<p>"I have no issues about this because we've benefitted from the wealth and low performance of others"</p>
<p>-- well said, opie. </p>
<p>Now if we were talking about PUBLIC schools, that'd be a different story.</p>
<p>Wisconsin says no to development admits--not something I completely support. I see some select development admits just like athletes and other special cases.</p>
<p>"This may be the case in some admissions offices, but UW-Madison’s is famously immune. </p>
<p>In an age when both public and private universities are more dependent on individual philanthropy, a decision to admit can become a valuable commodity, for which wealthy donors might offer, or threaten to withhold, millions of dollars. In his 2006 book The Price of Admission, which documents the eroding wall between the admissions and fundraising functions at America’s elite universities, journalist Daniel Golden argues this game of quid pro quo is “increasingly tainting college admissions, undermining both its credibility and value to American democracy.” </p>
<p>“Not a whole lot impresses us. The whole influence factor just isn’t really a value of the state of Wisconsin, and I think we walk the walk of that every day.” </p>
<p>Kelly Olson,
assistant director of freshmen recruitment
At UW-Madison, however, the wall appears intact. Numerous university officials in both admissions and fundraising told us that admissions decisions are sacrosanct from outside influence. </p>
<p>“It’s a source of pride at the UW that you can’t buy your way in,” says Walt Keough ’69, MBA’78, a vice president at the UW Foundation. Keough says he will contact the admissions office on behalf of a donor to check an application’s status or make sure it is complete. “We try to make the process more personal for them,” he says. “We are very concerned that our donors know that we appreciate them, but at the same time, we’re clear with them that appreciation can’t extend to admissions decisions.” </p>
<p>Stickershock:</p>
<p>If Dowling had limited his comments to "athlete" and "functionally illiterate" I would have less problem. But he went on to mention minorities. Was the guy recruited because he was a minority or because he was an athlete? I'd say the latter. So why did the prof feel the need to bring on not just his ethnicity but wade into the issue of providing "financial aid to minorities?" Presumably not all minorities are 1. dim. 2. athletes. And I hasten to add, athletes are not universally dim or minorities.</p>
<p>Marite, I think the reason why Dowling made his example case a minority is because proponents of Division I scholarships argue that it provides a meritocratic pathway for minorities to obtain a college education. While this is true in theory, Dowling is right to point out that for some D1 sports, especially football, these kids are treated as semi-professional athletes and their academic education is a mere formality. From the NYTimes Book Review of Michael Lewis's outstanding book "The Blind Side" comes an apt description of several college football programs (this one being Ole Miss):</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lewis says that the typical football player in Michael's college class ''had third-grade-level reading skills. Several had never taken math. Ever.''
[/quote]
<p>While the issue receives special attention when it occurs at more academically inclined schools such as Rutgers, the problem has persisted for years.</p>
<p>Typical Peter Schmidt and the Council of Higher Education garbage - The article says that "5 years ago" 2 researchers collected data...well, sorry pal but any info gathered 5 years ago is now out of date.</p>
<p>^Why?</p>
<p>Have selective colleges suddenly decided to turn down donors' kids? Have donors' kids become smarter in the last five years?</p>
<p>Sheldon:
Thanks for the explanation. Are athletic scholarships really touted as a pathway to education for minorities? There have been plenty of articles trying to show that very few college athletes make it into the pro ranks and that they run the risk of sacrificing their education. I also think that some colleges recruit athletes for the sake of having winning teams rather than as a device for increasing minority presence on campuses.
It is still good to be reminded that at selective colleges, "dim rich white kids" are part of the landscape.</p>
<p>"There have been plenty of articles trying to show that very few college athletes make it into the pro ranks and that they run the risk of sacrificing their education. I also think that some colleges recruit athletes for the sake of having winning teams rather than as a device for increasing minority presence on campuses."</p>
<p>Would they have set foot on a campus without being recruited for sports? Many probably would not have had that chance and especially not at a major institution with room and board paid. At best they might have gone to the local CC or commuter campus in many cases. Check out those grad rates.</p>
<p>Barrons:</p>
<p>Well, yes, but if they perform at a 5th grade literacy level, should they even BE at a community college? High school? Middle school? </p>
<p>From Stickershock's post #20:
[quote]
But the Dean actually is said to have prepared a list of courses that could be passed by a student with a 5th grade literacy level!!! That's where the "functional illiterate" label comes from.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Will they even get to 6th grade literacy level if they spend 50 hours per week on physical skills?</p>
<p>I think those are the exceptions and more likely in the south where the public schools can be bad.</p>
<p>Here’s a different take from the president of USF (who is also in the Big East) regarding its “push into big time sports”:
Some early critics of USF's football program said the school should be known for more than just football. But president Judy Genshaft says a winning athletic program will help USF recruit top faculty and staff members and better market the school's academic programs.
"Those top-ranked professors typically come from top-ranked institutions," she said. "Most top-ranked institutions also have Tier 1 athletics.
"You get people introduced through athletics, take them by the hand and introduce them to the rest of the university."
Complaining about 1 student? Even if all 120 Rutgers football players and all 20 basketball players were “dim” that would still just be .005% of RU’s 26,700 students.
