<p>Apparently some H students think varsity-level athletes shouldn't be admitted to their school.</p>
<p>"This is not the way it should be. With Harvard applications rising and the competition increasing, choosing athletes is simply unconscionable."</p>
<p>You misrepresent the article: the student (only one person, first of all) thinks that athletes shouldn't be admitted simply by merit of being athletes. While one may or may not agree with this, it is clearly different than what you suggest (that they don't want athletes, period.)</p>
<p>Here's the reply editorial, which ran the next day:</p>
<p>The reply editorial got it exactly right. I have a friend who runs track, absolutely the best runner i have ever seen... amazing, phenomenal times. She is being heavily recruited by four ivy leagues as well as a ton of other colleges. Harvard, however, told her they were not interested because her grades were not stellar, even though she is in IB, top ten percent, and SAT's in the mid 600's. On the other hand, they're recruiting me for track (though a different event than the other girl) and i'm not even all-county (we're in a really competitive county, though :)). The track coach specifically said in his first email to me "we are constantly looking for talented students" on the track team.</p>
<p>The reply article pulled out all the normal excuses defending the heavy favor given to athletes in the admissions process. Certainly, Harvard has academic standards for athletes, but those standards aren't nearly as high as those applied to most of the student body (especially for the "focus" sports). </p>
<p>The writer talks about having "seen a baseball player cut to the heart of romantic poetry, a lacrosse player with a rock-solid grasp of electoral reform, a rower receive top grades in statistics and calculus..." Well, sure - no one's saying that athletes never contribute to the classroom. The real question deals with their contributions when compared to the contributions of their peers - and frankly, simply given the disparity in academic qualifications coming out of high school, I don't find it likely that athletes, overall, add to the classroom environment as much as their peers (in case someone flames me, I'm talking about averages here... I'm not saying that the top students at Harvard are never athletes).</p>
<p>Athletics should be considered in admissions, but not to the absurd extent that they are currently used.</p>
<p>Checking back and I agree with Koala. As for filmxoxo17, I haven't misrepresented the article at all and the reply editorial proves it. That writer (a varsity athlete) also felt the sting of the editorial and suggests that the attitude is pervasive at Harvard. I've lived my whole life with the Dumb Jock slur and it's getting really old. Harvard (along with several other Ivies) is currently 'interested' in me. I visited and I can tell you that there are a lot of athletes at Harvard who talked to me about the pseudo-intellectual smugness of so many of the students. I have the GPA and test scores to hold my own against most of them but I'm sick and tired of being branded a stupid athlete. </p>
<p>The smug writer of the original editorial wrote: "I simply believe that we should not be admitting a student who would not otherwise be admitted had he not been a nationally ranked squash player or had a sports coach not suggested that she would make a good addition to whichever team." I wonder if any of the other students who agreed with him would have felt comfortable substituting the words "chess" or "oboe" for the word "squash." Don't tell me that they would have. They would have considered these students great additions to the class who fit right in with 'their' special talents.</p>
<p>Here's my point. After this editorial, which just reinforces the comments of the athletes with whom (yes, I DO know how to use that sentence construction) I visited, I am less interested in Harvard and more interested in the other schools. At the other Ivies I found less of that "we're smarter than students at any of those other schools' attitude," that is so nicely expressed in the original editorial. Okay, I'm done with my rant and with this thread.</p>
<p>Koala, quit kidding yourself. Harvard drools over athletes with subpar academics. The thesis of the original article hits the nail in the center. If your supposed friend were quicker, they would adjust standards no doubt. Anyways, even with the current plummeting academic standards for athletes Harvard xc and track are going to have a tough go this year for sure. I wish them luck, they will certainly need it.</p>
<p>:(</p>
<p>My "supposed friend" actually exists, you know.</p>
<p>MrNews - Did you really find that attitude to be prevalent among the student body? I want to go to a good academic school where students have fun, too, and not just through a "myriad of extracurriculars." Do kids know when it's time to put away the books and go out and have a good time, minus the uber-genius attitude?</p>
<p>"Apparently some H students think varsity-level athletes shouldn't be admitted to their school" - I was simply saying that this is a misrepresentation of the article. The editorial is by one student who wants athletic recruitment to have less weight in admissions decisions. Nowhere in the article does the student imply that athletes shouldn't be admitted at all. Anyhow, I suppose that doesn't matter anymore because in your words, you are 'done with this thread'. eh. ;)</p>
<p>From my high school last year, a 1350, 2 AP test taking student ranked 38/~400 was admitted over 1590, 9 APs valedictorian (who was a great, outgoing guy now at Princeton) because he was recruited for the football team.</p>
<br>
<p>I wonder if any of the other students who agreed with him would have felt comfortable substituting the words "chess" or "oboe" for the word "squash." Don't tell me that they would have. They would have considered these students great additions to the class who fit right in with 'their' special talent</p>
<br>
