Here’s one of them:
1 Like
The only data in that article is the % of athletes who are white. Otherwise it’s an opinion piece. The examples they give of rowing, fencing, sailing, etc don’t address the examples I gave of non-revenue sports for which athletes not of wealth and privilege are recruited ,i.e. baseball, cross country, soccer, track & field.
Lest we lose track of the comment to which I was responding: “Other than race, gender, and fist-gen status, all other admissions criteria are positively correlated with wealth and privilege.”
Even while some sports are clearly biased to wealth and privilege, it’s equally clear that there are many that aren’t. And as private prep schools increasingly expand the diversity of their student bodies, those less wealthy students gain access to those sports that were once the domain of only the wealthy.
2 Likes
Here’s another article:
“At Harvard, these athletes tend to come from high-income families. According to a Harvard Crimson survey, families of recruited athletes are twice as likely as non-recruits to come from families earning more than $500,000 than from families earning less than $80,000.”
The Atlantic really seems to love this topic. 
I get the point that you’re trying to make. And it’s a valid point. But it’s a different point than the one that I made.
It’s simply not valid to say that “except for football and basketball (and baseball, cross country, soccer, track & field) that athletes’ admissions are based toward wealth & privilege.” I the answer is so nuanced that you have to start eliminating some sports, then the argument collapses. Certainly boutique sports favor the wealthy and revenue sports are more egalitarian. So, my point remains that sports are the elephant in the room - even if you want to restrict it to revenue sports and the like. So it’s not “ALL other admissions criteria” as you originally asserted.
In my original comment, I stressed that I was particularly talking about “Division I scholarship schools like Stanford and Duke”. The 2 links you provided focus on Harvard, the Ivies, and similar LACs - all of which are non-scholarship.
1 Like
My point is that unless an admission criterion is based on some measurable natural talent, whether in sports or academics, the wealthy will be in the better position to take advantage of it. You can’t get around that.
2 Likes
I’m not trying to get around that point. I wholeheartedly agree with it. But it’s neither the point I was making nor the point to which I was responding
Fairness in elite college admissions is elusive. I think it wouldn’t be so frustrating if the schools didn’t trumpet how “meritocratic” they are (when that isn’t really the case). And, of course, kids from upper middle class and wealthy families have enormous built in advantages in terms of working the system. Moreover, the decision making process at elite schools is purposefully opaque which leaves parents, and students, frustrated. Apart from true academic superstars (prize winners etc) and hooked applicants (athletes, donors, legacies), many accepted students don’t look that different from their rejected counterparts. That produces a lot of angst. People like to know if they do all the “right” things (perfect grades & scores, great ECs etc) that it will lead to success, but in elite college admissions that just isn’t the case.
3 Likes
“. . . David Hogg is an asset to Harvard. Harvard’s relaxed grading allows him to pass classes, but that same relaxed grading would allow perhaps a third of all high schoolers to pass introductory Harvard classes. In other words, just being able to graduate doesn’t mean being an asset to the class.”
So which is it - your first sentence stating that Hogg is an asset or your last that he isn’t?
David Hogg was admitted to Harvard based on his accomplishments. His 4.2 wGPA from an affluent suburban high school was in line with the wGPA of the average admitted Harvard student. Had he applied at a time of test optional, his SAT score wouldn’t even have been an issue. Someone has to be a really big believer in the predictive value of the SAT to make this statement about him passing Harvard courses due to relaxed grading or the one you made in an earlier post about him picking up a few C’s along the way.
Had David Hogg accomplished what he did in his junior year in high school rather than in his senior year, he would have been admitted hands down the first time. He wouldn’t have needed to reapply. We know this because because his organizer colleague from Parkland, Jaclyn Corin, was admitted EA for the same reasons Hogg was. And for the same reasons - albeit not so visible - that a lot of kids are, i.e. for their accomplishments.
David Hogg’s College admissions successes and failures only became a major news story because a right wing nutjob decided to pick on this teenager in order to score political points. Please don’t drag this discussion down to her level.
2 Likes
It’s a fair point - REGARDLESS of any political beliefs. What this young man has accomplished is nothing short of amazing. You want kids to do in this world - and he has done. You can say the same for an AOC (post grad) or Mulala and you can say similar for kids who believe opposite.
