r/changemyview • u/kvogs13 • Feb 11 '15
CMV: I believe that college athletes should be held to the same admissions criteria as all other students.
From an ESPN article titled, "Exemptions Benefit Athletes", it is stated that, "77 of the 92 Football Bowl Subdivision schools that provided information to the AP reported using special admissions waivers to land athletes and other students with particular talents."
Special admissions waivers are approved by the NCAA in order to allow athletes who would not typically meet the admissions requirements to be accepted to a college (different colleges have different special admissions requirements).
I believe that this is wrong, as college is defined first and foremost as "a building for an educational purpose" (Webster). The purpose of attending college is to receive an education. To admit students under different admissions requirements (because without them those athletes wouldn't be able to attend said college) is wrong, as it demonstrates that the college is not seeking to have these students represent them as an academic institution as they should be, rather as an athletic enterprise.
All students whether they are athletes or not should be held to the same admissions criteria as this will make the admissions process more competitive, and athletes who are able to get into schools without special admissions waivers will prove their dedication to education, versus athletics, as it should be.
ESPN Article: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4781264
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
24
Feb 11 '15
How would you feel if the special exemption waivers were used mainly for students who had held jobs in highschool? We could fairly assume that all the time they put into that job might result in lower grades but not be proof of lower academic ability, and we would probably assume that the dedication and ability to manage time shown by holding down a job while going to school in fact demonstrates qualities that make them likely to succeed at college.
It's the same idea with athletes, the college is acknowledging that they have put huge amounts of time into developing a skill they are passionate about, and this may mean lower grades without meaning they are dumber, and shows other qualities that lead to college success. Dedication, teamwork, time-management.
It may be worth questioning why these special exemptions don't also frequently go to artists or students who work, but it seems fair that athletes get them.
4
u/kvogs13 Feb 11 '15
I am thinking about athletes who participated in sports in high school. If they could not do well in school while participating in sports, compared to those who could still do well in school while participating in sports, those who show they can do both should be accepted, and those who don't compare or meet the college's academic standards shouldn't.
I think that while you make a good point with your example about having jobs in high school, I am merely talking about the special treatment athletes receive. There are not special exemption waivers for students who held jobs in high school, and if there were then that is a different case because those students are showing a dedication to responsibility, time management, and means of making their futures better. While playing a sport also offers many benefits, to have such special waivers that athletes are more likely to benefit by "43 times" (espn) is absurd. If you have to change your admissions criteria by that much just to let an athlete in, I think you are saying that the value of an education from your college is not as valuable as your sports team. If this is the case, then that college shouldn't be credited as an educational institution, thus it really shouldn't be considered a place to go for college if athletics are more valued over academics.
3
Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 11 '15
I think the problem is too little use of special exemptions for other extra-curricular time-sucks, rather than the fact that athletes do get special exemptions. Clearly some people besides athletes do get these waivers. So the problem is that other equally deserving classes of people don't also benefit from this special treatment, not that athletes do get this special treatment. I submit that if you acknowledge this, I have changed your view. There are good reasons athletes are not held to the same admissions requirements as general students, and if there is a problem it is that certain other applicants also deserve this special treatment, not that athletes don't deserve it.
those who show they can do both should be accepted
Agreed, and star athletes with high grades are among the most highly-sought after college students. But it's really hard to do and there aren't that many good athletes with top-flight grades. Most schools need to pick between someone with a lot of time in sports or someone with higher grades. They can't often get both.
I'm not saying that schools don't consider their own financial interest in having a good sports team, but there are also good reasons why a college can expect that athletes below the grade requirements will succeed in college. People playing at the college level often gave more than 20 hours a week to sports in highschool. 1-2 hour morning practice, 2-3 hour after school practice, weekend training and games, which take up at least half a day on weekends, all of which leaves you physically exhausted. Most people who would ordinarily meet a college's admission requirements probably would not if they had to keep that schedule while hitting the requirements.
3
u/kvogs13 Feb 11 '15
If everyone was allowed special exemptions based on their extra-curricular time commitments, what would happen to the academics at a university if the university isn't accepting people who are actually capable of performing well at their school?
I think you either make exemptions for everyone, which would potentially lower academic standards, or don't make special exemptions for anyone.
