<p>While it may be true that sports departments do not strictly add to the university's bottom line, if you took away football and basketball there might not be any crew or other sports. At most big schools, the revenue sports fund the entire athletic department. So I guess by recruiting a big time football player or two, who lots of fans will pay to see, a university can afford to have a crew (or other non-revenue) team on campus for those "regular" students who wish to participate. Successful programs bring exposure, exposure equals marketing opportunities, marketing opportunities bring paying customers. Sports ties people to the university for life and gives them a reason to stay involved long after they graduate.
I, like Curmudgeon, have also commented on the scholarship athlete before, but anyone who thinks that 99.9% of athletes are not doing their own work or attending class has no idea what the world of a college athlete is like. Follow one around for a week and see if you would be able to cut it if you had the same time obligations. It is the hardest way a kid can work his way through school. Rewarding, yes, but very difficult.
Should they be recruited? Well, one kid is an athlete in my house and the other got offered full rides at many schools basically for his performance on a three hour test. I'd say, for better or worse, in this country we reward results, regardless of what area one earns those results in. Universities reflect culture. Therefore, I say recruit away. Advice to most potential college students: getting admitted on test scores and grades is easier than being a recruited, nationally ranked athlete, and it makes getting your degree easier too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do you assume that there is no "higher learning" involved in collegiate athletics? Must the learning take place only from a book or in a classroom? I would wager that there are many college graduates who will tell you they learned many more valuable life lessons from their 4 years on their university sports teams than they did from their academic coursework.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I said, I think sports teams (intercollegiate and club level) are an important part of any school in part for that reason. I'm not questioning the existence of such teams I'm questioning the use of backdoor admissions tactics to admit students specifically to play sports when they wouldn't otherwise make the grade for admission. </p>
<p>I suppose one could make an affirmative action style argument and say that these athletes are good kids and just haven't done so well academically and therefore should be given a boost over their peers because they're good at a sport for which the school is recruiting. Therefore by doing this we provide a path to higher education for those that wouldn't otherwise get in and this results in a more educated society and everyone wins... </p>
<p>I could possibly buy such an argument if the academic side of things was actually taken seriously in all these cases, but of course in too many cases it's not. All too often these recruits never finish their degree and run off to play professionally. Therefore, I suppose my biggest gripe in the sports admissions department is the use of US colleges as 'farm teams' for professional sports teams. Personally I feel that academic recruits should be required to commit to finishing their degrees otherwise we allow many of our universities to function in part as glorified professional sports farm teams. This is more true at some schools than others. Professional teams in almost every other part of the world run their own incubator and farm team programs to train up professional sports athletes... it seems silly that this role in the US has largely become the responsibility of academic institutions. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Recruiting athletes is perfectly acceptable. A kid who's that good in a sport obviously has a passion for it (unless he's one of the kids who's pushed into sports by his parents). Academics should have greater weight than athletics, but who's to say possessing athletic talent is "unfair?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think athletic experience is a strong part of any college application and have no problem with it being considered along with everything else. It can be used to demonstrate leadership and commitment among other things. However, my issue is with the practice of lowering the overall admissions threshold specifically to get a student for placing on a specific sports team. </p>
<p>I believe that all the applications should be considered on their own merit (including ones sporting background and all other activities) not just saying 'well you're good at sports so we'll let the rest slide.' We don't of course generally say 'well you're good at academics so the fact that you're not competitive with the field with your ECs or other aspects of your application slide and admit you anyway' so why do something similar for sports?</p>
<p>I like some of the other posters (Curm) have watched this particular discourse regarding the "fairness" of athletic admits for YEARS on CC. The same grievance is posted, an athlete is "taking the spot" of another possible student, albeit not an athlete.</p>
