<p>I feel you, I'm kind of disgusted by the incredibly low standards some schools apply for athletes. There's a kid at my school who's been recruited for hockey at Yale. I overheard him saying that as long as he cracks 1600 (out of 2400) on the SAT, he's good to go. The kid's as dumb as a brick, equally lazy, and disturbingly immature. The only APs he takes are for French, and that's because he's French-Canadian. I've busted my balls over the last 3+ years, and I always worry that some **** for brains jock might take a spot at my top choices. I agree, it's not good to hate and you can't blame athletes for manipulating the system...but I'm still very resentful lol.</p>
<p>well, there's two sides to this of course. jaykoblives didn't do a good job of representing the other position, but in his defense:</p>
<p>There's something to be said for the idea that colleges who can afford to be extremely picky, should choose a well-rounded class, not just a host of well-rounded kids. So a class of people who are all extremely good at one thing or another, so that there is always enough passion to go around no matter what the subject. And one of those subjects might as well be athletics. Intense competitiveness and instincts towards teamwork, not to mention physical health, are probably good things to nurture on campus, and athletes represent that to some degree.</p>
<p>The fact is that Columbia is a lot farther away from the "Must... get... top... athletes..." mentality than certain peer schools I could mention, and rarely crosses the line egregiously. Most of us can name exceptions but they don't speak to the overall numbers. I see both sides, and I can tolerate Columbia overvaluing athletic talent in some cases, as long as the athletes have the intellectual chops to survive here (and not end up like that girl who both Cerberus and I are friends with). It's a balancing act.</p>
<p>You know why colleges want athletes? Despite of some prestige gained by varsity teams or olympic medals won by alumini? They just want people with passion. To be good at sport, you have to do it with commitment. When you feel pain everywhere after 3*2h training, you are hungry because coach have searched your room and took every sweet, there is thunderstorm and you will have to run about 15km, and then as an relaxation you'll be watching matches and making notes from them, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DO IT WITHOUT LOVE. </p>
<p>I'm really confused reading something like this</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know athletes work hard at their sport, but should that really give them such an advantage over kids who have busted their balls trying to keep up their GPA, hold a part-time job, study for the SAT's, and actively participate in extra-curriculars?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you see passion there? Trying to actively participate in extra-curriculars to impress adcoms. WOW. They know it very well, I think. If school has taken all your life then who you'll be after? You won't have any passion, because you won't have a reason.</p>
<p>There can be plenty of passion in the pursuit of extracurricular activities. Distinguishing between activities done for passion and activities done for show is one of the major value-adds of an admissions officer these days, at least at top schools (with marketing obviously being their very top duty, of course).</p>
<p>
[quote]
so wait, top schools should take the kind of people who couldn't succeed despite their own personal challenges?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is this a rhetorical question? Because I never said that. The premise I'm arguing against is that people who are excellent academic students somehow worked harder to get where they are then a top wrestler. It's an extremely presumptuous (not to mention pompous) position. People are whining "boo hoo, it's not fair that I worked so hard and someone else got in so easy". My argument is that, in general, students who were: A. born with a silver spoon in their mouth, B. given opportunities to go to prep schools that inner city/rural families can't always afford and/or C. brought up in a community that respects and fosters academic growth are the ones who actually have it easy. Now I'm not mocking the man-hours it takes to realize ones potential. I'm not saying people like this shouldn't take advantage of every opportunity they have (actually I think it's wrong if they don't). I'm just realistic and the fact of the matter is, in general, the average Ivy Leaguer is not just a product of their hard work, but also a product of their environment. Put in somebody else's shoes, it could have been a lot different. Of course this isn't the case in every situation, but, in some, if not most, it is true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"All are winners and all must have prizes"? Sorry, in the real world we reward success, not hardship.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very true. Also in the real world athletes get scholarships to Ivy League schools. Deal with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem is, schools are institutions for education and academics, and athletics is a sideshow