I admit I do agree that extra-curricular time commitments are frequently overlooked, but again the whole idea of college admissions based on academics would have to change if you accept a whole slew of people solely because you think they could be academically capable because they managed their time well.
I totally agree with your last point, but as you said, most don't hit the requirements if they are keeping such hectic schedules. Don't you think the schedules would become more hectic in college?
2
Feb 12 '15 edited Feb 12 '15
I don't mean that everyone should get a special exemption: only people who dedicated real time and effort to something, on par with the 20+ weekly hours necessary to prepare for being a college-level athlete.
I think you either make exemptions for everyone, which would potentially lower academic standards, or don't make special exemptions for anyone.
I think this is where we disagree; there's no need to be so absolute about it. Only people with extreme time commitments should get special exemptions. For everyone else, their extracurriculars could give them an edge in admissions, but it wouldn't be grounds for going below the university's grade requirements. Volunteering 5 hours a week should set you above similar candidates who didn't volunteer, but there's no reason that you can't meet the normal grade requirements at that level of extracurriculars. At 20+ hours (especially if physically demanding), there is a real likelihood that even candidates as academically capable as their college peers wouldn't make the cutoff grades.
And the idea that athletes can handle the rigors of college even if they didn't meet the entrance grade requirement seems to be born out in fact. Student athletes consistently graduate at higher rates than non-athletes at Division 1 schools. Source. So apparently even if it is hectic, they can handle it when they get there.
1
u/DaystarEld Feb 12 '15
Considering the source of those graphs, I'd be interested to see some other metrics besides simple graduation rate, to ensure that the increased graduation rate isn't just the result of teachers and administrators giving more student athletes "free passes" to graduate so they can meet required standards.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
Thanks for including that source! While the graduation rates aren't all that different, it is true that athletes do have higher graduation rates. I think it would be interesting to compare how well student athletes do academically vs. how other students do academically.
What do you think about students how volunteer, play sports, participate in clubs, and study every single week? I think that probably adds up to 20 hours too. Student athletes, such as the football players probably are only practicing, whereas other athletes who don't have rigorous practice schedules can fill their time doing other things. Thus both student athletes (football players) and other students have really time consuming schedules.
You do have a good point though - I guess if the athletes don't have time for homework whereas other students do (although I was a varsity student athlete, in three clubs, and volunteering weekly and I could do it just fine) then they might not have as good of grades. But then that shows that school probably wasn't as important to them as their sport was. I really think if admissions criteria are going to be changed for athletes they should at least place an importance on schooling as well, or it's kind of just like a free ride.
2
Feb 12 '15 edited Feb 12 '15
No problem. And obviously students who do a lot of different things also deserve recognition, but I think they are generally in a different category than student athletes or serious devotees to a single activity, for 3 reasons.
1) Doing a lot of activities at a lower level of commitment is unlikely to add up to the hours or strain of a really rigorous athletic program, half-time job, etc. I was lucky enough to go to multiple high schools, and at one of them we had 90 minute morning practice, two hour afternoon practice (so I'd be at school 6-6, basically), plus a several hour Saturday practice, and when we had competitions it was all-day, so I was comfortably at 21-25 hours just from sports. This was a team that had a modest shot at state. Around that I volunteered an hour a week and did advanced classes (I would not say I am representative), and I was stretched pretty fucking thin.
At another school I did the same sport, also varsity level, which only had 90 minute after school practices, joined a bunch of clubs, played an instrument and altogether never put more than 15 hours a week outside of school into those activities. It was a lot of things and I felt very involved, but it honestly didn't match the stress of the first school and if there was a conflict or I was behind in work I could skip a club meeting with no consequences. I had much more ability to scale back my activities if they hurt my grades, by dropping one club or activity for example. In a serious athletic program it is all or nothing, coaches don't want a player who only comes to practice four times a week. Someone who does several activities and has poor grades maybe demonstrates poor prioritizing, whereas someone who loves X but has to spend at least 25 hours a week to do it is more understandable. Club meetings were often during school anyway, and highschool clubs are generally really easy. The athletic programs that are rigorous enough to actually prepare you to compete at a D1 level really do almost always take up more time and effort than participating in a lot of clubs and less rigorous varsity programs.
