Harvard Crimson op-ed on Athletic Recruiting

Athletic Recruits
101

But should we then also stop giving preference to the Tuba Player or the kid from North Dakota? Which are “acceptable” preferences? The reason I don’t have an issue with legacy preference is bc they are not held to a lower standard. What about MIT/Hopkins/ NESCAC recruiting where there isn’t much wiggle room in academic standards? Is it ok to pass up the academically stronger student from private school simply because they had the money to go to private school?

What is the alternative? I come from a country where college placement is based exclusively on test scores and the best universities are the public ones. Guess who gets in? The rich kids who went to the best schools.

6 Likes
102

The practical connection is that a college can’t field competitive DI athletics teams without a sufficiently large admissions advantage for recruited athletes. Club sports and intramurals, sure, but not DI teams.

I believe in formal terms, pointing that out would be considered an example of a constructive dilemma.

And I don’t think the intention behind raising such a dilemma is to score meaningless debating points. I think the idea is to help understand why this is a complex issue for colleges given their competing institutional goals.

Edit: By the way, I think it is perfectly fair and important to point out the anti-Semitism practiced by various colleges. However, to fully understand the modern landscape of college admissions, there are many other things we would need to consider as well.

Like, the GI Bill and other things fundamentally changed the socioeconomic role of US colleges post-WWII, and so did the co-ed movement combined with the rapid increase in women applying to college. And then recently, there has been a nationalization trend, including as supported by technologies like the Common App, where more kids are applying to “national” colleges outside their state or region.

All that is a large part of why these colleges now get so many more applications than they could possibly enroll. Meanwhile, the US has a radically non-standardized secondary school curriculum and evaluation system, so truly meaningful academic comparisons are very difficult.

So all that is part of the context for why non-academic factors play a significant role in final admissions decisions at these colleges. But I always think there is a bit of an overstatement sometimes of that effect. These colleges still have a very high initial academic filter of some sort. And that filter already disproportionately selects for kids from high SES families. Then the colleges also apply other factors, and some may even further enhance that effect.

So, they then try to correct for that in various ways, which amount to lowering the very high initial academic filter in some cases. But now some of what they were doing has been ruled illegal, and so they are scrambling to adjust.

But I really think it is important to understand that the high academic filter at the core of their admissions already introduces a massive skew in favor of kids from high SES families. Then all sorts of things move the needle one way or another from there, but the needle at that point is already starting way over on the high SES part of the scale.

6 Likes
103

I agree. And as I mentioned upthread, we have the recent experience of three highly rejective colleges (Brown, Dartmouth, Stanford) trying to eliminate some sports, and failing spectacularly. Clearly not easy, and entirely relevant to the course this thread took.

If a school wants competitive teams (which the students and alum also generally want) then they have to recruit.

5 Likes
104

I’m curious as to what you would suggest to make the process more “equitable”?

105

Tuba players are not recruited on a separate scouting pathway beginning early in 11th grade, or even earlier. Orchestra leaders do not make offers to tuba players a year ahead of time based upon their musicianship, and then, outside the usual application pathway, get an academic preread to see if the tuba player meets the bare minimum academic threshold to be accepted. That is the difference. Recruited athletes have an entirely separate admissions pathway, where academic record is considered as a “good enough” threshold, as opposed to the very stringent criteria applied for those who have superb academic achievement, plus many other desired qualities, one of which might be playing the tuba. The difference is the separate application process driven by athletic as opposed to academic achievement.

1 Like
106

Certainly not by maintaining a preference for legacies, or the children of wealthy donors, and most certainly not by maintaining an entirely separate preferential admissions pipeline with less stringent criteria based upon prowess in sports not available to most middle or lower socioeconomic students.

107

@parentologist Appreciate you providing an overview of the early 20th Century history of “holistic” admissions at Harvard, and how it was greatly (or entirely) influenced by blatant antisemitism. It’s an historical fact that is not widely known.

Obviously in present day, holistic admissions has nothing to do with antisemitism, but rather allows schools to achieve certain institutional priorities - many of which are noble goals even if we may sometimes scratch our heads at the process.

I assume you are not advocating that highly selective schools go back to admissions exams, as existed 100 years ago, in order to admit students on a purely academic basis. If not, then continuing holistic admissions will frequently cause applicants to be admitted for partially non-academic reasons, which logically you may disagree with.

