<p>This is interesting because the only person who got into cmc at my school is a swimmer (I was waitlisted) and I was a little bummed because their gpa is way below mine, etc. but there you go I guess.</p>
<p>Although I absolutely, without a doubt, hate football, I had a chance to be at UND for a home game. Regis Philbin (class of early 50s) was there as was a big name quarterback who is also a grad (Joe Montana?, I'm guessing). </p>
<p>Anyway, the whole weekend was a blast. I saw the school spirit, cameraderie etc that was oh so absent at my alma mater. It definitely piqued the interest of the hs jr who was with me.</p>
<p>"Two hundred of the accepted students were tagged by the admissions department as having a top rating in music, theater, dance, art or writing. The admission office also predicts that 176 of the admitted students will participate in a varsity sport."</p>
<p>You do see the difference of course - one is about past accomplishment, the other about future participation? (I too think the music offerings at Williams are topnotch, but there is a serious difference between saying that in the past bunches of folks participated, as opposed to predicting - and depending on - 176 varsity athletes (and about 75 jv and club sport athletes) in the future.</p>
<p>And I think it is great that there is a place for scholar-athletes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is interesting because the only person who got into cmc at my school is a swimmer (I was waitlisted) and I was a little bummed because their gpa is way below mine, etc. but there you go I guess.
[/quote]
CMC likes athletes; they're quite upfront about it. CMC prides itself on producing future leaders. While test scores and gpa are very important at CMC and the school is highly selective, they are also interested in forming a class of promising future leaders, and accomplished athletes also tend to have strong leadership characteristics. CMC is actually pretty clear that there are other ways to demonstrate leadership than being student body president -- athletics is specifically mentioned.</p>
<p>"All of the traits which are fostered or evidenced by participation in sports (except for fitness) could also be acquired in other activities. Most schools require lots of group projects just for this purpose. Sports in colleges cost money. By forcing everyone to pay for these sports and fancy fitness centers we're pricing kids out of elite schools. At least there should be an alternative - no-sports, lower-priced schools. And most high school varsity athletes are spending at least 15 hours a week at their sport. If you are a sports zealot go for it, but for your kid of average athletic ability and zeal I think it's time that could better be spent elsewhere - reading, working, volunteering or how about sleeping?"</p>
<p>I know that other people have responded to this statement, and maybe the poster is just being facetious, but HOW could anyone downgrade the importance of physical activity and fitness in this world? Are you looking for Overweight U? Kids of average athletic ability are exactly the ones who should be using the fitness centers and doing club/intramural sports to develop healthy habits. Would you rather they be getting beer-bellies?</p>
<p>And since when does being physically active and in shape preclude participation in reading, working, volunteering and sleeping? Haven't you heard of "healthy body, healthy mind"?</p>
<p>My daughter stays slim and fit by running or bicycling for about 30 minutes about 3 X a week. A daily gym period which we had at our old school but not at the new one I think would suffice for fitness. If you like sports do more but I don't think that admission to elite schools should require varsity participation in a sport.</p>
<p>Fitness is one thing; varsity sports is another.
