams can provide the same value. That is not to say I was asserting they should be given “hooks” in admission. But, let me repeat this yet again, I was merely responding to that particular post.</p>
<p>Julliard is an artistic school music,dance etc. So, yes artistic talent should be front and center. Wharton is a business school and thus looks for thoses qualities. If the ivys are sports training camps, then athletic ability is important.</p>
<p>My rant is done. I just think it sends the wrong message to our kids, when athletics gives a pass to academic quality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Ivies think differently (and always have). Thus, perhaps such an environment is not a good fit for your family?</p>
<p>^ I already have my child at an ivy. It is not necessary to get personal with me. Mind your manners.</p>
<p>I will also add, he is there solely on academic ability.</p>
<p>As I understand the main point of this article, the overall average of the total athletes of Ivy League institutions have AIs in the 200s. The aggregate averages are not the same as the academic merits of individual student athletes: there are a few who barely make the AI cut, and many who have top academic records (some of whom apparently warm the benches). But the averages as reported in this article are probably accurate, and so the average Ivy League athlete has a 200ish AI. If one studies Ivy League institutions common data sets and does the math, the average non-athlete students AI is probably closer to 220ish. Students who are at the top of their game academically the National Merit Scholar, AP National Scholar, 4.0 UW GPA, 2300+ SAT, valedictorian types, typically would have a 230ish AI. These 230ish students are relatively few in number, and are - by the numbers alone, not by any other subjective or measure - the top academic talents in the country. </p>
<p>Many of these top students do gain admission to Ivy League colleges; the ones who dont often cant understand why their brilliant academic records fail to get them in. They believe they deserve a space at the top. They have demonstrated very high learning potential and have worked incredibly hard. So, when students with lesser academic credentials gain Ivy admission because of athletic talent, the academically talented feel discriminated against. Problem is, theres nothing illegal about this form of discrimination its actually not discrimination at all. Its just an institutional priority of recruiting athletes to have a good sports program. Understanding that basic reality, and the reality of other institutional priorities, can make it easier for top students to move on and find great fit in any one of many other exceptionally fine top colleges. </p>
<p>Again, the salient point reported in this article is that, within a given institution, the overall average athletic students AI is within one standard deviation (e.g. one SD below) the AI of the total student body. Yes, a whole standard deviation is theoretically a measure of significant difference in academic credentials. But, so what, no big surprise news here, Ivy League athletes on average come in with lower academic credentials than non-athletes. (Does that mean they are lesser students once enrolled who is the judge of that? on what basis do you judge that - and who is being served by judging them?) The Ivy League has a range of deviation in the high school academic stats of their student bodies. Imagine that. They are not now, and never have been, exclusively populated by academic superstars alone. It would look too, well, elitist. After all, every American should have a shot at the top colleges, otherwise, how could this be America, the land of opportunity?</p>
<p>For me, the most concerning revelation from this article is that the AI calculation purportedly weights most heavily on the students SAT scores: the AI is 66% SATs, 33% grades. (If you read the article carefully, the author does not state that the example AI calculation is the exact formula used by the Ivy institutions, but he implies that his example is for all intents and purposes, how its done.) Interesting, considering that a large body of admissions research indicates that high school GPA is the best predictor of success in college. There is a persistent bias towards the SATs in admissions to elite colleges, not just in the Ivy Leagues. Given the recent revelations in the press re: cheating and test security problems of the SAT, and research which continues to present evidence of race and class bias of the SAT exams, this large emphasis on SAT scores in admissions is disconcerting. SAT bias fuels expensive/time wasting test prep, pressures to cheat, and ongoing discrimination against disadvantaged groups. If the elite colleges truly want to admit fine students with all kinds of demonstrated talents, including athletics, why not ditch the SATs, and use grades as the best measure of both academic talent and hard work in the classroom. </p>
<p>For me, reading this article was yet another confirmation that despite all the hype, the Ivy League colleges are really not any better than any of the 100 or so other top colleges. Yes, better in that they have bigger endowments, nicer facilities, generous financial aid, and a well-oiled inside track to the corridors of power. But better academically, with better students and professors than any other top colleges? Doubtful. And maybe, in some ways they are worse, because through their SAT-heavy admissions policies, they continue to foster the arrogant notion that one students academic merit can be compared to anothers based on a single test score.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Equality of opportunity, not equality of result. Everyone in the US has the opportunity to go to a school, an opportunity to take the SATs/ACTs (fee waivers for the test itself, certain free tutoring sessions for underprivileged, online sources with free SAT/ACT lessons and tips, free SAT/ACT practice tests given out by the test companies themselves), an opportunity to apply to these schools (fee waivers, etc). They even have opportunities for programs to help the underprivileged navigate the college admissions process (such as Questbridge and others). It is the job of a democracy to provide these opportunities to its citizens, but not the job to force them to utilize them.</p>
<p>We can all agree everyone has the right to a fair trial. We don’t all agree that everyone has the right to be deemed “innocent.” Everyone gets a vote, but it is not their right for everyone to have their chosen candidate elected to office.</p>
<p>So no, not everyone deserves to get into an Ivy League regardless of merit. And I’m not even talking about sports here. If you are not an athlete and have poor grades, you have the opportunity to apply to the school, but you don’t have a right to get in.</p>
<p>B2d94: Re: your post #71: Apparently my failure to add the appropriate emoticon to the end of that sentence caused you to take my words literally. My intention was acerbic political commentary; I guess I have to go back to school to learn how to blog more astutely! 