<p>But the reality is that you need a lot less athletic talent than oboe talent to get the same admissions boost. If you're relying on oboe to get you in despite your 3.7 and 1350, you need to be among the two or three best young oboe players in the country (Juilliard, etc.). If you're relying on basketball to get you in with the same numbers, you need to be among MAYBE the top two hundred young basketball players in the country -- and I'm being generous. There are easily 50+ DI scholarship schools with better basketball players than Harvard, which cannot be said about our oboists and our chess players. In other words, the Harvard oboe player with a 1350 is probably headed for the London Philharmonic; the Harvard basketball player with a 1350 isn't even going to be 12th man on the worst team in the NBA.</p>
<p>Now, I think that that's fine when it comes to sports that the whole campus can get behind and enjoy -- football, hockey, crew, etc. And I think it's great when the athlete has London Philharmonic-level athletic talent in any sport (Olympic archers, for example). But I don't see the added value when Harvard (and its peers) give spots in the class to 1350-scoring kids because they (1) play sports that only their moms watch at (2) a level that would never qualify them for Olympic/professional play.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the reality is that you need a lot less athletic talent than oboe talent to get the same admissions boost. If you're relying on oboe to get you in despite your 3.7 and 1350, you need to be among the two or three best young oboe players in the country (Juilliard, etc.). If you're relying on basketball to get you in with the same numbers, you need to be among MAYBE the top two hundred young basketball players in the country -- and I'm being generous. There are easily 50+ DI scholarship schools with better basketball players than Harvard, which cannot be said about our oboists and our chess players. In other words, the Harvard oboe player with a 1350 is probably headed for the London Philharmonic; the Harvard basketball player with a 1350 isn't even going to be 12th man on the worst team in the NBA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I agree with what you're saying, I think your analogy does break down because the fact is, there are a LOT more young people who are aspiring to be great basketball players than great oboe players. For example, in many underprivileged parts of many cities in the country, almost every single young boy aspires to become the next Michael Jordan or the next LeBron James, for a simple reason - they see it as a way out of poverty. On the other hand, I would argue that relatively few underprivileged youths see oboe-playing as a way out of poverty (maybe they see rapping or R&B or forming a rock band as a way out, but certainly not the oboe). There are entire neighborhoods where kids are practicing basketball day and night, and where roster spots on the high-school basketball team, and sometimes the junior-high basketball teams, are coveted like gold. </p>
<p>Hence, the point is, if you really can become one of the top 200 high school basketball players in the country, you truly have survived a LOT of competition, and you certainly have a shot at making a living playing basketball, if not in the NBA, then in one of the other pro leagues. </p>
<p>There are 30 teams in the NBA, with 12 players on a roster at a time, so 360 active NBA players at any time during the season. That actually understates the total number of NBA players throughout the season, as some players get injured or get cut throughout the season, which therefore opens the door to others to get a roster spot, so each team probably has something like 15-16 players that has been active on the roster at some time during the season. So really, we're probably talking about 450 people who are on an NBA roster at some point during the season. Maybe about 10% of those players are foreigners, so that leaves about 400 Americans. And that of course doesn't include the many hundreds of Americans playing professionally in the CBA or overseas, especially Europe. I know an American who played professional basketball in Europe. You can make a pretty darn good living playing in Europe. </p>
<p>Hence, I would say that if you are identified as one of the top 200 high school players in America, you have an excellent shot at making a living playing ball. Of course, it is extremely difficult to become one of those 200. </p>
<p>Hence, taking it back to the Harvard example, I would say that, honestly, almost all of the top 200 basketball players are never going to Harvard anyway, either because they don't have the grades, or because they rightly don't see Harvard as the springboard to the NBA, opting instead for a basketball powerhouse like Duke or North Carolina (or if they are really good, then just turning pro right after high school, ala Kobe Bryant or LeBron James). The point is, I would say that if you can amass an academic record that is worthy of Harvard, while still amassing the skill to be recognized amongst the top 200 basketball players in the country (given the fact that many of those 200 are kids from the inner cities who basically spent their entire lives honing their games because they see basketball as a way out of poverty, and if your skills is actually comparable to their skill), I would say that that's an amazing achievement.</p>
<p>
Here! Here! They are also ugly, pass gas at inappropriate times, and still get all the best hookups.;)</p>
<br>
<p>While I agree with what you're saying, I think your analogy does break down because the fact is, there are a LOT more young people who are aspiring to be great basketball players than great oboe players.</p>
<br>
