<p>big name, great athletes bring alot of money to the schools. they get alot of money from ticket sales and sponsorships because of sports teams, with alot left over after paying the sports costs. this money then goes back to the university to improve the campus or to give as scholarships to the really good students. this holds true for the big time sports(football basketball). there are also more athletes that graduate than those who dont. you have to look at smaller sports like swimming and track. those athletes, some of which get full scholarships, almost always graduate, and are much more capable than the realy big name athletes. i really dont think that a big name athlete going to a certain school will take a spot from another student cuz its not hard to make the incoming class one person bigger. im just saying that people dont really appreciate what athletics does for a school.</p>
<p>i don't know why i'm posting here....</p>
<p>but i go to a poor public school in cali....</p>
<p>and i just got into YALE </p>
<p>and i can't believe it</p>
<p>so it's possible</p>
<p>And have the $$ to pay the tuition, which is fair, since colleges have bills. But they should stop their nonsense that they are "needs blind," if they have such a greater percentage of private school kids than there are in the general population.</p>
<p>One would think these colleges would know how to do simple statistics. :)</p>
<p>adigal - I'm hoping you are joking(hard to tell sarcasm via text).</p>
<p>(many) Private schools have much higher average test scores, academic rigor, and other college preperation.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>The problem with your example is that recruited athletes for big state universities aren't really taking someone's spot. These 'big-time' sports schools have thousands and thousands of more students than Harvard or Yale. So the effect of privileged, wealthy kids getting admitted to Ivy's is far greater. Seriously, if I got rejected from a state school, the last thing that would cross my mind is "It must have been that Tim Tebow who took my spot!" No, it was a fellow degree-seeking student who was more qualified than me who got in instead. Unless you have some data to prove to me that recruited athletes have a significant effect on the admittance of more qualified students, then your analogy doesn't show anything.</p>
<p>Your argument would be true.. if private school kids are really less qualified than public school kids. At a school like Exeter, approximately the top 15% of the class is accepted to Ivy league schools. But to get into Exeter in the first place, you already have to be at the top of your class (and no one gets in -just- because they're rich, unless they've donated a building to the school or something. Actually, 35% of the student body is on financial aid, so thats a significant number of students who aren't "rich and privileged"). In addition, the classes at Exeter are much more difficult than classes at a normal high schools. Anyone who can be in the top 15% of the class at Exeter could easily get straight As at (most) public high schools.</p>
<p>I know anecdotal evidence means nothing, but among the kids who got into MIT this year are: an IMO gold medalist, an Intel STS Finalist, a RSIer, and a USAPO team member.</p>
<p>
[quote]
big name, great athletes bring alot of money to the schools. they get alot of money from ticket sales and sponsorships because of sports teams, with alot left over after paying the sports costs. this money then goes back to the university to improve the campus or to give as scholarships to the really good students. this holds true for the big time sports(football basketball).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, and the same argument holds for legacy admits and/or admission to rich donors. For example, you provide legacy admissions, that encourages former alumni to donate to the school regularly in hopes of boosting their kid's chance of getting in, and that money can be used to improve the rest of the school. Heck, you don't even have to be an alumni to donate a pile of money to a school in return for them letting your kid in. </p>
<p>So if it's allright to admit football and basketball players for the money they bring to the school, then it should be allright to bring in students whose parents have simply donated a lot of money. After all, money is money, right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
you have to look at smaller sports like swimming and track. those athletes, some of which get full scholarships, almost always graduate, and are much more capable than the realy big name athletes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, but these sports are different because they usually don't bring in a net profit, right? </p>
<p>My point is simple - big time football and basketball are basically 'mercenary' sports that bring in plenty of athletes who don't graduate, and who have no intention of graduating and in many cases are mediocre students who are interested only in staying academically eligible to play so they can jump to the pros. At least in the case of prep private school students getting some advantage in the admissions process, whatever harm that may cause to the integrity of the process, at least these students are still going to try to graduate. In the case of somebody like Stephon Marbury or Carmelo Anthony or Dwyane Wade, we all knew that these guys weren't going to graduate. </p>
<p>
[quote]
i really dont think that a big name athlete going to a certain school will take a spot from another student cuz its not hard to make the incoming class one person bigger.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem with your example is that recruited athletes for big state universities aren't really taking someone's spot
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Seriously, if I got rejected from a state school, the last thing that would cross my mind is "It must have been that Tim Tebow who took my spot!" No, it was a fellow degree-seeking student who was more qualified than me who got in instead
