I think what one of the main things a lot of us are trying to say here is that the schools shouldn’t be so concerned with “maintain[ing] the quality of college athletics” and should instead be concerned with maintaining the quality of college academic-standards. </p>
<p>I know all the people who are pro-recruit edges will have a million things to say in response, but I’m not offering this as a contention to be rebutted. Merely as a clarification as to what, exactly, some of us on the other side of the issue are thinking.</p>
<p>Could you please clarify one thing for me? Why do YOU get to determine what Ivy League colleges’ priorities need to be? Why do the schools, which are private institutions that have the right to act in their own self-interests, not have the right to determine their own priorities?</p>
<p>I keep hearing about what the Ivies’ priorities need to be, but I haven’t yet been able to understand why all of these posters think it is their right to decide how the schools need to prioritize. This is a capitalist country. Private institutions are allowed to act out of their own self-interest, provided that they don’t break any laws (and I don’t think anyone is contending that anything occuring in the recruitment process is against US laws). Private institutions are encouraged to develop their own priorities with the understanding that if their customers don’t agree with their priorities, they will lose business. In the case of colleges, students and donors are the “customers.” If, as a result of their recruiting policies, the Ivies are unable to get many students to apply, or if they are unable to get as many donations, they will have no one to blame but themselves. Yet again I will say, if the recruitment practices of the Ivy League are so deplorable, why do you all apply?</p>
<p>Okay, these arguments have actually swayed me a little. Still, there are things that I see as problems. One of these is that many top colleges aren’t really honest about they want. For instance, I believe Stanford says that academic excellence is the most important factor in admission. However, I personally have two very different acquaintances that applied to Stanford EA from the same [good] school last year. One was a 16 AP classes and several honors, straight A and A+, perfect (and I mean 800, 36, 5, etc on everything he took) test scorer with good other things (ECs, recs and essays [he said], etc.), and just an all-around nice guy who was flatly rejected. Another was a student who took 0 AP/honors classes (and no or very few otherwise advanced ones either), had predominantly B’s and B-'s with a sprinkling of A’s and C’s, had test scores that, even superscored, would not distinguish him at CSU Bakersfield (okay, that is an exaggeration, but not by much), who honestly isn’t all that nice, no other hooks, and had one EC, but that was being a recruited athlete. And, guess what, he was admitted. He said he was getting scholarship money but I’m not sure if that was athletic or need-based. Still, if academic excellence was the primary criterion, the results would have certainly been different. This can be applied to Ivies and other schools too, I just used this as an example. I wish they were more open about what really matters in admission. For the record, I have been admitted to my top choice (Harvard), so this isn’t out of selfishness or bitterness; I believe that at least being truthful about what matters most would be for everyone’s good.</p>
<p>First of all, I’d like to thank you for making a valid argument. Instead of saying “They tell us how it is and I don’t like it,” you say, “They lie to us.” I don’t understand why people feel they should decide what a colleges priorities must be. I do understand why people feel that it is not right for colleges to lie. I can understand your frustration, it does seem to be against what they say. There’s two things I have to say about this, though, that I think maybe need to be considered.
1)Though it is SO tempting to do, it is never good to compare one applicant to another. The chances are very slim that the admissions committee looked at those two applications side by side and picked the recruited athlete over the other student. There are always going to be people who are admitted to selective colleges that have test scores, grades, GPA, etc. that are lower than those of thousands of admitted applicants. Some of them are recruited athletes, some are not. I don’t think much good comes out of analyzing such isolated incidences. Colleges have very complicated ways of selecting a freshman class (which we will probably never fully understand unless we one day work in the admissions office of a highly selective college), so it is often fruitless to analyze one particular admit or reject.