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Says you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a diversion and an opportunity for stress relief.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Easy to say.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are places for "top wrestlers" to go, they're called professional sports
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about. Amateur wrestlers do not become professional wrestlers. It's not a lucrative career path, most high school wrestlers who really care wrestle for a college scholarship. By the way, top wrestlers go through intense training, 5:30 am wake ups every day, including most week-ends, strict diets, grueling practices, ect. It probably takes about the same amount of discipline to be a great wrestler as it does to be a great student. </p>
<p>
[quote]
People who have sweated it out for years trying to become the best student they can be, so they can go where the best students go - the places which claim to train and nurture those best students - are leapfrogged by those who haven't put in the time or developed the talent that they have.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read the section I just quoted only replace the word "student(s)" with the word "athlete(s)" and it makes the same amount of sense and could be used to justify why athletes SHOULD be able to go to the best colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're saying they shouldn't be upset because they don't know what those wrestlers went through? Who the hell cares?! One thing we DO know is that they didn't gain the same scholastic qualifications as the better students, so they don't have the same claim to deserving a top postsecondary education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, you're obviously not an admissions rep and therefore not an authority on what constitutes "scholastic qualifications". If an Ivy League school looks a student athlete and appreciates values such as discipline, commitment, sacrifice, and excellence, I can't blame them for admitting top wrestlers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't see how your outrage applies. Colleges are institutions of learning and study, not minor leagues for professional sports.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except they ARE "minor leagues for professional sports". Last I checked 90% of professional athletes are recruited from colleges.</p>
<p>Bottom line is, if you're bitter about the fact that someone took a path to the Ivys that you consider "easier" than the one you had to take, there's a perfect word that describes you: petty. How can you really be upset about someone else's good fortune? You got in! Why is that not good enough for you? No, you have to scrutinize others and subject them to your own subjective qualifications. Pretty sad when you really think about it.</p>
<p>Ok, Sonicexx athletes work hard at their craft I get that, but you have to face the facts. College is a place for education, and athletes shouldn't be the priority. I mean honestly do you read these threads? People with 2300+ scores, and shining accomplishments are worried sick over getting in, and rightfully so because Columbia has such a competitive applicant pool, but when an athlete (who is pretty much reflects a typical every day student) just gets in it's a little disheartening.</p>
<p>Just would like to jump in and make a couple of points.</p>
<p>First, yes, $35 could be a sacrifice for some families. It was for mine. Back in the day when I took the exam it was only $15 and I babysat 20 hours for that fee. My parents forbid me to apply to college because "only rich girls go to college" and I had to literally sneak out of the house to go take the test. When I left home the one and only financial support I got was a $5 bill from my Dad the day I left, and that was the best he could do. Ever. So yes, it does happen. Sadly back then I had no idea that private schools actually gave scholarships so I stupidly tossed out the brouchures HYP sent due to my 36 ACT and 1560 SAT. </p>
<p>A bookish student, I earned my way thru school tutoring half the football team in math. Its a Big 10 school, chock full of tv cameras and screaming fans every weekend. I started out resentful that these big dumb oxes got into this highly competitive public university on full scholarships while I had to work 2 jobs and eat ramen noodles to live.</p>
<p>But by the end I felt so sorry for these guys. They had no time to actually study because they were constantly practicing or lifting weights, the classes the athletic dept enrolled in were a joke. I was supposed to tutor in math but ended up teaching several guys basically how to read too. I taught a 22 year old guy how to subtract so he could stop overdrawing his checking account; the poor guy couldn't figure out why suddenly the ATM stopped giving him money sometimes. Unless they went on to play pro ball, these guys had not much to show for their years at school except a bunch of concussions. Diploma or not, they were dead in an interview and most were headed for dead end jobs. </p>
