<p>You’re right, barrons. But even if you take out the artsy kids who head off to conservatories, there are still thousands of talented artsy kids who are quite capable of tackling challenging roles in all types of artistic endeavors. Their numbers dwarf the number of kids good enough to earn Div1 sports scholarhips.</p>
<p>Vango, It was clear to me that I got a leg up in admissions for my college because of my musical ability. I didn’t have near the average SAT or GPA for an OOS student. I also overheard an administrator from the music dept. lobby admissions on behalf of a student with very low SATs. It seemed to me that fine arts people were judged by a different set of standards than the straightforward academic students.</p>
<p>Here’s how I look at it- if you’re going to get in because of athletics, you have to be a stellar athlete. If you’re going to get in because of fine arts, you have to be a stellar artist. If you’re going to get in because of academics, you have to be a stellar student. If you are not at the tip top of the heap, all bets are off.</p>
<p>Re: “In the end we need to remember we get what we create incentives for. Do we really want to encourage High School students to spend 3 to 5 hours a day training to become college athletes?”</p>
<p>LOL! My son spends 3 to 5 hours a day training and he’s NOT going to become a college athlete. The question is, Do we really want to DISCOURAGE high school students from pursuing a passion- any passion- that they will only have the opportunity to pursue while young, that is good for them, that promotes teamwork, discipline, courage, faith?</p>
<p>I grew up in a household where sports were discouraged. Only intellectual pursuits were encouraged. I came to realize when I got older that I missed out on something very valuable.</p>
<p>Stickershock,</p>
<p>Your argument is often used to explain why professional athletes earn more than artists. For that purpose it’s a fine argument but whether or not to grant special preference to recruited athletes in admissions and financial aid for colleges and universities is a completely different question. This is not the outcome of a market process but something the academic community has chosen to do. They can choose to do otherwise!</p>
<p>Vango,</p>
<p>Part of the problem with debating “athletic recruiting” is that it is an extremely complex area (as exemplified by the myriad posts here)</p>
<p>D3 schools give NO athletic scholarships. D1 and D2 scholarships are limited by NCAA rules. Ivies are D1 but have elected to give NO scholarhips.</p>
<p>If your real problem stems from the fact that athletes tend to get in ED at Ivies, here is why that happens (and its not because Ivies value athletes more): Ivies are D1 and compete with all the other D1 schools who DO give scholarship money. Those other scholarship schools have “National Letter of Intent” signing periods, often in October, where recruited athletes will sign a contract to commit to that school. If Ivies cannot also offer admission at the same time (i.e. likely letters and ED), they are at a tremendous disadvantage in recruiting. The Ivies’ only draw for the athlete is the Ivy name (not scholarship money), and that works for many scholar athletes. But the athletes need to know early whether they are getting in, or else they might as well sign a contract with Stanford, Duke, UCLA or UVA and take the money.</p>
<p>I was under the impression that colleges select students talented in many areas of endeavor–not just sports–to ensure that the college’s EC offerings continue to thrive on campus. This way, a student who wants to attend top college X but also wants to play in the jazz band or run track while there, won’t reject college X in favor of another that does have those activities. As doubleplay points out, talented musicians apparently also get some breaks.</p>
<p>Is anyone considering that what our American society values is being reflected in our colleges and universities? Sports are a substitute for war (although we are doing both now), the populace needs something to occupy itself with- consider the Vietnam War era; at UW- Madison students were involved in anti-war protests then, now there is much more interest in the football team than in my day. The Romans had gladiators, we have football teams.</p>
<p>“I don’t doubt that dedication to a sport spills into other areas of life, but that could be said of many things. Dancing pointe, being a skilled musician, etc. all teach similar skills and require a tremendous amount of dedication.”</p>
<p>Vango, what you say above is correct, but there’s more to it than that. Imagine a high school music department in which 2 or 3 times per week each instrumentalist had to audition individually in front of strangers in order to keep their spot in the musical group or was challenged to a competition each week by a fellow student who had designs on their chair. Only that would approximate the circumstances of a varsity athlete. I can guarantee you that no high school musician or actor has to keep on their toes that much. They may audition once a year for band/orchestra placement and chair, they may audition for a regional ensemble or two throughout the year, but their individual performance is not being assessed several times a week.</p>
<p>During each varsity game or meet, athletes are being rated by their coaches, the clock or statistician, and often by sports writers too. And one bad game, and your starting spot is gone. It can be quite mentally demanding.</p>
<p>PS–my daughter plays in 2 musical groups at school, so we know something about this arena as well. So far this year she has HAD to audition only twice: once to get into the one group, and once for band placement for next year.</p>
<p>First of all, most schools offer training in the arts as part of their academic offerings, which makes it different from athletics in a sustantial way, i.e. it is part of academics. Second, I was not saying that students of the arts should receive preference, on any given day an artist should have as much chance as an athlete of gaining admission when all other things are equal.</p>
<p>I have a different question. Should a high caliber musician with excellent academic qualifications be given an advantage over an applicant with even better academic qualifications but no outside hook (music, art, athletics, etc)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t check current college catalogues, but when I was in college 25 years ago, I took golf, tennis and swimming and got credit for them.</p>
<p>Secondly, if you COULD quantify an artist’s talents, I am sure that s/he would recieve just as much advantage in admissions as an equivalent athlete.</p>
<p>“Sports are a substitute for war (although we are doing both now), the populace needs something to occupy itself with- consider the Vietnam War era; at UW- Madison students were involved in anti-war protests then, now there is much more interest in the football team than in my day. The Romans had gladiators, we have football teams.”</p>
<p>wis,
