<p>As the mother of a son who is on a crew team and is in contact with coaches from many top-tier schools, I can vouch for the fact that every single one of the coaches has repeatedly stressed the importance of academic achievement in their communications with him.</p>
<p>"It's a simple case of double standards."</p>
<p>No it's about money. Folks it's about money now and in the future. It will always be about money. Higher education is a business, if you can help their business make money, you're in. If not, sorry.</p>
<p>These people who say the athletes are "only good at their specific sport" are behind the times. One main requirement I've seen as coaches recruit is they are looking for somebody with the grades.</p>
<p>48% of athletes at my school were recognized as a "Scholar-Athlete" and 71% of the females were.</p>
<p>One point that does bear mentioning I think is that there is a much greater infrastructure required for sports than, say, the debate team. Taking the example I know best, for crew there is a boathouse to maintain, boats to buy and repair, coaches to hire, ergs to buy and repair, trailers to haul the boats etc. All this infrastructure costs money and needs to be funded on a yearly basis. I've never participated in debate, but I imagine it requires much less infrastructure to field a team. Thus, if not enough kids want to debate in any given year, it is no great loss to the school. They are not out of pocket a huge expense. But if you don't get enough kids to fill a boat, the school is out a significant amount of money.</p>
<p>There will always be those people that think college athletics is unfair concerning admissions. That they allow students in that couldn't normally get in on their grades alone. That the school spends too much money on the athletic department. And so the list goes on.</p>
<p>As an athletic department overall, it is true that few school turn a direct profit. Basketball and football do pretty good usually, but that income does go back to the entire athletic department normally. Thus helping out the cost of many of the other sports. But yes, generally speaking, athletics does cost the university/college money. Obviously, much of this money comes from tuition, endorsements, (pepsi/nike), donations, ticket sales, etc...</p>
<p>Now; finances aside; should recruited athletes get any type of entrance preference over a non athlete? The simple answer is yes! You don't have to like the answer, and many won't even agree, but it is the right answer. As mentioned many times, colleges/universities are a business. They can't educate anyone if students don't want to attend there. Whether you are an athlete or not, sports popularizes a college/university. They get them television and radio time. They instill pride and school spirit among students, faculty, alumni, and the local community. With the exception of some of the high end ivy/west coast ivy/top 25 schools noted for academics; it's the athletics department that makes a school known to the public outside of the local community. Athletics is a form of ADVERTISING. Money is spent on direct advertising. Athletics is also another form of advertising. But, if none of the athletes you bring in are any good at the sport, and the school is always in last place in competition, then there is little to no advantage in investing money into the athletics. The objective however is to be competitive and hopefully winning.</p>
<p>But, with the exception of State "U" (Which most colleges/universities are public); thus a state resident isn't usually rejected; the student athletes still had to have and maintain a very good academic resume. I know first hand of an athlete from our high school who was considered one of the best in the COUNTRY in his sport. He was being recruited by just about every college in the country. The school he chose and wanted was a very good school academically as well as with athletics. He had to work his bottom off his senior year of high school to get his grades high enough as well as the ACT/SAT. The college still maintained a certain entrance level requirement. Fortunately, he made it. He's so good that they are anticipating him going pro before his Junior Year. Yet, they wouldn't take him in school until he got his grades in line. Now, would he have gotten in without the sport? Probably not. But then again, without the sport, he probably wouldn't have wanted to go there either.</p>
<p>Yes, the athletic department has a certain quota of players they can get in. And yes, maybe some of the standards aren't as high as a non-athlete. But it isn't an automatic entry either; just because you're an athlete. The school still has their minimum standards. The NCAA Clearinghouse still checks to make sure you've taken the minimum required classes in high school before being eligible to play your freshman year. (Ensure you didn't just take wood shop all the way through high school).</p>
<p>On top of all of this, too many of the critics don't even realize how many of the recruited athletes actually have very good grades and probably could have gotten in on their grades anyway. Yes, some athletes may not have the SAT/ACT/GPA that the average student may require; but a large percentage of the athletes do fall into the average or above. Just for those critics out there that have some misconception that if you are an athlete then you must be an idiot. Of the 5 recruited athletes this year from our high school, I know for a fact that 3 of these kids have the grades/ranking/ec/act/sat/etc... that is required to get into the IVY league schools. Of all 5 student athletes, the lowest GPA was a 3.65. 2 had 4.0 unweighted.</p>