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Think of it this way. You say that a school can just 'expand' the number of available spots to accomodate whatever new athletes the coaches want in that particular year. But that begs the question why is the school expanding its spots for those athletes, but not for other applicants? I know that if I was on the border of getting admitted to a particular school, I would like the school to 'expand' to grant me a spot. But since I'm not a football/basketball player, they won't do that. How fair is that? </p>
<p>In other words, why is the school expanding its number of slots to accomodate mercenary athletes who, in many cases, won't even graduate at all, but won't expand to include some other students who do actually intend to graduate? </p>
<p>So it's not the case that Tim Tebow literally "took my spot". That's not what I would be thinking. Instead, I would be thinking "Why should the school bend the rules for Tim Tebow, but not for others, and specifically, not for me?" </p>
<p>
[quote]
. Unless you have some data to prove to me that recruited athletes have a significant effect on the admittance of more qualified students, then your analogy doesn't show anything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm simply saying that admissions to state schools is far from perfectly meritocratic and we should admit to ourselves that this is the case. It's not like the Ivies are the only schools that use supposedly 'unfair' admissions criteria. State schools also use unfair admissions criteria, and we should be honest about that fact. </p>
<p>So if we want to bang on the Ivies for admitting lots of private-school kids (if that is indeed unfair), then we should similarly bang on the public schools for admitting mercenary athletes. What's fair is fair. </p>
<p>
[quote]
These 'big-time' sports schools have thousands and thousands of more students than Harvard or Yale. So the effect of privileged, wealthy kids getting admitted to Ivy's is far greater.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said before, I don't see that there is necessarily more of a 'problem' that exists here than just the "problem" of wealth. Let's face it. College populations in general tend to be skewed towards the wealthy. If you're poor, you're relatively unlikely to go to ANY college. And the best colleges of all types (Ivy or not) tend to have students who are wealthier and therefore tend to go to private high schools. For example, I know a good number of private-school kids who went to Berkeley or Virginia. In fact, the main reason to become rich in the first place is to provide a better lifestyle for your kids. If you can't help your kids out, then that blunts the incentives for you to become rich. </p>
<p>Look, life is unfair. Wealthy people have a better life than poor people do. Just like people like Tim Tebow have a better life than people without football talent do. Somebody like Tim Tebow has women throwing themselves at him, has nationwide fame, and will probably be an NFL multimillionaire in a few years. I don't have any of that. That's not "fair" either. But hey, life is not fair. </p>
<p>But if you want to bring up the notion of unfairness, then let's talk about ALL of the unfairness. We should be fair (heh heh) in our condemnation. Both Ivies and state schools enact policies that are not 'fair'.</p>
<p>One more thing to consider:</p>
<p>Not all public schools are equal. If you live in a wealthy town, your public school is much better than an inner-city public school. Some states have better public school systems than others.</p>
<p>Where I used to live, the public schools were much better than any of the private schools. The kids who went to the public schools were generally wealthier as well, and, because of the high income tax from the town and donations, the public school was practically private. The high school in that town is practically a feeder for Stanford and the Ivies.</p>
<p>Just because someone goes to a public school doesn't mean they are poor or underserved. I don't think simply accepting public school kids would make Ivies any better or more "fair".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Think of it this way. You say that a school can just 'expand' the number of available spots to accomodate whatever new athletes the coaches want in that particular year. But that begs the question why is the school expanding its spots for those athletes, but not for other applicants? I know that if I was on the border of getting admitted to a particular school, I would like the school to 'expand' to grant me a spot. But since I'm not a football/basketball player, they won't do that. How fair is that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
In other words, why is the school expanding its number of slots to accomodate mercenary athletes who, in many cases, won't even graduate at all, but won't expand to include some other students who do actually intend to graduate?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
So it's not the case that Tim Tebow literally "took my spot". That's not what I would be thinking. Instead, I would be thinking "Why should the school bend the rules for Tim Tebow, but not for others, and specifically, not for me?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know students who pleaded with admissions to get in and they 'bent' the rules and let them in. But anyways, I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not necessarily defending it, I'm just saying that the Ivies bend the rules in a disproportionate amount with respect to state schools. The thing you fail to mention is that the NCAA has very strict guidelines on recruiting and player responsibilities when they become a student-athlete. So at least state schools have some form of checks and balances regarding the potential of 'unfairness' in recruited athletes. Sure it's not perfect; rules are broken, players are sometimes treated 'too' fairly, but at least they have something. What do the Ivies have? