Recruited athletes

<p>Since this is taking on the appearance of a "farewell" thread to me, I will oblige you since it is apparently permissible for one poster to presume upon what lies up my butt and I am then reprimanded for responding in what I believe to be a far more restrained manner. You may all heave your collective sigh of relief and pat Sybbie on the back for a job well done.</p>

<p>From your posting , should I assume that you are not accepting my apology as it is truly your choice.</p>

<p>It is my hope that you do not leave but if you choose to leave then it should not be because of me. I really don't think that it is a matter of taking sides and I have done nothing to be "patted on the back for" . </p>

<p>You got the brunt of what has been less than one of my stellar moments on the CC, the moderator spoke, I read her statement,I issued an apology should you choose not to accept it all I can do is shake the dust from my feet and walk away for as far as I am concerned, I don't have an issue with you.</p>

<p>I don't look at it as a "farewell" thread at all. Apparently, Sybbie was inappropriate in her response; she has apologized and the moderator deleted whatever was inappropriate which to me was a rebuke of her comments. All of us slip up sometimes, Dizzymom. It seems to me that it was not permissable for her to address you as such, as it was removed as all things that go beyond a certain standard are removed. She has explained in a lenghthy post why your comment hit her the wrong way and said she was sorry. It is actually rare that I have seen a remark deleted that way which indicates to me that this was not a pat on Sybbie's back. </p>

<p>I am addressing this directly, Dizzymom, because I truly believe it was just a slip up on an emotional basis, and not something personally directed to you. I generally stay out of these feuds, but I do not believe that this is one. Just an unfortunate statement that came out because you hit a nerve--and the statement was deleted, the poster has apologized and explained. Also I have gleaned much info from your posts and feel you can be helpful to alot of posters and if you are going to leave, I would not want it to be over this matters since I do not believe anyone is bidding you adieu. Honestly, I am not.</p>

<p>I agree with Dizzymom. IMO athletes and catholics are bashed at will on cc (by posters who usually do not use such crass language) without any moderator response.</p>

<p>Catholics? I missed that somehow. When were Catholics bashed? Athletes, yes. Affirmative Action, most certainly the hottest flame to light on the forum. But I have not seen any Catholic bashing and I am on the forum waaay too much.</p>

<p>Granted it's OT but I have noticed whenever a Catholic uni or college is discussed some posters blast them due to their being too Catholic. This is not done in a be aware the student body is such and such percentage of Catholics, but rather it's too Catholic therefore it is lesser.</p>

<p>Dizzy,</p>

<p>Deep breaths!</p>

<p>You are the mom of the athlete who would likely have been admitted without athletics to nearly anywhere. So it's hard to see your kid's academic accomplishments underestimated by an outsider stereotyping athletes; you defend him like a mama bear.</p>

<p>I am the mom of a kid much closer to borderline, so I am perhpas more comfortable with a person assuming excellence in a sport boosted my kid in-- because I'd have to agree that it likely did.</p>

<p>Someone else out there reading this may well KNOW that athletics were the ONLY reason his/her kid got in to a given school; that their kid was way below the median for the school. Because these kids do exist!</p>

<p>What I am trying to say: there are a range of athletes from scholar-athletes with superior academic credentials down to the occasional "dumb jock" who is below the typical stat level for the school. Just because your kid and my kid are not THAT kid does not mean THAT kid is a fiction. These much-lower-stat athletes are out there, they exist, and they fuel the stereotype.</p>

<p>Similarly, there are legacies that run the gamut from superior-stat kids who could get in anywhere to low-stat kids who were "just let in so their dad will give a building." The dullards do exist & thus fuel the legacy stereotype. </p>

<p>Same with URMs, or kids from weird geographical places, etc. There are high & low stat examples of each hook.</p>

<p>I think we all have to realize there will always be some people who jump to conclusions about any kid with a "hook"-- URM, sports, or otherwise-- because some people would rather think it was an unfair overemphasis on the hook that 'kept my kid out & let the hooked kid in.' They'd rather be mad than chalk it up to random chance or appropriate class-building. </p>