<p>So yes, to make a school competitive in the athletic department and sports, it is sometimes required to help a kid get admitted. But those sports do more for that school than the math, history, science, etc... departments do. Again, there are exceptions. Research schools like MSU are one of the largest research schools in the country. They bring in a lot of grant money. Same with UCLA medical; Princeton, other ivy's, and a host of other schools. But for a large percentage of schools, it is the athletic department that is popularizing the school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whether you are an athlete or not, sports popularizes a college/university. They get them television and radio time. They instill pride and school spirit among students, faculty, alumni, and the local community. </p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Case in point, Barrons post regarding Davidson</p>
<p>
[quote]
Davidson's Trustees have graciously offered to pay the expenses of those students who are able to attend the game in Detroit on Friday night. </p>
<p>If you want to attend the games in Detroit and do not yet have a ticket, you must email Traci Russ-Wilson at _____ by 4:00 pm today. </p>
<p>The bus will leave at approximately 6 a.m. on Friday morning. It is approximately an 11 hour ride to Detroit. We will make hotel reservations for you ( 2 students per room). Tickets are for Sessions 1 and 2. If Davidson wins on Friday night, they will play again on Sunday afternoon (exact time not yet known). Win or lose, the bus will leave on Sunday afternoon after the Session 2 game ends. You will most likely arrive back in Davidson on Monday morning between 4 am and 6 am. </p>
<p>If you have already booked a package with the bus that leaves campus on Friday morning (bus, tickets, hotel), then your credit card will not be charged. If you have purchased a ticket and are handling transportation and lodging on your own, then you will be reimbursed for the face value of the ticket only.</p>
<p>We are so grateful that our Trustees, on their own initiative, have so generously offered this gift to Davidson students. For many reasons this week, including our Trustees' support and commitment to our students, it is a great day to be a Wildcat.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whether or not you are basketball fan (or even a fan of Davidson's) their trip to the big dance has brought the school together as a community, and has instilled a sense of pride in being a Wildcat to the extent that the alumni are putting their money where their mouth. The alumni have committed to paying for any student who wants to attend (in a situation where only those with the means to go on their own would have been able to attend). For the low income student attending Davidson, this is goes a long way in making them truly feel as if they are a part of the Davison community. The press and good will generated by this offer alone says a lot of Davidson as a community. The this donation has paid for itself a number of times over as it has now placed the school on people's radar will ultimately have a trickle down effect that will turn into increased applications to the school.</p>
<p>to paraphase what dadx3 ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
the chess club doesn't get 100,000 observers at $50 per (plus transportation and lodging), nor spark a 5-10% increase in applications if it reaches the national tournament.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm attending a school that's known for athletics on basically a full ride for academics. There is no doubt in my mind if it were not for the tremendous revenue the school creates from its sports teams, football in particular, that these types of offers would not be available. Overall, quality athletics improves the entire school.</p>
<p>I too have commented on the other athletic recruitment threads, and don't want to repeat my comments here. But tonight I began to think about some of the homework assignments I've seen my children do while in high school (well-regarded affluent suburban) for their honors and AP classes. There is still a lot of busy work and meaningless "creative" nonsense (arts and crafts really) assigned which is remarkably similar to elementary school projects. When time was tight for my varsity athlete kids, they'd skimp on those things because they offered less instructional value. You can't convince me that the resulting lower grade makes them a less desirable candidate for admission. Sometimes a mere 15 minutes of study can mean the difference between an A and an A-, or a B+ and and A-. Frankly, there are times when the athletic schedule could mean a kid has to cut 15 minutes here or there if he wants to sleep. Again, I'm not sure this makes him a weaker student necessarily. Lastly, as D has just seen first hand, high school athletes can suffer from prejudice on the part of teachers who view them as less studious whether they are or aren't. D's chemistry teacher just confessed to me that because D is an athlete, he assumed her declining performance was due to her either not putting the time in because of her sports commitment, or due to a deficit in "intuition" for problem solving (which was code for intelligence.) In reality, her struggles weren't due to either of those causes. Once I told him how much time and effort she is putting in, her grades miraculously improved. Hmm.</p>
<p>I am totally agreeing with Rocketman.
