Recruited athletes

Parents Forum
21

<p>Well, then he couldn't have been helped.</p>

<p>With alll due respect, you're not a shoo-in for Princeton with a 1440, a 71st percentile Math IIC and a 77th percentile Phiysics score (fine as that might be). Strong candidate, but then so are more than half of the rejected candidates. </p>

<p>One thing Reed notes in his article is the importance to the coaches of full commitment to their school. Whether through ED, or agreeing verbally to be "comitted" to come if we get you in........thats pretty important to a coach. You may well be correct that he'd have been admitted if he had been more committed. Seems like thats his "mistake"...not his times....right??.</p>

22

<p>I would have thought he would be admitted because of his athletic ability and being on the coach's list, coupled with his strong academic stats. The SAT isn't as high as many applicants, but all the rest was extremely strong. He showed his clear commitment to Princeton by blowing off Columbia. He was on the list and the coach thought he was a clear admit. He wasn't.</p>

23

<p>We've all been told about the coach's "list" and this is where those people who think athletes have it easy are so misguided.</p>

<p>There are lists...and there are lists.</p>

<p>A friend of mine, upon hearing that S had applied ED to P, told me to forget the whole thing. Her S had been wooed there by a coach, written up as a wunderkind in our local newspaper and touted by his rigorous private school as a top student, ended up being rejected. I never got the full story because the parents were too bitter to discuss it objectively, but I think what happened was that he was put on a "list" but while his grades were great, maybe his test scores weren't, or maybe his essays were unremarkable. Whatever it was, when it came time to be reviewed -- like all applicants are -- he was not seen as P material and he was rejected. </p>

<p>I don't blame the family for being shocked. This kid was shiny perfect in every way, had success written all over him AND was an outstanding athlete at the national level to boot. He ended up being very happy at an LAC of which you would all approve.</p>

<p>Had he been Hispanic or Black or Native American, I don't think there would have been any question of his admittance. And that's why I just don't understand these threads where people think that somehow the 'evil athletes' are crowding them out. It just isn't happening.</p>

24

<p>I think one of the issues is that you can't be certain what the "coaches list" comprises, or means. Other posts and articles have noted that its fluid and changing, and depending on the relations with the admissions office, there can be a fair amount of collegial back and forth about which kids you'll take, or tense negotiations. No one ever knows, at these schools, what will happpen. </p>

<p>We had a family friend who applied early to an Ivy, and, to my great surprise, got a likely letter soon after his application, (even though it was an ED app.) Seems like what you should do is if you have a commitment, apply ED, ask for the likely letter,..... don't tell anyone else. If you don't get the likely letter, call and say you're switching your app status to regular, and move on in the process. (Reed's article has a take on this.....that if the coach says you're in, you say "great, I'm coming, send me the likely letter." If there's a problem, this flushes it out.) </p>

<p>Obviously overlaying all this is where you'd most like to attend, how good your stats are, and how strong an athlete. For the Ivy's it's instructive for people to go to the team websites and measure themselves athletically against the team that is there. Often they post the secondary school accomplishments.</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
Had he been Hispanic or Black or Native American, I don't think there would have been any question of his admittance.And that's why I just don't understand these threads where people think that somehow the 'evil athletes' are crowding them out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am really trying to test for understanding this post because I really don't get your point. Being that your S is a prospective Princeton student, may be you can shed a little light on this as it seems that Princeton's teams overall have very few blacks and/or hispanics playing on them. Personally I think that you are painting with some very broad strokes which is something I did not recall your doing in the past as there are plenty of blacks and hispanics could could tell you that they were rejected from Princeton.</p>

<p>I have also noticed that lately some of your posts come off as if you have a very strong opinion or bias concerning this topic in spite of the fact that many have said that any type bashing Legacy, Athlete , URM is wrong because in the end it is the schools perogative to build a class as they see fit.</p>

26

<p>I really cannot respond to anyone who speaks to me in that manner. Sorry.</p>

27

<p>Being "on the list" is meaningless. An athlete who wants real help from the coach needs to commit to an ED application. Why would a coach pull out all the stops for a student who might easily matriculate elsewhere? If the coach has any auto admits they are obviously limited in number-- & thus will generally ONLY be used on ED candidates.</p>