<p>Wrong. The spot was not there for that other student. It isn't a question of do we pick this one (the athlete) or this other fab student (the non-athlete). Admissions is building a community, a class, not pitting one student over another. The backdoor you are speaking of is when a coach has influence in admissions, the coach who can speak to his directive of building a successful program.</p>
<p>Obviously, the craze that is March Madness is significant enough to many, many people participate who don't even attend the schools participating. If it brings these educational institutions to the forefront of attention especially to those who might not be considering college as an option then they HAVE been addressing their mission through sports recruitment.</p>
<p>And as for many athletes leaving college sports for professional leagues I don't think it is as prevalent as it has been portrayed.</p>
<p>Two of mine are both D1 atheletes, one is currently at Nationals as we speak. Her academic workload was not decreased because she will be gone for 5 days. She is still accountable for her homework and labs in Organic Chemistry, Greek, Latin, Biochem and Classics. Her work as a researcher for the med center in telemedicine in AIDS/HepC still requires her participation daily while she is away. I know her making Dean's list every semester as a pre-med is not her shirking her academics as an athlete.</p>
<p>Son, football player, at an ivy did not gain a "backdoor" acceptance nor did many of his teammates. He too has Organic Chem on his current schedule, along with 5 other classes, all 300 level and above, as a sophomore, all while keeping his outside scholarships (those awarded by outside National organizations) by maintaining a VERY high GPA. </p>
<p>And I do think apps from athletes are considered on their own merit. If an athlete is putting 4-6-8 hours of practice in DAILY (practice, workouts, strength training, film, dry land+ games, meets) in addition to their academics then yes admissions is evaluating the WHOLE application.</p>
<p>Son and daughter's day is comprised with 5:15 wake-ups, practice, classes, labs, more practice, homework and maybe bed by midnight, maybe. Social life? Maybe not so much. Their choice. As it is their respective college's to have it that way.</p>
<p>Seems to be working for them and much of their school's community.</p>
<p>Fair? Sure.</p>
<p>Kat</p>
<p>As a parent of several Div I recruited athletes, I have seen the incredible determination, blood (literally), sweat and tears that these kids live with 10 - 12 months a year, many of them also excelling academically... What's not for a college to love about a scholar-athlete? Great students with terrific time management skills, whom donors love? Plusses for everyone.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are, of course, the scandals - sex, drugs, gambling, recruitment improprieties, we've all heard them. For these students (particularly the semi-pros in Div I college football and basketball), it's a whole different arena. A fencer, wrestler, rifle team member would be expelled for any number of offenses, but a revenue player is just that. </p>
<p>Guess that kind of rambled a bit. Sorry!</p>
<p><<what's the="" difference="" in="" recruitment="" for="" "arts"="" and="" athletic="" recruitment?="">></what's></p>
<p>The difference is that recruitment for the arts--in other words, actually going out and LOOKING for applicants--doesn't exist.</p>
<p>I agree with rocketman that it is inappropriate for US colleges and universities to be used as farm teams for certain sports. On the other hand, it is now a matter of tradition and pride at those places, and it is their choice. I personally avoided such schools, but to each his own. In my view the correct action was taken by the president of the University of Chicago who did away with football and withdrew from the Big 10 because it interfered with the intellectual mission of the school. But that's me.</p>
<p>IMHO, the real victims of the semi-pro teams are the kids who get injured, don't make the grade, get passed through without ever really learning to read, and so on. There are many stories about kids being pressured to give up their scholarship, crashing and burning during or after college, etc. That is shameful, and the coaches and administrations and alumnae boosters who collude in it starting in high school or even earlier are guilty.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2003-08-14-spending-revenue-study_x.htm%5B/url%5D%5Bquote%5D•Few">http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2003-08-14-spending-revenue-study_x.htm
[quote]
•Few</a> programs are self-sufficient. Two of every five I-A athletics programs said they operated in the black in 2001. But take away state and school subsidies, and only 6% were profitable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't particularly think sports should play as big a role in colleges as they do, but I do think colleges (at least the private ones) have a right to set priorities where they will. There seems to be some evidence that sports spending as increased a lot over the last few years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it would be widely accepted that at most, if not almost all, universities in the US being recruited by a school's athletic team is one 'backdoor' into admissions (legacy/donor children being the other big one).
