<p>Can anyone make a convincing argument as to why athletes should get preferential treatment when it comes to college admissions? I guess I can understand how a sport like football and basketball adds to the college community because they draw large audiences and increase “school spirit,” but since the majority of college athletic programs are not self-sustaining and eat up a huge amount of resources (especially when you factor in scholarships to less-than-qualified students, the fact that a huge portion of the student activity fees go to athletic depts., and athletic budget increases that are far out-pacing academic budgets), why are they so important?</p>
<p>A case in point - just learned of a girl who was recruited by several schools for lacrosse. She’s been offered full scholarships at prestigious schools, but is barely a B-student with a very easy course load. Without her lacrosse ability, she would not have gotten into any of these schools. So the question is, what does women’s lacrosse add to a school? Does anyone go to watch these games besides the player’s immediate family (if even that)? Doesn’t admitting unqualified students based on their athletic ability lower the academic standards of the institution? They don’t offer “theater scholarships” to students who excell in drama, yet I am sure that most college drama productions draw a greater audience than women’s lacrosse and at far less expense. A good theater production, I would think, adds a lot to the college environment, so why not “theater” scholarships (as well as dance, art, etc.)</p>
<p>I guess I am just one of those people who don’t get the favoritism shown to athletes.</p>
<p>Sports = money. Running a university is a business. And business is for making money. What does it matter if a student gets in with B’s just because they play a sport? They’ll be bringing in money for the school. Lacrosse is very popular in the East/Northeast and at the smaller schools or schools with very successful teams, probably brings in a good share of the money.</p>
<p>Admitting athletes is no different from admitting a legacy who has lower stats than the normal admit.</p>
<p>I guess as the mother of several scholar athletes I am rather biased towards this issue as well as tired of pointing out that this is addressed often on CC, has for the past 5 years.</p>
<p>The concept of scholar athlete goes to healthy bodies, healthy minds. Not necessarily favoring one over the other. If athletics aren’t high on your list when compiling the college list there are some colleges/unis out there without football or other teams. Put those schools on your list. But as far as preferential treatment I think that is difficult to qualify.</p>
<p>It would be difficult to ascertain another student’s academic transcript and SATs if they were not your child. Along the same lines it would be difficult to get a peek at their actual application. Two of my kiddos were recruited for their sports however, they both were admitted for ACADEMIC reasons. Neither accepted D1 scholarships but rather opted for the academic ones. But they had choices. Some students do not. The only way they are going to college is on an athletic scholarship. </p>
<p>As far as “theater scholarships” having 4 kiddos go through the app process in the past 5 years, we have run across various schools who do have scholarship funds earmarked specifically for the performing arts. I am sure Susan’s daughters’ college search might have turned up some of these.</p>
<p>The committment college athletes have once they arrive on campus is huge (many times even before). For most, if not all, it is a full-time job that not only tires them phycially (overlooking injuries) but mentally as well. My middle daughter is a D1 athlete, on a full ACADEMIC scholarship, pre-med making Dean’s List every semester. I don’t think she and many of her fellow teammates and friends were given “preferential” treatment for admittance.</p>
<p>And I certainly don’t think son was given any either as that he did not indicate he would be playing his sport upon application. Rather he waited until he was admitted, evaluated what would be required of him scholastically and then committed to his sport. Granted the school he attends (p’ton) does not award athletic scholarships but he did not want to committ to playing if he was uncertain if he could maintain his academics in conjunction with his sport.</p>
<p>What is required of a collegiate athlete is unfathomable to most people unless they have lived it. It is also sad to see such a negative attitude to another student who has gained admittance to a “prestigious” (OP’s words, not mine) rather than a “good for her” attitude. Just sounds bitter and petty. And if that is the attutude portrayed by a parent to their children than it has the danger of rubbing off on the kiddos. And that in turn could be pervasive in their attitudes, especially in college apps and interviews.</p>
<p>This is topic that reappears many-many times on CC and I find pretty frustrating. I know no specifics of the case to which you are referring but I do know that typically in these threads on CC all sort of (negative) assumptions are made that often do not pass smell tests. </p>
<p>First, if this student received a women’s lacrosse scholarship she received one of probably less than 100 given out this year to HS seniors … so she is an exraordinarly good lacrosse player … and the 100 women’s lacrosse scholarships across 3000 schools did essentially squat to affect any other student’s admissions chances.</p>
<p>Second, the reoccuring theme that underqualified students are getting recruited as athletes. Overwhelmingly student-athletes meet the academic standards of the schools to which they are admitted … they may not have the highest academic qualifications of all the applicants but schools are not in general letting in inferior students. The graduation rate and GPAs of student-athletes back this up. In addition, lots of conferences (like the IVYies) have rules about how many student-athletes of what academic standing can be admitted (in fact this concern is what led to the creation of the academic index). Finally, under new NCAA rules if a scholarship athlete flunks out the school can not back-fill that scholarship … essentially, the school has an emplty roster spot until the original student would have graduated.</p>