If you put it to a vote amongst the RU student body right now it would be 80% in favor of insuring competitive entertaining sports on campus.
IMHO, state schools with winning sports programs RETAIN their gifted students and there would be no “brain drain” ala Michigan, Virginia, UNC, Wisconsin, Florida ……</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Xiggi, I'm amazed that one fifth of the students at Harvard come from families earning under $60K!<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I read the info Xiggi posted to mean that one fifth of the students at Harvard who are receiving financial assistance come from families who earn under $60K.</p>
<p>Marite, in the specific case of Rutgers, the athletes who were clearly unqualified academically all happened to be black. NJ has a fairly large black population, especially in our inner cities. Many of these districts have terrible school systems. NJ has traditionally been a very, very fertile recruiting state for football. What many Rutgers fans don't want to see happen is NJ black athletes with great academic stats get snatched up by the more stringent programs out of state, leaving only unqualified "students" to play on Saturdays while having no possible expectation of graduating. That would be very sad for those athletes. After all, only a tiny number have any shot at a pro careeer.</p>
<p>I also don't think it is racist to acknowledge the remarkable dominance of black athletes at the top levels of many, many sports. Isn't the black population in the US less than 15%? Yet look at the skewed numbers on any major league roster. I suspect the success of their black sports heroes pumps up the hopes of many black youngsters. But the odds are against them. It would be cruel to continue filling college rosters with academically unqualified athletes, particularly those who have grown up in awful districts and are years behind their college peers.</p>
<p>Okay, "dim white kids"? That term is being brandished rather bluntly here, isn't it? I am white, most certainly not dim, and just as qualified as any minority applicant. Being white doesn't mean that you grew up with all sorts of advantages, just as much as being a minority doesn't mean that you're poor and underpriviledged. </p>
<p>My point is, diversity is not an end in itself. No college should admit minorities to increase numbers of any certain group on their campus. They should not tout their "diversity" by citing minority percentages. Instead, they should assemble the best group of students they can. I have no problem with applications viewed in context, but I still believe that the greatest act of rascism in our society is when people think minorities need special advantages because of the color of their skin. They are smart, intellegent, independent people, too. Just let people compete fairly, please.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It would be cruel to continue filling college rosters with academically unqualified athletes, particularly those who have grown up in awful districts and are years behind their college peers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I totally agree with this sentiment. But my commenthas to do with the priority at Rutgers and at other colleges with a similar situation. Is it to recruit top athletes, even if functionally illiterates? Then the idea that this provides financial aid for minorities is a red herring. Is the priority to provide a pathway to education for minorities? Then taking young people who function at 5th grade level and plunking them on college campuses then requiring them to focus on their physical performance is counterproductive.</p>
<p>bmwdan:
Touchy, aren't you? Nowhere in the article does it say that white=dim. What the researchers do conclude is that a lot of the underachieving students at selective colleges happen to be white rather than minorities.</p>
<p>"matched them up against the institutions' advertised requirements in terms of ... letters of recommendation, and records of involvement in extracurricular activities."</p>
<p>How in the world did they "match up" unquantifiables like this? How was their method able to account for the difference between "performed in the school play" and "starred on Broadway at age 12"? That kind of distinction is the difference between acceptance and rejection for a kid whose academic stats are marginal for that school.</p>
<p>I suspect that the answer is, they didn't match them up in any meaningful way, because it isn't possible unless you actually have access to the entire application for each student. No university says that it requires Broadway/Olympic/etc. experience as an extracurricular, but that may in fact be what is required for a kid with scores below the schools 15th percentile.</p>
<p>Hi, Hanna, </p>
<p>I have requested from my public library the book that is newly out about the issue described in the article to which marite linked. I will be curious how the methodological issues were handled and how certain crucial terms were defined. Doesn't the article say that the cited researchers had access to complete admission files?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Every layer of their students is mostly white.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also, every layer of our country is mostly white. Whites are the majority but that doesn't make them overrepresented.</p>
<p>I am leary of anything which comes from the collegeboard. </p>
<p>That said, since my kids are athletes, I see kids every day who practice their sport rather than exercise their minds (and we're talking fencing here, not even football.). Many athletes never do well in school because they have had the equivalent of a half-full time job since they were 13. But truth be told, most of the kids would do much better putting their time into their studies, or even into vocational training (no matter what their race/ethnicity). </p>
<p>I was at DePaul when Mark Aguirre, Terry Cummings, and Clyde "The Glide" Bradshaw were there, in the years of DePaul's basketball dynasty. The latter two actually went to class (though they were not exceptional students) and made the most of their limited class time. I tutored Terry (who had the largest feet I have ever seen) on many occasions. Clyde could always be found in the library taking advantage of many of the tutoring services available. I never once saw Mark A. in the library or even in class. </p>
<p>My point there is that it seems those athletes that really wanted their free educations, pursued them. Those that were in college more as a "semi-pro" experience, didn't bother with school - ever. I wonder, how dull are their lives now?</p>
<p>Dim white kids get their freak on at UVa. Sorry, I just can't get enough of this. Check out the drunk girl in the flowered dress being hauled away by the cops. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5f3KYYUXbE%5B/url%5D">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5f3KYYUXbE</a></p>
<p>Ever hear of George Bush?</p>