[/quote]
Don't underestimate the URM factor in college admissions...it is a huge one in many places.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obviously, the craze that is March Madness is significant enough to many, many people participate who don't even attend the schools participating. If it brings these educational institutions to the forefront of attention especially to those who might not be considering college as an option then they HAVE been addressing their mission through sports recruitment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...and considering that the NCAA permits only 12 Div. 1 basketball scholarships per year (across all grade levels), this means that admitting 4 freshmen per year "through the backdoor" is a tiny price to pay for a large return, both for the school and the athlete.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe that all the applications should be considered on their own merit (including ones sporting background and all other activities) not just saying 'well you're good at sports so we'll let the rest slide.' We don't of course generally say 'well you're good at academics so the fact that you're not competitive with the field with your ECs or other aspects of your application slide and admit you anyway' so why do something similar for sports?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is exactly the sticking point where I take issue with the sports recruitment game and where I think it runs into trouble in my mind. Personally I think that the admissions game should be 'sports team blind' in the same way its generally 'need blind.' Put everyone on a level playing field. </p>
<p>Rarely would most schools admit someone purely on the basis of an SAT score and GPA alone whilst letting other aspects slide so why should schools admit someone purely on the basis of sports ability whilst letting everything else slide? It's about a whole overall rounded package and that should apply equally to everyone. Some people will be stronger in sports, some will be stronger in other areas but I think the university as a whole ultimately suffers when it plays silly games with admitting people purely to make a sports team better whilst largely ignoring the other application criteria. </p>
<p>The original Oxbridge example is a good one and highlights the fact that college sports hardly fall apart if you hold everyone to the same admissions standards without a special backdoor for sports. I have a cousin that went to Cambridge (who had previously attended a large university in the US) and he commented that the 'sporting culture' was far far more intense in Cambridge that his big US university. In particular the intercollegiate (which there refers to 'club' level sports with teams formed from the different residential colleges) was very strong with probably half the students being on at least one team or another during their time as a student. They still manage to 'build a community' without using silly systems of admitting people purely to put them on a sports team and if anything the resulting college sporting community seems to be even stronger as a result. He chalked this up to the fact that the school wasn't simply admitting jocks simply for the sake of beefing up sports teams and therefore there wasn't this 'us and them' type mentality when it came to school sports with jocks who were admitted purely to play on the teams and then everyone else who didn't stand much of a chance in participating. There were the varsity teams (which play in the match against Oxford) and these were formed from the best athletes from each of the residential college teams, but there was still plenty of opportunity for everyone to participate at the college level and reap the benefits that school sports can offer. </p>
<p>I know that often times students do get in on their own merit like everyone else and the 'sports recruitment' is often in the form of financial scholarships to encourage them to attend a particular school. This I think is fine and don't have a problem with it at all... especially when the money for such scholarships comes from the self generating funds of the programs or their endowments. It would seem that the sports parents on this forum have kids that fall into this category not the one that rocketman was criticizing. </p>
<p>It's the relaxing of overall standards purely to beef up a sports team that I take would issue with. That's not 'building a community' that's just dumb and it's a shame that we've grown to accept such a system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know that often times students do get in on their own merit like everyone else and the 'sports recruitment' is often in the form of financial scholarships to encourage them to attend a particular school. This I think is fine and don't have a problem with it at all... especially when the money for such scholarships comes from the self generating funds of the programs or their endowments. It would seem that the sports parents on this forum have kids that fall into this category not the one that rocketman was criticizing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes I was criticizing the selective relaxation of admissions standards to allow certain students to attend a school, and thus play on its team, whereby they wouldn't normally make the cut if they were subjected to the same standards as everyone else. </p>
<p>Scholarship incentives to encourage qualified candidates, that make the grade on their own, to attend one school or another to play on a team is a wholly different situation and not what I was criticizing or something that I have a problem with. Yes schools have limits on how many full ride scholarships they can offer but they can still lower their admissions standards to admit the athletes they want.</p>
<p>I think everytime one of these threads posts up we should just ignore it. I say if you don't like it, choose a college or university that doesn't give an admissions bump to athletes, or whatever it is that the poster feels is "unfair to them". Because the only conclusion I can come away with from these silly - "why athletes" threads is the posters asking the questions are either incredibly naieve or simply jealous. And it's not just ahtletics...go to the U of M thread and you can find people whining there that LSA students and specifically "Art & Design" students 'get in' with lower statistics. Give me a break....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes I was criticizing the selective relaxation of admissions standards to allow certain students to attend a school, and thus play on its team, whereby they wouldn't normally make the cut if they were subjected to the same standards as everyone else