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Like I said before, I don't see that there is necessarily more of a 'problem' that exists here than just the "problem" of wealth. Let's face it. College populations in general tend to be skewed towards the wealthy. If you're poor, you're relatively unlikely to go to ANY college. And the best colleges of all types (Ivy or not) tend to have students who are wealthier and therefore tend to go to private high schools. For example, I know a good number of private-school kids who went to Berkeley or Virginia. In fact, the main reason to become rich in the first place is to provide a better lifestyle for your kids. If you can't help your kids out, then that blunts the incentives for you to become rich.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a fair and accurate observation. Goodness, the average income at Florida is 100,000. But you know what? Harvard is like around 200,000 (probably more). Since this is a clear observation, why isn't Harvard doing a better job in recruiting poorer students? Now I am not saying that Harvard should not admit wealthy, elite private school kids (oldbutwise is a <em>bit</em> extreme there), but they can make the situation better. I know they need their money, but come on, give up a million or two and admit poorer students (yes they apply!). Harvard will still be the wealthiest university in the world, no contest. Bernie Machen, UF president, is trying to do better and we have an average income of at least half of Harvard. And we clearly need the money more! :) </p>
<p>
[quote]
Just like people like Tim Tebow have a better life than people without football talent do. Somebody like Tim Tebow has women throwing themselves at him, has nationwide fame, and will probably be an NFL multimillionaire in a few years. I don't have any of that. That's not "fair" either. But hey, life is not fair.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL, I can't tell you how many times girls have come up to Tebow and asked if they could have his children.... Seriously.</p>
<p>How did recruited athletes get brought into this? To make everything a bit more clear almost every school recruits athletes. Harvard has a notorious 1200 club, the rowers on the crew team must get a 1200 on the SATs to get admited as recruits, and often times they will be quialified, but there are several who do just manage to get to this level. This is not exclusive to basketball and football scholarships, those are just the most reported since they see a very low graduation rate.</p>
<p>I even know a kid who was offered a lot of financial aid to go to Harvard to sail, but he turned them down since he had already found the school he wanted to attend.</p>
<p>But to return to the question at hand, could they fill a class with all public school students and not see a drop in academic quality? Yes. But that doesn't prove anything. To say it's unfair that 10% of high school graduates come from private schools, but 30% of ivy incoming freshmen are private schoolers is akin to saying that you find the compilation of a student body at a public school to be that same as at a competatvie private school. But that is incorrect. I would say private school educated students are commonly above average when compared to the student body from a entire public school, just because there are a lot of people in public high schools who are there just because they have to be there, whereas this would be uncommon at a private high school.</p>
<p>While I cannot really comment on some of the previous replies, I, too, have often wondered about this "need-blind" policy that exists at colleges and universities. Business sense tells me that a school cannot accept a class full of people that all need financial aid. Unless, as I had one school administrator tell me, the endowment at the school is very healthy. But, I am still of the belief that you have to admit some full-paying students. I guess this just adds to the mix and mystery of admissions! And, I am sure that admissions officers can "figure out" if a student can afford the university in question--questions on the app alone can be indicative of a student's family financial situation without having to necessarily see financial statements (level of parents edu, colleges parents attended, parents occupation).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know students who pleaded with admissions to get in and they 'bent' the rules and let them in. But anyways, I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not necessarily defending it, I'm just saying that the Ivies bend the rules in a disproportionate amount with respect to state schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I'm not even sure that the Ivies really even 'bend' the rules more than the public schools do. Whatever else you might say about the Ivies, you have to agree that the quality of the average Ivy student is far higher than that at any public school. Let's face it. Not to be blunt, but even a top public school like Berkeley has a long tail end of relatively mediocre students. And certainly if you look at some no-name state school, you will find plenty of students of middling quality at best - plenty of students who clearly aren't serious about academics, who just see college as an extended party. For example, consider the case of Johnny Lechner, student at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, who has been an undergrad for 13 years and counting, and STILL hasn't graduated. {What makes the situation even more obscene is that the national media portrayed this as a 'cool' thing to do - that college is nothing more than a 13-year party - and that he's now more famous and more marketable than plenty of students who actually worked hard and were serious about their studies}. </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Lechner%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Lechner</a>
<a href="http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2007/Jan_07/01262007_02.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2007/Jan_07/01262007_02.asp</a></p>
