<p>Third: Some private college administrators actually like the current system</p>
<p>I’d like to try to change their minds. I’d like to persuade them that the current emphasis on preferences for recruited athletes is inconsitent with their own core mission of being academic institutions. Worth a shot. I’ve been inside and I’ve seen the damage it does in the classroom.</p>
<p>Opie </p>
<p>Your arguments remind me of LBJ’s observation about Gerald Ford. That he had played in too many games with his helmet off.</p>
<p>curmudgeon-</p>
<p>wow…that’s harsh. Now I know where you get your name from. How am I gaming the system? Just because I’ve identified a school that’s my “dream school”? Isn’t that what students are supposed to do - find a school they feel will give them what they want? And, believe it or not, a school can have an athletic program and still provide other students with what they are seeking. How is asking which science AP is easiest “gaming the system” if I am indifferent to them and I have to take one to fulfill school requirements? If I wanted to “game the system”, I would take AP Physics and pretend I am a woman interested in engineering. I have stayed true to myself and my passions. Even though I participate in a varsity sport that is more “unusual”, I do not intend to “market” that aspect of myself to schools because I have no intention of continuing at the college level. And it seems like the whole point of this forum is to help people get into the college that they want - have you actually read some of the other posts?</p>
<p>Regarding the lacrosse girl, she has not applied to any of the schools I am interested in and she is in a different year, so I don’t regard her as competition. The original post was prompted by the fact that I have to write a persausive essay for English and at the same time I found out about the lacrosse girl’s offers. It prompted a discussion among some of my classmates and that is where I got the idea for the essay. The teacher happens to also be a football coach, so I thought it would be a interesting and thought-provoking topic. Boy, was I right! Anyway, thanks for your help. Peace out.</p>
<p>“at least some”</p>
<p>K?</p>
<p>and I would like to reverse the last 6 years and have a different democratic canidate. Tain’t gonna happen. </p>
<p>And you know when you get a bit older you’ll figure out if somebody’s playing to the crowd. </p>
<p>"even under your terms of engagement "</p>
<p>Mine?</p>
<p>“I’d like to persuade them that the current emphasis on preferences for recruited athletes is inconsitent with their own core mission of being academic institutions. Worth a shot. I’ve been inside and I’ve seen the damage it does in the classroom.”</p>
<p>How so? you keep wanting to take away from somebody else and it’s become more and more apparent tis for your own benefit. </p>
<p>Again you guys get back to this notion that a student athelete is a lesser person based on YOUR elvaluation of their abilities. I disagree. </p>
<p>Again it’s not what you walk in the door with, it’s what you exit with. Get it? Being smart in HS is absolutely no 100% garantee you’ll fair better than someone coming in with lesser scores. You’ll just be bitter.</p>
<p>curious14 another thread was going when this got started. Here was the OP’s question in that one and my response. It is still true. Maybe it will help you understand. I hope so. </p>
<p>What exactly is the point of formal organized sports at a college and how is it beneficial to the goals of an education? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your view is not popular, not saleable , and not anything I want to be associated with. The majority of colleges seem to agree with me. </p>
<p>And vango, you ain’t fooling anybody. Ivy crazy is all I can say. Not one other school has ever been asked about in your posts. They are all about Princeton, and mentions of Ivy this and Ivy that. I’ve read them. And no, the concept of one dream school is absolutely NOT favored here. To focus too strongly on one super selective school leads to thinking of ways to take easy AP’s to puff your resume, and to jealousy of others who have in your opinion an “easier” road to admission. </p>
<p>With how y’all view athletes as rapists and thugs without value I’m sure you won’t mind me using your broad brush for a second. 