<p>Third, there are certainly places and teams (top 20 football and basketball teams) where kids get massive breaks on admissions. Schools with these programs tend to huge schools and, ironically, have few varsity teams. The 50 kids at Ohio State who got a big admisssions break (I made up this tidbit) don’t matter a hill a beans for the admissions chances to get one of the other 50,000 slots at Ohio State.</p>
<p>Finally, to me the bigger issue shows up at smaller D3 LACs where kids are not getting big breaks … they certainly are capable of doing the work at the school … but the school decided to accept a little less academics for athletic ability. And in these cases it is very similar to a break a concert cellist might receive … there probably are more slots for athletes at a lot of these schools but they get the same treatment as many other applicants. In these cases the admissions policies for athletes do have an affect on the student population because the athletes can be a high % of the total student population … not letting in inferior students but certain types of students in large numbers … and these smaller (almost all private) schools are free to pick the feel of the student population they want.</p>
<p>I read in a previous thread about this issue that athletes may be just as smart as a student very focused on school, yet may have lower grades simply due to their time committments.</p>
<p>Playing a sport shows that one values things besides doing homework and shows that the individual can withstand the pressures of a sport on top of typical school work. </p>
<p>Studying a great deal does not make you smarter, and playing a sport does not make you dumber - it just changes the way grades appear on a transcript.</p>
<p>LaCrosse in my area is a college town on the Mississippi river, the sport is a minor east coast phenonmenon gradually being played here, most colleges do not have teams. The major spectator sports provide entertainment and bring in major alumni dollars. Our culture uses sports as an outlet for agression, on part of the cheering fans as well as for the participants. For some the athletic reputation of a school is very important, not for others. We can all name schools no one would have ever heard of except for their winning sports teams. I had a medical school classmate from the Los Angeles area who claimed hockey was not a major sport because there were no major pro teams in California; shortly after that Wayne Gretzky moved there…</p>
<p>I thnk that the earlier posters have hit many of the reasons for colleges wanting athletes. This whole diversity issue that has become important for school has also made it important. Though the non athletic, nose in the book, researcher with high academic stats is also valued, there are not too many schools that want a whole student body made up of that type. There also are not enough of those kids to go around. Many kids who have enjoyed athletics throughout their lives are not interested in going to a school where they would have to give up the sports. Neither are their parents. Since the majority of schools do not give athletic scholarships, these athletes pay for their privilege to continue in sports in time and in personal cost. To get enough of them to have a competitive NCAA program, admissions has to take into account the time these kids put into this sport. </p>
<p>I was surprised when I personally entered the college admissions world as a parent with my first going to college, as to how important sports were to even non athletes. Many highly desireable students wanted the sports facilites and school spirit in some sports for their college years. I know that a number of schools are now adding football to their sports roster as a very successful draw for male students, and finding that where these guys go, the girls follow as well, evidenced by increased admissions and yield. You can’t buy those numbers so quickly any other way. </p>
<p>As to some female teams that have been added to the roster despite low crowd appeal, that is the result of federal law Title IX which requires equitable athletic resources for women in college. Since this is relatively new in the history of college sports, it is understandable the following is still not optimal. This may change by the next generation. Many of these female teams have not yet established the tradition and reputation yet needed for the popularity. </p>
<p>I have noticed that schools already hurt with dwindling male apps are suffering even more losses as they drop male sports programs in order to be in line with the law. A shame. The truth of the matter is that most colleges have to work hard to meet optimal enrollment and sports programs are an essential draw in attracting students, not just the athletes them selves, but those that make up the academic foundations. A college would be hard put to get rid of all of their sports team and continue to thrive. Dartmouth has been hoofing and pawing about their programs for a few years, but they dare not drop their sports standards and recruiting too low, as the Ivy League is defined by the athletics, and for them to lose that designation would be a major reputation and marketing disaster.</p>
<p>I know a boy that was recruited for ( and is attending) Princeton, because of his athletic ability. ( ironically, because of injury he has not been able to compete at all)
However, I would never say he was not benefiting from the academics and was not able to keep up with their standards.</p>
<p>Other students from my Ds high school have also been recruited to Ivy schools & comparable especially for their athletic skill.
