There have been many discussions about the unfairness of the college admissions system usually centering around Affirmative action, legacy admissions, and discrimination against Asian Americans.
However, one topic that rarely gets discussed is athletic recruiting and to me it appears to be the third rail of college admissions. First a disclaimer, I love sports and see the value of sports in society and was a Division III college athlete myself. I am also not disparaging athletes whatsoever by intimating that they don’t belong at their respective colleges. Recruited athletes are simply exploiting the system that is in place.
But I find it strange the out-sized role athletic recruiting plays in the college admissions process. I don’t know the exact numbers but it seems like athletic recruits can range from 15% to 40% at competitive and highly competitive colleges (I’m looking at you Williams and Amherst).
Why is being an all state athlete a better hook in the college admissions process than being one of the best accordion players or ventriloquists in your state? Obviously, this is a rhetorical question but it highlights the unbelievable advantage that athletes have in the admissions process. Shouldn’t colleges look in the mirror and ask themselves why do we need so many recruited athletes at the expense of non athletes in the applicant pool? I’m not even getting to the topic of how recruited athletes at many schools basically represent affirmative action for white and wealthy students. How many low income URMs are recruited to play squash, fence, sail, lacrosse, etc.
My final point is that very, very few folks find this a problem A few stray academics and journalists such as Amanda Ripley has written about this. But this really feels like a third rail of college admissions.
I have seen cases where a student with an unweighted 4.0 and 1450 on the SAT was turned down at a top school, where a student with an unweighted 3.5 and 1100 on the SAT was accepted, where the students were friends and had all the same classes. Regardless of the reason for this, it becomes hard for me to accept that allegedly top universities in the US actually care about academic ability when they ignore it to this extent in admissions.
I get a call every year from one of my two alma maters (both of which are “top 5 schools” in at least most rankings). Every year I tell them that I am not donating largely because I see from their admissions policies that academics is not their primary interest in selecting students. The one that calls every year is indeed the one with the great sports teams.
Athletics are big money makers. Alumni donations often relate to how well the major sports teams do. Smaller schools need the same numbers of players as large schools do- hence different percentages. Economics pure and simple. There is no demand for obscure gifts and they offer no value to a school over any other potential student’s abilities.
Colleges aren’t necessarily in the business of just creating brilliant scholars. They recruit athletes for many reasons. One reason is that kids who succeed at high school athletics have already proven that they have discipline, drive, and energy. They did a study of recruited athletes from some big name institutions and found that 10 and 20 years out those kids are very often in highly successful careers and making above the median for their graduating class.
Colleges maybe should be in the business of creating brilliant scholars, but they’re not. They are in the business of creating alumni who will give back to the college. And the one of the best ways of creating a fond alumnus is to give him four years of teamwork and camaraderie.
Colleges can only produce so many elite grads- there is a limited market for those (look at PhD’s trying to find work). They give educations to many tiers of students. An education is much more than academics as well. It includes sports and cultural activities. One could argue about the numbers of “useless” fields offered and the students who get in instead of those majoring in something yielding a set job as well. There is so much more to life than business, for example.
I have a high stat high school senior with a strong art portfolio who is not an athlete, although she participated in sports. In the fall, when selective schools began to sign athletes from her school, I complained to my husband that it wasn’t fair, since she worked just as hard as they did, and would have no early advantage in admissions (beyond ED). He pointed out that building a team takes extra time, since they are finding kids with specific skills to fill particular roles on those teams. He also said “no one is going to pay to watch her do her homework”. I had to concede his point… :))
I’m glad she will go to a school that is highly academic, but will have kids with a wide set of experiences and talents. The energy, focus, drive and team building these athletes bring will add variety and richness to her academic experience.
I tend to agree wis75. You can slice and dice it whatever way you want and someone will perceive being left without a piece of the pie. At some point it just becomes belly aching about the “other person” and people chaff at anyone who brings a different set of attributes to the campus. Not to mention that a college is a diverse set of students with different goals, different interests and different wants. To single out one segment defies my logic. I had two kids that never attended a single athletic event at their two respective colleges…not a single one in 4 years and they are the most outdoorsy, athletic kids you can imagine. Until someone does a national study of what happens to athletes after college and compares them to kids who only flex their brain muscle to me it’s a non-issue trying to become an issue for one segment of the population of future college kids and their parents.
I believe that there is an assumption that only students with high stats are deserving and truly capable of being successful at the schools you are drawing from (Amherst etc) and I think that is, by and large, a false narrative. The ability to succeed is also heavily dependant on tenacity, resilience and time management, which are characteristics that athletes have in spades. Why we as a society have selected sports prowess over artistic prowess is more deserving of a “special hand up” in academic circles is an interesting one. But, deep down, I suspect it may have something to do with the “golden boy/girl” image of an athlete as strong, healthy, attractive and an evolutionary desire to be associated with the prime specimen of the species.
