@StewyGriffin colleges use the revenue gained from sports to open up other spots for students and they profit off sports so they do not loose any funds
That you get the total bill after you make your decision and that sometimes there is a time lag where you’re not totally sure what you will owe.
The dangling of the “pay your housing deposit early or you will get crap housing”.
At least athletic prowess is an actual achievement, unlike an accident of birth (i.e. legacy)
IKR…people should stop whining about athlete admission.
At least athlete admission is for athletically gifted students, but legacy is an undoubtedly unfair advantage for people BORN with it.
@2016senior Actually, hardly any colleges profit from sports programs
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/jim-moran/moran-says-only-20-colleges-make-profit-sports/
http://www.ethosreview.org/intellectual-spaces/is-college-football-profitable/
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx
@Smythe I don’t think thats true. Look at the NCAA tournament ad revenue alone http://finance.yahoo.com/news/march-madness–the–1-5b-behind-the-ncaa-tournament-170957440.html
That’s a handful of colleges out of thousands of colleges with non-profitable athletic programs.
@GMTplus7 athletics at top colleges are profitable. I don’t think division 2 and 3 colleges (and low tier division 1) are making money off their athletic programs but they exist just like high school sports exist, for students to do something they love on their own time.
Then that goes back to @StewyGriffin 's point: if the athletics are essentially club activities (i.e. non-revenue producing hobbies), then why are colleges giving substantial preference to athletes?
@GMTplus7 give me an example of a college giving substantial preference to athletes at a non-top tiered athletic university. Colleges like Duke, UNC, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Stanford, etc. most likely make profits off their main sport teams (football and basketball) so they can give students who don’t meet the high academic standards for admissions a spot. Its hard for colleges to make money off swimming, golf, field hockey, etc. and I don’t think colleges give much leeway with admitting students who don’t meet their academic standards in the hard-to-profit sports. Also committing to a sport takes up a lot of time so athletes have a harder time succeeding in school than non-athletes.
Track & Field athletes
I am skeptical that many universities profit from sports with the exception of maybe Ohio State and Alabama. If the schools offer evidence of that I would repeat the old saying, “Figures don’t lie; liars figure”. IMO The profits are largely consumed by coaches and administrators. Again, universities need to concentrate on academics.
How legacy is an advantage in admissions. I can understand it if your parents donated millions to the school, even if that’s technically unfair, but what sense does it make to give someone an advantage because of their parents’ achievements? Being a legacy is already an advantage in that your parent can share information about the school or take you to special alumnus achievements, so why give kids an extra boost based in no way on merit?
Many people confuse ‘legacy’ w ‘development case’. The two terms are not synonymous. The vast majority legacy families don’t donate huge sums.
Financial Aid. I don’t understand how some colleges think I can pay 30k a year when my parents make 70k. Oh, and apparently, if I get merit, then they just take that away from my need. What the heck? I have three siblings who need to go to college too. We have a house and cars that need to be paid off. Ugh…
The mythological EFC of 0. Does it exist? Is it just a rumor? I honestly want to know, my income is less than 20k and I have no assets whatsoever and yet my EFC is 900 dollars! How are these people getting a zero EFC?
I hate how whether or not we’re accepted can depend on a school’s needs at the time. Maybe in one admissions round they’re really looking for people that are interested in languages. Maybe another year its trombone players. It’s just frustrating that I’ve been working my tail off for years and developing my interests to even have a chance at these schools, and I may not get in because the school is not looking for more insert trait here. At times, it feels more like schools aren’t looking to take applicants that they want, but just checking off seats they need to fill with qualities/interests/etc. I know it’s probably not true, but still. It makes me ridiculously angry that I could be handed a rejection just because the timing wasn’t write.
@StewyGriffin You are correct that all colleges certainly don’t profit from athletics, but way more than OSU and Alabama. Every school in a major conference definitely profits from football and basketball, and the revenue from the NCAA tournament is split evenly between every qualifier. That is a much larger pool of schools than OSU and Alabama, and I’m sure more colleges profit than just the ones in this pool.
It’s not just about your parents attending. Some applicants have siblings, cousins, or other family that attended or are currently attending and that can sometimes show a higher potential of success because of a familial support system. If there is someone close to you that can “show you the ropes” that may help the applicant. MAY not will, IMO.
I actually really hate how a lot of colleges check rank. Ranks differ from school to school. It pisses me off when I have the exact same UW GPA as someone but I’m languishing at only top 30% at my school and others are sitting pretty at the top 20 or even 15% of their schools.