<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I do.</p>
<p>If that 100th ranked BBaller has the academic chops, I don’t doubt he/she would get highly recruited by Yale and many peer institutions. The other two might rise to the level of Likely Admits. Certainly Yale finds about 100 non-athlete applicants each year that they send Likely Letters to – they well may exhibit some of the characteristics you’ve listed.</p>
<p>In my years interviewing, I’ve only met one LL recipient – and she wasn’t an athletic recruit. She turned down Yale’s offer and went to a peer college. She went on to become a Rhodes awardee. Great for her but she wasn’t that keen on Yale. Oh well.</p>
<p>Eh, I play sports, and I do disagree that athletic performance is so difficult and requires so much work. I’ve always been able to stand out without trying too hard. Granted, if I made being recruited for sports my focus, I’m sure I would have to work harder etc. I would also agree that sports take up more time than just about any other activity.</p>
<p>The crux of the matter is… the typical outstanding violinist is smarter and more academically focused than the typical outstanding athlete, so schools don’t need to relax admission standards so much to get their violinists. As long as schools believe a competitive football team is necessary for the school to be a respectable institution of higher learning, deficiencies of athletes will be overlooked. </p>
<p>I do think there is something unhealthy about society’s opinion about sports atm… it’s hard to put into words… but there is definitely something unhealthy… for example rabid fans and athlete salaries.</p>
<p>“the typical outstanding violinist is smarter and more academically focused than the typical outstanding athlete”</p>
<p>Do you have any data to support that? Perhaps you mean famous or well paid when you write outstanding?</p>
<p>I still think that “mens sana in corpore sano” does imply just that: a healthy body, not an overperforming athlete. Getting back to “lux et veritas” I do not see either light or truth in being a top athlete. So I rather think that this is a case of “panem et circenses”: give the people bread and circus games. However, I understand now that this is just part of the system, so I’m happy with it.</p>
<p>You’ve got me there. I’m purely pulling from stereotypes, logical reasoning, and personal experience.</p>
<p>What type of data could I possibly supply? It’s not like people make charts of SAT scores of violinists vs. SAT scores of athletes lol.</p>
<p>I don’t think my position is very radical. I’m a bit curious how you could disagree actually, as I’ve never met anyone who believes that there is a greater correlation between success in sports and success in school than between success in music and success in school. I’ve come to accept this opinion as truth. Why is it you disagree? It seems to me that music involves the mind more than the body, and sports the body more than the mind, but you apparently disagree. I do both music and sports, so I feel somewhat entitled to state this opinion, even though it is opinion. Do you participate in both?</p>
<p>What do I mean by outstanding? Are you kidding? I’m legitimately concerned now, could a third party tell me if my writing style is that bad?</p>
<p>It just sounded like a stereotype to me. I guess I tend to question them. I don’t have an opinion ( and I didn’t disagree) but I figured if you were going to post it like a fact, that you may have found some data. I’m sure you can show me some “outstanding” football or basketball players in the media (one definition of outstanding, perhaps) with less academic success then their peers , but there are many athletes and parents of athletes that post here that defy the stereotypes.</p>
<p>FWIW, I currently participate in neither, but study mind/body for a living, and am eager to learn.</p>
<p>There is totally a difference between the athletic recruits vs. musically, artistically, politically etc. talented students in the eyes of an adcom. I don’t agree with it at all since I too play sports and have been hindered because of physical attributes that cannot be changed such as my height. The fact that athletes are given such special preference is outrageous since most athletes for example footballers must have a certain innate physical build whether it be strength, weight or height. The difference may be that anyone on the street can play the violin and with practice become one of the best but not anyone can be the top 100 b-ball player. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you mean Division 1 sports or intramural? Because I highly doubt these CEOs were top athletes that colleges were recruiting and giving likely letters to for their athletic ability. Obviously physical activity is necessary but should these athletes be given preference because " there is a correlation between performance and future success" which means that since they play sports they are more likely to perform better in the future?</p>
<p>ah, ya…there are more athletes in positions of leadership (business, government, education) than non athletes. My definition of an athlete is someone who pursues sports throughout their life and competes to win. Not someone who goes to the gym and uses the stair-master for a half hour.</p>
<p>And yes there are a few dozen ex-college athletes running fortune 500 companies. </p>
<p>I think people are to hung up on football, there are a lot of other sports in college and the athletes are very bright and accomplished academically.</p>
<p>“but should these athletes be given preference because " there is a correlation between performance and future success” which means that since they play sports they are more likely to perform better in the future?"</p>
<p>Reminds me of what some folks say about SAT scores.</p>
<p>should high-IQ 4.0 2400 students be given preference because " there is a correlation between intelligence and future success"??? wow that sounds unfair to the low-IQ low gpa student:)</p>
<p>universities are for academics, arts, and athletics </p>
<p>and the smart and talented will be pursued by admissions. They are more desirable to the university. And here’s another news flash:good looking people live longer and make more money than non-good looking people. Life is unfair and we live in a competitive world…it’s just the way it is</p>
<p>When I was there, the men’s football team GPA was equal to the overall student body GPA. My roommate (who played and was EXTREMELY brilliant) explained it this way in very understandable terms: high performing HS football players learn early on that hard work equals success and achievement. This is ingrained in them on the practice field and weight room. Not only that, they actually SEE the logic of this dictum. </p>
<p>This perspective carries through to academics. Even some who aren’t as gifted innately, work harder to make up the difference and thus, perform at the same or higher level than their non-athlete peers.</p>
<p>At least this is the type of footballer Yale attracts. And that’s a good thing, in my book.</p>
<p>Athletes obviously can be very intelligent and hardworking, which I’m not disputing since I myself play a lot of USTA tennis and have met some of the most dedicated and persevering people. However, the main argument is the fact that college adcoms look more favorably upon athletes than violonists, actors, politically active students or others involved in community service.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amen,… athletes get more likely letters without any exact reasoning, but there’s nothing we can do about it.</p>
<p>the title of this thread made me LOL =]]]]</p>