2) The other issue at hand is that it is unclear what is meant by “academics is the most important factor.” It seems that most academically exceptional applicants take this to mean that on every application, much more weight will be given to academics than athletics. Is is possible that it actually means that athletics will only be a significant consideration on a very small number of applications (presumably of students who are athletically exceptional), and that for all others, ability (or lack thereof) in athletics will not be a factor. I think that saying “academics are most important” still accurately represents the second notion that I presented because the vast majority of people who were admitted were admitted because they were truly exceptional scholars and only a few gained admission primarily because of athletics, so the school put way more priority on academics than athletics. And it is also worth noting that even athletes have to at least be reasonably intelligent. If you are admitted for your academic merit, they don’t care if you are positively awful at athletics. The fact that athletes have to have a lot of athletic ability and a moderate amount of academic ability while scholars need to have a lot of academic ability and no athletic ability also shows that academics are in fact prioritized first. While the stats of some of their athletes may frustrate people with higher stats, I do think that they are being honest about valuing academics more than athletics because there are tons of brilliant minds and only a small number of great athletes at Stanford.</p>
<p>This conversation (if it can be called that anymore) is just running in circles, and I don’t think anyone has had a real change of heart. Either you think it’s okay for Ivy League schools to occasionally accept athletes who are below their academic par or you don’t, simple as that. The only real fact of the matter is that they have, do, and will continue to… thus, I find it to be a complete waste of energy to complain about it. </p>
<p>Also, people on CC take things humorously personally. And grass is green.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t want to go to an ivy institution if it has a horrible sports scene. When I visited Penn I went to a Penn-Princeton football game, and all the students looked like they were having an awesome time. If the level of play at an ivy decreased to that off a mediocre division 3 team, I would be much MUCH less inclined to go to one. I’d rather go to Michigan or Northwestern which both have amazing academics and athletics.</p>
<p>The University of Chicago, long ago, abandoned the notion of recruiting student athletes. I believe the reputation of the school as a whole diminished as a consequence of this. The Ivies are excellent schools, not doubt, but they look at U Chicago, a school which has graduated 16% of all Nobel Laureates since the prize was founded, and shudder. The Ivies are a brand name. They know that the brand name is very important to their standing in the eyes of the world, and to their endowment. The brand increases in value along with the athletic standing. Athletics are part of the brand. Look into the history of admissions at Ivies, and you’ll find applicants with hand-written margin notations, “has big ears”. Ever conscious of public perception, they know that part of their allure is being “elite”, “in” and “sexy”. It is no accident therefore that they are willing to set the bar lower for those who can increase their “sexiness”. They also know that it is the athletes who frequently become movers and shakers in business, thereby increasing donations later on down the road.</p>
<p>I agree that if we’re going by strict academic standards, that they should apply the same admissions standards for all to be “fair”. But who ever said life was “fair”? Who ever said these ivory tower bastions of virtue had to be consistent in the values they espouse and those they actually adhere to? I am sure that the professors are idealistic people. The board of trustees, who pull the strings, however, are likely not. They are generally composed of the same financiers, captains of industry, and legacies which are used to having their way in life, and would like to see their brand increase in value.</p>
<p>That is NOT the point we’ve been making through the thread. However, just to humor you, one could certainly argue that having academic peers who have significantly lower GPA’s and test scores decreases the quality of one’s educational experience. College students don’t only listen to professors lecture and take notes. Students learn best from their peers, such as when other students explain the solution of a problem to them. Students are also frequently assigned to work in groups (for example, in labs) and to present group projects. Many courses are discussion-based and require active participation from all the members of the class. In the Ivies especially, small class sizes will require every student to “hold their own weight” in participation. In addition, outside of class, students frequently study together for tests and may even help each other with homework. </p>
<p>I’m using Harvard as an example. There are ~1700 students per class year, and 200 or 8.5% of those students are athletes. I’m not going to count other hooked applicants, such as legacies or URM’s (which are increasing every year). There’s a very good chance that the average Harvard student will encounter these “hooked” students during his or her academic endeavors. I’m not saying that all hooked applicants have lower academic stats! But for those who do, they’re not suddenly going to turn in Einsteins because they’re attending a prestigious college. They are likely to continue to underperform academics-wise when compared to their peers. This will not only affect the students around them (as shown in my examples above), but ultimately affect them as well.</p>
<p>I actually feel sorry for recruited athletes at the Ivies who are not academically up-to-par. If they got low grades in high school because they were too busy with their sport, then playing division 1 isn’t going to help their college GPA’s. If they got low grades because they simply didn’t have the smarts, then studying at an Ivy League is going to be very tough for them! For all the people who are jealous of recruited athletes, feel pity for them instead. For whatever reason, the stereotypical B+ / 1800 athlete chose to attend a college where they will be in the bottom 25% academically. Speaking to the frustrated applicants who got turned down from Ivies: These hooked applicants may have gotten into the college of your dreams, but everyone knows that it is the hard-working students with high grades and SAT scores who will continue to truly succeed academically in college and later in life.</p>
<p>Elite, I assure you, student athletes do fine in college, whether its Bama or Brown. The graduation rate for Division 1 athletes is significantly higher than the national average. </p>
<p>You’re perpetuating this myth that it takes a 2300 valedictorian to survive at elite schools. It doesn’t. Anyone with a good work ethic can survive, and these athletes have a better work ethic than practically any other admit. The Ivy League prides itself for providing an incredible education, not for providing unnecessarily difficult classes. Any no-name university can supply difficult classes. The elite schools are great because they have incredible professors and facilities that allow students to take on difficult subjects and master them thoroughly. These athletes hold their own weight and aren’t bringing down their peers, even if they are only in the top 85% of SAT test takers instead of the top 95%. </p>
<p>So don’t pity them. You’re being ridiculous.</p>
<p>Your last sentence is such a joke I don’t even care enough to address it.</p>
<p>But that is EXCTLY what born2dance posted. His/her exact words. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One could “argue” that the sky is green! Are you just making this stuff up? Or, do you have any peer-reviewed data sources to support your claims? (I hope that you realize that any future college professor would tear such unsupported suppositions to shreds.)</p>
<p>You quoted born2dance’s words, and then you wrote something under them that no one in this thread had previously been arguing. Many of us on this thread are frustrated because the Ivies prioritize athletics over academics, as shown in the lower academic standards that recruited athletes have to meet in order to be accepted to an Ivy League college. That is what born2dance meant by “maintaining the quality of college academic standards”. No one previously (before I responded to you in my last post) was commenting on the “slipping quality of undergrad education” - as you put it. You twisted her words into something that could be more easily attacked.</p>
<p>As for your response to me, you bolded several of my word choices, so I will respond. I wrote “one could certainly argue”, and then I went on to argue for my point in the next TWO paragraphs. If you would like to counter the points in my paragraphs, then do so. I can defend and perhaps provide evidence to substantiate my claims.</p>
<p>The two “if” statements were two alternative explanations that I thought of for why “B” athletes may have had lower GPA’s than their peers. If you can think of a third explanation, PLEASE enlighten me. </p>
<p>Here is proof that ANY accepted student (not just athletes) who has below a 1990 SAT will be below the 25th percentile at Brown. The scores at the 25th percentile are higher at every other Ivy League college (with the exception of Cornell, which does not count Writing scores). Thus, as I said, the stereotypical 1800 SAT athlete will below the 25th percentile academically at any of the Ivy Leagues. Please note that I am NOT presuming that the athletes in this range will STAY in the bottom 25th percentile during their 4 years. Perhaps even with the burden of a varsity sport, they will be able to rise above.
