<p>Nope! The animosity would simply move to different targets. Today’s athletes, minorities, and legacies will be tomorrow’s art performers and slightly hooked students. </p>
<p>Anything to avoiding the correct introspection. The athlete did not take the spot of a mathlete. Another mathlete did. The Asian SATthlete did not lose his or her “entitled” spot to a low-scoring Hispanic; Another high scoring Asian grabbed it. </p>
<p>The focus on the people who “don’t deserve” to get in is the result of a faulty lens. One could remove all the “hooks” and preferences, and the odds of admission would simply move upwards from 7 to 12 or 14 percent. That means that YOU could line up next to 6 or 7 students who look exactlty like you, and only would move forward. </p>
<p>Right now, those hooked lucky ones simply provide you with the perfect excuse … and easy punchbag. What say you about the one of out 6 of Stepford clone who got picked while you did not?</p>
<p>Have to reply to athletes at ivies being just as smart-obviously with tutors at beck and call; class notes being supplied; private advisors… the list can go on and on-these kids get special treatment period-Wonder what these Ivies think college is really all about???</p>
<p>This isn’t the LSU football program we’re talking about… Ivy athletes get no special treatment. </p>
<p>Too many people in this thread are undervaluing what it takes to become an ivy-caliber athlete. I know a fair bit about tennis recruiting, and what it takes to play in the ivys. This year, the lowest ranked committ (short for player who committed) to be accepted to an ivy team is ranked just better than 200th in the country for seniors, and is going to Columbia. This year’s highest ranked committ is #25 in the country, and is going to Penn. There are 10 other listed recruits at this point (the recruiting season is not completely finished yet), with rankings from 25 to 200. I can’t easily put this into perspective, but being the 200th best senior in the country is not easy. These kids practice nearly everyday of the week and have to balance school too. I’m sure some of them would have better grades if they didn’t play a sport, as it is so time consuming.</p>
<p>Born2Dance, these coaches are asking that students score in the top 80% of SAT test takers and maintain a B average. And that’s the minimum; it’s not the norm. Those stats are surely not THAT different than bottom line for regular applicants. Your claim was that these schools don’t give a “goddam if they have any intelligence.” That’s total nonsense. The Ivy League should be praised for putting serious academic standards on their athletes while the rest of the D1 college world hardly is, if at all.</p>
<p>s1 and s2 told: minimum break 700 on all standardized and minimum A- gpa. think that the coaches wait to see who comes their way with highest composite academics and athletics and then the trade-offs begin. If there’s a superstar athlete who doesn’t have the academics, coach has to average it all out. of course they want top everything but they do compromise for the superstars. at the end of the day the average has to meet the bar and no individual can be below a set AI (differs by sport, I believe). SO, if there’s a kid who is below, there will be MORE kids above. </p>
<p>the vast majority of the kids at these schools are more similar than different - very good students with compelling ec’s. there’re kids at the high and low ends in academics as well as ec’s. the lab rats who can’t hold conversations (yes, there are some) balance the athletes or donors who can’t make the grades but most of the kids are very smart and accomplished in and out of the classroom and this is what makes the schools so great.</p>
<p>I’m not against athletes or recruiting but it is incorrect to say that you are only competing against other people of your type, or other nonhooked applicants, or athletes are only competing against athletes. In the Ivies, it’s actually not supposed to be that way. Every student is supposed to be admitted or not on his own merits. There aren’t supposed to be set slots for athletes. Athletics is supposed to be an extracurricular activity at the school like many others. Yes, in reality, this isn’t really the case. But according to the schools themselves it is the ideal they are supposed to try for.</p>
<p>For major sports (football, basketball, hockey) there is going to need to be some dipping. I’m ok with that except in the most egregious situations (1100 M+V SAT can’t even get you into a mediocre state school. You shouldn’t be in the same classroom as academic stars).</p>
<p>For all other sports, there should be very little dipping at all, with many opportunities for walkons. Let’s face it, nobody really cares if field hockey or swimming or tennis do well. It’s supposed to be an enjoyable activity for the STUDENTS.</p>
<p>You are living in a delusional world if you think that Division I Ivy League - or any other college sports are only supposed to be “fun” for the students participating and it’s not a serious endeavor for most of the Ivy colleges and coaches to field competitive teams. Or any teams for that matter. </p>
<p>That’s what intramurals and club sports are for. </p>
<p>Coaches want to win, athletes want to compete. Even in those non-revenue generating sports like tennis and swimming. I absolutely can’t wait to see what happens when you field a team of swimmers as walk ons. That would be a hoot. No, really…hysterical. I am sure there are some that could rise to the challenge, but statistically speaking, most coaches are looking for a specific athlete to meet the need of the team, and it would be presposterous to be able to fill those empty slots just randomly through walk ons. </p>
<p>And you would also be wrong if you think that college coaches will start providing a large portion of their slots for walk ons. It…just won’t happen. </p>
