<p>At least it’s way better than something like affirmative action.</p>
<p>The athlete got in because of their merits on the sports field, and they had to work hard for it, just like how students have to work hard academically.</p>
<p>URM’s didn’t do anything for their status. Now that is unfair.</p>
<p>The advantage given to athletes seems unfair, but quite often they are used and discarded by the universities that recruit them. A good friend’s S was recruited for Division 1 baseball and had a few good choices (nothing out of his range academically). The school he went to wouldn’t let him take a full 15 hour credit load per semester to ensure that he wasn’t overloaded. He ended up, 4 years later, without enough credits to graduate and also unable to make it in the pros. Not a happy or fair situation at the end. This is not an unusual circumstance, especially for boys who dream of professional sports status. Read the chapter about UVA and John Grisham’s son in “The Price of Admission” for more.</p>
<p>A different situation is when colleges use athletics to make it easier for wealthier kids to get in. Their academics are borderline, but their families are big potential donors so all those years they spent taking archery lessons may suddenly pay off. A coach may offer a small scholarship, and then the admissions office is supposed to let the student in.</p>
<p>I agree with what a few people have already said here. The athlete is smart. He is good enough to succeed academically at any school. When you decide who to admit, the first goal is to weed out people who are bad, who would be a liability to the school. After that everything is icing. A little extra academics vs a little better rounded. If you first assume that the base stats are the same, then it is basically 200 SAT points and .2 GPA points versus varsity sports. It’s a valid trade-off.</p>
<p>BTW only 2 kids from my school are going to Emory next year, both got in on soccer. They are not the smartest kids, but I’m sure that they’ll do fine.</p>
<p>You guys are wrong to assume that Ivy League athletes are somehow lacking academically. In fact, the Ivies should be commended on their demand that even their athletes are also “scholars.” Fact is, most of the athletes at the Ivies are very good students though it’s true that their ECs are weaker because they devote all their free time to their sport.</p>
<p>I know a kid ranked #1 nationally (and in top 20 internationally) in a popular east coast/Ivy sport. His stats were all well above average, and his GPA at a competitive private was a 3.5. Yet he was turned down from every Ivy because he wasn’t academically strong enough. He ended up at a preppy New England LAC: a good school, just not Ivy caliber.</p>
<p>^ it’s true - athletic teams in the Ivy League must have an average academic index within 1 standard deviation of the rest of the student body, so they can’t afford to accept athletes who don’t measure up.</p>
<p>Some information on the academic performance of Division III athletes can be found here:
[Welcome</a> to The College Sports Project](<a href=“http://www.collegesportsproject.org/]Welcome”>http://www.collegesportsproject.org/)</p>
<p>JUST SO YOU KNOW…athletes have a lot to sacrifice. Colleges respect that</p>
<p>As much as colleges want to deny the fact: quotas exist – evidenced by the consistent numbers within sub-groups admitted year to year. Either each subgroup has their proponents to jockey for slots within the overall admit total or the admissions committee tacitly gravitates towards agreed upon quota numbers. Arguing whether or not allocations to athletes who may be marginally academically lower than the “typical” applicant is a non-starter. The fact is, the athletes are compared to one another. The international applicants are compared to other internationals in their pool. The super science applicants another. Some leeway is given, certainly.</p>
<p>But it makes no sense to compare apples to oranges. The “problem” of unfairness people may have should be directed at a higher, institutional level. </p>
<p>The reality is there will always be a finite # of slots – it’s a zero sum game. If you add more internationals, you decrease some other group. Need more women? Men lose slots. Need more men? Women lose slots. Need more public school kids? Private kids lose out.</p>
<p>And the admissions dean has people telling him/her all the time why their pet sub-group should be allocated more slots – all conflicting with one another.</p>
<p>I don’t think athletes are given enough preference in admissions. My recent proposal to drastically revamp the college admission process by replacing the written application with an NFL style combine is quietly gaining popular support.</p>