[Ivy</a> League SAT Scores - Compare SAT Scores for Ivy League Schools](<a href=“http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/a/sat_side_x_side.htm]Ivy”>Ivy League SAT Score Comparison for Admission)</p>
<p>Since you want sources, here is a quote from former Princeton president William Bowen:
“If you look at the 1989 Ivy cohort, you find that in the high-profile sports, nearly 69 percent of men ended up in the bottom third of the class. The comparable figures for the 1951 and 1976 Ivy cohorts are 43 percent and 65 percent, respectively. The 1989 cohort came along after the Academic Index was put in place with the goal of raising athletes’ SAT scores. What’s surprising - and disappointing - is that the effort to improve things by instituting the AI didn’t carry over to how athletes performed in the classroom. It is troubling that 69 percent of these folks wound up in the bottom third of their class.”
<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/features/features_27.html[/url]”>http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/features/features_27.html</a></p>
<p>I agree with everything you wrote in your last response. Do you how I can agree with you? Because you did not contradict anything that I wrote. I have no doubt that athletes (in general) can do very well in their respective Ivy League colleges. After all, only a very small percentage of students “flunk out”. I - and the other people in this thread on my side - are arguing against ONLY the athletes who meet near the bare minimum of academic standards (little to no AP’s, comparatively lower SAT’s, B average, etc.) There have been several of these instances cited on this thread. It is THESE people that I pity (for the reasons I described previously) - not ALL athletes as you presumed. </p>
<p>I wish you would actually read what I wrote instead of just presuming that I stereotyped ALL athletes at Ivy League colleges. I was only referring to a specific group of athletes. YOU people are the ones “perpetuating the myth” - as you put it - that “it takes a 2300 valedictorian to survive at elite schools”. I certainly did not state this. You did.</p>
<p>Also, I apologize for my last sentence, which has gotten quite a bit of response. In hindsight, I would have replaced “everyone knows” with “in my opinion”. I don’t know how many people share my opinion, but it’s clearly not “everyone”.</p>
<p>While we are on the subject of how horrible and ruinous to the college experience the prospect of having to sit next to an 1800 SAT scorer in class will be, let’s add on a discussion about the similar devastation of having to sit next to an elitist, closed-minded, self-important, nerdy student who refuses to consort with or find value in knowing anyone who is not on-par with his/her academic achievements. Ugh.</p>
<p>^
To me the issue is not one of the quality of the education, which I agree is probably actually improved by having athletics programs like those at the Ivies, but of balancing that improvement with the impact on admissions. We can’t deny that there are a limited number of spots and that there is therefore an impact on unhooked applicants whenever hooked applicants are accepted who would not have been accepted without a hook.</p>
<p>Unhooked applicants are not competing for the hooked spots, so get over it. You will never be able to fill the athlete’s seat if you do not play a sport. That seat was never even on your horizon unless you went out for the team.</p>
<p>And p.s., it has been this way since before you were born, so don’t act like athletes suddenly showed up and took <em>your</em> spots.</p>
<p>That’s simply not true. There are a set number of spots. While these are allocated to hooked and unhooked applicants, and with the current system unhooked applicants do not compete for hooked spots, were the hooked spots not reserved for hook applicants there would be more spots for unhooked applicants. Thus, considering hooks has an impact on other applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Way to be condescending. I applied to one Ivy. It was not my first choice. I’m not complaining that anyone took my spot because I don’t feel any sense of entitlement toward a spot in the Ivy League, nor do I have any desire to be at an Ivy.</p>
<p>Also, just because something has been around for a long time doesn’t make it right. Slavery was around for thousands of years.</p>