<p>Well, since this thread has discussed into how easy athletes have it getting into schools like Berkeley, let me set you all straight. My son plays sports for Berkeley and the athletes have to earn their degree just like everyone else. At a school where the only guaranteed parking spaces go to Nobel Laureates (and not the top 10 football coach or the president of the university), let me assure you that the professors there are not cutting athletes much slack. (Or at least not my athlete!) As a matter of fact, athletes go in with such a bad reputation that they probably have to work harder to earn the respect of their professors than a non athlete. There ARE some easier majors at Berkeley and athletes are welcome to choose any field of study, but Berkeley is a top school that is dedicated to preparing their students for graduate school so everyone there has to meet a certain minimum standard. I am sure this holds true at most top schools. My son would probably not have been admitted to Berkeley if he had not been an athlete, but he does fine there. Just as he would have done at Yale or Stanford or any of the other top schools who wanted him. And, who knows, a lot of these athletes would have better grades in both high school and college if they weren’t playing sports, which is like having a full time job year round. The reason admissions officers let these kids in is because they are a benefit to the university. However that equation works out, who knows? My younger son got into some top schools with a slightly lower GPA than the admitted average but I guess admissions at those schools thought he brought something else to the table that would allow him to benefit the university as well. At the orientation for my son, a department head at the university told a group of parents that the dramatic rise in test scores and gpa’s over the past 10 years had resulted in a more socially inept group of students who experienced more mental health problems than they had previously seen. So, maybe it is good to have a wide cross section of people who achieve in different areas, sports being just one of those areas. Not many college kids go on to play professionally. If you take basketball for example, since they just held their draft last month, 60 players worldwide are offered a spot in the NBA. 60! Out of 13 to 16 players per division one school, and approximately 350 division one schools, plus every D-2, D-3, NAIA, and every other player in the WORLD competing for 60 spots, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the odds are astronomically against an NCAA player becoming professional in that, or any, sport. In sports like track and field, even fewer make a living at it than at football or basketball. How many people can name their favorite female professional pole vaulters, for example? So let’s assume the athletes are a benefit to the university, just like any other student. Everyone gets to contribute to their campus in their own way. The trick for is to figure out how you can benefit a particular university and then to convey that in a convincing way to the admissions people at that school. And if that school is an IVY, figure out how to save the world as well and you should get admitted along with all of those football players and pole vaulters. lol.</p>
<p>^^^good point and post</p>
<p>I don’t know about the other ivies/top schools, but Harvard is pretty forgiving. I’ve received several letters from them about playing football. Here is what one of them said.</p>
<p>“Dear <insert my=”" name=“” here=“”></insert></p>
<p>You have been highly recommended to Harvard University as a prospective student/athlete. As a starting point, we are looking for great players who are in the top 20% of their class, and who have scored a minimum 1700+ (24+ ACT) on their SAT’s. To allow us to follow up on your recommendation, please complete and return the enclosed questionnaire as soon as possible."</p>
<p>I didn’t fill out the questionnaire as I have no desire to play college ball.</p>
<p>There’s a large range.</p>
<p>Among the D-1 programs:
Ivies give the least.
Stanford, Northwestern, Duke (except basketball)…are next.
Then all the others, including schools like Berkeley, Michigan, USC which give as much slack as schools like Colorado, and Texas A&M.</p>
<p>prism123 (i would quote but am new and dont know how to)</p>
<p>when you say one standard deviation what exactly does that mean in gpa and test scores of the athlete/ group of athletes. How different can they be?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, Berkeley doesn’t cut slack for athletes (though they did have a scandal 8 or 9 years ago) when it comes to graduation requirement; it would have been a violation if they do. But they give them HUGE slack when it comes to admission for baseball and the two revenue sports–football and basketball. That’s why their graduation rate for athletes in football and baseball has been so terrible and among the lowest even within the Pac-10; yes, that means it is lower than schools like oregon. Schools like USC/Michigan do the same thing (actually I think Michigan is slightly better than USC/Cal). When it comes to football athletes, their test scores are no different from those in Oklahoma, Miami, or Florida State. Such compromise allows them to compete for the same pool of football talents and keeps their football program competitive.</p>
<p>With regards to the OP’s original intent – which I believe was to criticize the higher tier for allowing students to be admitted with lesser credentials because of athletic talents?</p>
<p>Athletic ability – at that level – is significantly more rare than academic achievement. Significantly. Should there be absolutely no consideration for the dedication required to achieve that level of skill? I feel like we trivialize this immensely! </p>
<p>Think of these athletes as artists. The greatest example of specialization – Cornell alums quickly defend their school’s versatility – the fact that Cornell can/will provide an education to any type of student – and the fact that Cornell often accepts students with lower credentials because they feel that the traditional way of measuring intellect is unnecessary. Desire and interest are SIGNIFICANTLY more important. </p>
<p>A sport could also be considered a specialized interest. While this area is very gray because they do in fact major in traditional subjects, I still feel it’s enough. It’s almost like judging an artist on qualifications unrelated to art.</p>