<p>That's fine - as you say, this is all a matter of personal preferences and beliefs.</p>
<p>We're discussing this as relevant to competition in college admissions between athletes with lower academic achievement, and non-glamour-athletes with very much higher academic achievement. In that context, my assertion that athletics is an EC, a very good EC, but still no more (or less) worthy of weight than most other ECs. And what with a college being an institution of higher learning, tax-exempt because of its educational mission, it's still a bit of a travesty each time someone who's not a standout academically gets into a top school.</p>
<p>this message is going to be hastily written, so i apologize for any mistakes in advance. </p>
<p>i am an athlete going to an ivy and was recruited by four ivies. first of all, there are standards for sports. however, each sport has its own academic requirements. for example, my sport required me to meet the scores of an average student, all of which i exceeded. when the recruiting process first began for me, i recall the ivy coaches asking about my scores and emphasizing the scores necessary for me to qualify. in addition, one coach told me that she had to tell many recruits that they did not qualify academically.</p>
<p>while i cannot account for all student-athletes headed to the ivies, i believe i have worked extremely hard. i am involved in several extracurriculars separate from my sport and have achieved national recognition for academics. during the summer, i spend 6-8 practicing and continue to serve my community. reading this discussion makes me nervous for those who will hold a grudge against me for being an athlete. honestly, i did not think i would be playing collegiate sports until second semester junior year. </p>
<p>i know i am not making a strong argument for all athletes, but i do believe that some do qualify as much as the next admitted student. i hope this sheds some light on student-athletes.</p>
<p>secondly, no one questions whether you’ve worked hard. the guys at dunkin donuts work hard, the guys mopping the floors work hard, everyone works hard. but working hard is not a qualification to attend an elite university. being an elite student is what qualifies you to attend an elite university. as you said, many coaches tell potential recruits they don’t qualify academically - as they should.</p>
<p>third, the whole “academic recognition” for athletes is a bit of a sham. The only people who can qualify for such awards are athletes in the first place, so it really is like creating a second “class” of student… you have the normal students, who achieve academic recognition in a general sense, and then you have the athletes who may get academic recognition by the standards of student-athletes. There were a few athletes in my high school who were brilliant students in their own right, and the one I knew personally felt outright insulted by getting “academic recognition” above that of his non-athlete peers, just because he happened to be an athlete. I would too. Either you’re deserving of recognition for being a good student or you’re not - being an athlete shouldn’t change your eligibility like that, it shouldn’t be a second category.</p>
<p>I don’t object to top schools sending coaches out to find the best athletes who also happen to be at an elite-college-level of academic ability. I object to them compromising on their idea of what an elite-college-level of academic ability means, in order to get slightly better athletes. it doesn’t improve my educational experience one iota to have a guy who’s a few inches taller on the basketball team or a few pounds heavier on the football team, but it does improve my educational experience to have smarter more passionately motivated students surrounding me in class. which of those priorities should be more important to a university?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t hold even the slightest grudge against someone who gains admission to a top university on the back of their own intellectual merit. If you come in as someone with top scores, top grades, top achievement, clearly demonstrated passion for your areas of interest, and a host of cheering admirers writing recommendations for you… my congratulations. But just like I resent the people who get admitted as a Development admit, I do resent a little bit the people who cheapen the academic standards of any top university in order that the school can show off a marginally better athletic team. Well, that’s not quite true. The students just want to go to a top school. I guess who I get annoyed at are the admissions officers and university officials who support such a tweaking of their meritocratic model.</p>
<p>“it doesn’t improve my educational experience one iota to have a guy who’s a few inches taller on the basketball team or a few pounds heavier on the football team, but it does improve my educational experience to have smarter more passionately motivated students surrounding me in class. which of those priorities should be more important to a university?”</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure having “more passionately motivated students surrounding” you in class is the first priority of most top universities. I agree with your general point, but I think you’re overstating the preferential treatment given to student athletes.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you mean by “Legacy” admits as a distinct category, in the sense of a backdoor through admissions. There are basically two types of legacy students who come in - those whose parents donate a boatload to the University (i.e. Development admits), and those whose parents just happened to go here and are otherwise academically qualified. If you have a pool of people who are roughly equivalent, the Legacy kid is (1) more likely to attend if admitted and (2) more likely to donate after he graduates. But they’re not letting in anyone who can’t hack it. Some of the athletic admits they let in, simply can’t hack it. </p>
