<p>I don't get what you're saying, md.</p>
<p>Middleburydad, I believe that impsuit means to say that a commitment to racial diversity and athletics should not compromise the academic selectivity of top tier schools to the extent that it currently does.</p>
<p>maybe these kids have more to offer than you're giving them credit for. you don't seem to know them terribly well. you don't seem to be great friends they way you're insulting them. "complete idiot?"</p>
<p>Athletic skill is a TALENT. Just like Theater, Music, Writing, and yes Academics. Students with these talents are recruited all the time. These students like you, bring something unique to the table. How about the student who gets aid for community service? I see nothing wrong with this. They are evaluated next to their peers and they stacked up better. I can tell you from experience, that college athletics, music, theater, etc. absorb an incredible amount of time for students. In many cases, students without the EC's have more time to study for exams that students that participate in EC's. Yes, Middlebury is not USC or ND, but I still would be willing to bet the students are there for an education and not a spot in the NFL draft. Let's recognize the talent, as just about anybody in their situation would use this as a "hook" to get into a better school. It is not just test scores and GPA's in admission decisions.</p>
<p>^^^well put</p>
<p>So, Pete0six, what you're saying is that we should recognize athletic talent and reward it by sending those kids to elite academic institutions? No. Send them to elite athletic institutions, then, like USC or ND. Sure, they are perhaps at Middlebury more so to get an education than they are to procure a spot in the NFL draft, but there are many more academically qualified applicants who would benefit more from a Middlebury education than those athletes. </p>
<p>For example, let's consider a bright, gifted, capable student who would benefit far more from a Middlebury education than the second student, who is an academically average athletic recruit. The athlete is admitted, the scholar is not. Ultimately, neither will play sports professionally. Therefore if your goal is to provide an enriching learning experience to those students who will change the world, then it is in your best interest to admit the former student.</p>
<p>If you are going to consider the fact that most Middlebury athletes are not going to be considered for professional sports then you simply cannot compare athletics to other extracurriculars such as fine arts and drama because many students who pursue those latter extracurriculars do plan on being professionals in those fields. You can major in art, drama, and dance. You can't major in soccer or football.</p>
<p>OK, but many winners of art, drama, and dance merit awards do not major in these fields. In fact, most universities make it quite clear that it is not a prerequisite for the award. My point is thes are all time consuming EC's that enrich a college enviornment. Diversity is more than just race, place of orgin, and economic status. </p>
<p>How does the OP know what got another student into a school? You can search this forum for countless examples where students with higher GPA's and better test scores are rejected than students below their stats. You would tear your hair out trying to figure that one out. Maybe you are suggesting that we should all just use some GPA/Test score grid for admission? </p>
<p>I agree with one thing, it is what you do once you are admitted that counts. To assume, the student with lower grades in high school will contribute less to society after graduation is a huge leap!</p>
<p>"OK, but many winners of art, drama, and dance merit awards do not major in these fields."</p>
<p>Wait, merit awards? Let's restrict this to the consideration of the case of Middlebury, which does not give merit awards (and actually many merit scholarships are reserved for those students who plan to pursue as a major those fields in which they demonstrate exceptional strength). Nor do arts faculty have as much a say in admission as coaches do. How many recruits does the drama department get per year? And yet one can major or minor or even just take classes in drama, but all for credit. How many philosophy recruits are there per year? What about film or other extracurriculars into which students invest just as much time as sports? But I haven't heard of any journalism recruits or physics recruits. How is that fair?</p>
<p>"Maybe you are suggesting that we should all just use some GPA/Test score grid for admission?"</p>
<p>Maybe you are suggesting we disregard all academic information about a student entirely? When you have cutthroat competition between top tier students it is difficult to identify factors that determine who gets in and who does not. However, when you are considering the case of a top tier student against an average or even below average student who is a prominent athlete, then there is little question. </p>
<p>College decisions are arbitrary, but chances are if a less than capable student is admitted, he or she is either a) demographically interesting, b) belonging to a family likely to donate large sums to the school, or c) a recruited athlete.</p>
<p>"To assume, the student with lower grades in high school will contribute less to society after graduation is a huge leap!"</p>
