<p>columbia has a swim test requirement. but the engineers don't have to take it. The guy who led the info session said this was because if there was a disaster and everyone needed to get off the island, the engineers could build a bridge while everyone else swims. But I agree with you in general.</p>
<p>First of all, I am an athlete (cross country- if u want to consider that a sport or not, whatever) so don't go categorize me as one of those pasty, unathletic nerds who have never seen sunlight.</p>
<p>The only reason top schools recruit athletes is to make money. The schools love making money at big sporting events, as well as plastering pictures of sporting events all over viewbooks and the internet to build up a ra-ra image of the school in order to get other, mediocre athletes to apply or simply acquire a larger applicant pool to increase their selectivity, etc, etc, etc.</p>
<p>The athletes themselves are not chosen because they are talented, or have this passion, or are gods among men. I don't see any recruited magicians or scouted painters. The fact is, the schools really don't give a damn that much about the athletes themselves. They simply use them, as tools, to increase their cash flow and build up some image. If playing chess was as televised or cash-productive, then without a doubt you'd find chess player-scouts. </p>
<p>The concept of having recruited athletes is a disgusting and ridiculous. It's similar to having a school guarantee you admissions if you would match, dollar-for-dollar, about 1/15 or so of the net profits of having a good basketball team. No, but that wouldn't seem ethical, now would it?</p>
<p>I have no grudge against athletes in fact I'd prefer if everyone was involved in physical activites. I don't believe that these recruited athletes are the typical dumb jock. In fact, they are probably very far from it. However, we all know these athletes have significantly lower stats than the average acceptee. Upper colleges such as those in the Ivy League were meant for students with the highest ambition and intelligence.</p>
<p>If athletes were really admired for their passions, talents, or personality involved with their sport, than show me the recruited water-skiers. Show me the recruited surfers, or recruited ice-skaters. Or recruited fishers. Or the recruited bolwers.</p>
<p>Oh, right, these sports aren't as profitable.....</p>
<p>Recruited athletes are tools. I blame the universites, though, and not the athletes . But I also hope the athletes don't get inflated egos, either. That's my two cents.</p>
<p>"the engineers could build a bridge while everyone else swims."</p>
<p>that reminds me of a joke about MIT I once heard...something about a barometer and finding the height of a building</p>
<p>there is still an academic index that comes into play. it isn't just athletic ability that gets an athlete into an ivy league school.</p>
<p>^^regardless, they are still advantaged for their talents by being recruited while siemen's winners or intel winners arent</p>
<p>I think that the athletes=money arguement is sound...</p>
<p>Athletes who get into Ivy League schools are a LOT more intelligent than athletes at Podunk University or something. The recruited athlete who went to Princeton last year from my school was the school's star football player, broke the State Discus Record, and still managed to maintain a 4.0 GPA until senior year.</p>
<p>All things considered, why should Ivy League schools accept nerds and musicians with similar stats over athletes who are going to bring actual fame and glory to the school i nthe eyes of the media and STILL uphold its academic integrity??? Still, athletes make up a very small percentage of the accepted students at any university; therefore, you shouldn't worry about them and direct your anger to more controversial figures like legacies who get extra preference just because they were born into a golden lap.</p>
<p>The main distinction to be made is between a real and ideal world. In an ideal world, legacies would not get special treatment and athletes would be judged in the same way for having a talent/ambition as musicians or dancers are. The same goes for URM status - in an ideal world, it would make no sense to have affirmative action because everybody would have an equal chance to begin with. However, giving such groups of people preferential treatment is a necessary evil in certain cases. Legacies and athletes help bring in money for the college, so that all of the students can enjoy the benefits that come with that money. (Wouldn't you rather admit one legacy who has slightly lower stats if that means 100,000 dollars to buy the college resources you can take advantage of?) URMs are given a boost for having been denied opportunities that others have had in the past. I agree it is an inherently unequal/unfair system, but it might actually be the best one for overall happiness, especially since the groups are still held to a high standard of academic excellence.</p>
<p>obviously special treatment sucks, but to sacrifice a few spots for atheletes who could maybe be a little underqualified but are by no means idiots, is worth it because the revenue they bring benefits everyone when the school builds a new library or is able to give grants etc. Also school spirit, thats just a nice environment. Besides, being an athlete is not easy, no one on this board should be putting it dow as less difficult as being a musician or whatever.</p>
<p>Strong sports gives a positive image & PR for universities,
brings alumni together for games and events (good for school spirit & donations).