Which does not change my minority status here.</p>
<p>GFG: today my S got home from school and practiced the violin for an hour. Later, he was picked up b a friend at 5 PM for the drive to youth symphony and sectionals. He got home at 10PM. </p>
<p>Guess what? No recruiters at the door. </p>
<p>I'm sick of hearing parents of recruited athletes whining about the effort their kids put in.</p>
<p>PS He's a 3-season athlete too--no recruiters at the door for that, either. Even though he has to fit a couple of hours of athletic practice in before everything else every day. And thats not counting meets.</p>
<p>And yeah, he's taking 5 APs plus honors courses. Still no recruiters at the door.</p>
<p>these threads always break down. The reality is some guys like blondes... get over it. To whine about why a school picks someone YOU don't feel is deserving is a waste of your time. You just sound bad and really it doesn't change a thing. Schools will do what schools will do as long as it serves their purpose. The day that an athelete doesn't serve the school's purpose whatch what happens. </p>
<p>Besides if you've never experienced what happens to a major scholarship athelete once they sign on.. ya might feel a bit different. Do you really envy someone who for the next four years is going to be TOLD what to do, where to be and what classes fit into the sports program's time frame? The grass is always greener on the other side..cept no football coach is making you do two hours of off season conditioning everyday, when you should be studying....</p>
<p>Maybe if you had to actually live the life... outside of the few momments of glamour, you'd be a little more sympathic instead of pathic.. </p>
<p>Family's been on both sides of the coin recruited for acedemics and recruited for atheletics.. given a "choice" those recruited for acedemics don't know how lucky they are in comparison. Seen what happens to atheletes when injuries occur, coaches change... don't envy what they have as you have no idea what they give up to be there...</p>
<p>I'm sick of hearing jealous parents whining about the whining of other parents.</p>
<p>Yea; definitely a lot of whining. Especially from a lot of misplaced envy and jealousy. While there is nothing wrong with non-athletic extra-curriculum activities, the fact remains that athletics attract more fans and spectators. But explaining pros and cons isn't going to convince anyone who is envious. But there are a lot of misconceptions about student athletes that really do need to be straightened out.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Just because a student is an athlete, doesn't mean they are below average academically. Many student athletes are also on the honor roll, in honors classes, in the IB program, maintain 3.75-4.00 gpa's. etc...</p></li>
<li><p>Teachers are usually more prejudice against student athletes than they are of other students. Many of them have prejudged these students. On many arbitrary type tests, the student athlete is not given as high of a grade that they deserve. Many of these athletes are in AP classes, IB program, and class rank of the top 5, It forces teachers to break the stereotype of athletes. They aren't all dumb jocks.</p></li>
<li><p>Only about 3% of high school basketball players will go on to play at the college level. 5% for football. 6% for Baseball. and 5% for soccer. This isn't just the RECRUITED athletes that some parents are so envious and jealous of coaches calling and coming to see them. This is the total to include those not recruited and did a walk on or applied to the athletic department on their own.</p></li>
<li><p>Finally; GOD FORBID if this student athlete is actually a good player growing up. GOD FORBID if he or she had older brothers or sisters who were also go athletes. The pressure that many of these kids get from their own parents; let along their peers, school, coaches, and community. The expectations are unimaginable. Especially when you have people telling your kid how if they keep working hard they might be able to get into college. Such IGNORANT IDIOTS. I'm surprised that more kids haven't gone ballistic with pressure.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It was nice when my son applied this year to 7 colleges and got accepted to all 7. It was nice when friends, family, neighbors, etc... asked INSTINCTIVELY if he received Football scholarships. The GLOW ON HIS FACE when he says; "NO; all of them offered ACADEMIC scholarships". It was nice to have him already accepted into colleges academically before football ever became an issue. This way when some ignorant envious and jealous parent mentions how they are tired of hearing parents talking about how hard athletes have it, and how they know they've really got it easy; we can throw the academic acceptance letters back in at them. </p>
<p>I admit that out of approximately 70 football players; only about 5-8 were taking AP classes. And only 1 was in the IB program. But the rest of the kids were still getting good grades. Our high school is very strict on the don't pass don't play rule. It is checked and verified weekly. This year, which is a first, not one kid missed a practice or game because of academic ineligibility. I just wanted to reiterate that just because a kid is a student athlete doesn't mean they are dumb jocks; that they have their college future taken care of; and that their life is all glamor.</p>
<p>"I'm sick of hearing parents of recruited athletes whining about the effort their kids put in."</p>
<p>I was going to refrain from participating, but: We are not the ones who are whining. It's the "it's not fayur; Buffy didn't get into HYPS and some dumb jock did" parents who are whining.</p>
<p>As long as I am here, in response to an earlier post: I support affirmative action for URMs. However, athletes are admitted on an entirely different theory. Admission is not based upon some trait that they are born with, but rather on the basis of their accomplishments. You may not value those accomplishments, but admissions officers and employers do.</p>
<p>And, in the immortal words of Forrest Gump, that is all I have to say about that.</p>
<p>Consolation- How wonderful that your son is a three season athlete. That will serve him well and I'm sure he has learned many lessons about commitment and teamwork. He is in the majority in not being talented enough to be recruited. Why the resentment towards those that are? My recruited son was a three season athlete, too. However, he was the one who got up at 5:30am and did an extra workout by himself before school because his level of competition required more mileage than the rest of the team could handle in the afternoon workouts. He wanted achieve as much as he possibly could. He didn't have a 4.0 or a 2300 SAT. However, he was very qualified for all the highly selective academic schools that recruited him. He put a lot on the line. Unfortunately for him, he got injured going into senior year of high school, was still recruited, but hasn't been able to compete since, even after two knee surgeries (a third to come in May). He put a lot on the line, and lives with the disappointment every day of his life. There's hope for the future, but it hasn't been an easy few years.<br>
I also have a musician daughter. She actually got more $$ due to her talent than S got, even though it helped him with admissions.