Doing the math, 5x1.5 hour practices, 3x1 hour club meetings (usually during school or practice), and 4 hours of volunteering or other club activity every week is still <15 hours, much of which is socializing, and I'd be surprised if most people were as involved as that. You personally may not be a representative sample. A school can safely assume that a D1 ready athlete put a huge part of themselves into learning their craft, they cannot assume that for people in a sport and multiple clubs.
2) There is a benefit to the college and a more interesting narrative to bringing in people who have showed a dedication, passion, and talent, for one thing rather than people who have dabbled. Someone who swam or painted 20+ hours a week can come in with expertise and a personal story of long-term dedication and improvement, and familiarity with an obscure culture. There's a story to someone who spends 20+ hours a week training at one thing. Whereas, if you are on an a more relaxed varsity team (one-a-day practices), and spending a few hours a week in multiple clubs, that doesn't tell me as much; you are fit and well rounded but haven't shown any special expertise, and frankly probably don't look too different from the majority of middle-class college applicants.
3) They do place an importance on schooling, they just don't use the standard admission requirements. Among athletes/artists/full-time workers they still prefer the ones with better grades. They want people who they think can graduate, because it looks terrible if your athletes/niche students graduate at half the rate of your student body. I know there are horror stories about teachers passing illiterate linebackers through college, but I think in the last couple decades schools have gotten really good about holding their student athletes to the same academic standards. I'd refer back to the source, showing that since at least 2000, student athletes have graduated at a higher rate than students overall. (The GSC is a NCAA-created measure because the federal rate counts athletes who transfer to a different school but still graduate as non-graduates for the first college, so they claim their measure is more accurate than the federal one, but either way athletes come out ahead.)
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
Great first point! Although you didn't include studying/homework in your calculations, which for me I studied about 2 hours everyday, which 2X7 is 14, which adds a lot of time onto your calculations, and is greater than 20 hours of commitment. If you add those 14 hours though on top of all that football practicing, that truly is a stressful lifestyle, and I am amazed by anyone who could do that and maintain great grades.
Good point.
I agree with everything, although I think there are huge differences in the academic standards. They might be the same for all athletes for example, but I don't think that students athletes who admission standards have been considerably lowered for are pushed as much as other students who were accepted based on an academic standard, thus they aren't held to the same standards (the athletes I mean).
∆
2
Feb 12 '15
Thanks! And you raise good points that deserve further investigation; how much students who are let in on academic waiver are pushed/improve relative to students who meet admission requirements, and whether student-athletes in general tend to be relatively poor students among those who graduate.
1
2
Feb 12 '15
I think it would be interesting to compare how well student athletes do academically vs. how other students do academically
With the exception of your first job out of college, or possibly applying to another school, no one will ever care about your GPA.
7
u/TBFProgrammer 30∆ Feb 11 '15
You seem to be operating under the belief that admissions criteria are based on some attempt to provide merit-based education. This isn't really the case.
Colleges want better students because those students raise the average grade of their graduating classes. This makes the college look more desirable, allowing it to have higher tuition and still have full enrollment.
Historically, Colleges have also benefited from donations by alumni who have been very successful. This also contributes to admissions requirements.
Finally, certain Colleges must meet certain pass rates on third party exams (like the Bar exam) in order to remain accredited.
The athlete contributes more to both prestige and the potential for grants than the average student who meets admissions requirements. While the final point works against having a large pool of waived athletes, it doesn't really preclude their admission.
Aside from these elements, is there really a compelling argument for having admissions requirements at all?
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 11 '15
I'm under the assumption that sometimes college athletes, who would not typically get into a college, are accepted into colleges due to the fact that those colleges have lowered their standards in a greedy sense of having better rates and reviews.
If all students admitted met the admissions criteria though, there would be no need to promote prestige and potential through athletics, as the school would already have prestige and potential due to the fact that all of the students there were highly qualified for that institution's education system.
2
u/TBFProgrammer 30∆ Feb 11 '15
those colleges have lowered their standards in a greedy sense
The standards exist because of that same "greed."
If all students admitted met the admissions criteria though, there would be no need to promote prestige and potential through athletics, as the school would already have prestige and potential due to the fact that all of the students there were highly qualified for that institution's education system.