Nobody wants to go to a school full of booger picking academic only’s without social skills or any grasp of hygiene. I’ve been at that type school and I swear it looked like the Star Wars bar scene. It was incredibly unsettling. Hirsute huddled women and Elvis sideburned freaks of nature who left their rooms like rats who had to scurry back before being seen by the cat. But I’m betting that they all had good SAT’s.</p>
<p>Harsh? Go back and see how athletes were described. Then we’ll talk harsh.</p>
<p>Oh, I almost forgot to add the required disclaimer. LOL. . “I know some academic onlys are really good people. But I’ve seen the damage that this type of student can do to a university.”</p>
<p>“I have stayed true to myself and my passions”</p>
<p>Yet Van you dis other people for being true to themselves and their passions. Can’t you see that some people have a passion for sport? You feel it’s unnatural or something based on your view of things. Alot of people disagree.</p>
<p>Me? Some of my best times in my life were in Ireland as a 2nd row and also doing batik for 20 hours straight. My sport allowed me to meet people outside of my little world. It gave me a shot to represent my country. </p>
<p>I was able to discuss politics over beers with a communist party leader, another time talk to a salior about his country’s arpartide policies. You’ve deemed sport to be unnecessary and trivial. I’ve tried to explain to you what sport can do along the way in this whole thing. You still don’t get it. Both you and the other kid seem to think everyone else is narrowminded, when the opposite appears to be true. </p>
<p>Yea, you don’t like the football coach that teaches the class and you don’t like the girl and her opportunities. What’s sad is you are letting a few people define something for you without really getting to know what it’s about. </p>
<p>There’s some narrowmindedness going on here, unfortunately those afflicted can’t see it.</p>
<p>Opie-</p>
<p>Dude-you’re so off target-I love my English teacher. That I’d want to write a thought-provoking essay for him only shows that I admire him (albeit for his teaching skills and not his coaching skills). You’ve made assumptions about me throughout that have nothing to do with how I feel. You say I’ve deemed sport unnecessary and trivial - I’ve said nothing of the sort. I actually very much appreciated cptofthehouse balanced and well-reasoned comments. And if suddenly actors or dancers or poets started getting PREFERENCE, I’m sure you and yours would be screaming bloody murder.</p>
<p>“That I’d want to write a thought-provoking essay for him only shows that I admire him (albeit for his teaching skills and not his coaching skills).”</p>
<p>Then I wouldn’t show him these posts you made. </p>
<p>“You’ve made assumptions about me throughout that have nothing to do with how I feel. You say I’ve deemed sport unnecessary and trivial - I’ve said nothing of the sort.”</p>
<p>I beg to differ, dearheart, you’ve done just exactly that. </p>
<p>"What exactly is the “point” of formal organized sports at a college and how is it beneficial to the goals of an education? "</p>
<p>“And if suddenly actors or dancers or poets started getting PREFERENCE, I’m sure you and yours would be screaming bloody murder.”</p>
<p>And this is where your soooo messed up. Do you know what Batik is? Do you know I could play football,basketball, soccer and rugby and get awards for my art? I can create with my hands. I can shape and form clay into art. I can take dyes and wax and create something beautiful. I also can build a house. You keep implying its one or the other. Please, I would never limit any person into one being. I’m an artist, athelete, educator, businessman, dad,son,brother. </p>
<p>My dear dear van, Do you not understand a person can be many things. You are truly one of the blind men who met the elephant. Think. Your not doing it when you write stuff like that. I can be many things. Can’t you?</p>
<p>Vango,
Why can’t you just be happy for the B student who got into a prestigious school for her lacrosse ability?
How would you feel if you got into a school because of your dancing, and someone started talking about you behind your back?