Athletic recruiting is a reality. The majority of college athletes get little or no money, are excellent students and deserve the boost.</p>
<p>That's another thing to mention.. good thinking MoWC. Most athletes don't get a FULL-RIDE like people think. And if they do, there is normally academic money involved in there too.</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>Maybe you are just looking at it from the wrong point of view. Perhaps they are relaxing the athletic standards for certain students, and letting them make up for it with their academic prowess. If they were envisioning a student body of scholar athletes, those people who couldn't play a sport to save their lives aren't really what they are going for. But if these students are smart enough they feel they will add enough to campus life to be worth offering admission.</p>
<p>MomofWildChild, after reading for what seems like the 4,000th time that recruited athletes <em>obviously</em> put more time into their activities that everyone else, I snapped. Sorry. I am sorry that your kid is dealing with such troubles. </p>
<p>My point is simply this: lots of kids put lots of hours into valuable pursuits that require dedication and discipline. The vast majority, even those who excel, aren't recruited for anything. If your kid is talented and hard-working and lucky enough to excel in an area for which he or she is recruited, be happy that the system works for them, but don't claim that he or she has necessarily exhibited a higher level of commitment or discipline than everyone else. You don't know everyone else's reality. (At this point I officially give up. It's simply hopeless.)</p>
<p>Christcorp, many of your assumptions are inaccurate in my experience. The top kids academically at our HS male and female, are usually also varsity athletes, an occasional one recruitable, mostly not. Athletes are definitely not discriminated against in grading, especially since the majority of the kids in the school participate in one or more sports! I think that at this point most people realize that the type of athlete who is recruited by the Ivies or a place like Williams or whatever are not "dumb jocks," and that there is a big difference between them and the kind of student who used to feature in the horror stories about kids recruited to play basketball at some midwestern universities even though they were functionally illiterate. I think that the notion that an athletic scholarship is available to OR is going to fully pay for the education of most recruited athletes has also been thoroughly debunked around here, although the man in the street may still be laboring under that delusion. </p>
<p>As I stated above, I think that the real victims of collegiate athletic recruiting are those students who are chewed up and spit out by the big time programs, where the sport is like a full time job.</p>
<p>It's too bad that well-meaning people assume that your kid got a football scholarship. They probably think they are paying him a compliment. Since, as you say, he is the exception rather than the rule at his school, perhaps they aren't as evil and ignorant as you think. Maybe this is a cultural thing, since you state that other activities deserve less because in your world they get less attention. Where I live, we don't have big time football and everything that traditionally goes with it. I, for one, am very glad. Seems as if you wouldn't be. It's too bad that you think that everyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant, jealous, and envious. They aren't.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the OP has a clear philosophical stance. He thinks that colleges and universities ought to be dedicated to learning, and that they should not be serving as a farm team system for certain professional sports. Further, he thinks that the schools ought to field teams of individuals who are normal academic acceptees, not teams of kids recruited for their sports prowess. (I was recently blown away to learn that many top schools don't allow walk-ons or have any kind of try-outs in some sports. So much for encouraging the scholar athlete concept...) And he presents evidence that suggests that people would be interested in sporting events anyway. </p>
<p>Whether or not you agree, that doesn't seem like a wild-eyed position to me.</p>
<p>Consolation- I think in many cases the time and effort kids put into their passions DOES pay off. They may not be "recruited", but such passion certainly enhances their applications and makes them a more interesting part of the potential entering class. Our society is more geared to appreciating athletic accomplishments than other equally worthy ones. There are certainly exceptions, but March Madness is enough to show where our priorities lie! (and I am right in there) It's sort of like moving to Nashville and not liking country music. We get more excited about Kenny Chesney here than we do about the symphony. It's not something that's going to change anytime soon.</p>
