Is Admitting Students to College based on Sports Beneficial?

Is it a good idea to keep admitting students to colleges based on their athletic skills rather than their academic skills?

While I'm not against considering sports as a benefit to a student's resume, I'm talking about recruiting people specifically because of their sports skills.

repeter said:

Is it a good idea to keep admitting students to colleges based on their athletic skills rather than their academic skills?

While I'm not against considering sports as a benefit to a student's resume, I'm talking about recruiting people specifically because of their sports skills.

Click to expand...

sure-it gets alumni bucks. athletes often have valuable contributions to the student body as a whole.

Colleges, acting as pro footballs minor leagues, is probably the best way of doing things, for now:mrgreen:.
I guess, but things would be better if these athletes recieved a true education..
It must be embarassing trying to interview a man who cannot speak clearly and intelligently, after all, the NFL life is 5 years, then there is 50 years of toil

Hmmm....good question. I'm not sure I have an opinion yet, but I do know that this country puts WAY too much emphasis on sports and not enough on academics.

Absolutely not. It is biased and reflects even more societies want for the perfect human.

I find it annoying that idiots who can barely read will get full rides to prestigious universities and also have all their cheating done for them so they don't have to worry about classes. It brings in some money, but you have to spend a lot of money on it in return when the money could have been better invested into academic programs.

Ikari said:

I find it annoying that idiots who can barely read will get full rides to prestigious universities and also have all their cheating done for them so they don't have to worry about classes. It brings in some money, but you have to spend a lot of money on it in return when the money could have been better invested into academic programs.

Click to expand...

sure beats admitting people based on their race. athletes at least have achieved something. and while you hear cases of dumb jocks who take BS classes and can hardly read that is not the case-at the most prestigious schools. The Ivy league has strict rules that prevent a team from having more than one deviation below the student body. The ivies use the following formula

240 points is a perfect student-since First in your class gives you 80 points, perfect SATs 80 points and a 4.0 or 4.3 average is 80 points. In 2006 Yale's student body was about 222 points. Teams could not be less than one deviation below that which would mean about 210. In other words 1400 averages rather than 1475, 3.85 rather than 3.95 HS GPA and top 10% of their classes rather than top 5%.

When I was there, some of the very best students had been recruited for sports-a HS All American Football player in my class earned a Rhodes and a 3.97, the captain of the squash team was a rhodes scholar the captain of the tennis team was a Marshall Scholar, an olympic Skeet Shooter was cum laude, and one of my suitemates-recruited for gymnastics is now a surgeon rebuilding ballerinas' knees.

for every dumb hockey jock or football guy there were a dozen very good athletes earning top grades in everything from theoretical mathmatics to italian poetry.

Juiposa said:

Absolutely not. It is biased and reflects even more societies want for the perfect human.

Click to expand...

what does that mean-it makes no sense

TurtleDude said:

sure-it gets alumni bucks. athletes often have valuable contributions to the student body as a whole.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't a good student deserve that spot more than the athlete? I've always felt that athletes in a general sense should not be given the same amount of recognition as academics, or artists, because they don't really do any s**t for humanity. Sure, they appeal to the barbaric sense in us all--we like seeing people beat the crap out of each other for example--but their contribution to humanity reached its limit when we started inventing guns and weapons to replace a need to be the biggest or fastest.

TurtleDude said:

sure beats admitting people based on their race. athletes at least have achieved something. and while you hear cases of dumb jocks who take BS classes and can hardly read that is not the case-at the most prestigious schools. The Ivy league has strict rules that prevent a team from having more than one deviation below the student body.

Click to expand...

Just because we have AA means every other type of restriction, or preference is allowable, or even warranted. Hell, I'd argue AA isn't necessary for the msot part now either.

And for every athlete, there was still another student out there, who was smarter, or more intelligent.

repeter said:

Wouldn't a good student deserve that spot more than the athlete? I've always felt that athletes in a general sense should not be given the same amount of recognition as academics, or artists, because they don't really do any s**t for humanity. Sure, they appeal to the barbaric sense in us all--we like seeing people beat the crap out of each other for example--but their contribution to humanity reached its limit when we started inventing guns and weapons to replace a need to be the biggest or fastest.