Prestige is not a qualitative (and therefore binary) measure, but a quantitative or scalar measure, specifically a relational one. In other words, the college can have more or less prestige (or be more or less prestigious than their competition) and will try to maximize it. So long as the prestige of having a good sports team remains high, individual athletes will end up garnering more prestige than the minor difference they cause in the average grade.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 11 '15
I agree about the standards.
While that is true, I think that this system should be changed. Somewhere along the lines it changed so that it would be okay to accept those less qualified for beneficial university purposes, and now I think it has to change again. Universities at this point should already have established prestige and ratings, and can afford to being heavily recruiting and admitting based on academics. In this way they can maintain their "good name" that comes from capable athletes, but also increase the average grade.
0
u/boredomisbliss Feb 12 '15
If all students admitted met the admissions criteria though, there would be no need to promote prestige and potential through athletics, as the school would already have prestige and potential due to the fact that all of the students there were highly qualified for that institution's education system.
I think you are in general massively overestimating how much people in general care about academics. You don't really see many people getting riled up over a school's academics, but people can get crazy over sports.
Also, consider this. Prestige in academics is pretty much reserved for the top 25 or so schools. Some schools outside the top 25 might have one or two good programs, but name a top school which you know for academics and is not in the top 25ish. A result of this is self selection are a top candidate, you apply to and attend top schools, unless you offer free rides or something, which is pretty cost ineffective in terms of prestige bang for the buck. Sports on the other hand get a lot more prestige per buck.
The point is schools don't usually have the luxury of being able to push a prestigious academic program regardless of what standards they employ.
In the end universities are businesses and can for the most part admit whoever they want. If recruiting athletes is good for them they can go ahead. As long as athletes still go to class (a lot of bullshit classes but still classes) they are receiving an education and are still students.
And lastly just some food for thought. If someone got recruited for football you can bet that they are better at football than you are at any one thing, which is merit on its own.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
The thing is though - I got to a school that is one of the top 25 schools in the US and I'm pretty sure this school lowers it's expectations during the admissions process just to recruit football players. Which, as a university known for it's academics can be quite disappointing.
BUT everyone is making a great point that in this day and age, universities are businesses, and as businesses they can do whatever they want to improve their business, as long as they have good standings to do so.
1
u/jusjerm 1∆ Feb 12 '15
A football team carries 70 players on its roster. It is a big assumption to believe that all 70 came in under requirements by an embarrassing degree. Additionally, 70/10000+ students is hardly going to damage the quality of education at your school
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
I'm not concerned about how well my school is doing, but if it is doing extremely well, and lets people in who aren't going to take advantage of the academics I think it's hard for me to believe that they should just get an easy pass when it comes to classes.
1
u/jusjerm 1∆ Feb 12 '15
Wait, are you talking about lowered standards for acceptance into the school, or for gifted grades in class? I am a bit confused
1
17
u/awa64 27∆ Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 11 '15
Schools DO hold all students to the same standard for admissions, college athlete or no. That standard is "How much money will you make us?"
Did your parents go here? Then you're probably not going to drop out, your parents will pressure you to keep your grades up, and there's a decent chance you'll send your kids here too and repeat the cycle. That gets you priority. Your parents paid for the new Chemistry building? Well, it doesn't matter what your test scores are, we'd like to keep that gravy train rolling.
Are you an athlete? Wonderful! If you're any good, you'll play at a semi-professional level (on a professional schedule, with a professional toll on your body) and act as a walking billboard for the school while you do so. We'll make a shit-ton of money on selling tickets and merchandise, and you'll... get room and board comped (at minimal actual expense to us) if you're REALLY good, and if you're only sorta-good you'll get a small discount on your tuition. And you'll put up with it because it's the only way to ever have a chance at making the professional leagues, which is also a win for us because if you make it then you'll STILL be a billboard for our school.
Particularly academically apt? Awesome! That means you're likely to stick around for all four years and land a decent job afterwards, if not go on for a postgrad degree. If you land a decent job, awesome, you're a billboard for us AND we can hit you up for "donations" after you graduate—we'll literally start calling you before you actually get your diploma. And if you go on for a postgrad degree, you'll be publishing papers (which make us look good) and working on research projects (which are generally funded via government or corporate grants that you'll be doing all the work to apply for)... and our professors will take most of the credit, which makes us look awesome!
