<p>It is true that only the sophisticated tend to have heard of people high in the arts. Sports appeals to the common guy. Therefore simpletons have heard of the sports stars ;)</p>
<p>At my school, almost everyone is on a sports team even if you’re not good. If you’re asian and want and place to hang out with your friends, why not join the tennis or badminton team? If you have no training, why not join the track team and do the long jump? I mean it seems like a lot of people can be on sports teams all four years of there lives, but I have never met at my school a very proficient musician (I live in a low-income neighborhood, maybe this is why). Anyways, it seems like sports seem less “great” to me because it seems like any can join a sports team. At my school, anyone who is a Junior can automatically be on the Varsity team. Anyone can join the orchestra too if they can pluck out a few notes on the violin, so I guess it really depends on the commitment of each person, whether they choose music or sports.</p>
<p>being into sports is just better than being into music in high school…athletes actually have lives…</p>
<p>virtuoso_757…i guess ur school doesn’t have a quality sports program nor a quality music program thats why any junior can join varsity…at my school we have something called a tryout; take tennis, around 110+ kids try out for varsity tennis and 10 makes it…</p>
<p>which is greater/better Sports or music…well examining their influences, the answer is simple, SPORTS, everyday kids in well off countries and 3rd world nations are inspired by soccer, football, basketball, baseball…stars to pursue a goal, to have a dream, to look forward to the future…</p>
<p>
well clearly you’re a delusioned fool… God bless your soul…</p>
<p>RSABach likes to stir the pot.</p>
<p>Okay, guys. Stop it. You’re bordering on flaming.</p>
<p>As an athlete and musician, let me say that sports and music can be equally valuable, but in the end it all depends on how much work you put into either. It’s that way with everything.</p>
<p>Sports are overrated…sorry, but it’s true. </p>
<p>It does take a ton of skill and hard work to be great (just like in an other skilled activity), but the only reason athletes are regarded so highly is because you can make money off of them. </p>
<p>How many people are really going to pay to see a concert band perform? Football, on the other hand…whew. Not only will people pay to see the game, they’re gonna stuff their faces the whole time as well. That’s where the money’s at.</p>
<p>The fact that you can make more money off sports than music (which isn’t all that true, anyway; ever hear of a little girl named Britney Spears?) says nothing of what their value should be in admissions. Sports give very specific traits and qualities to people that, I’m sorry, I just don’t see musicians. The opposite is true, too, as musicians often have certain skills that athletes don’t. Neither should be discounted. I just see too many people on CC discount recruited athletes as people who “cheat the system” or jocks not smart enough to get into college without sports. It’s the same kind of elitism coming from academics that many in high school claim comes from athletes.</p>
<p>Um…you completely missed my point. I’m talking on a purely HS/college level, here. Great HS athletes are more highy recruited by colleges and more likely to recieve amazing scholarship offers than great debaters, musicians, etc. I think a lot of that has to do with the money and bragging rights sporting events bring in.</p>
<p>Thanks for explaining the (obvious) reasoning that colleges recruit athletes. We all know that. But what we’re debating is whether sports experience is overvalued in college admisions. And I don’t believe it is.</p>
<p>That’s why they’re overvalued smartness! Are you really too thick to get that or are you just messing with me?</p>
<p>I know a few guys that are going to schools they academically don’t belong at (our football team won the state championship two years ago, so a lot of our players have gotten great offers), but are great athletes and got in with awesome scholarships. I wonder why? Oh yeah, they make the school money and help them beat other schools!</p>
<p>You’re not getting it at all. I’m not going to argue the point further, because I don’t think that’s what CC is about. But suffice to say, I think most students are just jealous of athletes’ advantages in the admissions process.</p>
<p>So even though I know they barely passed any of their classes (only for the sake of playing) and only got the bare minimum SAT scores the colleges requested…it’s wrong to say they got special consideration for the benefit of the universities? </p>
<p>Honestly, I don’t care that they did. I say good for them because they wouldn’t have had the chance to go to college (or would have wanted to) without it. I’m just saying that they do get that consideration.</p>
<p>I find it disturbing that colleges recruit kids who just play sports and run but are stupid and inept academically and reject kids that work their @sses off in high school with dozens of all-nighters…</p>
<p>Normally they don’t reject awesome students for not so awesome athletes, they reject the boarline students that are pretty much on the same level as the athletes that don’t have the great academic stats. </p>
<p>And it’s important to remember that many talented athletes also do well academically. It’s not about the dumb jock that knocked out the brilliant nerd.</p>
<p>I find it disturbing that colleges accept kids who have less than stellar stats just because they have a certain skin color.</p>
<p>At least athletes have to put in ridiculous amounts of time and energy to get good enough to be recruited.</p>
<p>I find RSA Bach and other pro-music individuals in this debate to be pretty sad individuals. You think cause you play an instrument you are automatically smarter then athletes. The “simpletons” know the sports stars? What, are you superior since you don’t know who sports stars are? I mean what a goddamn joke.</p>
<p>I mean honestly, can we just end this nonsense. Your no smarter then the athlete cause you play an instrument. Playing an instrument well takes a tremendous amount of effort to perfect, as does athletics. Just cause the work is in different forms doesn’t mean one is better then the other.</p>
<p>Bach, you irked me with your beginning statements. Now, with your superiority complex, you’ve officially ****ed me off. I find it disturbing that a kid who works his ass off at a sport be rejected in favor of another kid who was decent at the french horn but the college needed one for the band. </p>
<p>Next time, have an argument that can’t be told both ways.</p>
<p>And for those that didn’t read my earlier posts, I am both a varsity athelete and I have performed solo at Carnegie Hall. I may seem like I’m being hard on musicians, but that isnt the case, I’m trying to defend athletes from these sad individuals.</p>
<p>better, no sports is not better, but whatever floats your boat</p>
<p>let us cheer on a group of people and take their victories as our own because we cheered really loud…</p>
<p>they are inspired by sports sure, but I would be you if some of those kids had music, instruments, art supplies, etc, they would also be insprised…</p>
<p>This is probably the stupidest thread on CC. How many people on this planet turn out for sporting events? How many for musical performances? It is simple statistics.Music takes skills and practice, but sports require natural ability and determination. When it comes to colleges, athletes get way more scholarship money then musicians. (No offense to musicians I myself played the trumpet for 5 years)</p>
<p>Oh and look at the profiles of athletes at top colleges. Many of the athletes were salutatorians and valedictorians of their class.</p>