<p>This thread started off bad, with only one accurate contribution on page 1, and that was from collegebound5. Thread picked up nicely at the end with accurate comments from: katie1229, lgarden11, WiseOWL, and juillet.</p>
<p>Pay attention to their comments if you want to learn about the process for athletes at Ivy's.</p>
<p>The point being lost is this: Columbia's athlete admits don't have to be "Columbia material" academically and they simply need sufficient intelligence to get a diploma from a school where the hardest part about graduating is getting in.</p>
<p>I'm not sure what intelligence level is required to pass classes at Columbia and get through in an easy major, but I'd imagine maybe 1150-1200 SAT (old scale) or a 112 IQ. Some of the recruited athletes I encountered at Columbia were, in my opinion, at those sorts of intelligence levels and nowhere near the intelligence level of the average Columbia kid. And that means they're "qualified" for Columbia in the most superficial sense, but don't often add much to the intellectual environment of the school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol, take a stat class.</p>
<p>The last post states that Columbia athletes are not really "Columbia material" academically but cites no data to support this. In fact, based on my experience with recruited Columbia athletes, I believe most athletes are "Columbia material." They have good, but not perfect, SAT scores and good, but not perfect, grades. They have taken many AP classes and have gotten high grades on the exams. And, remember they achieved these statistics while maintaining a difficult training schedule and performance schedule during high school (and for many years prior to high school in some cases). Many of them are also involved in other activities, such as music or community service. To state that such athletes add little to the "intellectual environment" of the school strikes me as intellectual snobbery.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lol, take a stat class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol, dude you're so smart. Your IQ must be like 550 on a 300 scale lol. lol...</p>
<p>...take a communications class, maybe even an ethics class. Regardless of the content of your posts, you tend to come off with a dick-ish tone almost always.</p>
<p>well if everyone were nice...this forum would be meaningless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...take a communications class, maybe even an ethics class. Regardless of the content of your posts, you tend to come off with a dick-ish tone almost always.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol, take a vocabulary class. While a communications class has something to do with "a dick-ish tone," I'm not sure what an ethics class would have to do with that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lol, take a vocabulary class. While a communications class has something to do with "a dick-ish tone," I'm not sure what an ethics class would have to do with that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From Anthony Weston's textbook on ethics titled A 21st Century Ethical Toolbox (Second Edition) :As we focus on mindful speech and notice and observe the details and nuances that flow between people...we experience a full appreciation of the rapport that develops among people. Being mindful causes us to consider the degree of sensitivity with which we construct our words, the attitude in which we enter a conversation, the responsibility we assume for the quality of our interactions, and the actions that arise from our talk"</p>
<p>This segment is taken from a Chapter devoted to Mindful Speech which speaks at length about he importance of choosing the right tone when entering a conversation. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a Philosophy textbook that doesn't directly address this topic. So yes, the tone a person chooses to use is indeed an ethical decision. I guess I don't need to take that vocabulary class after all.</p>
<p>P.S. Does that mean you're the one who needs instruction on semantics?</p>
<p>Why don't we all get back to the argument at hand instead of trying to one-up each other?</p>
<p>I think that schools like Columbia are trying not only to get the best and brightest students available to them, but also to get a diverse class. If Columbia's selection process was based solely on SATs, they could have a whole class of 1200 kids who scored a 2400 on their SAT. But would that provide a very diverse class? No. I don't think it's a crime at all to let athletes in with slightly lower scores. Columbia doesn't have a cut-off SAT score. Obviously, they generally only accept those with very high scores, but it's hardly a rule. We are all judged based not only on our standardized test scores, but also on what we can bring to the school, and to our specific class, as a whole. Enrolling athletes is just bringing in a different type of person than someone who might have 2400/36-like scores -- not a stupider person, just a different person.</p>
<p>And anyway, as someone stated above, listing one kid who you sort of knew who supposedly got a low score on the SAT and was recruited isn't a very solid base for an argument. I'm doubtful that the standards for athletes, academics-wise, are all that terribly different from the standards for everyone else.</p>
<p>Standardized tests should be obsolete anyway. They don't prove anything. There's absolutely no correlation between success in college and ST scores. Good for Columbia for not allowing a one-day test that is coachable to decide for them which students should attend their school.</p>
<p>Athletes who benefit will say yes, they do deserve it, and you should stop complaining.
Non-athletes will say no, they don't, and you are perfectly right in your complaint.</p>
<p>That's just how it will be. </p>
<p>As much as personally, I don't like it, it happens and it is sure to happen for a long time. You might as well not worry about things that you can't change and instead spend your time writing a nice essay to get in with.</p>
<p>I am going to give an opinion. Me being not as smart as everyone else on this website and getting into all the Ivy league schools thinks its just two different ends of the spectrum. If an athlete gets a scholarship to play a sport at a top College then he worked his a** off for 4 years in a sport. If a kid gets accepted to a college because hes smart then he worked his a** off for academics. Its just two different ways to get into College.</p>
<p>This is ridiculous...