My S, the couch potato, is downright skinny; no fear of obesity there. He's also very strong despite doing no sports. In elementary school, he was the class champ at push-ups and got beaten at racing only by--this being Boston Marathon land--a kid from Kenya.</p>
<p>1Down2togo, I do see your point about college athletes often going on to leadership positions in other endeavors, such as being successful CEOs or politicians. The trouble is, a first class education goes a long way toward giving a person the skills and connections they need to succeed in those areas. So clearly, giving these individuals a strong preference in admission decisions at elite colleges is going to skew the data, by giving them a big leg up over their peers. (Attendance at an elite college vs. non elite seems to be particularly beneficial for low income students, in terms of upward social mobility). Basically, we can't rule out that athletes do better later in life simply because society gives them more advantages. At the same time, public knowledge of the heavy preferences in admissions likely will increase participation in athletics by those with leadership interests. So basically, what you have is sort of a self-fulfilling (and perpetuating) prophecy. </p>
<p>Which isn't to say that I am anti-athlete. D is technically a varsity athlete (small high school, unimportant division) and I couldn't be more thrilled for the boy from our hometown who got into Cornell on football scholarship. But I do have concerns about the favoritism some schools give to athletes, particularly when it comes to the university importing individuals to campus with a history of violence toward women, covering up or making light violence by athletes toward women on campus, or maintaining a double standard for athletes on issues of academic integrity.</p>
<p>Well that was an incoherant mess. Sorry, all. Too many back-to-back 12 hour workdays + commuting. But in there were some points, assembly required.</p>
<p>"If you like sports do more but I don't think that admission to elite schools should require varsity participation in a sport."</p>
<p>And since when is varsity particpation a requirement for admission to an elite school? Even the Ivy League, which is an *athletic league * does not have such requirements. Are you intimating that every student at Claremont had to be an athlete to be admitted? </p>
<p>It is shame that the entire discussion has switched to a debate about the sports when this elemet represents a very small part of the article in the form of a sidebar. :(</p>
<p>"Two hundred of the accepted students were tagged by the admissions department as having a top rating in music, theater, dance, art or writing. The admission office also predicts that 176 of the admitted students will participate in a varsity sport."</p>
<p>I think this is really just semantics per past and present participation. These schools generally have bands, orchestras, theater departments, and of course, innumerable a cappella groups that have to be staffed and perpetuated. I doubt that many selective schools would like to see these activities fold due to lack of talent accepted. Isn't part of the CC credo that schools need tuba players some years more than others?</p>
<p>Students, parents and alums like all of these activities, from sports to a cappella, to varying degrees, but at USC they probably like football the most. And so what is the problem? If you don't like football, go to Emory or Swarthmore!</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Fitness is one thing; varsity sports is another.
My S, the couch potato, is downright skinny; no fear of obesity there. He's also very strong despite doing no sports.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Marite, it doesn't sound like your son is fit. Cardiovascular exercise is needed for fitness. Being skinny doesn't mean you have low body fat or enough muscle mass.</p>
<p>"It is shame that the entire discussion has switched to a debate about the sports when this elemet represents a very small part of the article in the form of a sidebar."</p>
<p>Sorry, Xig, I think it made "news" here because it just seemed so surprising (and public, too.)</p>
<p>"I think this is really just semantics per past and present participation."</p>
<p>I would like to believe that, too, but from experience I can tell you with certainty that it isn't. When we visited Reed, the admissions officer went out of his way to tell us that 75% of Reed students had played an instrument before coming to Reed. Yet, they could barely get 30 folks together for the college orchestra (which works out to only 7 or 8 per year), and had to rely on the surrounding community to get musicians to make it work.</p>
<p>This is NOT the case at Williams - they have excellent and involved musicians and drama folk. But it is far cry from projecting 176 varsity athletes (and another 70-80 jv and club), who are needed to maintain the athletic program.</p>
<p>At any rate, I think it is a GOOD thing to have schools that cater to scholar-athletes, both past and present. You just have to know what it is you are choosing.</p>
<p>Cloverdale, good for you for putting your money where your mouth is, although I suspect your student would have more in common with my Div. I athlete than you expect, and I regret that of that potential interaction.</p>
<p>Amazon. You need some education about athletics before you decide to engage in debate on the subject. Your kid's three times a week forays into physical fitness bear NO resemblance to what students endure to become elite athletes. Yes, your student may be minimally physically fit (most student's parents engage in a similar workout to what you describe, I might add, however) but that is not the same as the kind of inner drive that motivates a young person to push their body -- and their mind, because sports at this level have a mental component -- to endure hardship and deprivation and sacrifice and deferral of short-term gratification for the possibility -- NOT the guarantee, mind you -- of a long-term goal. </p>