<p>But to assume that the student who has demonstrated him or herself to be less capable of contribution than a top tier student has will contribute less to society is perfectly logical. Consider the average student with athletic talent enough to play varsity in college but not enough to play professionally against the elite student who is involved in cancer research. Which of those would you wager would contribute more to society? And even if the athletic recruit were to play professionally, so what? How is that contributing more to society?</p>
<p>I know of someone who was an athletic recruit from the local public school (not the sharpest tool to garnish the shed) who failed 2 classes his senior spring one of them was precalc I know. Midd did not rescind his admission, he went down to florida, completed the classes at a community college and practiced his sports, and was admitted in february. Joke!</p>
<p>The hate, towards the girl who got in, is hilarious.</p>
<p>IMHO, whether excurricular talents should be given merit depends on how the applicant contributes his or her talents in building up one's academic abilitiy. Painting, music, or dance can somehow help enriching learning experience. I don't know how atheletic experience can be related to academic capability, but the problem is that the girl and some of the other atheletes who got in didn't seem to do that.</p>
<p>The kid mentioned in chembabychem's post no 31 is the one that got in to Midd ed in the nytimes article discussed in this thread:</p>
<p>Some have suggested in that thread that the girl discussed in that article that did not get into Middlebury ED but later got into Dartmouth is evidence of Middlebury's improving admissions standards.</p>
<p>I think it is better evidence of how skewed the admissions process is towards athletes.</p>
<p>I agree, it definitely is not evidence of Middlebury's improving admissions standards, it's athletic preferential treatment. And nice job picking up on the NY Times article, you deserve a gold star</p>
<p>"Maybe you are suggesting we disregard all academic information about a student entirely?" </p>
<p>Not at all. I am suggesting admissions is based on a composite of the achievements of the applicants. EC's included. </p>
<p>"But to assume that the student who has demonstrated him or herself to be less capable of contribution than a top tier student has will contribute less to society is perfectly logical". </p>
<p>Then I guess EVERY student that wants to succeed in life better go to a top tier college. There are THOUSANDs of examples of people making great contributions to society with less academic credentials than many around them. Again, it depends on the individual. I am in the workplace, and have run across so many people that have no concept on how to interact as a team because their whole life they performed in a self silo that focused on individual goals. </p>
<p>"Let's restrict this to the consideration of the case of Middlebury, which does not give merit awards (and actually many merit scholarships are reserved for those students who plan to pursue as a major those fields in which they demonstrate exceptional strength)".</p>
<p>OK, I don't claim to be an expert on Middlebury. However, there are merit awards for many EC's besides athletics at many colleges. </p>
<p>"Consider the average student with athletic talent enough to play varsity in college but not enough to play professionally against the elite student who is involved in cancer research. Which of those would you wager would contribute more to society? And even if the athletic recruit were to play professionally, so what? How is that contributing more to society?"</p>
<p>So who does contribute to society? Do the students who become successful authors or artist contribute? Does the student who goes on to law enforcement and solve complex crimes add value? Does the woman who writes your insurance policy that protects you from catestropic loss? Does the fund manager who picks the stops that help you pay for your children's education contribute? Of course, you all contribute to society. The comparison is extreme!</p>
<p>The original OP used the word "SHAMEFUL". I think people should stop belly aching over other people and worry about themselves. Not all students that participate in sports (Especially D3 sports) are dumb jocks.</p>
<p>"So who does contribute to society? Do the students who become successful authors or artist contribute? Does the student who goes on to law enforcement and solve complex crimes add value? Does the woman who writes your insurance policy that protects you from catestropic loss? Does the fund manager who picks the stops that help you pay for your children's education contribute? Of course, you all contribute to society. The comparison is extreme!"</p>
<p>Funny, then, how you do not include the professional athlete in that list! Funny as well how you do not address the lack of drama recruits. I mean you no disrespect - but it is hypocritical to allow coaches such a say and not other faculty.</p>
<p>"Then I guess EVERY student that wants to succeed in life better go to a top tier college. There are THOUSANDs of examples of people making great contributions to society with less academic credentials than many around them. Again, it depends on the individual."</p>
<p>No, logically the academically elite should go to academically elite institutions. Does that make sense? Of course it depends on the individual, and individually speaking, when it comes to admission to a school like Middlebury academic proficiency should outweigh athletic proficiency. </p>
