<p>A-fricking-men. Frankly I think a lot of it is a shell game - parents spending $100K on their kid’s athletic coaching, travel, etc. so they get the bragging rights of getting $100K in tuition. The D1 full ride athletes I know had parents who spent a small fortune to get them there, and had non-working mothers who could spend the hours chauffeuring, traveling with them to out of state matches, hiring household help to cover watching younger siblings, etc. </p>
<p>If the objection to legacy is “you can’t choose to develop / make yourself a legacy,” well, you can’t choose to develop / make yourself born into a rich enough family to develop superior athletic talent, either. Some of you guys are kidding yourself that athletic preferences don’t favor the wealthy just as much as legacy preferences do. Which is FINE. Schools can do what they like. But who are we kidding that we’re recruiting when you recruit for lacrosse, water polo, etc.? Families who have the means to send their kids to private schools where such sports are practiced, of course.</p>
<p>My kid’s private prep has a sailing team - beachfront on the Atlantic. My daughter really enjoyed intramural sailing, but never mentioned it on her college applications because it is over the top.</p>
<p>There are something like 30,000 high schools in the country. So 1% of high schools offer sailing teams. Well, that’s open to everyone, that’s for sure!</p>
<p>Academic tutoring, SAT prep classes, private music lessons, travel to FBLA/Model UN/Debate etc. conferences and competitions, and building homes for the poor in Haiti, can all be expensive propositions too. When D went to her elite university’s freshman send off party at the home of an alum, the ONLY public school kids in attendance were recruited athletes. Rich prep school kids were the predominant group.</p>
<p>The answer is simple - legacies usually pay full tuition . Kids who are legacies probably know more of what to expect than non legacies . They also have parents who have raised them with many of the core values of the school .</p>
<p>I just have a hard time believing that those studies have proper controls. While, I think anyone can learn to draw competently, it’s a lot easier to spend 10,000 hours on it when you are above average at age six and get all sorts of positive feedback.</p>
<p>No one ever gave me positive feedback for any sport I tried, because I was bad at all of them.</p>
<p>I believe sailing is one of those sports where you are not required to play on a high school team in order to compete and be ranked. I’m pretty sure you can enter open regional and national competitions on your own.</p>
<p>Positive feedback for kids is important. But is it fair to say that sports are not an equal-opportunity hook because some kids get positive feedback and others do not? I don’t see how any factor in admissions can be “fair” if we include a requirement that every single kid must have received positive feedback on it in order to consider it.</p>
<p>Adding: I’m sure there are millions of kids who received plenty of positive feedback yet made the choice to not continue with a sport or activity.</p>
<p>In our culture, getting all A’s tends to result in negative social feedback from peers, as kids are accused of being nerds, teachers’ pets, of having no life outside studies, etc. Still, some students ignore that negative feedback and keep plugging away through high school. Funny, some of them are admitted to top schools.</p>
<p>What was postulated earlier on in the thread was that the difference between legacy and sports was that legacy was something that you couldn’t control (you can’t choose to be born a legacy), but sports are something you can control because you could always work hard at them. And some of us are disputing the second part of that equation. </p>
<p>I think those of you who are naturally athletic really haven’t a clue as to how those-of-us-who-flunked-gym-class see participation in sports. It just isn’t something we’ll ever be good / skilled at - it’s just not innate.</p>
<p>Amusingly, I’m actually in very good shape now. I’ve managed to find various activities to do at a mediocre level that still keep me fit. At various times I have swum, jogged, and done aerobic dancing. Currently my exercise routine is a combination of working with weights and aerobics (ellipse machine or walking). I spent the 10,000 hours of my childhood drawing and the time served me very well, both as a practicing architect and artist. No regrets that I didn’t spend it playing softball or tennis.</p>
<p>I’m not judging them, Bay. I think it’s great if a kid has both the drive and the wherewithal to be an athlete, I think it’s a valuable achievement. But we need to acknowledge that the support system that enabled the kid to achieve his athletic goals isn’t there for everyone, just as not every kid has AP classes in his high school, or a mentor for science research. You seem to be arguing that every kid has the potential to be a recruited athlete, if only he works hard enough. I don’t think that’s true. And while there may be other ways that an academically gifted child can excel independently, I think it’s very hard to be an athlete without some kind of team, and someone to show you how.</p>
<p>I think your assessment is a good one. Let me rephrase then, and say that athletics is an equal-opportunity hook to the same extent that admission to any given college is possible for everyone.</p>
<p>You are right; I do not accept this as fact. I am confident that if you can walk and are in good health, then you can run. If you can run, then you can run a 5K. If you can run a 5K, then you can run a 5K fast. If you devote 10,000 hours in directed practice for a 5K…you can become expert at it. I do believe that.</p>