<p>One thing I don't think I have seen mentioned here as a benefit of athletics is how well-acquainted these kids become with failure. They fail far more than they succeed. They lose far more frequently than they win. And that is wonderful preparation for life. I wish I had been born in a time when athletics for girls had come of age, because I believe young women today have a tremendous age over the women of my era because of their athletic participation. They have learned the benefits of teamwork and the virtues of a pursuit that can involve sweating and no makeup. And they have learned that failure is not only okay, but necessary and part of daily life. </p>
<p>So many of the journeys we set our children upon are about work rather than play and are so focused upon a presumption of eventual success. Sports is the one last bastion of play in their lives, and certainly a place where they can feel free to fail and fail and fail on their way to success. </p>
<p>Best thing we ever did, imho, was to encourage our kids to love to learn and to love to play.</p>
<p>Well said Dizzymom. I especially agree with the part about "failure". That is a very important life lesson and it can be learned both in sports and in other ways. I remember, oh so well, one morning when I noticed my son left a report on the computer printer. Every fiber of myy body wanted to grab that report, drive to the school, and get it to him to "save" him from himself. I did not. He survived. But I'm getting off topic......</p>
<p>It may be that showing leadership in athletics will help you get into a good college, but what about playing at a mediocre level and taking time away from academics? My brother, who is a high-school sophmore, plays three sports (JV or Varsity, depending on the event) and hasn't achieved much at any of them, although he is dedicated and really pushes himself. The problem is that with all his sports practices and meets, he's had no time to get involved with any other academic or extracurricular groups, or to get a job, and I'm afraid that this will really hurt him come application time. </p>
<p>Don't lose hope if you're not a varsity athlete! As long as you show leadership and responsibility somewhere, you'll be fine. Also, the Ivy League and some other very selective colleges only give need-based scholarships- no athletic scholarships!- so this won't affect how much financial aid you get.</p>
<p>Collegialmom:</p>
<p>
[quote]
but at USC they probably like football the most.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While it is true that USC loves their football team they also love their music school and their band director. The bill the USC marching band as "The Greatest Marching Band in the History of the Universe". I also understand that their band director has the second highest salary at the school. I am sure USC has a much lower percentage of varsity athletes than Williams.</p>
<p>MomofWildchild:</p>
<p>Please, are you doing virtual diagnoses or are you clairvoyant? Can I have a look at your qualifications?</p>
<p>How do you know my son is not fit? His GP is happy, I'm happy. He is skinny and muscled. Really....</p>
<p>Not an LAC, but an excerpt from an inside look at UChicago admit committee might be helpful in understanding why athletes get a tip:</p>
<p>The next case generates more heat. Kevin has flitted through
almost every activity in his high school. Trouble already: serial
joiners don't impress Chicago. Better to pour years of devotion
into a few deep interests. In the words of Michael Behnke, a
university vice president who oversees admissions, "The kid who
touches every group has no impact. He won't be missed." O'Neill,
meanwhile, has spotted something else: Kevin plays several
sports. O'Neill observes that smart athletes manage time well,
and find unorthodox ways to succeed. He recalls a recommendation
written years ago by a high-school football coach: "This boy
reads poetry and physics in the locker room. I don't have another
one like him." </p>
<p>...After debating Kevin's future for 21 minutes, 11 members of the
committee make a show of hands. The tally: five to admit, four to
defer, one to deny, one unsure. O'Neill rules. Kevin is in. </p>
<p>Here are the breakdown of student interests in high school for the class of 2009 at UChicago. Even at this school notorious for its lack of an emphasis on college athletics, 44% of its student were varsity athletes. Looks like there is a reason to admit athletes beyond the college's sports teams.</p>
<p>Varsity Athletics 44%
Music 48%
Editorial (newspaper, literary magazine, yearbook) 40%
Community Service 56%
Theater 24%
Religious Organizations 17%
Student Government 18%</p>
<p>"O'Neill observes that smart athletes manage time well,
and find unorthodox ways to succeed."</p>
<p>This echoes an anecdote that I heard repeatedly from an ex-coach. This particular coach offered the rare distinction of having been a national team player in Germany, and while compiling an illlustrious career in the Bundesliga, also earning an engineering degree. Apparently hitting the books the same day as marking Beckenbauer or scoring against Barcelona in the Nou Camp was not impossible. </p>
<p>Whenever parents worried about the combination of academics and sports, he always answered that student-athletes cannot afford procrastination and learn how to manage their time properly. He added that his biggest worry was never to lack enough free time, but to have too much of it.</p>
<p>PS I'm sure that this applies to a number of activities and passions. This just happens to be about soccer.</p>