28

<p>I realize some have strong opinions about all sides of this topic but let's just keep to voicing our perspectives and/or experiences with a little less emotion attached. I agree with some people that there have been some posts on CC where it appears that there is a bias against athletes ("they took my spot"!) but there are enough parents here of athletes (myself included) who have given the other perspective. Both sides of that topic have been represented on CC. Let's also make sure that we are not then going the other way to bash other "groups" such as legacies or minorities and how they have an edge in admissions. If one is offended at the "athlete bashing", it is equally offensive to others to have "URM bashing". I think all opinions are valid but we need to make sure we are stating them without offending those who belong to such groups, be it parents of athletes or those from minority groups. Thank you.
CollegeMom</p>

29

<p>SBMom, I agree that ED gives you a great advantage and is the preference of the coaches. In my son's sport, almost all the top national recruits wait until spring to sign. They are weighing scholarship offers and posting times in their events which attract coaches. At the level below "top national recruit", such as my S and most others, ED gives the athlete a huge advantage. It also lets the coach know they have this kid coming to the school, even if he isn't the best in the country. Two years ago a young man (hs senior) was a solid athlete in my S's sport- top 10 in the state. He unofficially committed to Rice. Spring of senior year he had a breakthrough and became THE best in the country in his event. There was press everywhere. All the "big guys" came calling (Stanford, Michigan, Cornell et al). He honored his commitment and is at Rice. I was proud of him.</p>

30

<p>Because of the intense competition for the very small number of seats in the most selective colleges, everyone who gets in other than through sheer academic power is viewed with a jaundice eye. Legacies with stats well in the midstream of the schools' ranges are often the old "you got in because of your parents". The same with URMs, athletes, celebrities, development kids, etc. And it is probably true to varying degrees. There is no question that these "tags" help in admissions. The colleges are building a community that they want with the mix of kids that they select and they have made it abundantly clear that academics is not the only criterion used. It is certainly the guiding light at the top schools; as the students certainly are the cream of the crop, but many kids with academic credential just as strong are turned away to build a multi talented community with many different perspectives. So there is a bashing of all sorts, and so it will be when something is so desired and so difficult to get.</p>

31

<p>well said, jamimom.</p>

<p>It is easy to forget that even the most academcally excellent schools have many other things besides academics in mind as they compose a class.</p>

32

<p>I agree with your well articulated post, Jami.</p>

33

<p>I find it interesting that one of the threads discussing URM and legacies are asking why athletes are not bashed, and the athlete thread pointing to the URMs and legacies. The most bitter feelings come about at individual schools where a student who is ranked higher, with higher test scores fails to get into a school where others lower on the academic hierarchy do get accepted. The fingers point to everything and everyone. Did the GC give a bad rec to the kid, is it URM status, legacy, did they know someone at the school? Most colleges do not line up the apps from the kids by highschool, so there really is no way to tell sometimes why one kid is accepted over another. And yes, those tags and tips do help, especially if they coincide with the college's wishlist. </p>

<p>This does not just happen on the college level either. I have been shut out twice for the local independent day schools for two of my kids, and yet these kids were accepted to prep schools far more selective. There are certainly other factors that we don't have in our kids that these schools want, and I've yet to figure that one out.</p>

34

<p>College Mom,</p>

<p>What I think you are really saying here is:</p>

<p>"It's okay for Sybbie to insult Dizzymom because she/he has the right sensibilities and she doesn't."</p>

<p>In the end, aren't we discussing opinions here? I did not address any comments personally toward Sybbie, whom I know is beloved and respected here, no doubt for good reasonn, but Sybbie was quick to try to discount my posts regarding athletes when they made enough sense to threaten the direction of the athlete-bashing thread that is being permitted to run rampant on this board. Such a thread directed at URM's would have been closed by now.</p>

<p>It took very little searching to find the Princeton stats on these three groups. I don't have the same level of interest in the other Ivies, but presume the stats are there for the finding, and my own expectation would be that those stats would be along the same lines, with minorities having the largest piece of the pie and athletes and legacies the smallest. Therefore, why all the athlete-bashing? The stats speak for themselves and really more or less end the discussion.</p>

<p>As far as my own comments go, I simply cannot help but notice when the emperor is parading around buck naked. You wouldn't hear a peep out of me if I did not see such a complacent acceptance of posts and threads making cruel and crass and generally outrageous and uninformed accusations toward a group of people who, for the most part, work just as hard or harder to gain admission to these top-tier schools as anyone else. </p>

