<p>
</p>
<p>All Applicant A had were scores and ECs. You don’t think being good enough at football to be recruited to a top school takes an extraordinary amount of work?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. You tell yourself that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I only said that because he said it was “ridiculously unfair.” He could have chosen the football route if he thought it was so much easier. You’ve got it right, that it is hard to juggle academics, ECs and a sport. Ivy League athletes have the same graduation rates as non-athletes.</p>
<p>I think we’ve all seen guys like this get in, especially to small division three schools. I sincerely doubt your friend is lying, especially because sports like football and lacrosse are the most important sports and they are therefore allowed the most recruits / recruits with the lowest academic standings. </p>
<p>i find this is unfair for a few reasons – first of all you go to school to learn, and you should be judged therefore on how you did academically first and foremost. If students qualify academically and are also good athletes that should certainly benefit them – in the way that being the number one Oboe player would, not in a “let me drop our standards and let you in because i’m the football coach” - which is a lot of times how it works. </p>
<p>a school would never let in an Oboe player with a 3.2 GPA. It’s especially unfair because well rounded valedictorians with hundreds of volunteer hours, great EC’s and other stats are REJECTED while athletes with GPA’s <3.5 and no extra-curriculars are accepted. </p>
<p>I think there was some statistic in the Bowdoin newspaper about how the majority of athletes recruited for helmeted sports were in the bottom 1/3rd of their high school class.</p>
<p>“All Applicant A had were scores and ECs. You don’t think being good enough at football to be recruited to a top school takes an extraordinary amount of work?”</p>
<p>I’m sure it takes a lot of work [actually – maybe not as much work as being a valedictorian – i guess talent would be a better word], but princeton is a SCHOOL so you should be judged at how you are at school – i think this is only logical. How good you are at a sport is irrelevent. Plus maybe I am the best seamstress in the MA but I am not going to get into Princeton with a 3.2 GPA because of that, even though it takes a lot of work as well. </p>
<p>Athletes should get into sports-schools that teach you how to be football players if they wish.</p>
<p>DwightEisenhower: I’m not just “telling myself that”…He didn’t take hard classes in HS, and he’s finishing 2nd semester at our local CC, and he’s struggling there. It’s going to take serious tutoring to get him up to par with the other students at Princeton. And I like I said before, I know this guy. He jokes about the whole thing, even he and his girlfriend doubt he’ll fare that well academically if/when he goes there. It’s not just like I’m saying that out of spite or anything; I didn’t even apply to any ivies. And I’m not undermining his athletic ability. I just don’t believe that athletes should have such an advantage, especially in this case. Like atom<em>and</em>eve said, these are schools. We’re there, mainly, for the academics. If he was, academically, ivy material AND played football really well, that’d be a whole different story.</p>
<p>I’m just guessing most of the hostility towards athletes is coming from people who haven’t played those sports mentioned. It took just as much work for that kid to be talented enough at football to get recruited to play at that level. He did that, kept sufficient grades which are far higher than most other athletes. If you have never played football, you don’t understand what goes into it. It’s not only your athletic ability but countless hours in the gym, conditioning, two a days, film sessions, studying the oppositions plays. It’s mental as well as physical and these schools know that. These kids are determined, hardworking, respectable, and overall assets to the university they choose to attend. I frown upon all of you that find yourselves superior to them just because your grades show as being higher. The dedication these kids show to their sport reflects in the classroom as well because there are certain grade levels they must maintain. They also show social skills because many of these kids have had publicity for being such outstanding athletes. They also bring the school large sums of money because of attendance at games, merchandise, and alumni donations. These kids bring diversity and something new to the universities they attend. They deserve all the opportunities given to them</p>
<p>Football is a lot of work. So is every other sport. So is every other grueling, hour-eating extra-curricular activity that a student may choose. </p>
<p>However only talent at football makes up for a 3.2 GPA – that is what I find unfair.</p>
<p>Some may see it as advantageous to the university. I trust they do their job successfully. </p>
<p>You say it’s not fair, but then again when does life ever seem fair? Unless your on top and getting all that you want it never seems fair. Criticizing these kids won’t make up for your short comings, take what you’ve been given and make something of it. Opportunities come differently for everyone</p>
<p>History has shown that kids who excel at a sport do as well in life as those that excel in academics. Many employers prefer to hire athletes as the skills they acquire in team work are invaluable.</p>
<p>Every college is made up of a range of kids. About 40% of the classes at your college will be comprised of kids who were not judged by the same academic standards you will be. Some will be athletes, some will be legacies who bring tradition and donations to the school, some will be development candidates who make sure there’s funds for financial aid and others will be URM and low income candidates who did the best they could despite adversity.</p>
<p>In my mind, all of these categories including the academically super talented have a place in a college community.</p>
<p>Heard of meritocracy? Does not always have to manifest itself in only academics.</p>
<p>The concept of meritocracy does sound familiar to me, but who knows these days. </p>
<p>until students with 4.0’s are accepted onto the football team despite their inability to play football, I will not think it’s fair. Especially as recruiting policies give more advantages to boys than girls.</p>
<p>life may not be fair, that statement alone is a waste of breathe, I just think that recruitment for helmeted sports is a gaping inequality. [And I don’t agree with legacy preference, but rarely do legacies get in with a 3.2 GPA, unless they’ve bought the college a new building or something]</p>
<p>There are players that are brought onto the football team to practice with the team with the understanding that they probably won’t ever play- because they have a higher GPA than the team average and help bring it up. Everyone on the team has a role to play. So your postulate about recruiting students to the football team for academics has some basis in reality.</p>
<p>There are fewer football prodigies making it more impressive.</p>
<p>That’s true too. You’ll have an easier time teaching someone to score above a 2200 than to get them run under a 4.5 forty. </p>
<p>However, if your GPA and your forty-yard dash time are less than .5 from each other, you’re a freak.</p>
<p>Son of Opie, weighted or unweighted? :D</p>
<p>Like I said previously, if I really believed that football and a 2200 made for a sure admit, I’d sit back and enjoy the next year. However, neither S2 nor I believe that for a minute, so it’s back to the salt mines to complete all the HW he was assigned over Spring Break.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, and schools are not all about test scores and GPA, despite the cries of the valedictorians. I am my school’s valedictorian this year and I am going to the same college as a kid with a much lower GPA who got in for playing soccer. I have no problem with this because I have no doubt he is going to be as successful as I am, if not more. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Irrelevant to you, maybe. Who would you say is “the most successful” at the end of their college experience? The person with the highest GPA? That’s a painfully simplistic way to look at things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a known correlation between athletic success and financial success, as another poster pointed out. You don’t play football; it’s more than throwing and catching.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure.</p>
<p>Dwight, thank you. Hopefully people understand that merit is not equivalent to academics.</p>
<p>I’m going to go with unweighted…</p>
<p>One “oaf” I went to school with didn’t even go to college, but was an incredible athlete. He ended up playing for the Toronto Blue Jays and made millions of dollars. Oh, well, life’s not fair! Another of the kids in my same class (Calvin Schiraldi) pitched for the Red Sox, but he’s infamous because he lost an important World Series game for them in 1986.</p>
<p>what’s the big deal…you may be smart, this kid is a top athlete. Colleges want both.</p>