Click to expand...

sure but many of the kids who go to the big state schools where athletics really matter (OSU, Florida Alabama Michigan, etc) have hundreds of lackluster students who really aren't good at anything.

The kids who get recruited to play squash for dartmouth or williams are exceptional kids

I agree with what some have already said - schools should not be spending limited resources on giving athletes free rides over those of superior academic abilities.

The same way schools should not give priority to the children of alumni. Each student should stand on her own academic merits.

repeter said:

Just because we have AA means every other type of restriction, or preference is allowable, or even warranted. Hell, I'd argue AA isn't necessary for the msot part now either.

And for every athlete, there was still another student out there, who was smarter, or more intelligent.

Click to expand...

My brother was an admissions officer for Yale. Probably the most selective college in the Nation. Yale seeks a diverse class not people who were somewhat good at a bunch of thiings. One of my suitemates had average HS grades. True he had perfect scores but he had a B average. why did he get into Yale-because at age 17 he took out Robert Byrne and Nick De Furmian at one of the most prestigious chess tournaments in the USA. he had a 2450 rating. He was NOT well rounded but a class that had him, and many who were excellent at many different areas made for an incredibly diverse and interesting class

The day I received my diploma, I sat next to a guy who know teaches at Oxford or the LSE (joint appointments). They called my name and the honors I earned. Then they called his he was jr Phi Beta Kappa, summa Cum Laude with distinction in literature classics and philosophy etc. So he sits down and I said-damn I wish i had studied as hard as you did-maybe i would have been summa. he looked at me-and in all honesty-said, hey sometimes I wished I was out practicing in driving rain like you did almost every weekend so the US Olympic Committee invited me to live and train at the otc for the 1980 games. People at those schools recognize excellence and achievemnt in areas they don't delve into.

The vast majority of recruited athletes I met in college, and later at law and grad school (where i ended up coaching a varsity sport) added much to the schools.

Krhazy said:

I agree with what some have already said - schools should not be spending limited resources on giving athletes free rides over those of superior academic abilities.

The same way schools should not give priority to the children of alumni. Each student should stand on her own academic merits.

Click to expand...

that sounds good but is stupid some kid mouthed the same thing to Sterling Professor Robert Dahl many years ago at Morse College at Yale. Dahl looked at the guy and then asked him how many students in the dining hall did this student think were getting financial aid. Probably half the student said Exactly said Dahl. and he noted if Yale didn't give legacies breaks (btw legacy admissions usually graduate with a higher average than non legacies) alumni giving would decrease dramatically and many smart students couldn't afford the place and many professors would have to find employment in the corporate sector

reality sort of bitch slaps the utopian pillow heads

Ikari said:

I find it annoying that idiots who can barely read will get full rides to prestigious universities and also have all their cheating done for them so they don't have to worry about classes. It brings in some money, but you have to spend a lot of money on it in return when the money could have been better invested into academic programs.

Click to expand...

I was a scholarship athlete at a D-1 university, and while it isn't a big name in football or basketball, it is competitive in many sports, especially ice hockey. Student-athletes were REQUIRED to meet admission requirements AFTER scholarships were offerred. I also didn't see any grades altered or any cheating, though students who needed it were provided tutors to HELP them to understand the material, but NOT take exams for them. Living in the athletic dorm (something, unfortunately, not allowed today by NCAA regs), I saw first hand the difficulties faced my many student-athletes due to the time pressures created by being a full time student at the same time as being an athlete.

I do believe athletics should be considered positively AND scholarships should be continued, but regular admissions requirements should apply to all student-athletes.

repeter said:

Is it a good idea to keep admitting students to colleges based on their athletic skills rather than their academic skills?

While I'm not against considering sports as a benefit to a student's resume, I'm talking about recruiting people specifically because of their sports skills.

Click to expand...

As long as students who can academically qualify are not left out in the cold, sure.

