College Discussion - View Single Post

dontno · 05-07-2008, 12:22 AM

@ middleburydad:

I don't understand your inane assumption that my disdain for athletic recruiting (AT IVY LEAGUE COLLEGES) somehow correlates with a "liberal bias". In fact, I'd classify as a moderate conservative and your contention that I'm against affirmative action of URM's is certainly accurate. Their admission is even more dissonant with egalitarianism than the admission of athletic recruits. At my alma mater, admitted black students scored, on average, 170 points below admitted whites. But that's another story, back to athletes.

@kmatimber:

you said: "Your assumption that recruited athletes are less academically qualified than other applicants is way off base."

Umm now despite the contentious nature of the SAT's, I think we'd most agree that it is surely an part of the academic package of an applicant and furthermore probably correlates very well with high school GPA. Well here's an interesting stat for you:

In 1999 (the most recent year for which I could find data), if you were a recruited athlete (i.e. included on a “coach’s list”) in the Ivy League with SAT scores in the 1100 to 1199 range, your chances of getting in were 42 percent as a man and 53 percent as a woman. Compare this to the acceptance rate for other applicants with equivalent SAT scores: 2 percent and 3 percent respectively. (From Yale Daily Herald)

So I don't feel like looking up more proof that standards are drastically lowered for athletes. I'll continue to your next point: that athletics is akin to more highbrow extracurriculars like music, science fair, math league, theater, etc. I agree it is. But the students who are exemplary in say music are usually supremely qualified academically. Their musical achievement is usually a "hook" that puts them over the top in this the age of 10% acceptance rates. (BTW: I also contend that someone should not be accepted solely on the basis of musical achievement if they do not have the requisite, meaning extremely high, academic scores.)

I do however agree that athletics do teach great skills. But academically qualified students should not be rejected because a mediocre student who can run the mile fast wants to go to Princeton or Yale.

And as a disclaimer: I love watching and playing sports.

05-07-2008, 12:22 AM	#35
dontno Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Threads: 8 Posts: 166	@ middleburydad: I don't understand your inane assumption that my disdain for athletic recruiting (AT IVY LEAGUE COLLEGES) somehow correlates with a "liberal bias". In fact, I'd classify as a moderate conservative and your contention that I'm against affirmative action of URM's is certainly accurate. Their admission is even more dissonant with egalitarianism than the admission of athletic recruits. At my alma mater, admitted black students scored, on average, 170 points below admitted whites. But that's another story, back to athletes. @kmatimber: you said: "Your assumption that recruited athletes are less academically qualified than other applicants is way off base." Umm now despite the contentious nature of the SAT's, I think we'd most agree that it is surely an part of the academic package of an applicant and furthermore probably correlates very well with high school GPA. Well here's an interesting stat for you: In 1999 (the most recent year for which I could find data), if you were a recruited athlete (i.e. included on a “coach’s list”) in the Ivy League with SAT scores in the 1100 to 1199 range, your chances of getting in were 42 percent as a man and 53 percent as a woman. Compare this to the acceptance rate for other applicants with equivalent SAT scores: 2 percent and 3 percent respectively. (From Yale Daily Herald) So I don't feel like looking up more proof that standards are drastically lowered for athletes. I'll continue to your next point: that athletics is akin to more highbrow extracurriculars like music, science fair, math league, theater, etc. I agree it is. But the students who are exemplary in say music are usually supremely qualified academically. Their musical achievement is usually a "hook" that puts them over the top in this the age of 10% acceptance rates. (BTW: I also contend that someone should not be accepted solely on the basis of musical achievement if they do not have the requisite, meaning extremely high, academic scores.) I do however agree that athletics do teach great skills. But academically qualified students should not be rejected because a mediocre student who can run the mile fast wants to go to Princeton or Yale. And as a disclaimer: I love watching and playing sports.