<p>I haven’t complained about the recruitment of athletes (at least not on this thread), but the above statement strikes me a total “love it or leave it” dodge of the issue. For the word “athletes” you could just as easily substitute, URMs, legacies, celebrities, facbrats, first generation, in-state residents, developmental admits, being from small & remote states, or any one of the many attributes that could potentially give an applicant a boost. Heck, I’ve even seen some people argue that colleges should not give admissions preference to smart kids.</p>
<p>It’s fair game to object to (“to carp” apparently) any or all of these preferences if you are so inclined. It’s fair game to try to convince schools to change their policies to suit your opinions (but don’t expect a lot of success). That’s what discussion of policies and opinions is all about. Simply because many schools choose to have athletics does not somehow make perks and preferences given to athletes sacrosanct or immune to question.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why a school would have 15 vals. </p>
<p>My point, Bay, is not to devalue athletes - athletics, especially sports that are available/appeal to a small subset, should be treated as an extracurricular and not placed above other ECs. I object to preferred admissions and other special treatment given to athletes at the expense of students with stronger academics. There just seems to be no point to it - preferred admissions for strong URMs makes sense - a huge greater good is in play. Sailing, fencing, yada yada, benefits the person who engages in the activity - it’s fun, good exercise, etc. - the cost is too great to justify an institutional requirement to promote an individual activity.</p>
<p>As is your right. But if you are basing that conclusion on which of those students is more likely to do better financially after college, from what I have read right here on CC, you are favoring the wrong group.</p>
<p>Say, Bay, it seems to me that the Harvard men on the fencing roster come overwhelmingly from backgrounds of privilege, regardless of race. (Who could have guessed?) Their academic qualifications are not too surprising for fencers, who constitute the academically elite athletic team at many schools.</p>
<p>To save other readers time, here is a quick run-down of the high schools from which the Harvard fencers come: Harvard-Westlake (2, one with Beverly Hills as hometown, and the other from Chatsworth), Classical, Pinkerton Academy, Woodrow Wilson Senior High School (Washington, DC), Horace Greeley, Phillips Exeter, Peter Symonds College (I believe this one is in Andover, England), Barrington, Columbia, Princeton, Western Canada, Hayfield Secondary (there’s a normal-sounding school–oh, wait, it’s in Alexandria, VA). There is one home-schooler. One of the fencers hails from a high school named Valhalla! It’s neck and neck whether he takes the top-high-school prize, or the student from the Lycee Chateuabriand de Rome!</p>
<p>Any/all of these students might well have been admitted without being a fencer. I don’t support everything that GorillaGlue wrote, but when he complained about sports that are essentially sports-of-privilege in #51, I think he’s not far off the mark.</p>
<p>Even if that’s the case…that may be more of a commentary on how US society values extroverted charismatic personalities more common among groups such as athletes rather than reflective thoughtful intellectuals. </p>
<p>Considering the former group tended to dominate the very Wall Street firms which substantially contributed to the 2008 recession…maybe privileging of those traits may not be all its cracked up to be. </p>
<p>Ironically, I speak as someone who is tends to be misread as the former…though IMO…it is the reflective thoughtful intellectuals who are far more deserving of our society’s respect.</p>
<p>Here’s a tongue-in-cheek analysis. If only the “top brains” got into a school, the ones who have been top 1% all their lives, how would they respond to being in the bottom 20% of the class? Someone has to be the bottom 20%, and if it’s the kids with lower stats and less academic aptitude who are happy to be there to play sports or be legacies or represent their heritage or study in the building named after Grandpa or be where Dad works, that gives some relief to the tippy top high school students who are not at the bottom of their college class.</p>
<p>I know, I know, athletes and legacies etc could very well be at the top of the class in college and could very well be at the top of their class in high school, but this thought came to mind when reading a post from one of those kids who was top all his life and all of a sudden he wasn’t and was finding it hard to adjust. Personally, I love the tales we sometimes hear of the guy who graduates last in the class from West Point.</p>
<p>It’s not that I object to students from wealthy families attending Harvard. Nor do I object to Harvard’s competing in squash, crew, fencing (even Caltech has this!), polo . . . . I am surprised that they don’t have an Eton Fives team. </p>
<p>But it’s hard to claim that given preference to fencers isn’t tantamount to advantaging the advantaged.</p>
<p>While I know a few exist…I knew of a few Ivy Profs who have yet to meet any who fit the above description in the 25-30+ years teaching undergrad courses there up till the late '90s. One felt the whole idea of a university/college recruiting for athletic ability to be quite absurd.</p>
<p>I meant that giving special preference to competitive fencers is advantaging those applicants, in terms of making it easier for them to be admitted to Harvard. This is distinct from the advantage conferred by Harvard admission itself. </p>
<p>So admitting a “rich kid” to Harvard is, I suppose, providing an advantage to the advantaged. But admitting a rich fencer to Harvard seems to me to be providing an added advantage to the advantaged, to help them gain a further advantage (by being at Harvard).</p>
<p>Not trying to incite class warfare here. We apparently qualify as “rich,” if you believe today’s op ed column about the 1% in the New York Times. On the other hand, the newer of our two cars has more than 150,000 miles on it, and we haven’t replaced our dishwasher since it broke. More than a year ago. :)</p>
<p>Come on, QM, you don’t seriously think those fencers didn’t do anything extraordinary to get to Harvard do you, even if it was being smart and a national champ in something?</p>
<p>If anything, we see that Harvard disadvantages the rich, by making them do something in addition to excelling academically.</p>
<p>I’m not really discounting the accomplishment of the fencers, Bay. I don’t doubt that it takes work and skill–although I did once meet a fencer with Michael Phelp’s arm length, who didn’t need much skill to outplay his opponents; he could just stand there and reach out, without being touchable.</p>
<p>However, it seems to be quite hard for a student from the 99% to become competitive in fencing. If one is looking for athleticism, why not go for track and field, where socio-economic advantage does not seem to come into play so much?</p>
<p>I grew up as the suburbs around me were converting from football to soccer as a preferred sport. I think there was a near perfect correlation between the average income of a suburb and the [early] date of adoption of soccer. It would be interesting to look at the socio-economic composition of the Harvard men’s soccer team in 1965 vs. 2011 (assuming that they have one). Women’s field hockey would be another interesting sport to study.</p>
<p>Running (and throwing) - the everyman’s sport. Harvard has 61 athletes on its mens’ track and field roster (vs. 16 fencers), and 53 athletes on its womens’ track and fleld roster (vs. 11 fencers).</p>