Krhazy said:

I agree with what some have already said - schools should not be spending limited resources on giving athletes free rides over those of superior academic abilities.

The same way schools should not give priority to the children of alumni. Each student should stand on her own academic merits.

Click to expand...

You know, in most states, athletic funds (including scholarships) are separate from the general fund of the university. My athletic scholarships were funded by money raised separatly by the athletic department, not from the general fund of the university...

TurtleDude said:

what does that mean-it makes no sense

Click to expand...

Society is obsessed with being visually perfect. If you are smart and not athletic, it makes you lesser to someone who is a great athlete and smart. But if you're and athlete with no smarts, you're still better than the intellectual. Looking good seems to get you further than smarts nowadays. That is what makes no sense to me.

Juiposa said:

Society is obsessed with being visually perfect. If you are smart and not athletic, it makes you lesser to someone who is a great athlete and smart. But if you're and athlete with no smarts, you're still better than the intellectual. Looking good seems to get you further than smarts nowadays. That is what makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

that makes no sense to me either-and its not the case at top universities. People who learn to compete successfully in college athletics tend to compete successfully after college. its a character builder. looking good tends to work the best in leftwing dominated professions-acting, tv shows, etc.

ludahai said:

I was a scholarship athlete at a D-1 university, and while it isn't a big name in football or basketball, it is competitive in many sports, especially ice hockey. Student-athletes were REQUIRED to meet admission requirements AFTER scholarships were offerred. I also didn't see any grades altered or any cheating, though students who needed it were provided tutors to HELP them to understand the material, but NOT take exams for them. Living in the athletic dorm (something, unfortunately, not allowed today by NCAA regs), I saw first hand the difficulties faced my many student-athletes due to the time pressures created by being a full time student at the same time as being an athlete.

I do believe athletics should be considered positively AND scholarships should be continued, but regular admissions requirements should apply to all student-athletes.

Click to expand...

That is how it is here at BU too. Even though our sport kids might not be the brightest, the have to attend a certain percentage of classes or they will get kicked off their team and lose their scholarship. At least that is how it is with Track and Field, Swimming, Hockey, and I believe Soccer. So I imagine that it would be similar for all our other sports as well. And most of the athletes that I know are C=/B- range, unless they are in one of our harder majors.

Bodhisattva said:

As long as students who can academically qualify are not left out in the cold, sure.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm talking about. When athletes apply to a college, and are chosen over a more qualified student because of their athletic involvement, I feel it is not only unfair, setting a bad precedent but also putting those students who deserve those spots at a disadvantage in life.

TurtleDude said:

that makes no sense to me either-and its not the case at top universities. People who learn to compete successfully in college athletics tend to compete successfully after college. its a character builder. looking good tends to work the best in leftwing dominated professions-acting, tv shows, etc.

Click to expand...

...can you say something without making a remark about left-wing whatevers???

It gets real old real fast.

soccerboy22 said:

That is how it is here at BU too. Even though our sport kids might not be the brightest, the have to attend a certain percentage of classes or they will get kicked off their team and lose their scholarship. At least that is how it is with Track and Field, Swimming, Hockey, and I believe Soccer. So I imagine that it would be similar for all our other sports as well. And most of the athletes that I know are C=/B- range, unless they are in one of our harder majors.

Click to expand...

I played against BU in both soccer and track and field... great kids and a credit to the school... good ambassadors and always tough competitors with good sportsmanship in both victory and defeat...

TurtleDude said:

sure beats admitting people based on their race. athletes at least have achieved something. and while you hear cases of dumb jocks who take BS classes and can hardly read that is not the case-at the most prestigious schools. The Ivy league has strict rules that prevent a team from having more than one deviation below the student body. The ivies use the following formula

240 points is a perfect student-since First in your class gives you 80 points, perfect SATs 80 points and a 4.0 or 4.3 average is 80 points. In 2006 Yale's student body was about 222 points. Teams could not be less than one deviation below that which would mean about 210. In other words 1400 averages rather than 1475, 3.85 rather than 3.95 HS GPA and top 10% of their classes rather than top 5%.

