<p>Being a recruited athlete is probably the very best EC you can have. In fact it's beyond an EC; it's a hook. It's been that way for over a hundred years - ever since colleges started talking intercollegiate sports seriously.</p>
<p>Colleges have traditionally used the early round to secure their sports teams and lately, to increase diversity. There's still RD for everyone else.</p>
<p>The majority of recruited athletes apply during the ED round. Recruiting is a pain in the neck and takes a lot of time and energy both from the athletes as well as the coaches. Recruited athletes do get rejected occasionally. They need to know before April of senior year if they need to get back out on the recruiting trail. Also, for most sports, coaches in top athletic programs now want to be looking at juniors, not seniors. The pick of the 2011 litter is being skimmed off right now.</p>
<p>yeah i guess u guys r right but why does a school want to have sports teams? in european universities most dont even care about ECs they just look at the test scores of the appliers and thats what determines if they get in or not. isnt the university made so that u can improve ur skills in ur intended field of study and not so that u can play a sport...unless u want to go professional later on.</p>
<p>stop hating, college sports are a big part of college and like life.. i know some kid at my school is getting into princeton b/c he plays football and he prolly has a weighed 3.6, or something like that, hes not all that smart at all, and yes b/c he plays football he is going to go to princeton or brown</p>
<p>Alumni love winning teams= more donations to the school.
Americans in general value athletics over academics. Sorry, but look around. How many academics in the country have million dollar salaries? For better or for worse, sports is where the celebrity/money is, not in academia.</p>
<p>Not every school gives preference to athletes and makes a big deal out of their athletic program. Last time I checked, neither MIT nor Chicago put out the red carpet for athletes with sub-par stats. </p>
<p>Part of choosing a school should include how important that is to you. Many non-athletes can't imagine college without football in the fall. Some couldn't care less. But I'm always amazed at how people who want a school with big-time football can turn around and complain about recruited athletes getting preference with admissions. Trust me, if 1400+, 4.2+ top athletes were a dime a dozen, athletes wouldn't get preference.</p>
<p>The Ivies aren't competing for the national championship. The Dartmouth admissions dean got a lot of flack when a private letter he wrote to the Swartmore Dean admitting how tough it was to turn down amazing talent for the football team was made public.</p>
<p>That wasn't why the Dartmouth Admissions Dean got in hot water. He almost got fired because he wrote a letter to Swarthmore applauding their decision to drop football. </p>
<p>In that letter, he pointed out that any honest admissions dean would have to agree with Swarthmore's contention that giving so many slots to recruited athletes undermined the admissions process at an elite college or university.</p>
<p>Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, I should have been more clear. He wrote that he was turning down amazing talent (academically amazing kids) to let in football players who otherwise wouldn't even have a shot.</p>
<p>Dartmouth is also known to be the least friendly Ivy to athletes already, so it stirred up some controvery from old school alumni.</p>
<p>Anyway I think being at athlete is an amazing skill and being successful requires dedication. It should be a boost, perhaps it is too much of one though at the top schools. The issue that admissions officers have is the sheer number of spots required to fill a football team. </p>
<p>Also, not every athlete is academically undeserving, plenty of athletes belong at these schools.</p>
<p>Slipper: Oh...yeah, I did misinterpret your comment! I agree wholeheartedly with your description of Furstenberg's brouhaha, now.</p>
<p>I was actually shocked at just how much hot water he was in. He had to practically grovel to keep his job. I didn't think his letter was all that inflamatory, but the football lobby in any alumni base is pretty rabid.</p>
<p>The issue is much more acute at small liberal arts colleges simply because the number of recruited football players is such a high percentage of the total slots for male students. There are a bunch of small LACs who would love to ditch football, but don't even dare to raise the issue.</p>
<p>College isn;t all about studying. it;s about the whole experience. your college is like a town you live in, you obviously want your college to have amazing school spirit and amazing sports teams.</p>
<p>I think the point is that at Michigan or Texas it is, but at most Ivies the spirit isn't about the football, its about just being there. I don't think anyone I know went to more than one or two Dartmouth games, but they couldn't love the school (and wear the clothing) more. Instead of homecoming being about the football game, its about a crazy fun pagan-like bonfire, parties, etc. Have to see it to believe it.</p>
<p>However, you have to consider the particular school. For example, take an LAC with 1400 students and a median SAT score in the 1400+ range.</p>
<p>The football team alone takes up 10% of the entire male student body. If you try to be marginally competitive in the full slate of men's and women's sports, you have to enroll about 30% of your class with varsity sports as a major EC interest. Now, consider that many of these schools are also trying to enroll 30% of each class as minority students. You run out of "slots" very quickly.</p>
<p>Assuming that you are talking about "The U", how would your classes change if your professional football players with their average 800 combined Verbal/Math SAT scores accounted for 1 out of every 10 male students in the room? Or in your dorm? Or in the dining hall?</p>
<p>The favoritism shown to athletes in the college admissions process is shameful. Spectator sports are a waste of time. Scholars are valuable. Athletes do not deserve the adulation afforded them. It is part of a sickness in our society and colleges cave in to the vulgar public demand. Sports participation is a healthy thing, like a hobby, but it should have the same stature as singing in the choir. It's all about money. Universities have an ugly side.</p>