And how can you be a student and still be posting in the middle of the schoolday?</p>
<p>In the off chance that it isn’t obvious to everyone, I’d like to point out that Opie and Curmudgeon are using a “strawman” argument. They are pretending that someone has suggested eliminating sports at the college level and then arguing that that would be wrong. If you’ll check the last 250 posts on this site you’ll find that no one has made that argument. No one has even suggested that admissions committees shouldn’t look favorably upon students who have competed in HS athletics.</p>
<p>Can we dispense with the self-interest argument. The system of granting recruited athletes special preferences over better academically qualified students with EC’s that require similar levels of dedication and time (including non-recruited athletes) may change someday but not in time to help or hurt those participating in this thread.</p>
<p>curious, the OP alleged that an unqualified applicant was admitted to a university because she was an athlete. I’m not sure she meant to say “unqualified,” because a B student is probably not unqualified for anywhere. What I’m assuming she meant was less qualified. That becomes very subjective, depending on the school. So what if a school wants a mix of students, instead of as curm so eloquently put it, booger picking academic onlies? And if someone wants to go to a booger picking school, there’s bound to be a few out there. </p>
<p>It seems the OP thinks that theater and dance is not valued as highly at the school in question, whatever it is, as lacrosse. Oh well. I’m sure Julliard could care less about lacrosse, why not try there. I wonder how many football scholarships Julliard has. Oh.</p>
<p>My son went to a highly regarded engineering school for an overnight. He had part of an afternoon free and decided to go hang at/outside the student union. He’s a pretty friendly, easygoing person, and he said he had a hard time getting anyone to make eye contact with him. He’d pass people and say “hey” or “whazza” or whatever they say now, and they’d just look down at the ground. That school went from being at the top of his list to the bottom. Now, this school is notorious for high SATs and grades. His reaction- rather go to a school with normal kids.</p>
<p>Perhaps schools really do want an academic mix. And perhaps if they’re going to accept some B students, they might as well have something to offer the school. Maybe they already have theater and dance students who have A’s. Who knows and who really cares.</p>
<p>I think we are loosing sight of the original OP’s concern about admissions preferences given to athletes. As an alum of Ohio State who attended every f’ball and many b’ball games I am certainly not anti-collegiate athletics. And I have no problem giving admissions advantages to those extraordinary athletes who are offered full athletic scholarships because the university is making a significant investment in them. But how many students are we talking about. Take a guess and I bet you are way off. The actual number is at the end of this post.</p>
<p>What I am arguing is that admissions preferences are a significant problem at small elite universities where up to 30% of the student body participates in varsity athletics. Many of these students are admitted without any preferences and I applaud them. However many others do get an admissions “pass” and potentially impact the campus culture and mission of the instiution. </p>
<p>And lets talk about stereotypes. What athletes get the biggest admissions pass? B’ball? F’ball? Stereotypically the bastion of African American students? Nope. It is ice hockey and wrestling where minority participation is relatively small.</p>
<p>And if these highly selective colleges were to eliminate admissions preferences altoghther how would it impact their athletic programs? Well the teams may not be as skilled on the court or playing field but the teams would be totally representative of the students in the stands. And the superb student who was a decent varsity athlete in hs would have a far better chance of making his college team. And this wouldn’t be a good thing?</p>
<p>And remember, athletic admissions preferences are not given in order to field athletic teams. They are given to field WINNING athletic teams, something that is in no college mission statement that I am aware of.</p>
<p>BTW, OSU offered 70 athletic scholarships in the 2005-6 school year. I bet thats a lot lower than you thought.</p>
<p>I once had the opportunity to look at a “score sheet” used by a college which will remain anonymous. It took a holistic approach to admissions. A certain number of points were given for SAT scores by RANGE. Ex: 1550-1600= 10 pts; 1500-1549= 9 pts; etc. Same thing for GPAs. Then similar points were awarded based on rigor of curriculum (Over 5 APs=10, 2-4=8, etc). Points were awarded if student was a recruited athlete. Points were awarded if student was URM. Points were awarded for community involvement (5 for involvement, 0 for none). Same for leadership, ECs. The student’s ESSAYS were scored 0 to 5. Points were awarded for 1st generation college student or child of alumni. Basically, it was obvious that you couldn’t generalize at all who would get in based on grades. That was just one piece of the puzzle. And even so, there wasn’t a significant point spread between the 4.0 student and the 3.0, all things considered. Or the 1300 SAT and 1450 SAT.</p>
<p>PS Don’t quote me on the exact # of points awarded, etc. I was just giving an example.</p>
<p>Contrary to what curious14 may think, I have no personal interest in this thread. My D was NOT a recruited athlete, and most likely did not receive a boost in her standing in the applicant pool because of their desire to see her on the court. As a 5’11" “tweener” she was recruiting them to find a place to play. As I jokingly said during the process, we were hoping her ACT scores, rank, and GPA would get her on the team , not in the school. LOL. </p>
<p>AS to the self interest of vango? I’m pretty sure I have that one figured out. As to you curious, I’ll have to have some more data points.</p>