Private schools have the luxury of putting together a class</p>
<p>Test scores and GPA are just one criteria that schools that just go by numbers are forced to use, but admission depts with more time ( and money) can read more throughly transcripts and admit students who will do well and fill a need in the student body.</p>
<p>There have been lots of links posted to the skills athletes develop that contribute to academics. We dont have bodies just to carry around our heads- what I don’t understand are all these threads posted by people bitter that colleges pay attention to those who have a life outside the library.
does national epidemic of obesity mean anything to you? </p>
<p>First off, I think some of you took my post the wrong way. I was not saying that athletes don’t deserve to go to college and that they don’t bring anything to the table. I also was not comparing athletes to the kid that constantly has his nose in a book. I also absolutely agree that there are plenty of students that are good athletes and have good grades and “deserve” to be at prestigious schools. My question is, why should a student who is an athlete receive preferential treatment over a student who is a talented artist, dancer, actor, etc. when they both add something to the college community. It is clear that at most schools the student-athlete is favored over any other kind of student.</p>
<p>While student-athletes may be very dedicated to their sport and learn a lot of life skills from it, that certainly can be said of students engaged in other ECs as well. I was not trying to knock student athletes, just posing what I feel is a valid question. And, while a certain very small number of schools may offer some type of non-academic scholarship to students talented in a area other than athletics, one has to admit there are a huge number of athletic scholarships given out that have nothing to do with a student’s academic ability.</p>
<p>The girl who got the lacrosse scholarship I mentioned freely disclosed her stats to me and was indeed shocked by the offers she received, simply because, as she put it, “I’m not that great of a student.” The scholarship at the most “presitigious” school is a Div. I school.</p>
<p>Finally, the truth is that only about one dozen schools have self-sustaining athletic programs. While there are sports like football that draw big crowds, the majority of the sports do not, yet at many schools athletes get preferential treatment regardless of the sport they play.</p>
<p>The combo of school and sports is pretty much a North American phenomenon…For example, in Europe, if a kid wants to play a sport, they do it outside of school, just as a kid in this country would take dance lessons outside of school. There is plenty of discussion in this country about the heavy value we place on athletics and the amount of resources it drains from academics (which, in my opinion, is the primary purpose of a school). I am not in any way opposed to a healthy, athletic lifestyle - my question is about the preference given to athletics over other qualities and talents a student may have. The other day as I was flipping thru TV channels, I came upon a Princeton women’s basketball game and the stadium was literally empty. If there is no interest in this sport except for the people playing it, how is that adding to the college community in a greater way than students involved in a drama production? and why should the students applying that have skill in women’s basketball receive preferential treatment. This should not be construed as my saying they have no right to go to that college - it is the question of receiving preference.</p>
<p>Athletes are cool! They bring a certain swagger to a campus. In your example, a college desperately needs women athletes or they can’t have male athletes! That’s the beauty of Title IX. It creates opportunities for women to be cool and swagger just like men.</p>
<p>“My question is, why should a student who is an athlete receive preferential treatment over a student who is a talented artist, dancer, actor, etc. when they both add something to the college community. It is clear that at most schools the student-athlete is favored over any other kind of student”</p>
<p>The answer is… our culture(s). Flip flop any of your subjects and the answer’s is still the same. If you’re upset that your “talent” is underappreciated, find somewhere where it is.</p>
<p>Having hung around several subcultures you can certainly move things around and find that appreication is dependent upon the culture of the group.</p>
<p>It is important to note that at most D-IA football schools the athletic budget is completly subsidized by tickets sales, royalties and booster contributions. For instance at Michigan at university which fields 25 NCAA D1 sports the athletic department makes $17.6 million in profit for the school. <a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007-01-04-ohiostate-finances-cover_x.htm[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007-01-04-ohiostate-finances-cover_x.htm</a>
this is after the enitire athletic budget is payed for. Sports also imporve the image for many schools and make them more appealing. For instance I decided early on in my college process that I wanted to attend a Big 10 school (after attending the 2005 Penn State- OSU and PSU-Umich football games). My reasoning was mostly based on sports. The quality of the school was of primary concern but football helped me choose.</p>