<p>Heck, I personally remember how people who were complete slackers still managed to get into state schools where they basically did little more than party, drink, and date women (although apparently not to the extent that Johnny Lechner did). Heck, some of them even managed to graduate, usually by just majoring in creampuff subjects. For example, I remember some of them talking about they had run a "competition" to see who could get the best grades in a class while putting in the least possible effort. {Scoring was all done based on the honor system}. One guy said that he never went to class (not once), and not only did he not do any of the reading for the class, he didn't even have any of the books such that he could have done the reading. Course grading was based on writing 2 papers associated with the course reading (as well as class attendance/participation), so instead of reading any of the books in order to write the papers, all he did was just go to Amazon.com and read all the user reviews/comments about those books, and pieced together 2 papers out of those comments. He got an A- in the class, and the only reason why he didn't get a solid A was because he never went to class (hence, he got a zero for class attendance/participation). Yet here's the kicker of the story - he apparently only managed to win 2nd place in their 'contest'. Apparently somebody else also managed to get an A- while putting in * even less effort *. </p>
<p>But anyway, the point is, these guys were all sitting there, laughing about how they put in minimal effort into their classes and had no idea what was going on (and didn't want to know what was going on), and nevertheless got good grades anyway. What about that? At least in the case of the Ivies, the average student tends to be more motivated and have a better work ethic than the average student at state schools. There are a * lot * of slackers at the state schools - students who don't know what's going on in their classes and don't want to know, and who are far more interested in just hanging out and partying. Surely, the Ivies have a few such students too, but not the large conspicuous tail-end that exists at many state schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The thing you fail to mention is that the NCAA has very strict guidelines on recruiting and player responsibilities when they become a student-athlete. So at least state schools have some form of checks and balances regarding the potential of 'unfairness' in recruited athletes. Sure it's not perfect; rules are broken, players are sometimes treated 'too' fairly, but at least they have something.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Those particular checks/balances are FAR from perfect. For example, the University of Arkansas was dinged a few years ago for literally graduating 0% of its men's basketball players that were brought in during a certain period of time. That's right - ZERO percent. Granted, a few players didn't graduate because they jumped to the NBA (but that then begs the question I asked previously of why are you admitting players who never intended to graduate and only wanted to use the school to jump to the NBA?). But what about those players who didnt' make it to the NBA? </p>
<p>Similarly, another study revealed that only 10% of Ohio State men's basketball players admitted as freshmen in the late 90's actually received degrees.</p>
<p>Or consider this other quote:</p>
<p>"no basketball player from NCAA-bound Florida A&M, Eastern Kentucky or Oregon received a degree from those four freshman classes, "</p>
<p>Heck, take Berkeley again. Berkeley is supposed to be an elite school. Yet consider the graduation rates of Berkeley basketball and football. They're pathetic. Only 22% of the men's basketball players and 37% of the football players admitted in the 4 year period of 1996-1999 actually graduated. Even if you use the more generous "GSR" method of calculating graduation, you still end up with the pathetic figures of 38% and 44% respectively. Now granted, I think graduation rates are better at Berkeley now (particularly with Cal football lately), but I think it's an inescapable fact that Berkeley, which is supposed to be a top-notch school, admitted a lot of football and basketball players who were clearly not serious about academics. I'm quite sure that a lot of people who applied to Berkeley and got rejected were wondering why the rules didn't get bent for them but got bent for these athletes.</p>
<p>But the point is this. You talk about NCAA checks and balances. Yet the evidence shows that whatever checks and balances exist are pretty thin reeds. Evidently, they didn't stop Arkansas from graduating not a single one of its freshman basketball players in a 4 year period, or Ohio State from only graduating 10% of them. It didn't stop a top school like Berkeley from nevertheless graduating a poor percentage of its players. Whatever problems might exist with Ivies admitting private-school kids, I'm quite sure that none of them exhibit the low graduation rates that are endemic to many state school sports teams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's a fair and accurate observation. Goodness, the average income at Florida is 100,000. But you know what? Harvard is like around 200,000 (probably more). Since this is a clear observation, why isn't Harvard doing a better job in recruiting poorer students? Now I am not saying that Harvard should not admit wealthy, elite private school kids (oldbutwise is a <em>bit</em> extreme there), but they can make the situation better. I know they need their money, but come on, give up a million or two and admit poorer students (yes they apply!). Harvard will still be the wealthiest university in the world, no contest. Bernie Machen, UF president, is trying to do better and we have an average income of at least half of Harvard. And we clearly need the money more!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, the simple fact of the matter is that rich students tend to be more academically prepared than poor students. It's unfair, but that's the truth. After all, the rich really can afford to send their kids to the best schools (either send them off to an elite private school, or just live in a town that has a highly regarded public school). They can also afford tutoring, enrichment activities, send their kids overseas to soak up cultural activities, and so forth. Poor students don't get that. Poor kids often times get stuck in mediocre schools with unenthusiastic teachers and gangs roaming around outside, the upshot of which is that those kids tend to learn less. I agree that that's deeply unfair, but it is a fact of life. </p>
