People Get Mad over URMS, Legacies... What about Athletes?

Applying to College
1

For a week there, there were several furious threads about affirmative action, with people getting angry at URMs. And then there were a few “anti-legacy” threads. What about athletes? I would support “under-qualified” URMs over “under-qualified” athletes, to tell you the truth.

Now, here’s a disclaimer: I don’t hate athletes. In fact, MOST of my friends are varsity something or the other. There are a lot of bright athletes in my class (albeit they’re mostly like runners or swimmers-- there’s a few smart football players, really sorry to say there’s no bright basketball players-- but that’s just my own school). BUT…

For instance-- and there are thousands of instances there… you ready? This is even worse than all the stats people gave of “underqualified” URMs getting into great schools. These are three kids from my school in recent year:

SAT: 1230, GPA 3.4- accepted Stanford-- football player, no outside clubs/talents
SAT: 1050, GPA 3.0 - accepted Berk, USC— star runner, no outside clubs/talents
SAT 1000, GPA 2.9-- accepted Duke-- football player, no outside clubs/talents

Those are the big ones recently. There are many others.

Isn’t that SAD? It’s so unfair to kids who worked hard academically, and many of those I know who were rejected from the same school not only managed MUCH high SAT/GPAs, but also did sports, and clubs, etc. Wow, some kid runs EXTRA fast. Guess that’s an entry into Berk.

I’m glad for kids who are athletic and have great athletic ability-- so don’t get offended. But it is UNDENIABLY unfair that they bank so much on it. Star football player coasts through school-- no clubs, no other activities, no instruments, bad grades, low SAT-- and gets into Stanford. Nice. He could at least have joined the environmental club or something, for crap’s sake, one of his four years in high school.

Yeah, this is nothing new. The whole point, though, is that I see so many people complain about minorities getting into colleges they “shouldn’t”, or people complaining about legacies. But that’s because people wrongly feel as if they don’t immediately affect or better their school. Athletes, though, those are like “gods”. For goodness sakes, EVERYONE wants their school to win sports, right?

Okay, done with rant.

2

<p>these athletes… :(</p>

<p>well, they ain’t gonna find good jobs if they do horribly in top-ranked colleges</p>

3

<p>The difference between the groups that you mentioned and athletes (football&basketball) is that athletes bring millions and millions of dollars into the school. Not just in television either, but a good program enhances donations to the school, sometimes even general scholarship programs that help people other than athletes. I used to feel the same way, but then I realized how awesome it is to have a football team ranked 4th in the country so I got over it.</p>

4

<p>^ I completely agree with GentlemanandScholar. Whereas URMs only add diversity, athletes bring money, excitement, donations, publicity, etc. In fact, some athletes are URMs also.</p>

5

<p>“but then I realized how awesome it is to have a football team ranked 4th in the country so I got over it.”</p>

<p>Yeah, I probably will too (though I still think it’s unfair). I’m going to USC. So, since I think they’re 1st in the country, I will probably get over it too (at least during football season. and track season. and baseball season. etc.)</p>

<p>Thom Yorke: “well, they ain’t gonna find good jobs if they do horribly in top-ranked colleges”</p>

<p>Very true. Of course, they’ll take the cushier classes at their college. But once they’re out of college-- and I mean, the VAST majority of great college athletes never get drafted pro or anything-- they’ll have to fare on their brain instead of their body. Who knows how that’ll go? Ever seen a college athlete working some crappy job in the end?</p>

<p>Exactly.</p>

6

<p>being an athlete takes an incredible amount of dedication and time.
also, one isn’t simply born to be an athlete – as is the case for URMs and legacies – but on the contrary, one must train many hours a day to become a “star runner” or a talented football player, hours that may eat up studying time or homework time.</p>

7

<p>“one must train many hours a day to become a “star runner” or a talented football player, hours that may eat up studying time or homework time.”</p>

<p>I got to an academically respected private prep with a huge jock population. There are a lot of smart athletes- VARSITY athletes that manage like >3.6 GPAs, with >1300s SATs, several clubs or instruments etc. Sure, they aren’t as good athletics-wise as the very best (and unfortunately, numbers-wise, also some of the very dumbest). But they are WELL-ROUNDED, studious, disciplined and all-around successful.</p>

<p>I’m not saying athletics doesn’t take endurance, discipline, tons of hard work and so on. I’ve always admired how strong athletic kids are, and what grace and flexibility or strength etc they have. They’re awesome. BUT… often times, those who are the best athletes-- those who sacrifice grades and extracurriculars for that one sport-- end up not having very developed brain matter in contrast to their big ass muscles.</p>

<p>Isn’t it better to be well-rounded and successful academically AND athletically (although the later to perhaps not to the extent as they could have, if they had sacrificed academics)? I guess a lot of good colleges think NOT. </p>

