<p>
</p>
<p>…Like if the unhooked spots were not reserved for unhooked applicants there would be more spots for hooked applicants. Got it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Despite the sarcasm, that’s completely true. Were the apportionment of spots adjusted, each group of applicants would be affected. The decision to consider something a hook therefore impacts all applicants because it must impact the apportionment of spots based on our assumption that there are actually spots reserved in advance for people with various hooks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. It assumes that if there were no football team at college X, then 80-100 seats would open up to everyone else. It is also possible that if college X never had a football team, it would simply have 80-100 fewer seats available.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not unless there was housing built specifically for athletes. The number of students a school takes is based on both housing availability and the number of students it wants to take. Housing availability is based on the number of students it wants to take, as leaving housing empty is a huge waste of money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understood the first time, thanks. Clarifying premises avoids people jumping down my throat for logical conclusions that only follow when those premises apply.</p>
<p>I completely agree with RedSeven. </p>
<p>@ Bay, the main reason colleges exist is NOT to allow students to socialize and make friends - although a great college experience will include those things. College are here to provide an EDUCATION. While the “elitist” and “nerdy” student you mentioned could potentially study hard to earn good grades, contribute to class discussions, be an excellent tutor, great person to work in on a group project with, help explain concepts to students who do not understand them, etc., the other student you mentioned (the B+ / 1800 student) would NOT be able to do these things as well. RedSeven is completely justified in saying that there is “an impact on unhooked applicants whenever hooked applicants are accepted”. The fact is that unhooked applicants have the academic stats and will be able to contribute to the world-class education that Ivies give. Hooked applicants with lower stats, while they may contribute much to the college’s atmosphere and social life, will not contribute as much academically. That is why we are against lowering academic standards for athletes. To quote someone else on this thread, the Ivies are ACADEMIC institutions founded firstly to provide educations, not sports training facilities.</p>
<p>Most universities in the US do not provide housing for all or even most of their students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While this could happen, it isn’t necessarily the case. They could contribute just as much academically by virtue of their contributions to discussion, and their status could also be a misrepresentation of their academic potential. Some students with poor grades and test scores just don’t test well, but contribute just as much as (if not more than) everyone else to the academic environment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said it was a direct relationship. They don’t admit one student for every bed. They do, however, determine the number of students they can admit based on housing availability, especially at schools where freshmen are required to live on campus. Regardless of whether freshmen are required to live on campus, they still calculate how many people they can accommodate based on the typical demand for housing. Yield is also considered in determining the number of students to admit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here we go again…some “elite hopeful” telling us all why colleges exist… Maybe someday the elite universities will become as enlightened about their true purpose as you.</p>
<p>^
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a school that doesn’t aim to provide an education. It’s just that a quality college education involves those other components.</p>
<p>Also, by definition, schools, colleges, and universities are all educational institutions.</p>
<p>Don’t make me say it, Redseven…duh.</p>
<p>^
Then quit disputing that colleges exist to provide an education.</p>
<p>I can’t quit something I never did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your response to the statement that colleges exist to provide an education.</p>
<p>I was being facetious… OF COURSE colleges exist to provide an education (duh), and they (not some high schooler) get to define what is included in the college education they provide. If they consider college athletics and mingling with others not just like you (like athletes, URMs and legacies) an important component to the educational experience, then that is their prerogative (as has been said before ad nauseum). I think you already know this, RedSeven.</p>
<p>You know what else has been said “ad nauseum” (yet many are ignoring were ever stated)? That we UNDERSTAND it is “their prerogative.” We UNDERSTAND it has always and will always be this way. We UNDERSTAND that not all athletes fall under this situation. We UNDERSTAND that, ultimately, our opinions will not change anything. However, since this is an open forum where opinions are welcome, YOU need to understand that all we are doing here is voicing our opinions. And our opinion is that we feel it to be an unfair system for the reasons mentioned throughout.</p>