What parents should want is kids who stand for things and don’t just stand for them but work to make a POSITIVE impact on the world and following through with their beliefs, if their intent is positive and to help society. It’s unfortunate that David Hogg was put into a situation that likely created a path for him to be at Harvard. However, he was put into that position - and he has embraced it, taken the lead, and all of us quite frankly, have a lot to learn and admire from it. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with him, but certainly you have to empathize with his situation and be impressed not only with his accomplishment but also with the perspective he brings to all. College is about far more than academics. Many who teach or serve in residence as faculty, etc. don’t have advanced degrees (or any degree). The world don’t need to just revolve around being with homogenous people - in characteristics or experience.
I hope this young man continues to lead in society, whichever path that takes him.
2 Likes
Let me simplify this: Getting into Harvard is hard. Graduating is as easy as you choose to make it subject to the very flexible requirements.
This approach allows Harvard to make some risk bets on people who are not academically very strong but who show great promise in other ways, like David Hogg. I am very happy that Harvard admitted him and I am confident he can graduate.
This approach also makes some think that hundreds of thousands of other high school students are qualified to attend, since they too could pass. But just passing is not the criteria for admission.
They may be bigger as a percentage of students at smaller schools that field a full set of teams.
However, athletic recruiting does mostly favor those from high SES families, since money can be used to help talent development in athletics as well as academics.
4 Likes
Athletes make up 30-40% of the total student population at Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, Bates, etc.
1 Like
Wealth absolutely plays a role in the development of football and basketball players. Perhaps not to the extent that having money has become a non-negotiable in formerly egalitarian sports like baseball or hockey, but it is getting there, especially in basketball.
What is a “natural talent”? And of course a talent needs to be nurtured in order to be valuable. There are kids likely growing up in refugee camps who have extreme musical talent- without an instrument to play, or any other vehicle of expression, how are those natural talents supposed to develop?
I don’t think anyone is arguing that being wealthy (or just being middle class with two parents willing and able to drag a kid to lessons or expose the kid to art, sports, music, etc.) isn’t advantageous. Just ask health care providers who work with disadvantaged kids- just seeing a dentist and getting eye exams has massive positive outcomes across academic, athletic and every other metric. Not talking 20 hours a week of private tennis tutors here- we’re talking basic wellness checks and preventative care.
But what’s your point- better to win the genetic lottery than not?
Hebegebe, why would you talk about “make some risk bets on people who are not academically very strong” in a conversation about David Hogg?
David Hogg had a 4.2 wGPA at a very competitive high school. He was a very strong high school student - so strong that his wGPA puts him at the median or slightly above (4.18) of Harvard students, potentially the strongest group of students in the country.
The only blemish - if we can call it that - was a 1270 on his SAT, which is not exactly a low score. We know that high school grades are a better predictor of college grades than the SAT is. So why should he be considered a risk?
I see no reason to be concerned that Hogg will “just pass”. He has demonstrated the ability, work ethic, and academic habits to be highly successful if that’s where he chooses to put his energy.
2 Likes
Some of us are naturally talented in some area(s). It’s just the law of nature that gives us this wonderful diversity in talents. Yes, some talents may not be “discovered” because of their socioeconomical status. We certainly should make extra effort in their discoveries and nurture such talents for the benefit of the whole humankind. Nurturing by itself, however, won’t produce the next Einstein or Mozart.
Of course, in the absence of significant societal effort to do so, people do so privately, as in trying their best to nurture their own kids’ talents in competition with others. Obviously, parental money helps in this respect. That also leads to the phenomenon of trying to push kids beyond their academic capabilities (e.g. the parentally pushed “race to calculus so that they can spend two years on it in high school and then repeat it in college”).
While “natural potential talent” exists and varies, it is not something that is easily discoverable or measurable in isolation to “nurture” effects. It also may not become useful to the person or society if it is not developed (“nurtured”).
Of course all the money in the world won’t produce the next Einstein or Mozart. However, there are few (if any) kids at elite schools who are the next Einstein or Mozart. In fact most aren’t stand out prodigies, most will never become famous or celebrated. In fact, most graduates of elite schools will go on to live more or less “normal” lives (although they may be better paid).
2 Likes
Failures to recognize their kids’ natural limitation often lead to ultimate disappointments. I’ve witnessed plenty of instances of college burnouts when their parents weren’t around to push them and their natural “talents” weren’t sufficient.
Honestly, even if he had a 2.5, college is about more than academics, and this student has done more in his 20 years than most of us do in our lifetime even though his “fame” happened due to a horrible circumstance. We should be applauding him, not demonizing him.
He’s additive to the school. He could probably conduct lectures in leadership and maybe does.
School is about more than schoolwork. Any school or organization would be enhanced by his presence and his can do attitude and leadership principles - which can’t be tough from a textboook or powerpoint slide.
4 Likes