<p>As I mentioned before, the vast majority of athletes have NOTHING to bank on if they use all their time in high schoool and college honing in their athletic ability. The vast majority will NEVER be drafted to play pro. And if they coasted on their brawn all through college-- even a great college-- what are they going to do once they graduate and can’t rely on playing a sport anymore? Will they have retained any USEFUL knowledge from their time in college, beyond all the practices and games and conditioning? </p>

<p>Sure in high school they’re a hero, and once in a great college they’re a hero too, again. But once they get out, they’re on their own-- their mind, not their body, is what will finally start counting.</p>

<p>It’s sad to think about it, actually, but big universities are just using these kids. They don’t give a crap about whether they can handle or absorb a rigorous academic education. They use them up for their athletic ability and let them coast on the most important thing-- what goes on in their heads. They’re like total athletic tools.</p>

8

<p>URM and Legacies don’t work to aquire that advantage. Athletes do… simple as that.</p>

9

<p>“SAT: 1230, GPA 3.4- accepted Stanford-- football player, no outside clubs/talents”</p>

<p>I wouldn’t consider that at all outrageous for someone that is being recruited. If you look at football as being an amazing EC (which it is if you’re being recruited by a D1 school), I think it makes sense.</p>

10

<p>“Isn’t it better to be well-rounded and successful academically AND athletically (although the later to perhaps not to the extent as they could have, if they had sacrificed academics)? I guess a lot of good colleges think NOT”</p>

<p>No… if I am in charge of admissions at Duke I would not look for well-rounded basketball players. I don’t care how you do in the classroom. My only concern would be talent and potential to contribute to the basketball team. Do you think that schools such as Stanford, Duke, Cal, etc. could field a competitive team in div. I sports if they looked for “well-rounded” students? Athletes are recruited to these colleges to play sports; who cares if they have low stats? Athletes have worked just as hard and have been under constant pressure to succeed just like the rest of us. They deserve those spots as much as anyone.</p>

11

<p>“Athletes have worked just as hard and have been under constant pressure to succeed just like the rest of us. They deserve those spots as much as anyone.”</p>

<p>Sure, they’ve worked hard. Yes, I understand that in general they would probably undergo MORE pressure than a more academic kid, because sports are so heavily (and unfairly, actually) touted and drooled over by the ENTIRE school community.</p>

<p>But they DON’T deserve spots “as much as anyone.” The kid who just excelled at ONE sport, and coasted then through high school and gets into Stanford… they deserve it as much as a kid who maintained a 4.0 GPA, 1500 SAT, swimmer, violinist, newspaper editor, volunteer worker, whatever else did? In fairness… NO. Sports takes discipline, extreme dedication, hard work and strength. But well-rounded kids who get denied because colleges would rather pick a sports recruit ALSO display immense discipline, extreme dedication, hard work, studiousness, and INTELLIGENCE.</p>

<p>Okay, let’s say that you believe that no one’s looking for a “well-rounded basketball player” or well-rounded athlete in general. Okay, fine. But since those stellar athletes will MOST LIKELY NEVER be drafted-- i.e., make an actual living post-graduation on their sport-- doesn’t it SUCK for them? If they got into a great school under-qualified, kept going through college with a lot of breaks academic-wise, and then graduate and realize they don’t have a good, REAL foundation for a REAL job in the REAL world because they had just ridden on athletics for eight years… that really sucks for them. </p>

<p>To finish up this one message, I’ll revert back to something I mentioned in my last post: “It’s sad to think about it, actually, but big universities are just using these kids. They don’t give a crap about whether they can handle or absorb a rigorous academic education. They use them up for their athletic ability and let them coast on the most important thing-- what goes on in their heads. They’re like total athletic tools.”</p>

12

<p>because athletes are born with a talent that can’t be reproduced by many, and because they had to work hard to harness that talent. and because athletics is valued in america, and thus generates money for the school. </p>

<p>being a URM or legacy isn’t a talent, and doesn’t require any changes cuz you’re either URM/legacy or you’re not.</p>

13

<p>“ever see a college athelete working some crappier job at the end”</p>

<p>a lot of professional atheletes end up working a crappier job let alone the college atheletes that don’t even make it pro. my brother has worked with many pro atheletes. Ever heard of the 10-day contract in the NBA reserved for benchwarmers or the guys that always ride the injured reserve list and never get playing time. Not to mention the guys that enter the NBA or Pro sports draft and never get drafted. They have a misconstrued idea of the lavish lifestyle they are able to live and than they realize that their 1-year $250,000 contract is only going to last for that 1-year because of the lifestyle they had in mind. They end up paying off agents, taxes, strippers, parties, alcohol, etc. They not only mismanage their money they didn’t really have that much to begin with. After the essentials such as house, a car…they realize that unless they get a big contract or play for a long time, they won’t have any money at all. The majority don’t make it…only the truly big superstars and veterens of the pro sports league make it in the end unless they have a degree or career to fall back on.</p>