Athletes who have shown extreme dedication to something may deserve a spot just as much as someone who studied all summer for their SATs and got a 2300+...
SAT scores do not define who you are...just how well you take tests, but yes, someone who scores above a 2000 is generally "smarter" than someone who scores in the 1500s/ 2400... So I think athletes should still have to have acceptable scores, but that doesn't mean they need 2200+, for example...</p>
<p>I think everyone should get off their high horses and stop complaining about admissions...You're not better than anyone else or deserve to attend a top school just because you scored very well one day...Sorry</p>
<p>And to an earlier post...I think it is much more comendable for someone that has worked at a sport all their life to gain acceptance than to gain acceptance solely on their skin color (this is not talking about family circumstance, etc)..</p>
<p>I think come sail away has a good point..however for institutions that are primarily concerned with academics and not so much sports i don't think it makes much sense to deemphasize scores, grades, etc. especially when it seems like the ivies tend to get slightly above average athletes at best anyways.</p>
<p>Wow, I just needed to vent a little. Be chill. This thread is dead.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am going to give an opinion. Me being not as smart as everyone else on this website and getting into all the Ivy league schools thinks its just two different ends of the spectrum. If an athlete gets a scholarship to play a sport at a top College then he worked his a** off for 4 years in a sport. If a kid gets accepted to a college because hes smart then he worked his a** off for academics. Its just two different ways to get into College.
[/quote]
That's ridiculous - a college's mission is to educate students. It is an academic institution. Columbia and other top schools compete with each other for the best high school students in the world, every year. Why SHOULD they go outside of their mission to accept athletes who have a lower standard of excellence in their studies? It seems like the burden of proof is on someone who wants to water down academic standards.</p>
<p>This isn't like bigtime-sport colleges, where the revenue brought in by those sports supports all the other students, so it justifies bending the rules for a small set of people in order to keep that money flowing in. They have scholarships and everything that speak to how much importance those schools place on sports. Ivy league and other top colleges specifically do not, because they are academic institutions.</p>
<p>ComeSailAway's argument is like saying: Look guys, you can become a supreme court justice by being an excellent federal judge in the court system for many years, demonstrating a powerful command of legal reasoning... or you can be college buddies with the President. Either path can get you appointed to the supreme court. They're just two different ways to get there.</p>
<p>I mean, yes, theoretically, those are two different ways to get there. But the question of "SHOULD" looms rather large, don't you think?</p>
<p>I'm still not seeing any actual proof that athletes are accepted with significantly lower scores than anyone else.</p>
<p>you know what, i think we should lump all athletes who get recruited under one umbrella and assume that they are all underqualified and don't deserve to be at an ivy league institution... </p>
<p>the fact of the matter is if you had the opportunity to use a hook like athletics as a means of getting into a school of columbia's caliber than you would use it. plain and simple. to assume that just because an athlete's SATs are sub-par than he/she is an unqualified candidate for admission is rediculous. maybe they are at the all-state level and still manage to keep a 4.0. maybe they don't test well but they put time into both sports and volunteer work. maybe they can write a damn good 500 word essay. maybe they would have gotten in regardless of athletics. but that never seems to occur to a lot of people </p>
<p>get over yourselves. athletes will get in. even if you think you are a better candidate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm still not seeing any actual proof that athletes are accepted with significantly lower scores than anyone else.
[/quote]
well, I can't link you to anything conclusive, but a senior-year roommate of mine worked in the Athletics department and said there were a number of people on the Columbia football team who had SATs in the 1100s (out of 1600).</p>
<p>I have absolutely no problem with people who get themselves admitted as a student first and an athlete second. If there is a varsity athlete out there who doesn't just think and learn at a top level but also performs on the field at a top level, they may deserve admission as much as the next top student, if not more. Success in athletics as a result of tons of effort and teamwork - that is one hell of an extracurricular, yes. It is a plus, not a minus. </p>
<p>But it shouldn't get that much more weight than most extracurriculars. Frankly if I were an officer I'd prefer seeing published scientific research or published journalistic work or published literature - some contribution to others - over some achievement that only benefits themselves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But it shouldn't get that much more weight than most extracurriculars. Frankly if I were an officer I'd prefer seeing published scientific research or published journalistic work or published literature - some contribution to others - over some achievement that only benefits themselves.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree with the suggestion that ECs deserve more weight if they involve a "contribution to others." That's a personal opinion, so there's no point in arguing it.</p>
<p>But I also take issue with characterizing publications as a contribution to others while athletic accomplishments are not. If you publish some poem (which will inevitably get read by nobody else besides your grandparents), I'm not sure what sort of contribution you're making to others. An athlete who excels can be contributing to others in a number of ways. If a bunch of people come out and watch a high school football game that you're playing in, then others are deriving pleasure and enjoyment from the event. Or the athlete who excels is increasing the reputation of his school and his community. Or he's inspiring and influencing those around him, such as his teammates.</p>