@OHMomof2 I think it depends on the school. Some of the smaller LAC the music department absolutely has a special allotment of spots for oboe players. There is usually just one oboe player but many orchestra slots. Just like there is usually one QB, but many football players. I also believe schools that have a strong theater program have the same setup. No doubt there are more total athletic spots, but that is what it is.
Some of the larger state flagships also have dedicated schools of music where auditions are required, etc and there are predetermined slots allocated and filled by the department. Is that any different than the athlete? Of course it is a little, you can get a degree in violin performance, and not in Left Tackle, but in the end at the bigger schools these kids are honing for their profession. I suspect the success rate of hitting the big time in the New York Symphony is probably about the same as hitting the big time with the New York Giants.
I think the point is that admissions want to fill a class with students that will continue and improve the institution, whether it is a national football powerhouse or a small regional liberal arts college. To do that they have to find 2 trombone players, 12 football players, 4 basketball players, 4 student journalists, 2 interpretive dancers, 2 budding student politicians, and hopefully a juggler, but no mimes. Since the athletic group is the largest of that culture, then they get the largest number of hooks.
I think the fact that athletic teams are tied to education institutions is purely and American phenomenon. You can argue that other countries don’t do it. I’d argue that other countries don’t dominate the top 100 rankings (you choose the index) like the US does. Maybe we are doing things ok with this setup?
I don’t think that anyone is outraged by the fact that an okay student who has worked very hard to be a top athlete and a good team member can find an appropriate place at a good university. Given the amount of money that athletics brings into a university, I also don’t see why anyone would be bothered that strong athletes are given a break on the cost of attendance.
The thing that bothers me is that a student with a 4.0 unweighted GPA doesn’t seem to get much of a break for a top school in the US. It is in my experience pretty easy to get A’s in most classes (even at university). However, getting an A or even an A- in your weakest class over 4 years is not easy for anyone, whether in high school or in university. It might be even harder in high school since dropping a class part way through the semester is less common in high school.
I understand that most of our top schools are private, and can do anything that they want. However, if they are going to accept students with unweighted 3.5’s and reject students with unweighted 4.0’s in the same classes, then I think that this hurts their claim to be academically excellent. They are going to need to teach to the students that they accept. As such IMHO this also hurts their claim to be worth $280,000 over 4 years for the next straight A student (particularly when there is a good alternative).
“There is something in the culture which very few folks want to examine or admit.”
To me this thread is pointed this out perhaps just as strongly as the admissions policies at our allegedly academically top schools.
“In any case, the world doesn’t stop at the US borders.”
Also very true. For us the academically strongest affordable safeties that were out there weren’t in the US.
@Brianboiler…9 times out of 10 that oboeist (and I do actually have one of those playing in college was not recruited and did not get accepted just because she plays the oboe, because that is not her major), is not receiving the same benefits and opportunities that the recruited athlete is receiving, despite devoting hours of practice and performing (much like that athletes). Last year the pep band travelled with the basketball team to the sweet sixteen. The basketball team had tutors travel with them and designated study sessions not to mention food waiting for them on arrival…the pep band had to arrange missed class time on their own and while they got a stipend for meals had to find it on their own. Collegiate cheerleaders who spend just as many hours as goodwill ambassadors for a university, practicing, performing and competing for national titles rarely receive anything more than a book stipend and their uniform.
At many of the very selective D3 schools, athletes from many sports are held to very high academic standards. Sure, perhaps football and hockey may have lower standards, but for most others, and most women’s sports, the majority are academically qualified.
@labegg your experience is obviously at the DI level and I get your point. Mine is at the DIII level and spoke from my experience were my DIII XC, T&F son has to fend for himself much like you state your oboe player does. I think there is a big difference between DI and DIII student athletes and the benefit they get once in school. I was just speaking to the treatment during the admissions process.
I agree with OP. Discipline and time commitment are not unique to athletes – children on debate, journalism, theater, dance, music programs have to be equally dedicated to succeed. So there’s no special dedication because the soccer player had to go to a lot of practices and games – these kids are doing the same amount of time and effort. Look at the dedication of student journalist David Hogg from parkland.
One issue we haven’t talked about is disclosure. When looking at Naviance, our GC said compare your kids to other kids at the school, not to national averages. So you look at those little admission checks to see who got into what schools with what scores. There should be a sports indication on the Naviance site so that the scores accurately reflect the special consideration that was given to the athlete. That is – all kids who were athletic admissions should either be on a separate chart or marked. I’m not saying don’t take that fabulous field hockey player, just disclose it so we know that our non-field hockey-ist doesn’t have a chance.