<p>Also remember, those 40 seats they give each year to "undeserving" admits bring in the donor dollars and the media contracts. All that money coming in may mean less you have to pay as a student, and also better facilities. Also remember, its not really a zero sum situation....those places are likely set aside already and have likely no impact on if you get in or not.</p>
<p>Now, 19 years later, as a Mom to a hard-core gymnast who also happens to be brilliant its hard to balance her passion for sommersaulting 6 feet over a 4 inch piece of wood and my preference for thick books and straight As. Personally, I think all athletics are sort of a waste of time in general -- doing and spectating. Is she an intellectual lightweight because she'd rather work out 25 hours a week perfecting her skills and her 8 pack and does juuuuuuust barely enough to keep an A average? Or is she making full use of her G*d-given talents and perfect grades can wait? This D is only 11 so I have plenty of time to stress over it, I guess.</p>
<p>So, possibly TMI, possibly rambling, but just a couple thoughts</p>
<p>
[quote]
My argument is that, in general, students who were: A. born with a silver spoon in their mouth, B. given opportunities to go to prep schools that inner city/rural families can't always afford and/or C. brought up in a community that respects and fosters academic growth are the ones who actually have it easy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That would be an argument for AA based on socioeconomic status, not athletics. Are you assuming that the set of recruited athletes does not overlap with the set of rich prep-schoolers?</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
The problem is, schools are institutions for education and academics, and athletics is a sideshow
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Says you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is the original statement inaccurate?</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
People who have sweated it out for years trying to become the best student they can be, so they can go where the best students go - the places which claim to train and nurture those best students - are leapfrogged by those who haven't put in the time or developed the talent that they have.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read the section I just quoted only replace the word "student(s)" with the word "athlete(s)" and it makes the same amount of sense and could be used to justify why athletes SHOULD be able to go to the best colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you replace students with athletes, it doesn't make sense. Are colleges "the places which claim to train and nuture those best athletes"? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Except they ARE "minor leagues for professional sports". Last I checked 90% of professional athletes are recruited from colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even though colleges may inadvertently fill the role of "minor leagues for professional sports", it does not follow that it is their intended, rightful or proper function.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That would be an argument for AA based on socioeconomic status, not athletics. Are you assuming that the set of recruited athletes does not overlap with the set of rich prep-schoolers?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let me clarify what I was trying to say. The comment you are referring to was in response to the premise that the average Ivy Leaguer's success in academics is due, entirely, to his/her hard work and sacrifice. I am pointing out that Ivy Leaguers often are from socioeconomic backgrounds that give them an advantage. By the way there is nothing wrong with this. I am not making any assumptions about the overlap of certain groups. This thread is titled "I hate athletes". The title, including some of the things written about athletes in this thread are somewhat offensive. I believe that one reason these things are being written stems from the pretentiousness and arrogance of certain individuals. By pointing out the socioeconomic advantages many Ivy Leaguers have, I'm basically trying to inject a little humility into the discussion. </p>
<p>
[quote]
How is the original statement inaccurate?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are referring to the statement "The problem is, schools are institutions for education and academics, and athletics is a sideshow"</p>