<p>I don't agree that the analogy breaks down. Look at it by percentiles if you think sample size is a problem. You have to be way above the 99th percentile of oboists in high school bands/orchestras for oboe to get you into Harvard with a 3.7/1350. You need to be Juilliard level, with serious professional potential, one out of thousands. Do you have to be above the 99th percentile among varsity high school basketball players to get into Harvard with a 1350? No way. Harvard ends up taking kids who are neither extraordinary students nor extraordinary basketball players. Again, that makes sense if it's a sport the whole school enjoys supporting together, like football, but skiing? Fencing? Golf?</p>
<p>If you just can't get around the number of basketball hopefuls in the country, then substitute a sport like women's water polo, which doesn't attract that many more young people than oboe does. Why should Harvard take a women's water polo player with a 1350 unless she's a future Olympian?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't agree that the analogy breaks down. Look at it by percentiles if you think sample size is a problem. You have to be way above the 99th percentile of oboists in high school bands/orchestras for oboe to get you into Harvard with a 3.7/1350. You need to be Juilliard level, with serious professional potential, one out of thousands. Do you have to be above the 99th percentile among varsity high school basketball players to get into Harvard with a 1350? No way. Harvard ends up taking kids who are neither extraordinary students nor extraordinary basketball players.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think even the restriction to the number of varsity high school basketball players is a great misnomer. The fact is, there are plenty of high schools, especially in the inner cities, where a spot on the varsity basketball team is coveted like gold, and where kids spend far far more time and effort trying to make the basketball team than they do studying. There are a number of high schools in which simply making it onto the varsity BB team is a major accomplishment in and of itself and where graduating as valedictorian is not seen as important, but becoming the team's star player is. </p>
<p>My point is, the country is filled with boys who don't see studying as a way to success, but rather see basketball as the way. Just like you have dedicated and driven middle class suburban kids studying feverishly to graduate #1 and get into Harvard, you also have lots of dedicated and driven inner-city kids who are practicing feverishly on their game to make it to the NBA. </p>
<p>Look, I'll put it to you this way. There are about 16,000 high schools in the US, which means there are 16,000 valedictorians minted every year (not counting co-valedictorians). Now obviously some valedictorians are more impressive than others (i.e. those who went to very large schools, those who went to schools with strong academics and strong competition, etc.), but compare that to the top 200 high school basketball players in the country. That means that it is almost 100 times more difficult to become a top basketball player than to become valedictorian. Honestly, I am more impressed with the achievements of one of those basketball players than one of those valedictorians. I agree with you that that player should not get a free pass to Harvard, but my point is that getting recognized in the top 200 of basketball players is a MAJOR achievement, especially given all the kids, especially from the inner-city, who would give anything to get into that top 200. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you just can't get around the number of basketball hopefuls in the country, then substitute a sport like women's water polo, which doesn't attract that many more young people than oboe does. Why should Harvard take a women's water polo player with a 1350 unless she's a future Olympian?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now see here, I would agree with you. However, my point is that you used the specific example of basketball, which I think is a poor example because basketball is such a big money sport, and therefore attracts hordes of poor kids who see it as a way out of the ghetto.</p>
<p>Eh, I was pulling the 200 number out of thin air, and anyway I specifically said that the process doesn't bother me as far as sports like football where a winning team truly contributes to the school atmosphere. You could arguably include basketball in that group, along with hockey and crew (it certainly belongs there at Princeton & Penn). Let's say basketball gets a free pass. But even if you give basketball recruiting a total free pass, we're talking about maybe 7 or 8 teams out of Harvard's 41. I still see a problem, and the largest single area of potential improvement in the admissions process.</p>
<p>Although I agree that the Ivies place too much emphasis on having good teams, there is an argument for their favoring athletes. Studies of success in college and later life show that accomplishment in extracurricular activities predicts both. People usually explain this by saying that it shows long-term persistence and dedication- important character traits among successful students and professionals. By that argument, recruiting students who are accomplished athletes brings in these sorts of people. By this argument, it does not matter whether anyone ever notices that their sport even exists. I wonder how many Harvard students knew Harvard had a wrestling team before one of their colleagues won a national championship? He was not training all his life to get recognition, he was trying to win. It shows the kind of inner-directed determination that is helpful throughout life. </p>
<p>So the size of the crowd does not matter from this perspective. It does mean that it takes more atheletic ability to be outstanding in football or basketball than in water polo, but for an individual kid, with a given level of athletic talent, it may not take any more work.</p>
<p>Another problem with Hanna's approach is that it would take us back to pre-Title IX days and put women's sports in the back seat. Even at Harvard, you get a much bigger crowd at a football game than at any women's contest. If you rank the importance of athletics in admission by the size of the crowd, then women athletes can forget about Harvard, while the doors would remain open to large numbers of men who play football, with its 100+ rosters, and MENS basketball, hockey, soccer, squash, and crew.</p>