<p>And let's face it, some high-stat kids may not get in because they write poor essays, seem phony, are boring, evince little interest in the school, or any number of other legitimate "flaws" in their apps that have NOTHING to do with who <em>was</em> admitted that year. </p>

<p>Or, they may have just had a mountain of bad luck that is totally random and inexplicable, and the family just wants a target for their anger. Without condoning stereotypes, we should try to sympathize with people whose kids are denied admission to schools they dreamed of and understand the "rage, denial..." process of grief that makes them bash others during those early stages. </p>

<p>I think you and Sybbie hit eachother's nerves. </p>

<p>I suspect for both of you these nerves will be hit again and again by others because these are just natural (if false) assumptions that people will continue to make about any kid with a hook.</p>

<p>Dizzy, you need never defend you high-stat, high GPA kid. You know what his accomplishments are. I have tried to be comfortable assuming that when people bash dumb jocks they CAN'T be refering to a kid at or above median for the school with great essays, recs & GPA. (That lets <em>my</em> kid off the hook!)</p>

<p>I hope your deep breaths help-- and please continue to stay on CC. </p>

<p>I hope you never take a jab at an athlete personally-- as your son is not even in the catagory of kids whose admission relied on the sport, let alone the kids whose stats scrape bottom. Thus nobody is thinking of your kid as undeserving.</p>

<p>Why is the 1600/2400 SAT valedictorian more "deserving" than the 1150/top 20% athlete? It is the school's decision, not the applicant's, as to what it values in its student body. Great academic talent alone is not enough for most admissions at Ivies/other top tier schools and who is to say it "should" be? Students who are naturally bright and supplement it with hard work and integrity will be successful wherever they attend. Student athletes contribute more to the school itself than the high test scorer. I went to three Ivies and I was not a college athlete. No one ever contributed money to my alma maters because I was a student there. I routinely am energized by the efforts and success of my colleges' sports teams and donate considerable funds because of, in substantial part, the success of the teams or because I am impressed by the efforts of coaches and the students who manage to balance the rigors of the playing field with the obligations of the class room. I could frankly care less if there is one more valedictorian from one more high school in the class. I would trade a score of them for a back up midfielder.</p>

<p>There is recruited and there is 'recruited'. If a candidate does not have a likely letter from adcom in October, the candidate would be wise to question the seriousness of the 'recruiting'.</p>

<p>It would be interesting to know how many likely letters are sent in October--the early admit rate for athletes, if you will.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And let's face it, some high-stat kids may not get in because they write poor essays, seem phony, are boring, evince little interest in the school, or any number of other legitimate "flaws" in their apps that have NOTHING to do with who <em>was</em> admitted that year. </p>

<p>Or, they may have just had a mountain of bad luck that is totally random and inexplicable, and the family just wants a target for their anger. Without condoning stereotypes, we should try to sympathize with people whose kids are denied admission to schools they dreamed of and understand the "rage, denial..." process of grief that makes them bash others during those early stages.

[/quote]
Long quote, but very important SBMom. We all spend a lot of time on the "to bash or not to bash" threads and maybe less time articulating factors beyond the unfair-selection-of-"bashed"-group over our kids that may have led to our - and our kids' - disappointment.</p>

<p>And I really hope nobody else goes...BTW Dizzymom, there is a water polo player going to Princeton from Aludaughter's school. She says he is a really nice guy. Isn't your son a water polo player or did I misremember?</p>

<p>This topic has had some fruitful discussion. However, there has been a tone to some posts that are finger pointing at various "groups", as well as posts directed to other posters. That needs to stop. I'd like to keep the topic going because some posts are valid discussions of the sides of this issue. If you can all keep it to the topic, and not direct posts to be ABOUT another poster, as well as not put down any particular groups, then the discussion can continue. Otherwise, if there is any more of this type of posting going on, I will need to close the thread. </p>

<p>Thank you everyone.
CollegeMom</p>