<p>
well, it’s actually much worse at a lot of other schools than it is in the Ivy League since there are no merit scholarships to further twist the process. But schools like Columbia make at least a representation that they’re strictly meritocratic in their admissions process. It’s a little insulting to learn, after going through that gauntlet, exactly how overstated that is.</p>
<p>I caught this a little late but 4 or 5 students from our school got into ivy schools athletically and none were in the top 10% of the class. Personally, I think to really be considered a prestigious University it should be uncomprimising on its standards for admittance(I don’t think you will find Oxford or Cambridge doing that). Knowing the kind of comprimises all these schools make (for what reason?) just makes me believe that they are not really the centers of academic excellence that they want people to believe they are.</p>
<p>Not being in the top 10% of a high school class does not equate to a student not being able to “hack it” at Columbia. The difference between the top 10% and top 30% of many high school classes these days is hundredths of a grade point–hardly enough to call a student “unqualified.” Columbia (and the other Ivies) could admit only students with perfect SAT’s and 4.0 (or 5.0 in today’s GPA) averages, but they have chosen not to do so. Since all the Ivies field sports teams, it stands to reason that they have to have enough players to field a team in each sport. And, since they want at least some competitive edge, they recruit the best athletes they can find who also meet their academic standards. This does not mean the athletes have to be in the top 10% of the class (although I would guess that some of them are), but they have to meet the academic index requirements. The Ivies are not recruiting high school All Americans who cannot read or write. However, to be recruited by an Ivy (or any Division I school), an athlete probably has to be an All American or equivalent. This means that they did not just go out for the team their freshman year. Most of them have been competing & training at a very high level since middle school. And being an athlete, unlike most EC’s, requires a lifestyle commitment–it affects sleeping, eating, weekend activities and studying.</p>
<p>i agree that bringing to life this thread is unnecessary. but a comment while it is live and mostly to disagree with Denzera on this one.</p>
<p>universities don’t admit athletes for you, they do it for them. athletes increase the visibility of the university, they are historically committed alumni, and frankly that C student in college still gets a great job because of networking among athlete alums is ridiculous so they go on to be famous and illustrious alums - who ACTUALLY DO GIVE BACK. </p>
<p>i actually really appreciate athletes and what they offer the community, and i prefer them over the snobby brat or conceded intellectual (thank goodness they are in few numbers at CU, though certainly present) that received most of my scorn. they are great alums, they love columbia deeply and probably have the most thankless situation of all students - having to wake up at 6am every morning to practice when you are not even on a full scholarship.</p>
<p>of course some can’t hack it, but also some ‘regular’ admits can’t hack it either. college is so much about time management (and columbia even more so) that i have seen some really bright kids go down for the count. might athletes have a higher propensity here? probably, but it is not exclusive. also every now and then there is an athlete that is so beyond you academically that it really impresses you and lets you realize that just like there are great, good and bad students in the general ugrad population, there is the same stratification among athletes.</p>
<p>i think your scorn is overstated here. i don’t think it lessens the experience at all. also columbia does not admit the best in absolute meritocratic terms. read here and their own material and they often talk about how they seek a class of diverse people that will add to the university. if you think you were admitted to columbia on your merits alone, well you are mistaken there. you were admitted because they wanted you - no less than the same explanation they could give an athlete, they wanted him/her. beyond the numbers, the ECs, it comes down to the university thinks you would add something and so there you go. for similar reason you could be incredible in every way, but if they don’t want you - you wont be admitted. it is their prerogative in the end.</p>