<p>Most colleges have a small fraction of spots available for walk ons at D1 schools. For a reason.</p>
<p>i wasn’t planning on posting in this thread, but after reading countless bitter comments i figured i’d chirp in. for the record, i am a high school athlete, but i am not at the level to be recruited to any top college for athletics. i work extremely hard and school, and do very well. </p>
<p>with that being said, has it crossed any of your minds that these athletes have worked incredibly hard to be where they are? obviously almost all of these athletes have some sort of natural talent in their respective sport, but it takes lots of dedication to achieve greatness; just as it does in the classroom.</p>
<p>Edit: just read dfree’s post, (s)he was spot on.</p>
<p>I haven’t read all of this thread, but it seems that those who are so bitter about recruited athletes at top universities do not know that:</p>
<p>a) many of these athletes are academically indistinguishable from their peers. Being at Stanford, I know quite a few athletes, even in football, who are fantastic students. Not to mention they are often very dedicated in the classroom, probably more so than the average student. I can’t imagine that this fact is different at the Ivies. </p>
<p>b) For the vast majority of recruited sports, especially for males, an extremely high degree of adolescent investment is required to be recruited. Even ivy league basketball and football players were likely the best at their high schools, if not their conference. Even someone with natural athletic ability would need to spend countless hours on their sport. Those hours cannot be spent on academics.</p>
<p>"For the vast majority of recruited sports, especially for males, an extremely high degree of adolescent investment is required to be recruited. Even ivy league basketball and football players were likely the best at their high schools, if not their conference. Even someone with natural athletic ability would need to spend countless hours on their sport. Those hours cannot be spent on academics. "</p>
<p>Exactly. That’s what’s sad. That top “academic” colleges are actually encouraging students to forgo schoolwork to burn themselves out on camps and tournaments all year to get admitted, when sports, in high school and even (gasp) in college is supposed to be a fun, competitive, bonding extracurricular activity. Not a JOB. Yes, I know that isn’t reality in many cases, which is sad in itself.</p>
<p>It’s absurd that Ivy and NESCAC schools are so hypercompetitive in recruiting for sports now. Didn’t used to be the case. At one time most athletes at those schools were “walkons”, you know, the actual students became athletes and competed for their college. As far as I know, barely pubescent kids getting recruited for crew and lax and parents needing to shell out thousands on club teams and camps is fairly new.</p>
<p>Whether or not these colleges slightly lower the bar for athletes is not important. It seems that many people have a sense of entitlement when it comes to acceptance letters at elite schools. Why does everyone say, “They have to take only the smartest applicants!” Who gets accepted and who gets rejected are the school’s prerogative. Colleges have the right to use any criteria they want for acceptance. The school does not owe allegiance to any group of people, and they have the right to do whatever they think is best for their school. If this means that academic standards are different for different people such as athletes, legacies, various types of minorities, etc. (and please don’t take that as an admission that standards ARE different for any of the aforementioned groups, I’m simply acknowledging the possibility) then so be it. Just as no student owes any school an application or enrollment (other than those who have freely entered into binding contracts), no school owes a student an acceptance letter. If everyone finds the practices of Ivy League schools to be so reprehensible, don’t apply.</p>
<p>Perhaps the above poster would feel differently if they were rejected from every Ivy with perfect academic credentials and national recognition in a non-recruit sport, which has happened to at least one poster on CC.</p>
<p>Just because other schools are worse doesn’t make it okay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s one thing to argue that someone shouldn’t have gotten in because you were better than them. It’s a different - and legitimate - argument to say that someone isn’t qualified or that a school’s priorities are backwards.</p>
<p>I’m a parent now, but in the 80’s I applied to and was accepted to about a half dozen colleges. The school I ultimately chose was a Seven Sister, then and now co-ed. No football team, few other sports, mainly intramural ones, just for fun. It was the atmosphere I wanted.</p>
<p>If I had wanted big sports AND a stimulating academic atmosphere, I’d have chosen an Ivy U. I preferred just the latter.</p>
<p>It sounds like a lot of people here might do well to avoid the Ivies and instead choose schools that do not put such a big emphasis on sports.</p>
<p>I suggested that idea several pages ago, ohio-mom. The fact is that folks would rather make the Ivies into something that they don’t want to be. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I think I read that blue, I actually read the entire thread, all 10 pages. But I felt like it needed to be said again, by me :)</p>
<p>My S is a musician and he’s not an athlete (anymore). I don’t have any issue with private schools placing some value on athletics in the admissions process if that is what they want to do. I am glad some choose to place value on music - chances are he will choose one of those, and that’s great, I think.</p>
