<p>Hi, I've been reading CC for awhile now but this is my first post,</p>
<p>A few days ago one of my teachers brought up an interesting topic and it basically boils down to, do athletes who don't have the stellar test scores, the endless lists of EC's, or the perfect GPA deserve to get into top schools (HYPS as well as LACs like Williams or Amherst) while kids who do have those perfect records get rejected.</p>
<p>For instance say you have Kid A who's record looks like:
-Between 2000 and 2150 SAT
-3.7-3.9 GPA uw or 4.0 to 4.5 w (out of 5)
-'Basic' clubs, student government, NHS, maybe 1 or 2 others that he/she is really passionate about (for arguement's sake say he/she holds leadership in 1)
- Top 10%
-Great LOR
-Takes the hard classes makes good grades, is well liked by teachers, but isn't the class superstar</p>
<p>And Kid B who has this record:
-2300 or above SAT
-4.0 uw, 4.8-4.9 w
-All sorts of clubs, lets say 7 or 8 and 3 or 4 leadership positions
-Community service or scholarship winner
-Top 2%
-Good LOR
-Takes the toughest schedule makes great grades, teachers say the kid is bright, definitely the class superstar</p>
<p>^^^ These are the stats our teacher presented us with</p>
<p>Now, kid A is a varsity athlete, has been since freshman/sophomore year, in addition to school he/she plays on a travel/club/tournament/AAU team, commits a lot of time to his/her sport and is a team captain, this sport is his/her passion. Kid B focuses mostly on school and ECs, maybe doesn't have a passion but is involved in many good causes. </p>
<p>Kid A gets in, Kid B doesn't. Is this fair?</p>
<p>Colleges want diverse classes, anthey want people that will bring something to the campus. A recruited athlete gives the university exposure and (especially if football) a chance for the alums to get together, tailgate and feel all that pride that translates into donations. The athlete also shows real commitment and the ability to multi-task.
Student B sounds like 90% of the kids that are on this board that are competing to be part of a very diverse class.</p>
<p>So your teacher’s point is that student B should always be accepted over student A? There is no room for qualified athletes, there is no room for under represented minorities? That is more like the system in Europe. Colleges are for academics, everything else is somewhere else.</p>
<p>That system makes sense, sometimes I think it is a better idea than what we have. The downside is that an education in Europe is harder to qualify for. I like the idea of a college education being available to a broader range of students. Colleges have diverse student bodies comprised of the many talented students including athletes.</p>
<p>My teacher actually didn’t offer up an opinion on the subject she just sat back and watched the fireworks. The reason she asked is we were going over debate in her class and she wanted to give us a topic we would be passionate about, which we definitely were. The class, AP English, is split down the middle between the two groups, so the different arguements were interesting to hear.</p>
<p>Believe me, your hypothetical athlete has a much more amazing set of stats necessary to make it to an Ivy, Williams, Amherst, etc. Don’t doubt it, an Ivy will accept ANY athlete from a quality program or one that has above average success in their sport, granted that the spots haven’t filled. They could literally be borderline mentally disabled, but if they want to go to an Ivy League institution over their state school, coaches from Cambridge to Hanover will be knocking on their door. I’m about to graduate from a high school with one of the highest ranked athletic departments in the country, and PLENTY of kids who have no business studying at Ivy League/Little Three institutions have gotten the good looks from the adcoms. For instance, valedictorian? Rejected from all Ivies. Athletes? Williams for lacrosse, Amherst for football, Middlebury for football, Yale for crew, Yale for football, Harvard for football, Brown for wrestling, UVA for lacrosse.</p>
<p>Edit: Anyway, I myself think I’ve been slighted by the process and think people with proven academic stats should get in over athletes. But it’s true the school needs a certain amount of good squads to field for entertainment purposes, school spirit, and so on. If the athlete here is recruited there is no contest, student A wins hands down. If not, the academic powerhouse will most likely get accepted.</p>
<p>Unfortunately this is the world we live in. Life is not fair and the sooner you learn it the better. Wish it wasn’t like this but it’s the reality.</p>
<p>People are admitted for all kinds of reasons and for all kinds of accomplishments. (And, yes, excelling in competitive sports IS an accomplishment.) In this case it’s really quite simple: student A has a skill needed by the school which Student B doesn’t.</p>