<p>I have no problem with the first part "The problem is, schools are institutions for education and academics...". I happen to agree. However, she goes on to say "athletics is a sideshow". Perhaps if she said "academics is an extracurricular" I would have reacted differently. However, she chose to use the word "sideshow" which, to me, sounds derogatory. In fact, it is her opinion that athletics is a "sideshow", but, to an athlete, it's probably a more important aspect of college. I responded by saying "Says you" to point out that her saying it is so, does not make it a fact.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you replace students with athletes, it doesn't make sense. Are colleges "the places which claim to train and nuture those best athletes"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes colleges are the institutions that claim to train and nurture those best athletes. I'm not talking about any specific institution but college wrestling coaches tend to be better than high school wrestling coaches. Universities that put a lot of money into athletics tend to pay their coaches well. Most olympic coaches made names for themselves at the university level. So yes, colleges are the best places for the best athletes to receive the best training, especially in sports that do not have large professional markets like wrestling.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even though colleges may inadvertently fill the role of "minor leagues for professional sports", it does not follow that it is their intended, rightful or proper function.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can make a reasonable case that it is not their "rightful" or "proper" function. Intended is a different issue, but it seems beside the point. </p>
<p>It seems like the main issue is fairness, right? And hey, maybe it isn't fair that a star wrestler gets to go to an Ivy League college even if his SATs stink. And maybe it's not fair that some kids get to go to prep schools and others don't. Maybe life isn't fair. </p>
<p>By the way, I have no problem if people want to constructively discuss the merit or lack of merit in having athletes with poor grades joining Ivy League campuses at the expense of "more deserving applicants". However, the argument "I deserve it because I worked harder" is pretty presumptuous. And making a thread called "I hate athletes" just seems petty and also unintelligent. I expected better from Ivy League students, but obviously being the "best students" doesn't necessarily make you the "best people".</p>
<p>just want to comment on colleges' roles in the US as minor leagues for professional sports. I think this is a problem in the US, because it is true that the proper function of universities is for studies. Other countries set aside separate universities for athletes where they spend less time on studies and more time in their sports. I think this is a better idea, and the US should likewise set up separate "athlete" colleges. So all the hard-core athletes who want to become professional players would go there, and all the passionate athletes who love their sport but still want to excel in academics would have to compete on equal footing as their schoolmates. This way, sports would become an extracurricular thinga special talent that would bring diversity to the school, and not a ticket for unqualified students to get into ivies.</p>
<p>The point about colleges being training grounds for elite athletes is interesting, but there is an important distinction to be made. </p>
<p>I'll use football since I'm most familiar with that. Most of the top football recruits who want to go on to the professional leagues will pick a school like LSU over an Ivy because that's where they'll have better coaches and teams. Those are "the institutions that claim to train and nurture those best athletes". Not Ivies.</p>
<p>For a serious athlete at LSU, athletics will be a very important aspect of college, and I have no problem with that. It's quite different when elite academic institutions are willing to overlook SAT scores of 1600 for athletes, even though their athletic programs play completely different roles from those at Big 10 schools.</p>
<p>For me, I do not favor the athletic bias but Columbia just sucks at it; all their sports team sucks and they have athletes who are not at the top of their game; come on Columbia!!!!! If you have to recruit non-gifted students for athletics, make sure that they can play well....VERY WELL!</p>
<p>my friend is an athlete recruited by columbia for xc
she told me the first email coaches sent her were an introduction of the school and a request for her to send in her transcript and test scores
only after viewing them, and she has good stats i think...(I know she has at least a 3.6 GPA), they started talking about recruiting her.
grades and test scores still are the first priority.
recruited athletes spend so much time in their sport, and that's why a little slack is given to them </p>
<p>the 1600 SAT is a little ridiculous....but I think for athletes if they have reasonable stats, then they should be admitted</p>
<p>Well it's not like it's impossible to be an athlete and a good student at the same time. Some people just choose to do one over the other.
The kid that is ranked second in my class (there are 1260 of us, so it's no easy feat) is a really good basketball player, the girl that is ranked 6th just came in 2nd at states for cross country, and I've seen that girl train, she gets ONE day off a month. They've all put in the hours, and yet they still manage to get fantastic grades. It's not impossible...
If they're the ones who are getting recruited and getting into Columbia over me, then obviously I can't complain, but otherwise...