As @TonyGrace alluded, what about elite Tuba Players? No world-class cellists (Yo-Yo Ma, Harvard)? Olympic figure skaters (Sarah Hughes/Gabbie Izzo, Harvard - Nathan Chan, Yale)? Opera singers (Sofia Selowsky, Harvard)? What about a kid who starts a non-profit to improve access to drinking water in poor countries? Or a National speech and debate champion? A chess Grandmaster?

The highly selective schools are admitting kids for many reasons other than academics. Harvard wants spiky kids. Influencers. Not just ultra-high IQ kids. Admissions may figure if a kid can get great grades while tutoring underprivileged students while also spending 40 hours a week training in their sport and leading the league in goals, maybe they are worth looking at.

Can we agree there are many non-academic reasons why students may be admitted, and they often involve accomplishing something special in a niche, non-academic pursuit?

3 Likes
108

Even a student like David Hogg, who had modest academic credentials, can attend Harvard University and become not just a future leader but already a successful leader today.

All of this is in keeping with Harvard’s mission statement. He probably would have done just fine without Harvard, but Harvard now gets to share in the credit.

There are a lot of ways to make a difference in the world and it’s not just what’s found in the classroom.

3 Likes
109

Why does it have to be equitable? The Supreme Court only said they can’t discriminate on the basis of the protected classes (race sex, national origin). But why can’t a school decide what is important to that school as long as they aren’t breaking the law? Sports, music, arts, math? LIfe isn’t always fair and equitable.

MIT, Cal Tech, Reed and U of Chicago certainly exclude whole groups of students they don’t feel are right for their schools. Is it equitable for them to accept an applicant who is better at math than English? Can Julliard accept the great pianist whose SAT may only be 1300 over a student who can play the piano and has a 1600? Not every student with a higher gpa or test score is going to be a better fit for a school.

Hopkins does give a preference to its D1 athletes, the lacrosse teams. Several schools give preferences in admissions to their DI teams too, like Colorado College (hockey(m), soccer (f)).

5 Likes
110

Parentologists is looking for equitable, not me. That fact of the matter the system is not and quite frankly can never be truly equitable. My point is don’t kid yourself.

1 Like
111

If there were 20,000 academically accomplished, ultra-elite Tuba players vying for 8 spots in the school’s Tuba-only orchestra - one which contributed enormously to school spirit and fundraising and had a 100 year glossy-eyed history with the school and books written about it - there could well be prereads and an ED track for them too.

3 Likes
112

Let’s not kid ourselves. Holistic admissions, which was originally solely for the purpose of keeping out jews, was used more recently at least until this year, (we do not really know what is going to happen this year), largely as a fig leaf to attempt to achieve the racial composition the admissions commitees were seeking, by applying academic selectivity by race.

We have to get rid of that? Then certainly we should be getting rid of affirmative action for wealthy whites, meaning legacy, wealthy donor, and a separate admissions track for recruited athletes. No reason coaches cannot reach out to athletes to invite them to apply, but they should go through the same process as all others, and be admitted primarily for their academic achievement, and secondarily for their athletic achievement, same as the kid with any extraordinary EC achievement.

113

Harvard did not attempt to put a “fig leaf” on their version of affirmative action. They were just using the sort of program the Supreme Court had allowed in its 2003 decisions.

4 Likes
114

This is incorrect. Selective universities have been genuinely committed to holistic admissions for a long time, and well after the blatant antisemitism was no longer a driver on these campuses.

One cannot entirely equate holistic admissions with affirmative action policies. Yes, holistic review has been used to increase the percentage of women and racial minorities. And yes, it has been used and abused to keep out some (many?) Asian applicants. However, these schools also have other sincere reasons for holistic admission review.

Otherwise, it would be all about the SAT and GPA, plus a flip of the coin - because there are many more qualified applicants than available seats.