<p>I feel like the folks who are really hung up on this issue are people who think 1. Ivies are the only “good” places to go to college and 2. every spot in an Ivy should be for the highest scores/gpas, exclusively. </p>
<p>I don’t personally agree with premise #1 but if I did, I suppose I’d involve myself in a sport - preferably one that is a little less popular (not football, maybe fencing) - because clearly that’s a serious hook there and that would help me achieve my goal.</p>
<p>Was this student unaware that the sport that they excelled in was a non-recruit sport? If so, perhaps the student should have looked into the colleges a little more before applying. If not, then the student surely realized that their excellence in that sport would be seen as a positive trait, but would not get them the same benefits that an athlete who excels in a sport that is recruited receives, such as the support of a coach who has some sway in admissions decisions. If the student did not realize that he or she would not get the same benefits as a recruit, perhaps he or she should have looked into the colleges’ policies regarding recruited and non-recruited athletes more closely. If the student realized both of these things, I don’t understand where the outrage in their rejection at all Ivy colleges comes from. I will say again that a private institution has the right to determine their own criteria and priorities. This includes whether or not sports in general are a priority as well as which specific sports are a priority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When you say someone “isn’t qualified,” do you mean that they aren’t as academically qualified as other applicants, or that they are not capable of doing the work at all? If you mean that they are not as academically qualified as other candidates, we are back to my original point about colleges having the right to prioritize and set criteria however they see fit. If you mean that they are not capable of doing the work, I think that you may be mistaken. There is a difference between the academic excellence that a student who does not have a “hook” must possess to get accepted into an Ivy League school and the academic excellence that a student must possess to be able to do the work at an Ivy League college. Harvard says that 85 percent of the applicants each year are academically qualified to do the work at Harvard. Since only 7 percent are accepted, it is quite obvious that many people who could do the work don’t get accepted. I’d be willing to bet that the average SAT/ACT scores, GPA, and class rank of admitted students are higher than those of academically qualified students. The reality is that most students who get accepted have more intelligence than is necessary to do the work at Ivy League schools (well, what the schools themselves say is necessary to do the work, anyway). Just because these athletes have scores that are below the averages, it doesn’t mean that they are unqualified.</p>
<p>As far as your admission that their priorities are backward, I think that you are blowing things out of proportion. While Ivies do give athletics some priority for people who are exceptional at a sport that is recruited, athletics is by no means prioritized over academics on the whole. There tons more applicants who are accepted primarily because of academic excellence than applicants who are accepted primariy because of athletic excellence. Also, those who are accepted because of their athletic excellence are still very smart, just not quite as smart as non-recruits. This means that academics are still very much a priority if you are an exceptional athlete, but athletics are not a priority at all if you are an exceptional student. How is this backwards?</p>
<p>A little bit more perspective here for why exactly schools need to give athletes an admissions edge. I’ll use my sport (lacrosse) and position (goalie) as an example, as going through the process, I learned a lot about how it works.
A coach travels throughout their off-season evaluating recruits, with most intensive efforts focused in the summer and fall, where club teams attend national camps and tournaments. Players start getting looks at the end of their freshman year, and coaches fill their rosters by the first semester of their senior year. For Ivy schools, being Division 1 (for most sports- I know Cornell football is an exception), coaches have gotten verbal commitments from their recruits by october at the latest, sometimes as early as the beginning of a player’s junior year. The coach then has a list of players he expects to be playing for him next year. A coach most often recruits one goalie every other year, and rarely has more than one goalie per year. So, the goalie has a verbal commitment to a college. Let’s say admissions gave no edge to recruited athletes, and the goalie was rejected. Now, a coach is left without a goalie (and with little to no hopes of finding one, as the D1 caliber athletes are already committed and accepted), and the goalie is left without a team. Let’s say a coach has more than one goalie “commit” (though he really wouldn’t- breaking the ethical binding)- many ivy’s have acceptance rates as low as one in six admitted, so he recruits six goalies. Two get in, he must choose one, the other five have no team or school to play for. None get in, he has no goalie.</p>
<p>Sure, these athletes may be given an advantage, but I believe it is absolutely necessary to maintain the quality of college athletics. An 1800 is still an above-average SAT score, and that’s the low end of the athletes they admit. These are still extraordinary students, maybe just a little bit below other applicants stats-wise, but they make up for that in their value to the school (revenue, entertainment, social life, atmosphere, reputation, etc)</p>