And of course to some extent it's also a matter of luck.. which of them were born to be good at sports? I play in two different volleyball teams, and I put in a LOT of hours a week, and yet I'm still just okay, and you better believe that my ass is not getting recruited anywhere.</p>
<p>The Ivy League does not give athletic or merit scholarships, only need-based financial aid. Athletes (and recruiting classes) must meet the "Academic Index" requirements (a calculation based on GPA & SAT scores). This limits the number of "low scorers" that an Ivy League college can accept (and creates a floor for scores, meaning that some athletes cannot be recruited no matter how talented they are). If the college has a recruit with relatively low scores & GPA, it must recruit some athletes with higher scores & GPA to "balance" the class. </p>
<p>Most athletes who are being recruited at a Division I level have devoted years to their sport & have grueling practice and competition schedules. I know that swimmers train year round, 9 practices per week, about 20 hours per week, plus swim meets. Perhaps musicians work that hard, but I don't know of many others who do. </p>
<p>I have seen a lot of "bashing" of athletes on this forum as being "undeserving" of spots at top colleges, but I think it's mostly sour grapes from some who were not accepted at the college of their choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have seen a lot of "bashing" of athletes on this forum as being "undeserving" of spots at top colleges, but I think it's mostly sour grapes from some who were not accepted at the college of their choice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or from people who did get accepted but are bitter due to the perceived injustice of someone else getting in under different circumstances.</p>
<p>"Underqualified" athletes, URMs, and legacies all have the same potential to succeed at a great university like Columbia. A vast majority of people who apply to the best institutions are able to do the work.</p>
<p>Though, I can understand how... intriguing it is to know that they were admitted with scores in the 500 range.</p>
<p>The admissions office at an Ivy League school has no interest in admitting athletes or any other students who are destined to fail. If they don't think the student will be able to do the work, that student is not admitted.</p>
<p>Based on our D's recent experience with athletic recruiting in the Ivy League, it appears that the coaches are as much or more concerned with the athlete's GPA & SAT scores as with his or her "best times" or other athletic achievements. They want a complete package.</p>
<p>Agree with lgarden11 - take a look at the following web page for Columbia swimming recruitment. </p>
<p>The very first questions they ask even before finding out about your competitive times are your standardized test scores. There is a level below which they will not even consider a student if the scores are not within a certain range. What that range is remains unclear and probably varies. However neither student nor university benefits if the student can't do the work. Ivy league admissions offices and athletic staff know this.</p>
<p>I find it interesting that so many in this thread claim to know of a policy for Ivy League schools to let in "underqualified" applicants with subpar test scores and GPAs, but no one has cited any evidence to support this claim. Not even anecdotal.</p>
<p>The point is, it's a somewhat ridiculous claim to make. First of all, Ivy League schools (as an athletic conference) do not award athletic OR merit-based scholarships; they ONLY award scholarships based on need. So there is no way to recruit athletes using money, whether directly or "under the table."</p>
<p>Second of all, 98% of all Columbia students were in the top 20% of their class, and 93% were in the top 10%. The middle 50% of Columbia students scored between a 2090 and a 2300 on the SAT. Statistically speaking, the number of "underqualified" athletes admitted to would have to be very small -- that would mean that only about 117 students were below the top 10% of their class, and only 33 or 34 admitted students were below the top 20% of their class. Out of 20,000 applicants, 34 is not very much -- even if all 34 of them were "underqualified" athletes. (My calculations tell me it's not even 1% of the applicant pool). I highly doubt that all of those students are athletes, too.</p>
<p>Let's take another school -- Brown. Brown only admitted 81 students with CR scores below 500 and only 28 with math scores below 500. Only 62 students who were below top 20% were accepted. 90% of Dartmouth's class was in the top 10%. Only 3% of Penn's admitted applicants were in the second decile (10-20%) of their class, and 0.2% were in the second quintile (20-25%); only 1% of their class scored less than a 500 (out of nearly 23,000 applicants).</p>
<p>Really, if athletes with sub-par grades and SAT scores are getting in, there are very, very few of them. The truth is, the student with the 2300+ and the 4.0 has a MUCH better chance, statistically speaking, of gaining admissions to an Ivy League college than an athlete with a 1600 and a 3.2 or even a 1900 and a 3.5 (even though those are great stats).</p>
<p>I think the point was also made earlier that at Big 10 and other schools (not the Ivies, but Division I schools with notable sports such as Penn State, Northwestern, University of North Carolina, UGA, etc.) although there may be more athletes there, their work is helping to keep down your tuition. Sports brings HUGe amounts of money to universities.</p>