<p>If CC cannot be a haven for ALL those with similar goals in education (without openly presuming that those with "different" points of view are inferior and of lesser intelligence) then it simply joins the great morass of National Enquirer-type Internet forums out there on both sides of the fence that claim to be something other than what they are -- a gang of thugs awaiting victims from the other side that they can shred on hair-splitting and run-on sentences (like mine :)) for blood sport. </p>

<p>Okay, that was melodramatic...but you get my drift</p>

35

<p>And p.s., I would prefer that you permit Sybbie's post stand the way it was worded to me rather than attempting to sanitize the personal insult for his/her benefit.</p>

36

<p>Most of the discussion on this thread was fine so I did not want to close the thread but a few posts have quite a lot of emotion in them, even though the opinions are valid...it borders on being offensive. The people posting, including yourself, are valuable contributers to CC and are normally very respectful. I think some posters used stronger language than is their norm. I posted requesting that everyone, not just you, veer away from emotion and to not offend those who belong to various groups such as parents of athletes or minorities. Just as you have been offended by posts that seem to bash athletes, minority parents are equally offended when someone suggests that THEY have an advantage in admissions. Implying that about athletes or about minorities, is equally offensive to various people. I think some posters got a bit away from their usual behavior or tone when making their points. The points are valid ones but we don't want to border on bashing. I think you AND others have been irritated and let it get the best of you.</p>

<p>I understand YOUR postion because you had been offended (as have I and others) by some posters lately who want to blame athletes for taking their kids' "deserved" spot in the class. And so you are being strong about your viewpoints based on past threads. But by the same token, you then did the same about minorities and that in turn, offended Sybbie. It is DEFINITELY not ok for Sybbie to "insult" you. I did not condone that. In fact, you will notice that I kept her opinion/perspective intact but edited the offensive wording. I think her points were valid JUST as I am in agreement with yours, for the record, but both are getting a little carried away with emotion. We know you mean well, but want to keep the tone not overly emotional. We believe you both are respected posters and we are confident you will both keep the tone in check, that's all. </p>

<p>I agree that we are just talking opinions here. I understand where you are coming from due to some threads that were sort of "anti-athlete", but I think there are plenty of posters here, and even myself as moderator, who are parents of athletes and agree with much of your thinking, so I believe both points of view have been represented on CC lately. I understand your irritation with the athlete bashing but I think it has been countered plenty as well. </p>

<p>What I am saying is that your point of view about athletes is one I happen to agree with and is valid on its own merits. I just want to keep emotion out and I do not think it helps to turn it around and point to minorities because then, in essence, the same kind of pointing fingers at favoritism (which is offensive when unfairly being pointed at athletes) is being applied to another group of people and we have posters here who belong to that "group". I think you can make your points about athletes, which are valid, without bringing in the other, that is my point. </p>

<p>I think Sybbie has a valid opinion and I am sure she let emotion get the best of her this one time and I think it was out of character. I took care of that part of her post. I just would appreciate if we can keep voicing opinions but to keep the emotion out of it and to not turn around and point fingers at any other group. I think your views on athletes is worthy on its own merits.</p>

<p>If you wish to discuss moderation, you will need to contact me by PM or e mail. </p>

<p>CollegeMom</p>

37

<p>I am the first to admit that, BECAUSE of his sport, my S is looking at colleges to which he would not otherwise have a good shot at admission . He is a mid-range kid for these highly-selective schools, but would prefer to compete in the Ivy League. It might not work out, and he has less-selective schools on his list. My S defines himself both as a student with a lot of intellectual curiousity AND as an athlete. I can't imagine the pride Dizzymom and Dizzydad are going to feel when they see their son warming up for his event and taking off his Princeton warm-up jacket. I know when I see my son's coach leaning over to give S some last minute advice before a race, or when I see the kids cheering each other on, that this athletic talent has served S well in many respects. I will be proud to say that S was recruited by "Ivy" or "Big Ten" or "Patriot League" and I know S will take full advantage of ALL the opportunities in college.</p>