14

<p>Don’t be so quick to judge the entire athletic population on the examples that you’ve personally witnessed. They may not be an accurate representation of recruited athletes everywhere.</p>

<p>At any rate, you should try to keep in mind that someone who gets a 3.4 GPA and 1230 SAT while playing football extremely well is most definitely not a stupid person. I would doubt that this person is unfit for Stanford’s classes; on the contrary, I imagine that this person would be likely to succeed academically at Stanford, and to do well in the job market after his football career ends.</p>

<p>Here’s another way to look at it - if a child, from 6 years old, spends tons of time doing math, he will likely become a mathemathical genius later on in life. He may win math competitions, do well on the AIME/USAMO/etc, score 800 math SATI. This kid turns out to be the stereotypical “nerd”, not especially physically fit.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if a child chooses to develop his physical talents in football by devoting just as much time to it as the other child did for math, he will likely become a star athlete for the high school team, make All-State, win tons of awards, etc. This kid performs at a mediocre level academically.</p>

<p>Either one could lead to a realisitic career path (even if the football player can’t play professionally, he could coach, scout, write for a sports paper, etc). Both have spent tons of time developing a unique skill. The experiences gained from either one would help later on in life. Who are you to judge one as being more legitimate than the other?</p>

15

<p>with that said…i have no problem with athletes with inferior academic prowess getting into IVY-quality schools. they are just going to the school with the best opportunity for them to succeed in their sport. if they succed academically, they deserve their success. if they don’t, it’s not like they’re taking up your graduate school spots.</p>

16

<p>There just seems to be an incredible amount of resentment and even jealously here against athletes.</p>

17

<p>“i have no problem with athletes with inferior academic prowess getting into IVY-quality schools.”- dru2k</p>

<p>“Ivy-quality” schools, right, not actual Ivies? Anyone who cares about their sport- say football- knows that Dartmouth or Yale are the best academic schools, but if they really want to play GOOD football, they’re heading somewhere else. No Ivies are REALLY good for sports.</p>

<p>“they are just going to the school with the best opportunity for them to succeed in their sport”</p>

<p>Right. So NOT an Ivy.</p>

<p>To Jimmy Eat World: Great points, but I’ve got issues with it.</p>

<p>“Either one could lead to a realisitic career path (even if the football player can’t play professionally, he could coach, scout, write for a sports paper, etc).”</p>

<p>Right. Well, say Mr. Football Player gets into Duke with his 2.0 GPA, 1000 SAT. Then he graduates, isn’t drafted, and instead, say, coaches/scouts for his local area high school’s football team (I DOUBT he could get a better coaching job for a good college/semi-pro team straight out of graduation-- they want coaches who are older/more experienced with actually handling a team, not just playing). So wow. Who knew a Duke grad could be so successful? </p>

<p>There’s nothing WRONG about coaching. But as you specified yourself, it was a “realistic” career path. Not exactly an “ideal” one. Football Dumbass could write for a sports paper, but with his Duke education-- if he had actually been qualified to handle a Duke education in the FIRST place, instead of relying on sports-- he would’ve been expected to do “better.” </p>

<p>The super nerd who is a math whiz-- yeah, he might be pudgy or uncoordinated. Yeah, he might be pasty because he spends all day inside, doing math equations. Yeah, he might have some social ineptness. BUT, you want to talk jobs… engineering, for one. Chemisty. Physics. Maybe a professor. Scientist. Lab technican. Whatever. Either way, those are incredible jobs that take a lot of hard work and ingenuity and intelligence. And could potentially pay off financially pretty darn well. Not to mention if he’s especially good, there migth be some big awards in his fields someday.</p>

<p>Not, uh, a sports writer or football coach. I’d say the dorky math whiz has a better chance of getting a real job than the super athlete who’s not near the sharpest tool in the shed.</p>

<p>“At any rate, you should try to keep in mind that someone who gets a 3.4 GPA and 1230 SAT while playing football extremely well is most definitely not a stupid person”</p>

<p>Right. Well, I’m not saying he was stupid persay. But those numbers are far below the average stats for other acceptees. And as I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I know a LOT of kids out there who are MUCH more well-rounded, both academically and sports-wise. Being more well-rounded means you can handle different subjects with more equal capability. </p>

<p>Sure, the football player is a tremendous athlete and has decent stats. But the boy who has a 4.0, 1500, plays a sport, plays an instrument, is involved with clubs, volunteers etc is STILL “better.” He may not excell at any one thing, but he has clearly shown extreme capability and competency in an array of activities. He’s more even-handed. Of course the football player has a great chance to succeed at a more academically-challenging school. But is he more “worthy” of admission than someone who isn’t stellar at ONE thing, but rather very good at a variety of things? I don’t think so.</p>