<p>Now what I DON’T understand is all of the posts about “you’re just jealous because you think they stole <em>your</em> spot which never existed” or “whats about other hooks?” or “not all athletes are like this so stop calling every athlete ever dumb” or “if you don’t like it, you shouldn’t apply there,” etc. Because clearly, all of that is irrelevant to the MAIN thing we’ve just been trying to get across: our opinion. Many have made it seem like even thinking that lowering academic standards for recruited athletes is not a great system must be disputed to the very last detail and argument. Clearly, anyone who is a recruited athlete or whose kid is a recruited athlete (or best friend or relative, etc.) is going to think the system is great. Most other people will not think so. But most obvious is that no one seems to be changing someone else’s opinion, so this will conceivably continue until… I don’t even know when.</p>
<p>Considering that the only positive claim as to the purpose of colleges was that they exist to provide an education, it was reasonable to construe your mocking of the post as an objection to that definition of a college’s purpose.</p>
<p>I completely agree that all of those things are important to the educational experience. However, I do sympathize with the complaints about the influence of athletics on admissions. Although most are silly, there is obviously an impact that can be questioned from an admissions perspective. While so many of you seem intent on mocking those complaints, many of them have legitimacy.</p>
<p>My issue is less with applying different standards to athletes and more with (1) the undue emphasis on athletics over academics in high school and, to some extent, prior to high school; and (2) statements that academic considerations are second to athletic considerations in admissions. I have no problem with consideration of athletics; I do have a problem with a statement that they’re more important than academics from an admissions perspective, as that runs contrary to the mission of an academic institution.</p>
<p>I think the problem is that many of us have heard the same arguments over and over and over on these boards, and cannot help reacting with exasperation. I apologize if my lack of patience came across as mocking. I really should stay out of these debates, because you are right, in the end, no one ever changes their opinions on it.</p>
<p>@ RedSeven, I think we’ll just have to respectfully disagree (your post, #167). Yes, B students can contribute much to discussions because everyone has a different perspective on things. But if they truly understood the material being taught, why are they getting B’s instead of A’s? Bad test-takers (multiple choice? short answer? essay?) have other ways to demonstrate to teachers that they understand the material. I don’t think that one can simply explain it away as over-anxiety during tests. Perhaps varsity athletes are preoccupied with their sports and do not have enough time to devote to studies as non-athletes; in this case, they are likely to continue to underperform their full potential in college. Also, your argument (that people with lower stats contribute just as much to discussions) doesn’t just apply to athletes. If the Ivies actually believed in this, other students with lower stats would be admitted without hooks - something we don’t see often.</p>
<p>@ Bay (your post, # 168) how rude. Just because you’re named after a body of water does not mean I’m going to call you “shallow” and “fishy”. Likewise, I’d appreciate if you did not insult me because of my username. Besides, I fail to see what hoping to attend an elite college has anything to do with the topic at hand. Stop attacking people (ad hominem) and attack our arguments instead.</p>
<p>Perhaps you can enlighten me (your post, #174) how “mingling with athletes and legacies” is an important component of one’s educational experience. I’m an athlete myself, and I have many friends who are athletes, and I fail to see how it “educates” non-athletes anything to mingle with us. In my opinion, the Ivies don’t want athletics for educational purposes - more for social atmosphere, recognition, money, and school spirit.</p>
<p>It is interesting how this discussion keeps going in circles.</p>
<p>I can tell you about my recruited kid (not for Ivies, but for several top Div 1 schools). She wanted to play at a higher caliber level school for her sport and also for the major she was interested in, and didn’t even consider an Ivy. Now I am kind of happy about that - I wonder if she would have been looked down upon by her peers at the Ivy institution, after reading some of these comments. :(</p>
<p>My kid had top grades and is in the top 5% of her class, but her SAT test scores weren’t as high as she had hoped, but well above average. She did better on the ACT. She would have liked to test for the SAT again after some prep classes like so many of her friends, but the prep classes we could afford were the same nights as club practices. We couldn’t afford the other test prep AND club fees, too. Missing club to go to SAT test prep would have lost her spot on the team. </p>
<p>If I told you how many times she had to reschedule (and pay an additional fee) for an SAT or an ACT due to a tournament, you might laugh. I know that it still frustrates me those test date change fees and missed opportunities.</p>
<p>Recruiting trips in fall of senior year always seemed to fall on those last, critical re-test dates, too. Honestly, taking a recruit trip seemed far more important than taking the SAT again. Perhaps she should have, simply for bragging rights. </p>
<p>I just wonder how many of those substandard 1800’s we keep hearing about had to do with obligations that came with playing the sports, themselves. </p>
<p>Even having the time to take the SAT or ACT multiple times was a huge issue for my kid and is for the kids she knows playing the same sports (she is a two sport athlete). We now caution future prospective athletes to begin SAT/ACT testing no later than the end of Sophomore year, if possible, just so they can get all their tests complete.</p>
<p>@SamuraiLandshark If your daughter was in the top 5% of her class, clearly she is not one of the kids we are talking about. We are talking about the kids with the low GPAs to match their low test scores.</p>