38

<p>Dizzymom, I have enjoyed your posts and have felt that you have contributed much to this forum. As a mother of an athlete, I certainly take umbrage at times when they are bashed. But, yes, there is bashing as there is for any group as I stated above, and I don't know how to weigh who gets the most abuse. If you search through CC, I would think you would find that affirmative action, URMs would probably be the topics that bring the most flames> So I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that Sybbie highlighted in her response. The amount of heat generated in discussing AA on this forum that is usually pretty civilized is something that really floored me. It trumps any athlete bashing, at least here.</p>

<p>And yet the arguments are real, the viewpoints certainly valid on both sides. What is distressing to me is the rancor that is there about the subject.</p>

39

<p>Since I have been addressed, I shall answer. Yes I was wrong for insulting you and I am sorry.</p>

<p>Much of this discussion stems from the thread, People get mad over URMs, Legacies what About Athletes?</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=62815&page=1&pp=20%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=62815&page=1&pp=20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>No where in this thread did I ever bash an athlete. In my first post on the topic I stated the following:</p>

<p>"under-qualified" anything whether it is an athlete, URM or legacy is a relative term because no private school ever stated that they only take the students with the highest scores and grades but they take students with a range of skills, attributes and abilities. They also take into consideration Multiple Intelligences -the seven different ways to demonstrate intellectual ability. These include:</p>

<p>[ul]
[li]Visual/Spatial Intelligence the ability to perceive the visual. These learners tend to think in pictures and need to create vivid mental images to retain information. They enjoy looking at maps, charts, pictures, videos, and movies.</p>[/li]
<p>These skills include: puzzle building, reading, writing, understanding charts and graphs, a good sense of direction, sketching, painting, creating visual metaphors and analogies (perhaps through the visual arts), manipulating images, constructing, fixing, designing practical objects, interpreting visual images. </p>

<p>[li]Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence the ability to use words and language. These learners have highly developed auditory skills and are generally elegant speakers. They think in words rather than pictures. </p>[/li]
<p>These skills include: listening, speaking, writing, story telling, explaining, teaching, using humor, understanding the syntax and meaning of words, remembering information, convincing someone of their point of view, analyzing language usage.</p>

<p>[li]Logical/Mathematical Intelligence ability to use reason, logic and numbers. These learners think conceptually in logical and numerical patterns making connections between pieces of information. Always curious about the world around them, these learner ask lots of questions and like to do experiments. </p>[/li]
<p>These skills include: problem solving, classifying and categorizing information, working with abstract concepts to figure out the relationship of each to the other, handling long chains of reason to make local progressions, doing controlled experiments, questioning and wondering about natural events, performing complex mathematical calculations, working with geometric shapes</p>

<p>[li]**Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence **the ability to control body movements and handle objects skillfully. These learners express themselves through movement. They have a good sense of balance and eye-hand co-ordination. (e.g. ball play, balancing beams). Through interacting with the space around them, they are able to remember and process information. </p>[/li]
<p>These skills include: dancing, physical co-ordination, sports, hands on experimentation, using body language, crafts, acting, miming, using their hands to create or build, expressing emotions through the body</p>

<p>[li]Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence the ability to produce and appreciate music. These musically inclined learners think in sounds, rhythms and patterns. They immediately respond to music either appreciating or criticizing what they hear. Many of these learners are extremely sensitive to environmental sounds (e.g. crickets, bells, dripping taps). </p>[/li]
<p>These skills include: singing, whistling, playing musical instruments, recognizing tonal patterns, composing music, remembering melodies, understanding the structure and rhythm of music</p>

<p>[li]**Interpersonal Intelligence **the ability to relate and understand others. These learners try to see things from other people's point of view in order to understand how they think and feel. They often have an uncanny ability to sense feelings, intentions and motivations. They are great organizers, although they sometimes resort to manipulation. Generally they try to maintain peace in group settings and encourage co-operation. They use both verbal (e.g. speaking) and non-verbal language (e.g. eye contact, body language) to open communication channels with others.</p>[/li]
<p>These skills include: seeing things from other perspectives (dual-perspective), listening, using empathy, understanding other people's moods and feelings, counseling, co-operating with groups, noticing people's moods, motivations and intentions, communicating both verbally and non-verbally, building trust, peaceful conflict resolution, establishing positive relations with other people.</p>