I do not disagree with you that there is no reason not to consider the accomplishments of a musician or artist to be just as “worthy” of special consideration. I think that students who devote extraordinary amounts of time to their EC’s, be it sports, a musical instrument or artistic endeavors and are at the top of their game (not just your average Joe) are often at a slight disadvantage academically and that does account for slightly lower stats. You can’t be putting in hours of practice and studying at the same time.
Were not Williams and Amherst founded on the concept of the gentleman athlete and that may account for their preferential treatment of athlete? Big 10/SEC type schools give a leg up to athletes simply because that is where the money is.
One thing that rarely gets discussed on this topic is graduation rates. We are all aware of the “sliding scale” of admissions for athletes at every level of the NCAA and recognize the athletes tend to have lower stats. The NCAA publishes graduation data of athletes vs. general student body and what tends to surprise many is that the athlete graduation rate is typically higher than the general student body. This can be attributed to the tutoring provided to athletes but may also be something admissions takes into consideration, the athlete’s stats may be lower because of the time and effort spent in high school to become the elite athlete, not because of a lower level of academic ability or intelligence.
The latest report from the NCAA shows division one athletes grad rate 2 points higher than the student body, division two athletes 6 points higher, and division three athletes 6 points higher. The division three results are voluntarily reported by schools and as such may be skewed.
I have been interested in this report since I was an athlete 25+ years ago and discovered these number for my own university. While there may be a concession given to athletes on the front end admission side of the process overall athletes have proven for years that they not only belong at their school but can perform better than those admitted under more strict requirements, all while dedicating 20+ hours a week to their sport. Quite remarkable I think.
I always surprised at how little outrage this provokes among elite liberal arts colleges and universities. The impact of these recruits on the class really isn’t at a place like the University of Texas-80 football players among 40K undergrads are not statistically relevant. But at a place like Williams or Princeton, it does impact the overall class, and no, the football program at those places is not a money-maker for the school. I guess it is a priority, however.
There are something like 3,000 4-year colleges and Universities, and plenty of them do not value sports. Williams and Amherst are private and can set whatever admission standards that their Trustees approve. If they choose to admit athletes at a higher rate, so be it. Apply to Pomona or other great school.
@arsenalozil It comes up from time to time, often in the AA/Race thread, as the issues are similar - admissions preferences for attributes other than academic merit.
The other side of that coin is that student athletes who are academically achieving at the same level as non-athletes have to deal with stereotypes about them that arise from their admissions bump, similar to what many URM students face - the idea that they only got in because of that urm/athletic status and aren’t truly qualified to be there.
I’m surprised that people get outraged LOL. Why is there a presumption that a broad category of “athletes” cannot attend college and graduate? It’s as if people lump “athletes” in one homogeneous pile and proclaim them brain dead.
I personally enjoy college sports but the key point to keep in mind is that nothing about college admissions to most American elites is fair or meritocratic by almost any way you look at it.
Regardless, it works for them (and most alums and students love the system). And in any case, the world doesn’t stop at the US borders. Unis in the UK, Canada, Germany, etc. exist as well, and most admit by objective standards (that does not include athletic ability) if that is what you are looking for.
The percentage share of athletes will be higher at small colleges than at large colleges. For a given set of teams, the number of athletes will be similar for all colleges. But they will be a much higher percentage of the students at Williams or Amherst than at USC or UCLA.
I’m not the parent of a recruited athlete – but isn’t it true at elite colleges nearly every admit brings something unique and valuable to the school, and it is often non-classroom related? I know sports is the largest and most likely category… why are athletes different than debaters, performers, artists, activists, leaders, diversity admits, even development admits who all bring value to their schools?
Nearly everyone prefers the holistic approach when talking about all those categories. I have rarely seen people here suggesting admission by test scores alone.
ps - athletes often have competitive qualities that make them successful in life and it takes a special place like Williams for them to blossom and perform academically in ways their HS/teen years didn’t. Jus’ sayin’.
Is that necessarily true outside of football and (men’s) basketball at the highest levels (upper range of D1)? I.e. would someone be more likely to donate to Williams or Amherst because the tennis team beat the other school’s tennis team?
Agree with the above. I’m not the parent of an athlete but have no issue with athletic recruiting. Athletes bring something to the school that many students, faculty, and alumni benefit from. Their talents are not just physical, but are honed by training and hard work.