<p>My daughter was an athletic recruit at Columbia this year, didn’t accept admission because of the cost. Need based only, no athletic scholarships or merit based aid was given. She was top 5% in her class, strong SAT scores and would have loved the intellectual atmosphere. She’s off to Berkeley in the fall with no sports. Many athletes have passion, drive and excellent time management skills because the time commitment it takes to manage athletics and academics. Don’t put them down, they were smart enough to get accepted.</p>
<p>At least athletes have to dedicate themselves to their sport to get an advantage. See the difference between the statistics of the typical white/asian student and the average black/Hispanic student at the Ivy leagues. It’s a joke.</p>
<p>^But one can make the argument that learning to deal with diversity, bringing diverse perspectives, ect. is a goal that has a more significant connection to academic or intellectual pursuit. That is, it would be a joke to have an African-American Studies major, or an Asian studies major (I have no idea if Columbia does, but for the sake of argument), and then have no African-American or Asian students on campus. That’s just stupid. Like it or not, people in the world still have different experiences <em>solely</em> on the basis of race AND race is still a major factor in a student’s cultural background. </p>
<p>BUT that discussion is not related to this thread.</p>
<p>I’m torn about the whole matter. I have a good friend who’s an athletic recruit (and actually a very nice acquaintance who’s also a recruit I think), and definitely wouldn’t have gotten in without the recruitment, and I really think this person will put the Columbia education to great use. So I can see how it has it’s benefits. But from a purely theoretical perspective, is it really fair to a given student who is on the waitlist and if suddenly Columbia had gotten rid of all its recruitment spots for athletes this year, he would have gotten in? Is it really fair that something that is a less-accurate predictor of college success/academic and intellectual ability is prioritized over more accurate predictors? Probably not. I can’t really think of a fair argument for athletic recruitment. That being said, I can’t say that I’m completely against it, because I have seen where it has positive results. But I mean, really, would Columbia be any worse off as an institution if the football team managed to lose even more games? Would Columbia be any better off if it started winning a few more? If we win a few more swim meets, how is Columbia better or worse?</p>
<p>Athletic programs at bigger, state schools can generate hundreds of millions of dollars for those schools. Penn State, for example, owes a lot of its research money towards undeclared juniors smashing into eachother every Saturday on broadcast television.</p>
<p>At more elite schools, athletics keep alumni engaged. Engaged alumni are more likely to open their wallets and add to the endowment.</p>
<p>so, my school got quite a few people into top schools this year, I’m proud to say. it is interesting to note that I was the only one who was not a recruited athlete (well, there was this legacy that was also elected “head” of the school). but, our valedictorians, with perfect 45/45 IB totals, 2250+ SATs and, some solid leadership positions in ECs they dedicated a lot of time to and had some impressive awards in a couple areas, who are also excellent writers and had glowing recs, with great passion in their respective areas, got rejected from the same top schools. that’s anecdotal evidence, but I think it’s pretty convincing.</p>
<p>stjarvie: affirmative action is another popular source of resentment, I would bash that too if I had the time. I know because I’m Asian XD</p>
<p>zephyr, i really have to call this one out - that was a really stupid post, particularly your addendum. and i say this as someone who has watched your points and think you have a fair head on your shoulders.</p>
<p>anecdotal evidence means crap here. these schools are looking for match, for a class of unique and diverse individuals. it is in part why all these chance threads are pretty much jokes. yes students could be at the ‘level’ of an Ivy, but what if they don’t perform on the app? or if they come across as arrogant? there are so many variables why they would or should be denied from top schools. obviously CU liked what you had to say. congrats, be proud. but this is a crap post made with little forethought. i could hand you a half a dozen counter anecdotes of incredible students being admitted to ivies. does that mean i should say as convincing evidence that ivies like incredible people? evidence can be misused. and just because it happens to be that your school is a counter example do note that there are far more schools where no athletes are admitted than the opposite (athletes are a minority at these schools) to ivies. </p>
<p>could this be an annoyance to students who were not admitted, understandable. but this is where the failure in logic comes. there is the belief somehow that if the number of athletes were reduced or eliminated that inevitably it would lead to greater admittances for students such as your valedictorian. that is an illogical presumption. by removing a variable (athletics) from the picture, it would completely alter multiple things and have wide ranging consequences. no athletes means no athletic teams, a redistribution of university resources, priorities and therefore admission priorities. a student that today might be considered admissible might no longer be considered without athletics. alumni donations that keep up the university’s efforts might wash away leading to a drop in standards and a corresponding drop in selectivity. the only fact that can be said with certainty is that student A was admitted and student B was admitted. there are no ‘should haves,’ ‘hypotheticals’ that really apply in this scenario. as admission to these schools is not solely based on objective criteria this upturns most explanations for why student B unequivocally merits admission over student athlete A. you really can’t prove it any way you slice it. all we might be able to offer are probabilistic (sabremetric-esque) explanations of doing certain activities increase the odds at admission, but do not guarantee admission. one such variable would be being a really great athlete at the D1 level.</p>