<p>[li]Intrapersonal Intelligence the ability to self-reflect and be aware of one's inner state of being. These learners try to understand their inner feelings, dreams, relationships with others, and strengths and weaknesses.</p>[/li]
<p>These Skills include: Recognizing their own strengths and weaknesses, reflecting and analyzing themselves, awareness of their inner feelings, desires and dreams, evaluating their thinking patterns, reasoning with themselves, understanding their role in relationship to others</p>

<p>[/ul]
Colleges build classes which is why they feel a need for athletes, URMs and atheltes because it enhances the community in which they are trying to create.</p>

<p>An recuited athlete has but a lot of time an effort in becoming good at there sport especially sports that very rigerous (foootball, hockey) and and participate across seasons (swimming, track). They practice long hours and play when they aqre sick or injured.</p>

<p>Those that are recruited by the Ivies are definitely not in it for the money because they give no academic ar athletic scholarships. Those getting full rides ar powerhouse athletic schools must maintain some sort of gpa in order to maintain their eligibility as mandated by the NCAA. Some students know that through their athleticism it is the only way that they can get a decent college education. Many people who rag on athletes don't take into consideration that their whole college future is riding on every game and meet they participant in because there is always the likelihood of getting injured and losing it all.</p>

<p>In addition, as someone previously mentioned, being an athlete has many transferrable skills; leadership, people management, team building, being a member of a team and working cooperatively with others to complete a task, motivation, being adept in group dynamics, problem solving all are needed if one is going to be successful in the world of work.</p>

<p>My subsequent posting was in response to someone who wrote;</p>

<p>
[quote]
I did also say "unless they choose to compete in the regular admissions process" meaning, if they do have the scores and GPA to be considered, great. They should get bonus points for athletics in the same way another student would for an extracurricular that is a similar commitment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because this person believed that there was a place for athletes but it shouldn't be with the smart kids. My Response: </p>

<p>Sorry Cynthia, but you tend to forget that at the end of the day college is a business. The highly desired recruited athlete will be asked by coaches their prospective school to apply ED as the coach wants to guarantee that they have that player on their team. Powerhouse sports schools definitely want to know that the tight end, wide reciever, foward etc will be comitted to their school. Some (very few) are admitted during the RD process .</p>

<p>The NCAA even has threshold GPA requirements for recruited athletes.
<a href="http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/mem...ligibility.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/mem...ligibility.html&lt;/a>
Colleges are very aware of the process and and willnot risk losing their eligibility by trying to circumvent the system. Even when you look at admissions requirements on a college website they will state suggested coursed thus leaving some latitude.</p>

<p>The whole concept of sending students likely letters (stating that your chances of being admitted to "X" college/university is very likely) was created for this purpose than was expanded to include "non-athletes".</p>

<p>Again, there there was no athlete bashing. I am the parent of a student athlete. Even though she did not want to pursue her sport in college, I am still mindful of the amount of dedication that goes into playing a sport.</p>

<p>You then made a comment about the percentage of minorities admitted to the percentage of athletes and I responded
Before any minority bashing starts taking place keep in mind that the 40% minorities reflects all minorities; URM's, asians and international students</p>

<p>I have said on many threads that bashing in and of it self is wrong because there are real life people (our children) on the other side of that bash. You began to tell a tale of woe concerning someone that you knew where you ended your statement by stating the situation would have had a different outcome if the person had been black or hispanic. I wanted to test for understanding as to why you are painting with URMs (which my child happens to be) such broad strokes and at the same time you are upset because athletes (your child happens to be one) is being painted using those same broad strokes. </p>

<p>I have no idea as to what your child brought to the table in the admissions process as far as a completed package and you have no idea as to what my child brought yet they both are being sterotyped and stigmatized for who they are even though we can both know athletes and URMs that did not make it through. Unless our kids got a 1600 there is always going to be someone who got accepted/rejected with higher scores than they got but our kids are still going to be lumped together as people that "stole a spot" from someone more "worthy" .</p>

40

<p>Talking for my own child, the fact that she scored higher than the 75% range for her school, is not going to matter because there is still going to be some kid with perfect scores who got rejected and thinks that my kid stole their spot.</p>

<p>At the end of the day almost every single person that applies to a selective school is "qualified" to be there but in the end there are going to be more people than "spots' and adcoms will ake judgement calls to build a class that meets the school's mission.</p>