</p>
<p>@Ms. Ladybug Sorry. Thought you were serious. My B ;P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So are you are saying is that such schools can define their mission and pick and choose whatever student ‘excellence’ that they see fit, which may include priorities on other than academics, but the Ivies cannot do the same? Why not? What is the difference? (They are all private institutions…)</p>
<p>Like someone has previously said, the ivy league was created as a SPORTS league. Athletics are a big part of college, even if you don’t play. Students want to go see their football/hockey/baseball/basketball/etc team win; it’s sometimes a rather large part of the social scene. Ever try to get tickets to a Cornell ice hockey game? </p>
<p>All schools admit a range of students for a reason. Princeton has more applicants with both perfect SAT scores and GPAs than they can even admit. They have to reject many of these perfect applicants in order to get a well-rounded student body. So, an athlete gets admitted. They aren’t “stealing” anyone’s spot. </p>
<p>To put it in perspective, I have a friend who is a nationally ranked swimmer. He’s placed in states and made olympic qualifying times. He’s decent academically (2260 SATs, ranked 13/231) and had the coach try to help with admissions. He just got rejected (not deferred) from Yale early action. Not all athletes are automatically admitted. I have another friend who’s going to a school significantly lower than what she could get accepted to so she could play sports. That happens more than you think. 7 out of the top 10 students in my class are starters on my lacrosse team, including the val and sal. The salutatorian (2380 SAT) was admitted to brown ED to play lacrosse. Sure, she could’ve easily gotten rejected without the athletics, so technically is she “stealing” a spot? Athletes aren’t always stupid.</p>
<p>Wow, just noticed the large banner ad at the top of the CC page advertising Do you want to be recruited for college sports?. Ms. Ladybugs cynical side thinks that we have all missed the point the real discussion we should be having here is about following the money of college sports :mad:</p>
<p>I’m a college athlete at a top tier school. I resent the remark that “athletes are admitted to ivy league schools based on athleticism and not merit.” Athletes are just as capable as the kid who earned a 5.0 and 36 on the act. Take me for example. I am struggling at Harvard with my nebulous communications degree. I have to take challenging courses such as:</p>
<p>How to not beat your girlfriend in public 201</p>
<p>Is it Food? 356</p>
<p>How to be an Alpha Coach but not a ****** 499 (almost a graduate level course since its course number is one away!)</p>
<p>So I say to those who think that we athletes take remedial classes: my reputation proceeds me, so this argument goes with a single counter-example (me).</p>
<p>I would pay some good money to see the transcripts of the basketball stars Tommy Amaker hired to put on Harvard jerseys.</p>
<p>I understand how frustrating it is to see an “average” student (who is presumably still in the top 10% nationally by the way) get admitted at your dream school when you had higher scores, more prestigious awards, etc. but many people seem to be missing the point that, although these are primarily academic institutions, with the immense number of qualified applicants available, they have made it a goal to create and interesting and diverse class. This has academic benefits as well, since diverse student have a lot to teach each other about life, not just academically, and create an enjoyable, vibrant learning environment as well. Diversity helps bring in students. I know I am much more impressed by a campus that has “the right feel” and seems innovative, interesting, and exciting, then one that is focused solely on academics. There are at least fifty institutions in the U.S alone where I can receive an amazing education, but diversity is a tipping point that is advantageous to schools. </p>
<p>This is where athletes come in. Yes they are given advantages, but they bring something to the table that you or I do not. They are exceedingly good at what they do, and are at the very least competent in other relevant areas. I find it hard to believe that there is no “bias” shown to an applicant who a published author, a musical prodigy who played at Carnegie Hall, a student with an innovative business/invention/research etc. etc. etc. Anyone with an exceeding talent at some desirable skill has a considerable admissions advantage.</p>
<p>Heck, you can get an admissions advantage for having an important/wealthy parent or being in a URM, and these people often have even less to offer a school that a more academically qualified applicant does not. The only thing a URM brings to the table is a unique perspective, which is valuable, but no more s then the perspective of an athlete, musician, performer, etc. and a legacy/celebrity etc. brings nothing unique to the table other then publicity and money, but these are also driving factors for the University, thus the advantage.</p>
<p>I guess my point is that athletes are given an advantage because of what they add the to freshman class that another great academic student could not. It may be unbalanced, but I would not call it unfair.</p>
<p>Also just an example to show you what I mean on the URM. I have a personal friend who is a great guy, interviews well, has good extracurriculars (but nothing hook worthy) and got a 30 on the ACT. He was accepted to Yale ED. That puts him in the bottom 25% of applicants on test scores, but he told me he is relatively sure he was admitted because of his minority status. I know plenty of other people with similar or better resumes, higher test scores, and from my estimation (though obviously I can not be sure) better writers who were denied. My point, athletes are not the only ones with an advantage.</p>
<p>Just an anecdote. Our varsity quarterback has a 90% scholarship offer from Harvard if he gets an 1800 on the SAT (which he has yet to do).</p>