<p>Consolation; i think you are reading into my post many things that are not there. I mentioned that many of the athletes are also very good students. That they aren't dumb jocks. You said the same thing. Don't see where we are disagreeing. It is true however that there are a lot of teachers who resent money and time being spent on athletes. I've seen that in schools all over the country. Not every teacher and not every school. But it does happen. If the student athlete also happens to be in the IB programs, AP classes, Honors, etc... then the prejudice usually isn't there. Many won't discriminate, but they still Pre-judge. And it is true that many athletes have to work to change the stereotype that some people; including some teachers; have towards athletes. </p>
<p>I also said that the majority of kids aren't recruited. I even stated recent stats. So again, i don't know what you are trying to argue with me about. The truth is; the vast majority of high school athletes will not be recruited to play at the college level. So, being it is such a small amount, why is the issue so important to you? It's not like 25% of the school is giving their money to athlete's scholarships. This goes along with why many schools don't have walk-ons and try outs. They do, but you have to be invited. There are NCAA rules saying how many athletes can be on the team. There's also NCAA rules saying how much money can be spent on scholarships. Because of these rules, they can't let just anyone on the team. The scouts have done a lot of work researching and looking into who they want to recruit. If your kid comes from a very quiet town without a lot of publicity or in a not as popular sport; and you believe they are very good at their sport; just about every school has an athletic application. You fill it out will all your stats and they review it. If they are interested, they will INVITE the kid to do a walk on. It's not practical to let everyone walk on. </p>
<p>And I never said that other activities outside of sports DESERVES LESS because they get less attention. The truth however is that all activities; sports included; have to demonstrate an interest by non contestants and well as a contribution to the school. There are plenty of activities that don't generate income, yet they contribute greatly. Please read what I said and not what you want it to say.</p>
<p>I think it's a good idea for diversity and other reasons to allow recruiting of athletes. It isn't a good idea to just have athletes that were recruited from existing students. Recruited athletes, musicians, academias, etc... allow for a well rounded school. College shouldn't be just for the rich kids or the 2400 club. And a community college shouldn't only be for the "C" students from high school. I think it's great that schools have a minimum standard for grades, gpa, sat/act, etc... for their class body. A minimum entrance is great. But there's nothing wrong with letting some of the activities; such as sports; have so many slots to fill. EXAMPLE: If the school has a 3.4gpa and 23 ACT minimum; let's in 1000 students in a year; takes the top 950 students academically who apply; their AVERAGE gpa is 3.6 and 26 ACT; The remaining 50 are allocated as slots to the athletic department; as long as the recruited athletes have the minimum standard of 3.4gpa and 23 ACT; then there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS.</p>
<p>Does this example mean that there may be some who aren't into sports that didn't get acceptance to this school because they were #951; yet their scores were higher than "SOME" of the 50 athletes???? Of course that is possible. It's also very probably. But there is nothing wrong with that. That student; whether they are an athlete, musician, artist, debater, cheerleader, etc... contributes a lot to the school. That too is worth something. How many students aren't involved with ANY TYPE OF ACTIVITY. They go to class; go to the dorm or home; study; take tests; graduates???? They haven't contributed anything to the school. This is why most schools are looking for well rounded students. Do you know how many 4.0 unw gpa students with 2300+ SAT scores are REJECTED from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Standford, Cornell, Purdue, etc.... </p>
<p>There's a lot more money given out to academics in merit scholarships, other scholarships, grants, etc... than there is in a traditional college sports program. Remember; the NCAA limits the dollar amount given. Plus; Division III schools don't give any athletic scholarships. Here's a link of Division III schools. They don't give athletic scholarships. They may have some pull in getting an athlete into the school, but the grades still have to meet the schools academic listing.
NCAA</a> Members By Division
There's also a lot of ivy type schools that don't do a lot of athletic scholarships even though they are Division I.</p>