<p>This links to the Daily Princetonian, profiling a guy who was an athlete in my class at Princeton. As it happens, I know him, having worked with him on our 25th Reunion. He’s the real thing. </p>
<p>There’s always the controversy here on cc, why do athletes get a nod? Well, this is an anecdote of what an athlete can bring to a school, both when they are there and going forward. Frank also has the qualities the proponents of athletics would expect - drive, leadership capabilities, resourcefulness, ability to form a team, etc.</p>
<p>similar anecdote, same Princeton era…class of 79. HS classmate of mine, recruited into HS as a football player, also recruited to Princeton for same. Ended up as governor of Maryland, one term recently finished (& not re-elected)…while one could definitely argue about his politics, there’s no denying that he succeeded on the leadership front, perhaps not perefectly but he did get far for just a “recruited athlete.”</p>
<p>I lean toward a vote for the latter, “meaningless anecdotal information.” </p>
<p>Don’t know what year he was, but the former Princeton jock (football) I know personally is a nondescript average guy who struggled in an early career, got fired, got divorced, and now lives in a run-down condo complex and owns a modest small business. I don’t think you’ll see him being profiled in the Daily Princetonian. Of course, admissions competition being what it is now, perhaps he wouldn’t have been admitted in today.</p>
<p>Many Ivy jocks go into business, where they frequently do well and make alot of $, which they frequently give back to college (because they have fond memories often related to their sport) - which is part of the reason athletics are a big deal in elite college admission.</p>
<p>I agree with Jazzymom, it’s meaningless anecdotal information. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think Frank’s obvious talent for management and business are a direct function of his superior physical strength or fast 40 times. Chances are an individual this talented would have made it through to a great school/great career even without the athletic boost from a coach.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I think proponents of ANY extracurricular activity would expect “drive, leadership capabilities, resourcefulness, ability to form a team, etc.”.</p>
<p>As far as I can see, this bit of evidence does nothing to tip the scales of the “cc controversy” in either direction.</p>
<p>I should add that I’m not knocking that as a career choice…I just don’t think that great athletic skill should trump consideration of academic strengths or deficits.</p>
<p>College athletes serve an important purpose. Their sports often bring in millions of dollars. They are admitted because they can help bring in those dollars in the way that non-athlete students can’t. That’s why they’re given a leg up in admissions to elite schools. No amount of discussion will change that, including a disussion as to what they <em>grow up</em> to be.</p>
<p>Katliamom, very few college sports actually bring in much money and most of them lose money. If your theory were correct, football and basketball players would be the only ones who were given a “leg up” because those are typicaly the only sports that make any amount of money directly. </p>
<p>I realize that there is some thought that alumni donations increase as a result of successful sports programs but I don’t think there is much data to support that. </p>
<p>I’m not going to repeat the reasons I (and many others) think student/athletes deserve respect, but please add my voice to those who sing the praises of them.</p>
<p>Here’s a quote from an Ivy on this subject:</p>
<p>“We do not admit only “athletes” to XXXXXXX any more than we admit “musicians” or “chemists” or “those who have an unusual record of participation in community service.” We admit people of promise. You have shown the capacity to balance your academic life with a serious commitment to sports. We value that in itself and because we know what discipline and commitment it requires.”</p>
<p>I’ve known people in blue collar type jobs who do it because the pay isn’t bad and they get benefits, while continuing to be all around smart people, involved with their families and communities. I have an uncle who has worked for the postal service for thirty years. While his college alumni magazine may not be knocking down his door for a profile, I’d say he’s led a very successful life. His avocations are impressive despite his lack of ability to lend his school a hand with its endowment. It shouldn’t always be about money.</p>