<p>You can’t understand where I’m coming from on this thread if you don’t examine my post I re-posted in #246. We, the majority who support preferential treatment of athletes (among others), recognize , as does the Rhodes scholarship committee, that athletic prowess is an admirable quality in a student and we value it. Curious and Vango don’t value it or or at least don’t value it as highly. That is no strawman argument.</p>
<p>It is a genuine difference in how and who and how much we value and y’all will never come to my side, and I will never come to yours . Your horror stories of rapes and violence and dumbing down will never sway me (just as my anti-social booger picking freak show academic only no-date scurrying rat school pictures will never change your mind.)</p>
<p>Can’t speak for others but I do value actors, and poets , and musicians, and do believe they should receive a boost in admissions. I believe they do. I think NYU is a school that rewards actors , the aforementioned Julliard and others for music, and I believe a published poet would do very well at Bard and Sarah Lawrence. There are talent scholarships at a great many LAC’s and those areas are included . If they are giving money to the most talented actor, don’t you folks think they are getting a boost? Come’on. Let’s be honest. </p>
<p>So that’s it vango and curious. That’s the issue laid bare which is what I have always been speaking to no matter the attempts y’all made to obfuscate . I highly value the ideal of balance between the intellectual and the physical, between the scholar and the athlete as have aeons of humans before me. If the world manages to survive a few more thousand years, maybe your view will become predominant and we may become more impressed by a brain-in-a-jar than by a Rhodes Scholar, but don’t hold your breath.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that originaloog is correct. Athletes are given preferential treatment for admissions and financial awards due to their abilities to win games. The classic ideal of the student athlete may sound good, but an athlete without the ability to be highly successful at the college level is going to see little or no preferential treatment. They can find themselves in the same position as the very skilled high school musician. Unless the music student auditions for a conservatory or music major program, no one cares about their skill, dedication and hours of work. Sure they might get a few points when it comes to admissions, but generally, very few.</p>
<p>So I guess the question should be why do many colleges care so much about having highly competitive and hopefully winning teams? Some people believe the reason is money. There is not much hard data, but it is pretty clear that sports programs lose money. Often the costs are very high - $50-100 million/year. A very few schools might see returns greater than the expenses, but that is rare and it is also doubtful that the sports generate alumni contributions to offset the costs. Are the big time sports programs worth it because they generate prestige and bring in new students? Possibly, but I think there is an even more compelling reason. The interest in college sports reflects the intense interest in spectator sports in our society. There are millions and millions of sports fans and many are intensely avid. The psychology of spectator sport enthusiasts is pretty well understood. Sure there is drama in sports competition, but the compelling reasons are more social. The interest is motivated by a desire to belong to a group and the feelings associated with belonging. For a college this can be a large component of school spirit. IMO, there is little doubt that major college sports programs have little to do with academics, they may or may not attract students, and they may, but probably don’t make money. The appeal is due to more basic, psychological and emotional reasons.</p>
<p>edad, I agree. As far as bigtime programs go you are right. This thread vacillates between Enormous State U and Margaret Mead College so often I can’t keep up. The issues are clearly different by some order or degree, sometimes substantially.</p>
<p>Double Play and Originaloog make some interesting points. Doubleplay, on the issue of having a mix of interests and talents on campus, no one has suggested that colleges shouldn’t do that. Unless you think that athletes are especially stupid, colleges should not have to accept less academically qualified students to accomplish this. The problem, as Originaloog notes, is not that they need to have lower their standards to have athletes. It’s that they lower their standards to have winning teams. This problem got way out of hand years ago in the Ivy League and the Academic Index, which is used to establish minimum academic standards, was created to help deal with the problem. I think, but am not sure, that a similar system exists with the NCAA generally. Some of you may be able to help out here. One approach to reduce the magnitude of the gap between the academic qualifications of the student body as a whole and that of recruited athletes is simply to raise that minimum standard. The objection most frequently raised to this approach is that it will disproportionately harm inner city minorities. The solution to that is to aggressively fund financial aid for the economically disadvantaged so that no one who is academically qualified to attend a particular college or university would choose not to do so because they couldn’t afford it.</p>
<p>Just won’t address the basic issue I continue (and will continue to raise) , will you curious14? Why is that?</p>
<p>“Unless you think that athletes are especially stupid, colleges should not have to accept less academically qualified students to accomplish this.”</p>
<p>Um. Going back to the OP- we’re talking a B student versus, I’m guessing, an A student (the OP?). I don’t think a B student is especially stupid, or stupid period. I don’t even believe that your high school GPA is an intelligence indicator. Are you saying that colleges should only look at academic qualifications for admissions? Then why are we wasting time with the Activity Records, Essays, Recommendation Letters, Community Service, and so on? If the latter should not make any difference, then we should just look at the high school transcript and test score.</p>