After going through this process, I’m more and more a fan of public universities. Their standards are published, there’s room for a variety of types of students, they are creating a more personalized education to appeal to those who want a liberal arts experience, and, by the way, the sports are way better in Division I.
@wisteria100 “At many of the very selective D3 schools, athletes from many sports are held to very high academic standards. Sure, perhaps football and hockey may have lower standards, but for most others, and most women’s sports, the majority are academically qualified.”
I think I made it clear in my posts that this has nothing to do with the original post. The point is that colleges reserve so many spots for athletes and athletics is so highly valued as opposed to other domains.
@BrianBoiler you are right DIII athletes are not usually getting a leg up in admissions, they are usually an academic fit who happens to have an extra talent . Yes they do not receive the same perks as DI athletes. But that is the difference between DI and DIII. Generally speaking DI athletes are usually looking capitalize in their athletic ability and a DIII athlete is looking to continue to play the sport they love while capitalizing on their academics.
I think my question begs another question as to why colleges feel the need to have so many recruited athletes and the need to compete in so many sports. Can’t these schools just have more non recruited athletes and still participate in sports and not worry if they win or lose? This phenomenon seems singularly unique to the American system of higher education.
@arsenalozil It is a uniquely American thing, but does it need changed? Last I looked US Universities account for more than 50% of the world’s top 100 universities and depending on the ranking 70% of the top 10. Is that because of the athletes? Not specifically, but the entire campus culture at a US University is unique and athletics is part of that.
@labegg I actually do think Div III athletes get a leg up in terms of admission. Perhaps not as much as Div 1, but there is still a noticeable advantage for many Div III recruits.
^^^Don’t you think not being competitive in athletics risks fundamentally changing the culture of these colleges – a culture with a long history that has been very effective to date?
I think outside of football and basketball the experience for division one athletes is not much different than that of the T&F example above. Tutors did not travel, other than a team meal we were on our own for food, most are not getting the “full ride”. I had “scholarship” teammates whose only scholarship was books. This meant borrowing used books from the athletic department. In the event the department didn’t have the required book it was bought and then turned in to the athletic department at the end of the semester for future student athlete use. Arranging missed class time was left to the athlete as well as any consequences that came with it.
In the end, as has been said before, each school has to decide on how they want to present themselves to the “buying public”. There is no mandate that they field athletics or that they lower their admission standards for athletes. These are choices schools are making for what they feel are their best interests. Until someone can demonstrate to these highly selective schools that their choices are wrong why would they change? They have become the top tier operating in this fashion, would they move up if they stopped? Would they move down if they started admitting anyone the NCAA would clear?
@arsenalizil. Because having winning sports teams makes them look good, it makes people want to attend that school and bask in the reflected glory. It makes applications go up (look at Clemson this year, rumor has it apps doubled after winning the national title last year) and then lower your admission rate, the lower your admissions rate the more desirable you seem. Winning teams bring in alumni money and lucrative sponsorships and affiliations with companies. Money, it is all about the money!
I think that they do get a leg up, but not special dispensation. Especially at the top academic DIIIs. But that leg up isn’t greater than the national academic award winner or the person who started his own small business as a 15 year old.
The leg up they get is on the kids who don’t have ECs or they join many clubs but don’t really take leadership roles.
@Postmodern That’s a good question. I don’t know how long in history competitive athletics has been in place at certain Div III schools. When I played varsity soccer in the early 1980s, the majority of my teammates were all walkons. I can only think of 3 or 4 recruited players on the team back then.
They do, in fact, at selective D3s. At Amherst (which did a very detailed report on their athletics program- twice - so is much more transparent than its peers this way) - ““Athletic factor” athletes are identified as potentially providing “a significant impact on the success of the teams.” These applicants’ athletic status provides “substantial” benefit in the application process. Each year, 67 of the incoming class of approximately 450 students are “athletic factor” athletes. “Coded” athletes, academically high-achieving and skilled athletes, make up 60 to 90 students in every incoming class.” http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2017/02/08/college-releases-report-state-athletics-program
That’s a lot of the class getting an admissions advantage for their athletic ability at a school that rejects more than 8 of 10 applicants. More than a quarter.
@iaparent I guess it depends on the school my acro & tumbling friend is reaping all the same benefits as the basketball player at what many would classify as a less desirable, academically speaking, school.
@labegg Yes, I agree it is about the money. But is that “fair” (whatever fair means)? Some schools publicly will disavow legacy preferences because it is not “fair”. But I have yet to see a school disavow preferences to athletes because it is not “fair.”