Having a variety of sports also brings diversity (in activities & atmosphere)
to campus.</p>
<p>Colleges really just reflect the society at large, where sports is a very dominant slice of the contemporary leisure/celebrity sector.
It's a reflection of the society in general, and colleges should not be blamed for trying to recruit the best athlete-scholars that they can get!</p>
<p>"colleges should not be blamed for trying to recruit the best athlete-scholars that they can get"</p>
<p>no...society should...i agree</p>
<p>i dont get it. you same folks don't decry musicians and actors and rich kids that get in...</p>
<p>it's just a factor.</p>
<p>anyways, just because you're big nerds and the jocks at your school are mean to you don't mean that all jocks across the nation are stupid and undeserving.</p>
<p>CityKnight, that was probably one of the most immature and uninsightful posts I've read in a long time...</p>
<p>Haha. Wow. Ok this thread has gotten really hostile. </p>
<p>Remember what I originally said: "Hey whatever gets you in, but still. I can't help but say I'm a little jealous."</p>
<p>I'm all for "whatever gets you in" because we all can use a little boost, I was just saying that I was a little nervous about everything. And actually, I'm good friends with the guy who got in.</p>
<p>Only the absolute top college football teams turn a profit. It really is only for purposes of morale.</p>
<p>I'm not a huge fan of athletic or legacy preferences at all. But all this discussion is futile because Yale is not willing to listen to complaints in this matter. They will never budge because, yes, they make money off it but also, as I once heard an adcom say, Yale has the prerogative to assemble their class however they see fit. They are not a government organization or anything like that and so how they decide who to let in who not to let in is their own business. I personally found this argument flawed and I don't totally agree with it, but I get the impression that it's their story and they are sticking to it.</p>
<p>None of the Ivies make money directly off sports.</p>
<p>They all lose tons and tons of money.</p>
<p>However, winning teams makes alumni happy, which potentially leads to more donations, so there may be indirect causation there.</p>
<p>It does help with presteige though.</p>
<p>As for my immature and mean post?</p>
<p>Who's yelling at the nerds insulting jocks? The double standard is rediculous.</p>
<p>I will stop hating ivy recruited athletes the next time a football team recruits me because of my scientific ability. hence my meaning, that as an academic institution, it is ridiculous that so much emphasis is placed on sports.</p>
<p>that said, I got in to Yale because of academics and my funny essay. and as for me being pasty and weak... just because one doesn't play a college-recruited sport doesn't mean one isn't fit. people who aren't playing yale football can still work out frequently and snowboard. moron.</p>
<p>You don't get the irony in your own statement?</p>
<p>I'm a big nerd! I read fantasy and science fiction and I'm the captain of the speech and debate team, however I also play varsity football. I got hurt, so I didn't get recruited, but if I had would I have not deserved to get in?</p>
<p>Anyways, really good musicians and actors get in, folks who do well in Siemens and Intel competitions get in, do they not deserve it?</p>
<p>You contend that it's an "academic institution" but don't you think that Yale has it's reasons for letting athletes in? They have been around for a while...</p>
<p>That's why theres a difference between UChicago and Yale, Yale wants more than intellectualism (sp?)</p>
<p>I take it you didn't hear that Allen Iverson had a 700 on the SAT and still went to Georgetown, did you?</p>
<p>ivy league sports are really not that impressive, except for Hockey. The reason many "athletes" at ivy league institutions have high grades is because the better athletes, who may have lower grades, are not gonna go to an ivy league team when they can go to a university with a much better team. Example, if you were an All-American Football player and you got recruitment opportunities from Yale and University of Miami, where would you go? I'd go to Miami because almost every Miami player gets signed for at least an NFL training camp to try out for the team. Usually Miami sends numerous players in the draft, but that's another issue.</p>