<p>IMO Student A seems to meet the “threshold” for lots of schools, including very competitive ones. He is spending a lot of time on this sport and is a leader in it. This comparison is not particularly troubling. Now to make it more difficult what if student B was a nationally ranked debater? Or what if student A’s scores and grades were a little lower? Then I think there would be more of a debate.</p>
<p>Interesting to hear that your class was split down the middle. I guess the question wasn’t as much “Is this the likely result?” (I think yes) as “Is this fair?”. I guess I do think it is fair, having seen kids compete in various sports. The way is is presented is a kid who is skilled enough to be on varsity for three or four years and is a captain. That takes a lot of time, commitment and organization to accomplish that and still do well in school.</p>
<p>Think about it like this: would you really WANT to go to a school that’s so unbelievably stupid and insensitive as to pick a dumb jock who’s never worked a day in his/her life over a bright, motivated, hardworking student like the supposed “Kid B”?</p>
<p>Let’s change Kid A’s hook from athletics to being a world-class classical pianist, or actor, or someone who’s started a nonprofit, or who’s been very involved with robotics research, or who worked at a minimum wage job 20 hours a week to help with family finances. Do you still have the same reaction?</p>
<p>It’s not like the athlete isn’t intelligent, their scores are just somewhat lower than others. The athelete offers intelligence and exceptional athleticism. Besides, most of the students accepted are like student B anyway. </p>
<p>College admissions isn’t soley a number game. Schools want more than a class full of students who are just smart.</p>
<p>WaterWorks, your argument seems to be that all athletes are unintelligent and never work, and that all people with good academic stats are hardworking and motivated.</p>
<p>I know plenty of good athletes who work hard are in their sport and in the classroom, and get good grades in AP classes even, and I know plenty of people who get good grades/scores/are in many clubs etc etc who are just going trough the motions.</p>
<p>An important piece of information you don’t provide is whether this student is talented enough in his/her sport to play well at the college level. If the answer is yes, then it’s probably a no-brainer. Many top schools will admit this student A provided s/he can play for them. Kid A’s academic stats are actually quite respectable. S/he does not fit the stereotype of the “dumb jock” with a strong back and a weak mind. </p>
<p>There are many thousands of high school of high school “varsity” athletes, but only a very tiny percentage are good enough to play at the college level, especially Div. I (and the Ivy League is Div I). If Kid A is a good high school athlete but not good enough to play for the college in question then getting admitted is much more questionable. In that case the athletic achievements will count as a nice EC - like playing in the orchestra. But it will not be a huge hook that will boost him/her over a lot of academically stronger applicants.</p>
<p>It takes more than just average stats and sports skill to get into the ivy league. I’ve known many athletes who were recruited by colleges well-known in their respective sports, but they were also totally rejected by top tier schools. In fact, of all the athletes I’ve encountered, I’ve only seen 4 go to the Ivy League, and all three were playing lacrosse and incredibly intelligent.</p>
<p>So at least the athletes are ivy-qualified. It’s just part of the college system. And a huge source of income. What can ya do.</p>
<p>Meh, I don’t really think it’s unfair that athletics helps certain kids get in to Ivies when they otherwise wouldn’t have. I was planning on possibly trying to get recruited for an athletic activity before I was removed from the team, and I wouldn’t have had any regrets about trying to boost my application with sports. It’s all about keeping the student body balanced, right?</p>
<p>In my opinion, it’s a fair system. Simply because it opens up higher ed to more kids, I see it as positive. I think that people who contend that only “academics” should be qualified for college are a little bit near sighted, to be honest. Diversity is important in most settings, and college is no exception. I guess what it boils down to is how different talents are valued. I’d wager that most of those who wish athletes weren’t looked upon favorably were not athletes - because sports can give a person great, admirable qualities not necessarily present in strict “students.” Then again, my analysis is biased because I am a multi-sport athlete; the converse of my previous statement holds true for me as well. If I were not an athlete, I would not look favorably upon athletic admissions. tl;dr: perspective is important.</p>