<p>I’m saying this because I saw a lot of very evenly-prepared, intelligent, fairly athletic, involved kids get denied from schools that, to use that cliche, “dumb jocks” got into… with plenty of money added to the acceptance, too. </p>

<p>Not cool.</p>

<p>“Who are you to judge one as being more legitimate than the other?”</p>

<p>Well, I don’t know. Who are you to judge a 1000 SAT/2.9 GPA/no activities/no clubs kid who just did football his entire high school years just as “worthy” of admisson as a kid who spent his four years getting high grades, going to SAT prep classes, doing a sport, doing clubs, and volunteering etc? </p>

<p>Yes, sports are amazing and wonderful. Athletes are admired and respected. Sports are oh so fun to watch and so on. But I thought people had a grasp on, ahem, priorities. </p>

<p>Remember, I’ve been saying that letting people coast on athletics without real consideration of their academic capability is WRONG. It intellectually handicapps the athlete, especially if they know they can’t handle a rigorous education, and so won’t be able to be properly prepared for finding a “real” job. So you could say I’m somewhat “on the side” of athletes.</p>

<p>I’m not bashing athletes in general. I NEVER DID (although obviously I was picking on the three I “highlighted” in the org. post). But I DO dislike the favoring-athletes system, when the athletes mentioned are nowhere near the academic capability of their not-so-athletic peers.</p>

<p>It’s funny how people are MUCH more supportive of not-quite-so-bright athletes, but are FEROCIOUS and FURIOUS about those “undeserving” black or Hispanic kids or legacies (with the same type of academic stats) getting into college. It shows what people value.</p>

<p>Winning the big game! > diversity and money/support from loyal legacies
Winning the big game! > actual academic ability and capability and therefore post-graduate future of the athlete</p>

18

<p>“There just seems to be an incredible amount of resentment and even jealously here against athletes”</p>

<p>Uh, no. Perhaps if one chose to read more carefully what is being written, one wouldn’t pick up on any “resentment” or “jealousy” feelings.</p>

<p>Especially since:

  1. I specifically have stated several times that there are well-rounded athletes.
  2. I specificaly stated in the very first post how most of my very own friends are varsity athletes.
  3. I later specifically stated numerous times that I’m not bashing athletes per say, but am upset about how people value athletics more than diversity, or legacy support, or actual intellectual capability of the athletes themselves.</p>
19

<p>Athletes generate millions of dollars in revenue for the school, something that I cannot do, so I see no problem with admitting a “less qualified” athlete over me in admissions, because I feel that the school is making a good business decision. Likewise, studies show that legacy families are more likely to donate money if they’re satisfied with the school, and legacy admissions helps that cause. Some schools do not have need-blind admissions, which means that you are slightly more likely to be admitted if you can pay the full sticker price, which also makes sense from a business standpoint. I am opposed to affirmative action because I don’t see diversity for its own sake adding any tangible value to my education or to the university as a whole.</p>

20

<p>Who cares about well-roundedness. That’s a concept, not a standard. Those athletes that get recruited are GOOD. Colleges want the best. You think UCR would take such poor students that they’re called the “dumpster” of the UC system if they could help it? (no offense to UCR). When you build a team in order to win you have to take the BEST. At that level of competition, taking a good well-rounded athelete over a superb athlete with poor grades could mean failure to win.</p>

<p>Effort is totally dwarfed by innate skill. You think athletes get to where they are simply because of hard work? They’re talented like a violin prodigy or math genius. Once I played a guy in tennis who was ranked in the top 25 in the nation. He crushed me without breaking a sweat. Did he get there by just hard work? No. He had natural talent. He was one of a kind.</p>

<p>So I wouldn’t be crushed about an athlete getting into a school over me just like I wouldn’t be crushed at a straight A student getting into a school over me. </p>

<p>As for their future, it’s their choice. You have the right to criticize them, but these people aspire to go pro. They’re not thinking “Oh, let’s slack off in school work because we’re so good at sports and we’ll just get into an Ivy League.” Too often athletes are judged to be arrogant, dumb, lazy jocks. And how can you say a 3.4 1230 isn’t good? That’s enough to get you into some of the Top 50 Universities in America. That’s the thing that irritates me the most about this board. It seems anything below a 3.9 is a low GPA. We here on CC are not the majority, we are a tiny tiny minority of nerdy students who gather here to talk about college-related topics.</p>

<p>URM and Legacy = no effort. no skill.</p>

<p>Athletes are special. They have natural talent. They have hard work and devotion. If they get picked the deserve it, for being one of the best.</p>