<p>I find it’s sometimes helpful to summarize the other side’s argument. I’ll try to do this without reference to either “knuckle draggers” or “brains in a jar.” There are two separate issues. The first issue deals with the Ivy’s and small to medium sized highly selective Div. III schools like those in NESCAC that offer no athletic scholarships but do “tip” admissions in the favor of recruited athletes. The second issue deals with large, primarily state schools, some of which are also highly selective, that as Div. I schools grant not only “tips” in admissions to recruited athletes but also grant athletic scholarships.</p>
<p>Group I: Ivy’s & highly selective Div. III schools</p>
<p>The argument for granting preferences in admission to recruited athletes, beyond the credit given for other comparably demanding EC’s, including non-recruited athletes, seems to be that the issue has already been dealt with. The argument is that these schools are already tightly constrained by existing rules and perhaps only 15% (just to pick a number) of recruited athletes fall more than one standard deviation below the mean and only 2 % or so fall more than two standard deviations below the mean for all students. Therefore only a very small number of recruited athletes receive an admissions “tip” larger than that given to other students with similarly demanding EC’s.</p>
<p>Groups II: Larger Div. I schools</p>
<p>In this case there seems to be a concession that the “tip” is larger and that the variance from the average student is larger but the defense is that in a large student body the statistical effect on admissions for the rest of the student body is so small as to be irrelevant. As far as the athletic scholarships are concerned the defense is that some of these athletes raise money for the university (FB & BB) and so the athletic scholarships are at worst self funding and at best make a positive financial contribution in addition to their entertainment/school spirit value.</p>
<p>I have skipped all the arguments about the value of sports since they seem to be off point, on both sides, since no one is arguing that we should get rid of college sports.</p>
<p>No, but good try in setting up a couple of strawmen. Those are not arguments for why the preferences exist. They are arguments against the supposed deletrious effect of the choice to have such a preference. You can’t take the value arguments out because this IS at its crux an argument about values. </p>
<p>As has been repeated ad infinitum the reason for such preferences where they exist is our society (and societies for thousands of years. ) values the mind/body ideal (the scholar athlete, the warrior/scholar) and that is reflected in many different ways including our love of spectator sports. Look at our paintings. Ever seen a wimpy god, whether Greek , Roman or whatever? We value it. </p>
<p>This is not that difficult. Places where it is not valued, don’t have preferences. Places where it is valued, have preferences. When there are more haters than lovers (and the haters have the $ and position to mean something ) it goes away. When the lovers (assuming they are people with $ and position ) want it , it stays. </p>
<p>Don’t like where a school stands on this value issue , whether hater or lover or somewhere in between, and that position disturbs your enjoyment of the school ? There’s another one right down the road.</p>
<p>You are doing the argumentative equivalent of flailing your arms about in a fight.
You are arguing that that which exists should exist, because it does. Since no one is arguing for ending college sports, all your arguments about athletic tradition -mind/body, athlete/scholar etc. are just so much noise. Tell me, if you can, what exactly are you arguing for that someone else is arguing against.</p>
<p>curious14, I’m just unwilling to fall into your poorly constructed trap. Did you really think anyone would expect you to properly frame the question? LOL.</p>
<p>And to use your metaphor , I believe the blow was an uppercut and you may be seeing stars. Of course not athletic stars.;)</p>
<p>
Oh dear, if you haven’t figured out that I am arguing that preferences for athletes should continue while you are arguing they should not, well…maybe you could spend your time better. I have a few suggestions that may improve your reading comprehension. ;)</p>
<p>Let me try to construct your argument for you. The difference in the quality of college athletics that is obtained by granting special preferences to recruited athletes compared the quality of athletics that would exist if athletics were treated like any other EC, requiring comparable commitment, justifies special treatment for recruited athletes.</p>
That was Sartre, not me. Sorry you got confused. I was arguing that what exists is a result of our desire for human perfection which in western thought has a physical component that you deny in the face of tremendous odds. Sartre was smoking Gauloise’s in the back booth at Sinner’s Alley.</p>
<p>curious14, thanks but no, thanks. I like mine better. </p>
<p>But since it seems to be so much fun for you, I will construct one for you. "Since some kids I like a lot suck at and/or are disinterested in the physical part of Western civilization’s search for human perfection, it should no longer be part of such ideal at the uber-selective colleges I would like them to attend or at least not to the point of a preference. "</p>
<p>I know that, the problem is that all your arguments are nothing more than a support of athletics not a support of special preferences. BTW the last post was a compliment.</p>
<p>One of the things you continue to ignore is the idea that adcoms, give greater credit at some schools to the student with a captaincy (or even long-term committed participation) of some sport in high school than they do comparable achievements elsewhere, whether that student is a recruited athlete or not. That’s why I won’t agree to the “quality of the program” argument you want me to make. From the perspective of the colleges with preferences it is a “quality of the student body” argument. </p>
<p>The schools want some portion of their student body that meet those parameters and they give whatever preference is necessary to get them. If you ask “why?” again the answer will stay they same. Because they value it. And if you ask another “why?” the answer will also stay the same , our desire for human perfection, the whole mind/body “thang”.</p>
<p>I only have a problem with the special preferences offered to recruited athletes. I don’t care about the relative weighting that one ad com gives to one EC over another although as a practical matter the two may be hard to separate.</p>
<p>In terms of your western civ argument. That tradition also values music, dance and drama. But we see no comparable special preferences for these EC’s.</p>
<p>But curious, although I agree that an individual adcoms biases for/against come into play, I believe there is an institutional goal that is tracked and monitored and manipulated. Penn, Vandy (that’s all that sticks right now) and some others can tell you how many of the entering class played a varsity sport. Can they tell you how many played trombone? Liked to read Plato? Maybe they can. I don’t know how sophisticated this class building is. But rest assured, if they wanted to change it and had the institutional will to do it, they could manipulate it “to the penny”.</p>
<p>It’s my understanding that ad coms have separate procedures for handling recruited athletes. Its not just an issue of slight changes in preference on the part of the ad coms but a wholly different approach.</p>
<p>Curious, I think that’s largely because excellence in music, dance, & drama are such subjective measurements. Athletic excellence is very easy to quantify in most cases. It is also much more rare. If the football team loses, it’s a real downer for the student body. The orchestra audience will enjoy the performance, even if it is not a world class effort, because it is not presented in a competitive setting. You don’t walk out of the concert hall feeling depressed or let down, as you do leaving a sporting event if the team stinks. </p>
<p>There really are more kids capable of being concertmasters in the school orchestra than there are kids capable of leading the football team as QB.</p>