<p>what were you going to say re: affirmative action? do you know how it is applied? well a suggestion - at cu take a class on equity in higher education with Roger Lehecka. will open your eyes to why affirmative action is perhaps more dynamic than portrayed in the media. i am sorry that you want to bash it - i just hope that you have your ammo ready when you do before i knock it down harder than hasheem thabeet on a soft lay-up.</p>
<p>Oh, and how many valedictorians does your school have?</p>
<p>I’m surprised someone has followed my posts D= I’m honored.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to imply that athletes should not be recruited, only to say that they do have huge advantages in admissions. notice that in my post, I did not imply that I have anything against athletes myself. I have two good friends who were recruited for rowing and will be going to Columbia with me next year, and I could not be more excited for them.</p>
<p>I wasn’t planning on going on a tangent about AA. But I will admit, perhaps the strongest reason I am against it is that it worked against me in the admissions process. That is all. It is hard to see how something is fair (not that admissions is supposed to be fair) when it diminishes your hard work and talent, when it is personal rather than hypothetical.</p>
<p>we have 2 valedictorians, not that it is important.</p>
<p>edit: was that a circumvention of your argument? if so, I’m sorry, I had no meaningful argument to begin with.
edit2: and I think the argument changes depending on which side of the equation you are looking from. from the point of view of the university competing in a “free market”, of course recruiting athletes is a good idea. I don’t know if it is true if you are seeing it from the point of view of society, or of the individual.</p>
<p>Adgeek, you’ve missed the point, the argument is not discount athletic achievement altogether, but place it on par with great musical, debate etc. achievement. athletes are “recruited” to play a sport for Columbia, this is fcked up because:</p>
<p>1) we don’t preemptively recruit anyone else for anything
2) standards of admission are lower for athletes
3) there’s no enforcement mechanism, so half the athletes cease to be athletes either immediately or within a year or two.</p>
<p>This whole donation argument is bogus, ex-athletes do not donate more to Columbia than other students do. Other donors don’t give a ■■■ about athletics, or if they do, they care as much about it as about other programs. </p>
<p>Taking in fewer athletes (i.e. leaving out the ones who don’t otherwise make the cut) does mean taking in more qualified people in their place. It’s zero sum, if you have lower standards for one group you must have higher standards for the other (non-athlete), however subjective and multi-faceted those standards might be.</p>
<p>It’s absolutely the same with affirmative action, poor asians especially, who are economically and culturally disadvantaged are hurt instead of helped in the admissions process. It’s a hugely unjust system. We take in more rich Black and Hispanic students every year in place of poorer Asians. Every university does it, because if we practiced “affirmative action” based on socio-economic background, financial aid costs would sky-rocket. So universities (not just Columbia by any means) claim to be “diverse” while leaving out poorer students. The saddest part of all this, is studies have shown that universities which practice heavy affirmative action, disadvantage minority students because many cannot cope with the curriculum and end up doing poorly at college and after, compared with if they had gone to an easier university and done averagely or well.</p>
<p>concoll - studies? proof? and how do you know that poorer asians are not taken? proof? there are more asians per capita admitted and attending top schools, certainly there must be a greater socioeconomic diversity of that group. but my biggest gripe on the anti-af/am gang is that there is a presumptive belief that af/am just refers to race, ethnicity. why do all these schools have programs for very poor kids, for kids from bad high schools.</p>
<p>and concoll, no taking fewer athletes would be a paradigm shift. that is the point. to take fewer athletes means it would change the core values of the institution and have wide ranging consequences. i think pretending otherwise is not understanding the dynamics and is unquestionably naive.</p>
<p>and an addendum - check out our new provost’s research on stereotype threat when considering the potential reasons why numbers don’t tell the full story. just because someone has higher test scores does not make them a better applicant.</p>