<p>I really despise arguments based on anecdote, but…what about Venus and Serena Williams?</p>
<p>Hannah,
There are college sports that favor shorter guys over tall guys: gymnastics, sailing, cross-country, equestrian and probably diving, lightweight crew and wrestling, and some are certainly neutral regarding height: riflery, fencing, tennis, golf, most track and field events and soccer.</p>
<p>“So why should cutting down on legacy admits have anything to do with it? Unless maybe you are talking about Asian legacies?”</p>
<p>The applicants’ gender and race aren’t the issue. The parents’ gender and race very much are.</p>
<p>Here I am droning on…</p>
<p>Stanford has a</p>
<p>5’3" gymnast</p>
<p>5’6" soccer player</p>
<p>5’7" diver</p>
<p>5’9" tennis players</p>
<p>5’9" golfer</p>
<p>5’9" rower</p>
<p>No stats listed for cross-country, fencing, sailing, track and field or wrestling.</p>
<p>Edit: there are several 125 lb. wrestlers - could be short.</p>
<p>Sorry, I couldn’t help myself, I looked at Cal, too, which has:</p>
<p>5’3" gymnast (2)</p>
<p>5’6" golfer</p>
<p>5’6" diver</p>
<p>5’7" soccer player</p>
<p>5’8" baseball player</p>
<p>5’8" tennis</p>
<p>5’9" waterpolo (2).</p>
<p>So there are two Big Time Athletics universities that recruit short guys.</p>
<p>Adding: Some of those guys probably fudged a bit on their heights, too. ;)</p>
<p>Bay - there are a couple of parents on 2012 thread (I think one was a student) with 5’5" female libero kids who can’t get recruited. Do you know a place that is accepting 5.5 liberos?</p>
<p>I agree if the schools have no demand for a libero in a particular year, you pretty much stand zero chance of being recruited.</p>
<p>I also agree with marysidney that it is an expensive proposition to make it all the way. One recruit at Ivy that I know has worked since 1st grade, gave up pretty much all activities by the time of 6th grade and the parents spent pretty much all weekends driving or flying around to tournaments. I would say it was probably 5000+ investment and 300-400 hours of time each year for about 7 years.</p>
<p>texaspg,
I did a quick search of 6 programs, and I came up with a 5’6" libero at College of Charleston and a 5’5" defensive specialist at Clemson.</p>
<p>Not knowing anything about the Williams sisters, I looked them up on Wiki, and it said,
“Williams’s family moved from Compton, California, to West Palm Beach, when she was ten, so that Venus and Serena could attend the tennis academy of Rick Macci, who would provide additional coaching.”<br>
I suspect it wasn’t free, or even reduced tuition; in any event, the cost to the family must have been huge. I’d like to think it was possible nowadays to become an Olympic athlete on sheer rockbottom guts, like Babe Didrickson in the movie I saw many years ago, but I doubt it, and of course, very few of the kids who are recruited (or who aspire to be) are that talented, that young.</p>
<p>I agree with #40 re the cost - add to that the parental time and commitment to driving for 12 years per child. How many parents have the time or interest to do that?</p>
<p>Did anybody see this and find it over the top? </p>
<p>[Maroon</a> 5: Pop act plays private, post-game concert | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/11/14/maroon-5-play-post-game-concert-at-stanford/]Maroon”>Maroon 5: Pop act plays private, post-game concert)</p>
<p>I also found the write up in the school paper bizarre - but I suppose there is no fun to being exclusive if the excluded don’t know!</p>
<p>I think the student writer can’t decide if she belongs with the rich alumni crowd who could host three top names for just 150 people (sounds like a lot of women in the crowd) or occupy wall street the way she is making fun of some of them.</p>
<p>I get the feeling she is being corrupted from peace corps set to investment banking set in a slow way.</p>
<p>texaspg,
It took only 4 more “looks,” but I hit the jackpot: Bucknell has two defensive specialists at 5’4" and 5’5’ and get this, a libero who is 5’3".</p>
<p>Yes, Bay, you really are droning on and on proving… What? That if only i had figured out when he was 4 years old that my then somewhat tall for his age son would top off at 5’8" I would have been able to direct him into a brilliant gymnastics career? Give me a break. He played the sports he loved.</p>
<p>I am defending my statement that “athletics is an equal-opportunity hook.” This has been attacked with misinformation, which I am clearing up. If you are not interested in the facts, don’t blame me.</p>
<p>Gotcha. So if 98% of the elite players in a given sport meet a given physical type, and the other 2% do not, then that means the physical type isn’t a major factor in who gets ahead in that sport?</p>
<p>Honestly, this is like those conversations where people insist that the three black middle managers in the Schenectady office prove that there’s no racism at Megacorp.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>College athletics offers opportunities for athletes of all physical types. That is the point.</p>
<p>^^Right, but it offers MANY more opportunities to the tall, athletic type - except gymnastics where it offers more opportunities to the short, athletic type.</p>
<p>I don’t have data handy, but I’m thinking that to believe that the average height of Div 1 or even Ivy League varsity athletes is the same as the general population is nonsense.</p>
<p>If type A has a 100-to-1 advantage over Type B, that isn’t an “equal opportunity” situation (your language) for A and B. At all. </p>
<p>Not even if you can find and name all 10 of the Type B’s among the 1000 elites playing the sport.</p>
<p>Never mind the absurd contention that out of all college sports, “only two favor (but do not require) height.”</p>
<p>coureur,
I think it is impossible to find height data on all sports, because they are not published. Using Harvard as an example, the following sports rosters do not include height info for each player, which leads me to believe that height is irrelevant for these sports:</p>
<p>cross-country
fencing
golf
lightweight crew
sailing
skiing
squash
swimming
diving
tennis
track
field
waterpolo
wrestling
squash </p>
<p>I think it is wrong to discourage young athletes from pursuing any of those sports for college based on height, when there is nothing to support that belief.</p>
<p>Well, at least this is sillier than the typical discussion of legacy advantage. I find that refreshing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are referring to basketball and gymnastics, then you are correct.</p>
<p>This thread started out with, among other things, a statement about the supposed 20% unfair advantage that athletes have. My hope is to help dispel the notion that athletics admissions are “unfair,” because there are athletic opportunities for all students who choose to pursue them and succeed at doing well. Being athletic is a good thing, not a bad thing, and should be encouraged, not discouraged.</p>