<p>"I think people should stop belly aching over other people and worry about themselves. Not all students that participate in sports (Especially D3 sports) are dumb jocks."</p>
<p>Again, let us restrict our discussion to this case. This "belly-aching" is obviously symptomatic of self-worry, as academically qualified candidates are liable to lose their admission to less than qualified athletes! That constitutes worrying about oneself. What would you suggest they do? Oh, buck up, what happens happens? No. That academic selectivity is compromised to this extent is indeed shameful.</p>
<p>To those who feel slapped in the face when an athlete with no outstanding academic achievements gets admitted into a college like Middlebury, have you seriously and diligently played any sport? Have you felt so tired in a stupid practice that you just want to drop down and vomit, yet you must keep going because the rest of your teammates are not stopping? Have you ever been injured? It really is something when you "hear" something crack inside your leg. OK, enough sensationalism.</p>
<p>Being an excellent athlete is not easy. It is as time consuming as being an outstanding musician or artist. And fortunately for athletes, colleges require them. So is it fair that an athlete with a 1700 SAT and presumably no other "hook" than kicking a ball gets admitted instead of a good student, who would use the opportunity more wisely? Mind you, not everyone can kick a ball decently. </p>
<p>If Midd's Addmission's Office decides it is fair, then I think it is fair. Sports are a part of every college and great athletes are more rare (and more valuable for a college?) than good students, with typical EC's and 2100 SAT scores. Diversity is necessary, and though it sounds unfair to "sacrifice" academic selectivity for a guy with a good arm or a talented foot, it also seems unfair to "sacrifice" sports for a not outstanding, just good student with good stats and good EC's ... really the common applicant to a college like Middlebury. Because the "qualified candidate" you are talking about is not that special after all. Really qualified candidates will get admitted, no matter what. But if the "qualified candidate" gets denied and his/her spot is taken by a mediocre student/outstanding athlete, I believe the candidate is not as qualified as you might think.</p>
<p>yes Daniel, I have experienced all of that and I still don't think it justifies weakening admissions standards.</p>
<p>And everybody always says "what about the talented musicians and artists"? Just like the athletes they have spent hours upon hours outside of their regular classes to develop their talent. </p>
<p>The difference is there are not any 1300 SAT, 3.0 HS GPA art or music majors at Middlebury. Their academic qualifications are just as strong as those of the non art and music majors. </p>
<p>Given the popularity of the school Middlebury would have no problem filling out the rosters of its teams with athletes that met the general admissions standards. Granted the teams would not be as good--but really, who cares about the Middlebury football or tennis team except the coaches, the players and their parents?</p>
<p>All schools drop their standards for athletes. They also do it for Legacies(see current President). I knew a kid who was going to Notre Dame for soccer. In MAY of sr yr Princeton soccer coach asked him to fill out an app and go there. He did with a deeply reduced tuition bill. Sad part is Valedictorian was denied admission. Soccer star was ranked 30th.</p>
<p>Ugh. I agree! </p>
<p>I'm involved in many many extracurriculars, but not varsity sports. So what? I don't have hand-eye coordination. Does that make me less qualified to go to college? I think not. </p>
<p>However, Middlebury is NOT the only college doing this. In my opinion, it is disgusting. Colleges should accept on merit... and in my opinion athletic talent has nothing to do with success. Wouldn't the college do better to accept more academically qualified people who will become successful graduates? </p>
<p>Because of this arbitrary acceptance system, I have to apply to 9 colleges. I'm qualified (sometimes overqualified) for every single one of them, but due to the fact that I'm not a varsity athlete, I have to apply to a lot to be sure of an acceptance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
in my opinion athletic talent has nothing to do with success
[/quote]
Great athletes usually have more than just innate athletic talent. To perform athletically at the highest levels, you also need discipline, self-confidence, the ability to learn from coaching, the desire to compete, and a strong desire to win. These are characteristics that can also lead to success in fields other than athletics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wouldn't the college do better to accept more academically qualified people who will become successful graduates?
[/quote]
Depends on how you define terms like "successful" and "do better".</p>
<p>It is widely believed that the more athletically-inclined graduates of Ivies, top LACs, etc. are more likely to enter fields like business or finance after graduation. The more academically-inclined graduates are more likely to pursue careers as professors, scientists, writers, or artists.</p>
<p>Both may be successful, in different ways. But guess which ones ultimately contribute more to the college endowment.</p>