<p>If a school recruits people who can sing well, that’s OK by me–but surely nobody could claim that anybody could learn to sing well enough to be recruited if they tried hard enough. Some people simply lack the basic tools to sing well. I think there are people who lack the basic tools to get very good at any sport. But so what? If schools want to recruit athletes, or musicians, or artists, that’s fine by me, too. I see nothing unfair about it, any more than it’s unfair for MIT to admit only those people capable of understanding calculus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a fair opinion, but lacking any evidence of its truth, the opposite opinion (that everyone can excel at some sport, which I hold) is also fair.</p>
<p>Well, maybe. For some reason, this reminded me of one of my favorite old CC threads:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-life/753128-michael-jordan-vs-my-roommate.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-life/753128-michael-jordan-vs-my-roommate.html</a></p>
<p>I see there are frequent posters on this thread and it is moving fast. I thought to myself, I bet you they are not sticking to the main discussion. New posters generally try to stick to the the original discussion. But this is certainly entertaining.</p>
<p>okay if I had 1000 years to practice maybe I could learn calculus but probably not beat MJ or sing so that people didn’t put their fingers in their ears. I am not positive about the calculus.</p>
<p>My D is not a good singer, but she figured out through experience that if you are very good at “projecting,” you can still get the lead in the 8th grade play. :)</p>
<p>I’m with Bay on this one. My youngest has a variety of disabilities. When she was five years old, she was still toddling and drooling. Her fine and gross motor skills were poor and her ability to differentiate movements was very delayed. Not only was she uncoordinated, but she also had difficulty processing and following directions (especially for motor movements). Thus early attempts at basketball and soccer were a complete disaster. Given that even the occupational therapist gave up on trying to get her to hold her pencil correctly, we figured racket and stick sports were also a no go. Even though she would flail her arms when she ran, we decided that track was her best option for a sport since almost anyone can run around an oval. She did tend to wander across lanes at first, and had some pretty horrendous attempts at race starts, but eventually she started to get it. Then she branched out to cross country, where she had some trouble learning and following the courses. </p>
<p>I can’t predict whether she’ll be a Div. 1 recruit one day, but she recently won her middle school county cross country championships versus almost 200 girls. Hard work, persistence, and practice are the keys for many things in life, and these are within anyone’s reach. Check out how many Olympians had some physical defect when they were younger, like weak legs or ankles. Think Roger Clemens too.</p>
<p>PS. We can all think of famous “singers” who really can’t sing, and yet still made it big. (Bob Dylan anyone?) They obviously compensated with other talents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dylan’s claim to fame and his legacy was his talent in songwriting which when combined with his guitar playing and mediocre singing…was more than enough to catapult him to the top. A talent that’s arguably rarer than singing in the musical world. </p>
<p>Moreover, there are certain genres of rock like punk rock where being a mediocre/crappy singer could actually be considered a virtue…especially if you’re male. :D</p>
<p>Bob Dylan can sing in tune. Some people simply can’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that an opinion or a fact? I googled “how to sing in tune” and got a bunch of info on how to do it. I do not know if it is legit or not.</p>
<p>Learning to sing in tune isn’t going to get you recruited anywhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A 5’2" guy is shorter than 95% or more of all men. I know this because my son is one, and because in a different lifetime I was one also. (I magically got taller, though, at least comparatively speaking. Now I’m almost average in height!)</p>
<p>And it’s very difficult to imagine that either of us could ever in a million years – even if we’d been interested, which neither of us ever was – have been athletes at the college or even high school level. Especially since we both had fine motor issues (my son more severe than I; he spent more than a year working with an occupational therapist when he was a child, and I’m not sure it helped much, since he never did manage to learn how to hold a pen or pencil properly), and he also had an issue with one foot turning in when he walked or ran. Which sort of eventually resolved itself but is still there if you know to look for it. So, no, I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Of course, the advantage he did have – being a double legacy at Yale – didn’t get him in there. Not that he really wanted to go anyway.</p>
<p>Speaking for myself, I have always regarded Bucknell as a true athletic powerhouse.</p>
<p>Annasdad, if “the club takes care of its own” as you attest, legacy acceptance rates would be a hell of a lot higher than they are. You need to compare legacy acceptance rates vs the pool of students who were legacies at other elite schools. Educated parents produce “better” candidates.</p>
<p>If 50 people ignore fundraising requests and the other 50 pay up, the school still comes out way ahead of zero. Essentially the rules of fundraising ensures legacy preferences stay at schools with large endowments. The schools are not sitting around on billions of dollars in endowment by ignoring alums.</p>
<p>The reason they won’t discriminate between those who paid up vs those who don’t - the alum is not dead. They could never donate a penny and leave millions in their will.</p>
<p>Ahhhh, Hunt, I’m wiping my eyes right now. “Michael Jordan vs. my room mate” is the most entertaining thread i’ve read lately. Thanks for posting the link.</p>
<p>Maybe we need a “Nominations for funniest threads of all time” thread? </p>
<p>(This thread, and its wild swing from legacy applicants to athletic body types might be the second nomination.)</p>
<p>I think people on this site generally discount the value that legacies and “development” students provide to the broader student body. These students provide great networks and can be fantastic connections to have once in the “real world.” </p>
<p>I am of the personal belief that the quality of education at most top 50 schools is relatively equal and the only real reason to go to college (if you are not going into the world of academics) is to develop your network. Maybe that’s the Whartonite in me but I’ve come to realize that, for the most part, in the real world all that matters is who you know (as long as you meet a minimum intellectual bar that is). So personally I thought it was fantastic to have some of these kids as my classmates. Not only was I able to make great friends but I was able to make lifelong connections to my friends and their families and friends. </p>
<p>A few great examples of this…</p>
<p>A). a good friend of mine who is quite smart and comes from a very humble background (first generation college and parents are blue collar workers) is currently building a tech startup in the valley. Through one of our other friends he was able to secure $3M in his series A round as our other friend’s father was a legacy of the school that also runs one of silicon valley’s most prestigious VC firms. Had it not been for this development / legacy admit it would have been significantly harder for our unconnected smart friend to get funding (as I work in the space I see this kind of thing all the time…getting in the door at these places to get funding is the hardest part). </p>
<p>B). Another friend of mine after 3 years in the workforce was able to secure a fantastic job leading a $500M subsidiary of a Fortune 100 company. He got this job as one of our other friend’s father is the CEO of said F100 company. Again had it not been for our legacy admit friend my friend’s career trajectory may not have been as great as it has been. </p>
<p>I have countless examples like this and have personally benefited from my Penn network…especially my well connected development and legacy friends.</p>
<p>Couldn’t you just have the wealthy connected ones hang out in a local bar --oops, club, and occasionally gather in talented but poor students to visit them for a mixer and provide them with valuable investment opportunities? Seems a lot simpler.</p>
<p>Yeah, but what wealthy, connected young people would want to regularly hang out in a bar in New Haven? The unconnected Yalies would miss out under that plan.</p>