The idea of men NOT going off to war/hunt is a recent phenomena, in the scope of humankind. It’s only been in recent time that young men are NOT needed, trained, and developed to be warriors. If you look at any culture, initiation rites and “games” are meant as a way to prepare for the hunt or physical combat. It has been necessary for survival to learn these skills. It’s basically in the blood. It will take another several millenia to evolve out of the warrior. That is, assuming we have no wars ever again. hmmmm.</p>
<p>“I have a different question. Should a high caliber musician with excellent academic qualifications be given an advantage over an applicant with even better academic qualifications but no outside hook (music, art, athletics, etc)?”</p>
<p>I’ll answer your question with another question. Should it be important how a high caliber musician, who is going to play in your orchestra, did in high school chemistry? Calculus? SAT Math?</p>
<p>Opie, calm down. I do not think anyone is implying that all athletes are stupid as stones. We all know that many are not. And very, very few athletes are admitted to any college with academic records so far below the norm such that inability to remain academically eligible is highly probable.</p>
<p>What the OP is commenting on is the well known fact that many athletes are admitted into colleges with academic records which place them in the bottom 1/3rd or 1/4 of the admitted class and that without this admissions advantage would stand little chance of being admitted. The Yale student I mentioned was admitted with a SAT 1 score of less than 1350. How far below I do not know. Will he be able to graduate? I fully expect that he will. And no, he is not a b’ball, f’ball or hockey player.</p>
<p>It can be argued that this has to be the case in any admissions scenario, regardless of whether they are athletes or other classifications of admittes such as URM’s, legacies, developmental, physical disability admits. Some group of students have to be in that bottom 1/3 category.</p>
<p>And it can also be argued that athletes in the major sports like f’ball, b’ball and sometimes hockey can be have a positive impact on the campus culture.</p>
<p>But the OP does raise a valid question. Particularly when intercollegiate athletics in the US is compared to the club based programs in colleges throughout the rest of the world. Another poster has pointed out that admissions to colleges in these other countries better represent admissions based solely on academic achievement.</p>
<p>I am not anti-athletics. Heck, I attended Ohio State and still root for my beloved Buckeyes. But I also agree with the Bowen/Shulman study concluding that there are negative consequences associated with college athletics today.</p>
<p>How about this gem… a strong safety who has a masters in fine arts???
My jh art teacher played in the rose bowl and was a comtempory artist??? whaaa? how does he qualify? </p>
<p>I think you’re just trying to pigeonhole people into a neat sterotype to fit your arguements. Atheletes are just like you with another interest that floats their boat.</p>
<p>"First of all, most schools offer training in the arts as part of their academic offerings, which makes it different from athletics in a sustantial way, i.e. it is part of academics. Second, I was not saying that students of the arts should receive preference, on any given day an artist should have as much chance as an athlete of gaining admission when all other things are equal. "</p>
<p>At my son’s high school, almost all the coaches/PE teachers played varsity sports in college. Many college and professional coaches, sports journalists, and sports broadcasters played sports in college. Colleges offer degrees in recreation and sports management, physical education, exercise physiology, and other sports related programs. Sports is a huge industry.</p>
<p>" I do not think anyone is implying that all athletes are stupid as stones"</p>
<p>Yes, they are. It is immediately assumed they are in the bottom third. Even you just did it in your post. </p>
<p>College atheletes as a group (not individual sport…different issue) will mirror the general population of a college campus. That is their Gpa and retention levels will match within reason the college they are at. they’re just people.
If a skill gets them in the door, fine. A NMF gets you in the door too. Should we just go first come first served? </p>
<p>I don’t sit and bemoan why somebody took up piano and I didn’t. I don’t sit and bemoan why somebody’s daddy made alot of money and mine didn’t. I have little patience for those who do. Whaa that person gets something I don’t. There must be something wrong with THEM, because of course it’s not me. </p>
<p>Both my kids learned that if there’s something wrong with the situation the easiest way to fix it is work on yourslef. That meant studies, that meant going to the weight room, running laps, going to the libarary, spending weekends on ballfields and in books. Other kids went to the mall, watched tv and opened their books up the night before exams. OF course those kids have a right to b itch about somebody else. (I put the happy face because I’m not mad or upset, I’m just telling the truth.) There’s alot of people who justify their not working harder by putting somebody else down who did, whether it’s on a ball field or bandroom or in the workplace latter on. </p>
<p>I come from a family of all american atheletes and phd’s in fine arts. I’ve seen what it takes to excell at different spectrums of life. I know the work and sacrifice that goes into either. I also know the putdowns from those who didn’t put the time in, even if it’s real nice like, from both ends and somewhere in the middle.</p>
<p>Another difference between athletics and every other EC is the tremendous amount of resources devoted to athletics vs. every other EC. I bet if you looked at the $'s per student involved in athletics, it would be an astonishing number. I’ve read various things about dollars involved at different schools, but I have not found an “average” number across schools.</p>
<p>the percentages should be looked at. Our football team has about 100 members our school has 40,000 at the main campus and another 30,000 at branch campuses. So if you figure that out. That is less than a tenth of a percent. Addmitting athletes is insignificant.</p>
<p>Also none of the money for sports comes from the general student funds. It is taking away nothing.</p>
<p>Opie,</p>
<p>But sometimes the system is wrong and the right thing to do is to try and change it. Let’s say you could prove in a quantifiable way that the focus this country places on athletics is hurting academic performance of the country as a whole. Wouldn’t it be worth reassessing priorities and making changes? This argument about athletics isn’t just occurring here on CC, there is plenty of national debate about college athletics being out of control.</p>
<p>Naz-
It’s not just about football. What about other sports and what about all the resources devoted to the sports - facilities, salaries, travel expenses, etc.</p>