<p>There are also strong cultural attitudes towards education that play a role. Let's face it. There are a lot of kids who grow up in households in which education and hard work are not respected activities. And the bulk of these households, frankly, tend to be poor. I have done volunteer work in many such neighborhoods, and I have found that by far the most effective way to turn kids around is to change their attitudes towards education and hard work. Bad schools and bad neighborhoods are a problem. But bad attitudes are a worse problem. As a case in point, numerous studies have demonstrated that poverty-stricken Asian immigrants who are forced to live in bad neighborhoods (because that's all they could afford) and attend bad schools stil managed to perform well academically. Granted, not as well as if they had gone to a good school, but still quite well. Immigrants from the West Indies (i.e. Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Dominican Republic, etc.) tend to perform better academically than native-born Americans do, even though they tend to arrive in this country dirt-poor. Strong cultural attitudes in favor of education tend to produce wealth, which in turn help to foster attitudes in favor of education, which produces more wealth, etc. Again, the situation is still not "fair", because it's clearly unfair that some kids are born in households where education is not culturally respected. But it is the reality of the world we live in.</p>
<p>Besides, look at it this way. I don't know why we are harping on the notion of 'fairness' anyway. After all, the world of academia is clearly not fair. Academia can be brutally merciless towards those people who are just not well prepared. Professors don't care WHY you're not well prepared. All they care about is that you'e not wel prepared. I have seen schools like Berkeley admit people who were clearly not well prepared academically, and then proceed to flunk them right out. You ought to be admitting people who will actually graduate. It does nobody any good to admit an unprepared student, only to toss him out later. It's clearly not "fair" that some people were born into richer families that have better attitudes towards education and are thus better prepared than others. But what's done is done. But Admitting poorly prepared students and then flunking them out doesn't improve the situation. If anything, it makes the situation worse. </p>
<p>{One might ask how that jives with the notion I expressed above of how some students are able to get away with putting in zero effort and get good grades anyway. That's an example of a different kind of unfairness - that some majors and some courses are simply easier than others, and that gets to unfair notions of grade inflation and course rigor.} </p>
<p>
[quote]
How did recruited athletes get brought into this? To make everything a bit more clear almost every school recruits athletes. Harvard has a notorious 1200 club, the rowers on the crew team must get a 1200 on the SATs to get admited as recruits, and often times they will be quialified, but there are several who do just manage to get to this level. This is not exclusive to basketball and football scholarships, those are just the most reported since they see a very low graduation rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? I have never heard of this supposed "1200 club", and I think I would know. You seem to know a lot about this, so would you care to share some weblinks that support your assertions, particularly the one where you assert that the rowing team has a a "very low graduation rate".</p>
<p>And even if you're correct, hey, a 1200 SAT is still far far better than what a lot of Division 1-A football and basketball teams have. No matter how low the graduation rates of the Harvard crew team might be, I seriously doubt that it approaches the 0% graduation rate of Arkansas basketball players admitted as freshman between 1996-1999, or the 10% rate at Ohio State. </p>
<p>But to your question of how recruited athletes got brought into this - I am using them as an example to show that life is not fair, and we just have to accept that fact. Maybe it's not fair that Ivies admit lots of private school kids. Maybe (although I would say that's debateable). On the other hand, it's not fair that Michigan admitted Chris Webber and the rest of the Fab 5, but didn't admit other promising students. It's not fair that Berkeley admitted Jason Kidd, Leon Powe, JJ Arrington, Aaron Rodgers, Kyle Boller, and Marshawn Lynch, while other promising students did not get in. </p>
<p>Hence, the bottom line is that while Ivies may not be perfectly fair in their admissions, frankly, neither are state schools.</p>
<p>In response to the OP, maybe because a lot of elite private schools are specifically called "college preparatory schools", that name isn't an arbitrary get-up to make themselves look good, this is the mission of many private high schools and boarding schools. </p>
<p>Secondly, what do you have against private secondary schools old but wise? You know not all of us are fabulously wealthy like you so conveniently generalize us to be. What is so bad about being a very smart student who has been given the opportunity to study at a place where you don't have to worry about school shootings and gang affiliations. I'm not saying all high schools are like this, because most are not. Many smart students live in very economically depressed areas that are quite susceptible to school violence, and are often run by incompetent staff who care more about their precious teachers' unions than the welfare and education of students. ** I applaud any person who puts more pressure on the public education system in this country to make radical and sweeping reforms. ** </p>
<p>If you want to go to a socialist country, go move to Spain, or China. You can buy into all of the state-sponsored crap they sell there. Until we reform our public schools, it should be the duty of private schools to stay open and accept as many students who want to learn and succeed as possible.</p>