3 Likes
115

Okay, so you get rid of legacy, athletes, wealthy donors the system will still not be equitable for kids of lower socioeconomic means if that’s truly your goal. What about kids who attend highly selective private high schools? Or public private high schools? Sure you have some kids in lower economic strata in these schools but very few. Or kids with tutors that allow them to deep dive into certain academic subjects like mathematics or a language? Have drama coaches? Travels the world collecting experiences? And the list of advantages can go on and on. How do we determine which type of advantages are okay and which aren’t? I’m not saying we shouldn’t strive equal access but let’s not fool ourselves. And of your list of horribles, athletics does give the most equal footing. And yes, I’m well aware that it skews to the white and wealthy. My son’s club team is mostly comprised of athletes color from socio-disadvantaged homes. This team has sent kids to many elite colleges.

Standardized testing is surely not the answer. Yes, it was initially designed to help people of lower socioeconomic status get access to elite colleges. Now those tests are totally gamed by those with the economic means, so much so they are all but meaningless.

Again life isn’t fair and deserves have nothing to do with it. I write this as a woman who grew up in a rural lower middle class home, who is a first generation college graduate that had to work through college. I didn’t attend an elite college or law school. My husband was only slightly more advantaged than I and did attend an elite university. Our child on the other hand has been given every advantage. He has a stable two parent home. This is not immaterial. He is a gifted athlete and student. Some of those gifts are innate but they are mostly developed because of our ability to send him to the best schools, allowed him to pursue his academic interests with tutors, and to participate in his sport to the fullest. Even if you take away his sport and legacy, he would still attend a highly selective college because of his unfair advantages. And he’s not alone.

8 Likes
116

Being a recruitable college athlete takes talent, hours of practice, sacrifice, and dedication. To be an Olympic athlete even more so, with the opportunities to shine only every four years.

Is it possible having Olympic level athletes as part of a student community be beneficial to the college community as a whole? To be able to observe first-hand the pursuit of excellence, the grit and commitment required, as well as the enhanced school and national spirit having these athletes as classmates will engender likely will add to an overall campus experience. Sure someone with better grades/scores may not get in as a result, but a classmate who is has made him or herself good enough to compete on the world stage (and represent their country) is unique/special/rare.

The occasion to help a gold medal hopeful with their homework, or any number of other personal interactions, could be a lifelong story for many kids.

In one of the sports that my kids are involved with, there are teammates and classmates who are Olympians (not only representing the US) and these kids are great to be around and offer can offer unique perspectives than others with merely perfect SATs and GPAs. For those who represent other countries, they have much to offer with regards to how other countries approach global issues/problems differently than we do and these insights are valuable to their peers and professors.

I would argue that Olympic-caliber athletes are a rarer breed than those with 1600 SATs (no super scoring in the Olympics) and the competition to get these kids to apply is fierce.

7 Likes
117

Neither more nor less practice, sacrifice and dedication than the not-D1-recruitable athletes on this student’s teams in high school. They ALL worked hard, year round, starting at a young age. But not all had the genetics. On the flip side, many others certainly DO have the genetics, but not the resources to do this very white sport in the year-round, expensive, club way it must be done to excel.

I find the idea of somebody repeating, their whole life, the story of how they got to help an Olympic athlete with their homework sort of sad. I don’t think Olympic athletes are that special actually. One graduated from college with me, and he put his pants on one leg at a time. I’ve also known other Olympians in real life, and I don’t know…they are regular people, some nice, some not so nice.

118

Tuba players don’t bring glory/recognition/prestige to the University with National Championships, Olympic Medals and fame from having a pro career

Another reason not to recruit Tuba :grinning::

119

I agree. I think the presence of Olympic athletes at a school is more of a bragging rights phenomenon (for the school) than anything else. I certainly don’t think their presence necessarily adds to the campus experience for the rest of the student body (many of whom will never even see them).

1 Like
120

The interesting dichotomy to me here is the only sports that matter as far as general student population and alums are football, men’s basketball, men’s ice hockey, men’s lacrosse, crew and maybe soccer and baseball. As far as I know, those are the only sports where academic standards are more likely relaxed. Football and basketball are also the most likely sports where URM’s have been recruited. For better or worse, in the US, not recruiting for those sports (and compromising a bit on academic standards) will have an impact on school spirit and alumni support if the teams are not competitive.

Other than the student athletes themselves (and their friends and family), very few people care about the niche sports. On the other hand, these athletes are probably as well qualified as the general student population. If we got rid of those sports, I think all it does is open some more spots for the average excellent and these athletes compete for these spots with the advantage of a great EC.