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If all applicants were held to the same admissions standards as athletes in your scenario (stats plus the level of EC commitment required for Div. 1 sports), then most, if not all, of the non-athletes would be denied admission.</p>
<p>EXACTLY! My NMF son got into (so far) every school he applied to with a GPA that hovered just below the average at some (of the top tier) schools. Obviously, they took his EC's and non-school talents into consideration, along with the GPA and test scores. (Kind of like my athlete son who had very high test scores, but a lower GPA than the general admitted freshman-same situation, same result- for both my athlete and my scholar) And most certainly, another applicant who did not have their great test scores got in because he/she had something else to offer the university. The people who debate the scholarship athlete admissions advantage would have to entirely redraw the admissions landscape for it to be quantifiable and "fair". I have a better idea- adjust to the reality that in college admissions, job searches, country cub applications, and life, people are chosen because whoever holds the golden key thinks that applicant can offer something that will help them. So, if a boss hires his nephew because it makes his home life easier with his sister in law, that helps him. If I am a great point guard, but the team needs a center, I don't get in because I cannot help the team/school. One can never predict why certain decisions are made. Better to spend your time making sure YOU have something to offer instead of bemoaning the fact that another person already figured out what they have and is using it to their advantage. Actors, artists, writers, scientists, singers, and inventors all get admitted into colleges with lower stats in one area or another than some other students. Find your strength and market it. They are building a community, not an academic all star team to see who can get the highest stats. Oh, and not very many college athletes go pro. Look up the numbers or just watch those incessant NCAA ads that say, "Most NCAA athletes will go pro in something other than sports." The NCAA probably has stats on their website.</p>
<p>And this hurts who? At the smaller privates, or non-sports powers, the so-called "relaxations" are often de minimus (admitting a football player with a 1350 on the SAT instead of the class average 1400-1450), and result in student bodies vastly more diverse--simply put, smaller schools do not admit kids 500 SAT points below the median, and there is no basis for saying that an athlete with 50-100 less points, and a strong EC like athletics, is a worse candidate than is one 50-100 points higher without the EC. At the bigger schools which are sports powers and let in students well below standards (generally in revenue sports only), the effect on the overall student body is often de minimus (20-25 instances of significant "relaxation" in a freshman class of 5-6000 isn't really meaningful), and is made up for by increased revenues, applications, etc.</p>
<p>Kids are not being rejected in favor of academically inferior athletes, and the quality of the overall student body is rising significantly at the larger, sports power schools which are doing the greatest amount of standard relaxing. So again, who is hurt, and why is this a real concern?</p>
<p>"I believe that all the applications should be considered on their own merit "</p>
<p>Rocketman, this is a mistatement on your part. You do not believe this to be true. You believe applications should be considered on the merits YOU see as valuable. You disagree with how some colleges apply their considerations towards what is meritable.</p>
<p>It never ceases to shock and astound me that many of those who support "affirmative action for athletes" reject it entirely for the goal of racial or ethnic diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You do not believe this to be true. You believe applications should be considered on the merits YOU see as valuable. You disagree with how some colleges apply their considerations towards what is meritable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. You've clearly misread what I've written. </p>
<p>I've made it very clear I think performance in sports can play an important part in a college application and achievement in sport can be a key part of their overall package. I simply said that everyone should have to go through the same admissions process and be subjected to the same standards, whatever the college or university decides those should be. There shouldn't be one admissions procedure and set of standards for those recruited to play on a particular team and then a another system for everyone else... that's all I said. Of course, the extent to which that happens certainly varies between schools.</p>
<p>"whatever the college or university decides those should be'
Ok.
"shouldn't be one admissions procedure and set of standards for those recruited to play on a particular team and then a another system for everyone else... that's all I said"</p>
<p>So, you don't see my point? ;) In one sentence you say whatever the school decides and in the next you criticise their "choice". ;) </p>
<p>I would strongly guess that these schools make their decisions on what will benefit the school..first, second and third.. hence all the schools with assets greater than most third world countries, when other industries are laying off or closing. </p>
<p>College is a business, they will take you if you can help them in their opinion.
Complaining about somebody else the college finds of value is like coke complaining about pepsi...</p>
<p>It's a simple case of double standards. Most other extracurricular activities within a university don't get special considerations when it comes to admissions so why should certain sports teams? </p>
<p>Does the debate team get to phone up admissions and say "nudge nudge we're going to pick this kid here to be on the team so see to it that he's accepted even though he's a bit rusty in areas other than public speaking"? No, of course not. So why is it OK for the football team to phone up and do the same thing? It's not... but it's often become an acceptable practice.</p>
<p>Actually, when I was in high school, debate coaches at powerhouse programs absolutely recruited and got special considerations in admission. I'm guessing that's still true today.</p>
<p>As to why it's OK for some extracurriculars but not others, well, chess club doesn't get 100,000 observers at $50 per, nor spark a 5-10% increase in applications if it reaches the national tournament.</p>