When I was there, some of the very best students had been recruited for sports-a HS All American Football player in my class earned a Rhodes and a 3.97, the captain of the squash team was a rhodes scholar the captain of the tennis team was a Marshall Scholar, an olympic Skeet Shooter was cum laude, and one of my suitemates-recruited for gymnastics is now a surgeon rebuilding ballerinas' knees.

for every dumb hockey jock or football guy there were a dozen very good athletes earning top grades in everything from theoretical mathmatics to italian poetry.

Click to expand...

Prestigious does not have to mean Ivy League. And I don't buy it. My adviser had a good friend who was a professor at one of these very nice Universities. He had to teach a class to the basketball team. The class was about the rules and regulations of basketball. Not all of them passed...but they all ended up passing.

For every one really smart athlete who actually studies and understands theoretical mathematics or Italian poetry, there are a dozen more who have their grades changed, are papered and made sure they don't take anything too difficult, or otherwise academically cheat. This is particularly true in football and falls off sharply when you get past basketball (i.e. womens volleyball probably doesn't have a large number of cheaters in it).

University should be based on academic achievement and ability alone.

First off, let me say I’m going to be speaking about public universities because it’s of none of our concern honestly if Private schools want to look at this imho.

Now, personally I have no issue with it in a general sense. I believe there are a number of benefits. First and foremost is the revenue that enters into the college. It is not by chance that the “most prestigious” public universities in this country, the biggest named and the best equipped, also often happen to be the ones that are most likely to have successful sports programs as well. Sports generate some of the largest revenue for many of these various colleges. That BCS bowl game your team got in just allowed your new science lab to be built. That Sweet 16 appearance just allowed you to retain a department you were thinking of possible axing. If college sports were not either as exciting, as skilled, or as likely to transition into the professional game the revenue that is generated by them would not be anywhere near what it is now.

Additionally, the notion that one who excels at sports might be able to get aid with college is something I believe that pushes physical fitness and health in this country. It provides an incentive not just to make your mind, but your body healthy as well when growing up. In a society that is continually getting more lethargic, more over weight, and more unhealthy, I believe such an incentive is definitely a benefit.

Now to some points, I absolutely agree. I think there should be some sort of minimum requirement academically to be able to enter into any public college, and a scholarship athlete would need to meet that. Truly illiterate, uneducated individuals who then never actually do anything in college should not be taking up a spot. However, I believe that is far and away the minority of the scholarship athletes in this country. While they all may not be the “best and brightest” I do not think they all are the most ignorant amongst us.

Is it “wrong” that someone “smarter” may not get in because someone was a better athlete? I don’t think so. Perhaps you may think it’s not “fair”, but is college supposed to be designed as a step into the real world or a bubble of adolescence? Life isn’t fair. Is it “wrong” or “fair” that someone who had more life experience and wrote a better essay gets in instead of someone “smarter” than them? Is it “wrong” or “fair” that someone who was “dumber” than someone else but had better extra-curricular gets in instead? Is it “wrong” or “fair” that because someone is a minority, came from a school district with easier grading scales, tests very well despite having good practical intelligence, or a number of other things gets in rather than someone “Smarter” than them? Why is it that you deem athletic prowess as some black mark amongst a dozen of entry fields that far exceed simply whose IQ is the highest or who did best in school. Even if you think it is superficial, are we suggesting honestly that such is truly so different than real life? History shows the taller President with better hair usually wins out. Studies show overweight people are less likely to get a job compared to an equally or less qualified attractive person. Who you know is often far more important than what you know. LIFE can be somewhat superficial, because the reality is society as a whole values far more than simply who has the biggest brain.

I think there’s way to improve the academic entry process, and I think…if its not already there…that there should be an equal amount of money spent by the school for educational scholarships as there is for academic scholarships along with the minimum entry requirements I suggested before. But I see nothing wrong inherently with the admission of individuals due to their athletic ability, and I think there are a number of benefits to doing such.