<br>
<p>So why then is there a program to admit accomplished (but not Olympic) water polo players with 3.7/1350 stats, but similarly accomplished singers, politicians, actors, comedians, volunteers, and writers have to be 1500-scoring valedictorians like everybody else? I simply do not accept that being on the soccer team somehow teaches crucial life lessons that you can't get from the choir or the yearbook.</p>
<br> [QUOTE=""]
<p>Another problem with Hanna's approach is that it would take us back to pre-Title IX days and put women's sports in the back seat.</p>
<br>
<p>Title IX is about offering and funding women's sports, not about admissions boosts. Because Harvard doesn't give athletic scholarships to men, either, and (to put it mildly) doesn't need to worry about "revenue" sports, there is no reason it couldn't still continue to offer just as many women's sports and fund them just as well as the men's sports. Only the recruiting strategy would change. Further, with the exception of football, the sports I mentioned that are enjoyed school-wide (crew and hockey) have both men's and women's teams. Pick one more women's sport to counterbalance football if you wish, and we're still talking about only 6-8 teams out of Harvard's 41 that actually merit the admissions boost they get.</p>
<p>i thought all of the ivies used the AI to determine the acceptance of athletes. i think there is an exemption for athletes that don't fall into the lower band, but even that is a moot point as i don't think one of those waivers has been approved for a long time.</p>
<p>The rules are more complicated than that. There is an AI floor, but it is way below the level of the typical student at any Ivy, and a non hooked applicant with an AI at the floor would have no chance of admission to Harvard.</p>
<p>Again, I am not defending the Ivy overemphasis on having good teams, but once you start favoring athletes, some other things start to happen. If you simply said that you would treat football playing like cello playing in admissions, Harvard's football team would plummet to the basement of the Ivy league, and have lots of trouble against mid level D3 schools. The more mature people would say "so what? Winning the games is not the point". However, unlike the orchestra, the football teams results are wins and losses, and public, so some people will care. Further, among the good players who are also Harvard level students, there is no interest in playing for a lousy team. So you will turn away your best student athlete prospects. The Ivies collectively could disarm, reduce the sports emphasis, perhaps even drop out of D1, but not likely to happen.</p>
<p>You also cannot operate a football team by recruiting the best students who happen to play football in high school. Just because some place kicker got A's in his AP courses does not mean he can play defensive tackle. If you are going to field a team, you have to recruit for, and fill, lots of different slots. You cannot count on having someone just walk in the door with the right skills, size, and attitude. So you have to find them, and get them admitted. Or give up football like Swarthmore. Football may be the most extreme example, but other sports are similar. Either you are competing at a certain level, and doing what it takes, or you are not.</p>
<p>It turns out that, unlike nearly all sports, Harvard does not need to lower admissions standards to enroll lots of people who excel as musicians, writers, and in other fields. It may be that high performance in these areas is positively correlated with high school gpa and tests, while top athletic performance is negatively correlated. In other words, these non athletic EC's don't provide much of an admissions boost because they don't need to.</p>
<p>Title IX, in theory, was about providing access. In practice, it is about numbers. If you don't have a large contingent of women on your teams, then you are in trouble. The purity of your heart does not matter. If you favor the big publicity sports in recruiting and admissions, but not the women's sports, you will end up on the wrong side of lawsuit. That is why some of the football powerhouse schools have a much smaller number of intercollegiate teams overall. They can pour enormous resources into football because they are not supporting 20 other mens teams.</p>
<p>The advantages of athletics, like other EC's may result from life lessons learned in the activity. But they may just as well reflect selecting for people with those kinds of personalities. That is, it is unclear whether the people develop these traits because they played a sport, or whether seeing how hard and long they work at their sport tells you which people have the trait. </p>
<p>The Ivies collectively could decide to continue to offer all these sports, to keep playing each other, and to rachet down the level of competition in their out of league play. They could raise the AI floor much more than they have, and insist that the athletes have, on average, the same AI as the rest of the student population (right now the athlete average can be one SD lower than the student as a whole). Unfortunately, they seem to have no interest in this. If Harvard did this unilaterally it would simply deplete its teams, end up at the bottom, and delight the rest of the Ivies. This would quickly become self fulfilling, since the best Harvard-qualified athletes would end up at P and Y instead. I'm all for it, but I don't expect it to happen.</p>
<p>Interestingly, these athletes with lower test scores, lower high school grades, and lower college grades end up doing quite well after they graduate from elite schools. On average, they earn more than their classmates with their fancy GPA's and honors. So it is not at all clear that Harvard would end up with a more successful set of alums if it reduced its emphasis on sports.</p>