<p>Top athletes draw students to the school. And make money, as stated in previous posts. Like the person above me, athletics was a factor in choosing a school for me. Not the #1 factor, but a factor none the less. If a school didn’t have football or basketball, I didn’t want to go. Our teams aren’t outstanding in either of those, but the fans are supportive and our student section is amazing and supports the athletes win or lose. The sport a school absolutely had to offer for me was Wrestling–it’s in my family and I’ve been around it my whole life and I didn’t want to give that up. It’s about school spirit for me and I love being part of an exciting student section. And scholarship-athletes keep the sports running. </p>
<p>And they aren’t admitting students who otherwise would be flat out rejected. They’re admitting students who are just below average. So if the average SAT for a school is 1450 and 3.85 gpa, essentially half of the students are below that and half are above that. So if an athlete gets in with a 1350 (these numbers are just examples) and 3.5, s/he is probably NOT the only person being admitted with the “lower” stats. Others are being admitted with those lower stats who are not athletes.</p>
<p>ditto to Opie’s post. It seems like you are bemoaning something that is a fact of life here in North America. We like a little sports with our education. So what? Colleges that accept athletes with lower stats are obviously looking for a “mix.” That’s the way most colleges do things. Otherwise the only people accepted anywhere would be the ones with the highest grades and SATs. </p>
<p>When you say that your friend was unqualified, do you really mean less qualified than others (in terms of GPA)? Or are you saying she was totally unfit for the rigors of that school? Because many, many students are accepted at colleges with “lower” stats, but they are still perfectly capable of doing the work. Schools make no bones about it- they turn down vals all the time, and take in people who have lower grades. What they don’t do, however, is accept people who they know are incapable of the work.</p>
<p>If the only thing a school looked at were grades and scores, the same people would get accepted to all the schools and all the schools would look the same. Boooooooring. Where would you rather live- in a suite with 5 other concert-going, lecture attending, bookworms? Or a suite with 1 artist, 1 high jumper, 1 brainiac, 1 political activist, and 1 fratty bagger? I’d say the second option would be a lot more interesting.</p>
<p>Another thing I’ve noticed about these sports-resentment threads…it doesn’t take long before carefully veiled insults are made toward those knuckle grazing, beer chugging, ne’er do well, feeble minded sports lovers.</p>
<p>“It is widely recognized that the vast majority of Division
I institutions are not and never have been self-sustaining, but members of
the Commission expressed concern that eliminating this statement would
create a greater incentive to transfer academic funds to support athletics
budgets, which are already growing two to three times faster on average
than university budgets.”</p>
<p>And when you take into account the costs of building facilities, athletic scholarships, monies received from activity fees, a tremendous amount of resources are directed towards athletics.</p>
<p>We could talk about this endlessly and never get anywhere. I could observe that, while many CC’ers were frantically trying to pad their resumes with every conceivable EC in the hope of getting into their dream school, my S focused on his passion with no expectation of reward and, somewhat surprisingly, ended up getting a lot of help in the admissions process at the end of the day. I could explain that my S is neither a truly elite athlete nor a truly elite student but that the combination of his athletic and academic accomplishments is pretty rare. I could also explain thatthe recruiting process for all but the most elite athletes is as stressful and at times more capricious than the admissions process more nonathletes and, at the end of the day, can be just as disappointing for the athlete–even if he ends up with an offer from an elite academic school.</p>
<p>But the bottom line is, as I have stated before, that the only really relevant definition of “fairness” in this context is that the rules be clear to everyone going in. Everyone knows that recruited athletes can be admitted to elite schools with lower academic stats than nonathletes. So if that is a student’s goal, and he has any inate physical ability at all, maybe in the 9th grade he should pick some less popular sport and really go for it instead of joining the French Club and trying to figure our what service organization he should join in order to demonstrate to the Harvard Admissions Office that he really cares about the poor.</p>
<p>By the way, with respect to the lacrosse player. My niece is a coach at a DII school and she has $10,000 in scholarship aid to give to the entire recruiting class. So either a) there is some misunderstanding b) Vango’s friend is exaggerating the amount of athletic-related aid that she is being offered or c) she is something REALLY special.</p>
</p>
<a href=“