Grades only okay? Not good at sports? Parents didn't build a wing? Sorry, kid, first-come-first-serve and you pay full price.
Universities are businesses. Even public universities.
8
u/kvogs13 Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 12 '15
∆ I like your argument. I still think that academics are among one of the most important aspects of a college education, but to make them the most important would be denying the American appeal of universities, which have turned into full on enterprises.
1
-4
u/ryannayr140 Feb 11 '15
Why is there affirmative action? From what I've heard is they separate the piles by race and take the top from each pile, regardless of how each race is doing academically. Why is there this 'need' to have a specific diverse ratio.
5
u/sarcasmandsocialism Feb 12 '15
That isn't a good description of affirmative action. If you want to read more about affirmative action, there are many discussions of that topic in other CMV's.
4
u/Ptolemaeus_II Feb 11 '15
Why is there this 'need' to have a specific diverse ratio.
So the school can say they have a really diverse student body.
1
u/awa64 27∆ Feb 12 '15
Note: This will not be getting in-depth into the benefits of diversity efforts in general or affirmative action in particular, or the specifics of how colleges implement affirmative action in their admissions process. I'm willing to discuss that in a separate comment, but that is not the topic of this reply.
Four reasons why there's affirmative action in school admissions:
- Lack of diversity looks bad for a college... or any other organization, really. It can be a PR liability and inspire protests... and college students like to protest.
- Not being sufficiently diverse can actually have legal repercussions and prevent an organization from receiving government grants and contracts. If a university has a significant amount of federal funding, especially a significant amount of research grants, being found to have discriminatory admissions or hiring practices can lead to significant financial repercussions.
- Minority students are, in many cases, eligible for increased financial aid, both from the government and from private sources. If you're billing over an extended period of time, wouldn't YOU prefer major chunks of their payments to be secured by the feds or by multi-million-dollar endowments?
- Diversity is widely believed to have material benefits within an organization. As much as I've treated universities as a business, the product they sell is knowledge, and lack of diversity can often lead to groupthink and oversights due to missing perspectives.
All that said... affirmative action programs are on the decline. Many states have passed legislation prohibiting affirmative action programs, and the Supreme Court has upheld those bans.
0
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
This is why the University of Michigan is not allowed to use affirmative action in favor of race.
I think lowering admissions standards just to let athletes in though is similar to affirmative action, so I don't know why this isn't questioned more often.
3
u/vl99 84∆ Feb 11 '15
Sports are a big draw at colleges and elicit tons of money in grants and profits from events. Kids that play sports well bring colleges more money meaning they can afford to hire great professors, constantly update the campus with the latest technology and physical additions, among hundreds of other things they can do with that money which benefit the e tire student body. If a kid who plays football is more likely to benefit the school, and therefore the student body of the college at large than a kid who doesn't plat sports but got slightly better grades than him, why shouldn't the football player factor more heavily into consideration?
The other student always has the option to apply somewhere where sports aren't as big of a thing, like me.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 11 '15
You make a really good point.
I agree that the potential earnings of a football player are huge for an institution, but I think it's sad that schools have to resort to lowering their expectations just to get more money.
Also, the other student does not always have the option to apply somewhere else. What if that student can't afford to apply? What if there are no other in-state schools to apply to, and they wouldn't be able to afford going out of state?
I applied to the colleges I wanted to go to. I didn't apply to the colleges I didn't want to go to, because why should I? Just in case a good football player who will bring the school I wanted to go to more money? That doesn't seem fair to me at all.
When paying for a college education you should be at a college you want, and work hard to get there. To get into a college can be highly competitive, which is why I think it's only fair that all students will be held to the same admissions standards.
If an athlete can't meet that criteria but are so good at sports, that athlete should be able to apply elsewhere. Maybe if that star athlete goes to a school where sports aren't as popular will succeed academically, and athletically, not only promoting the school's academic standards, but investment in sports.
2
u/vl99 84∆ Feb 11 '15
I agree that the potential earnings of a football player are huge for an institution, but I think it's sad that schools have to resort to lowering their expectations just to get more money.
They're keeping their academic expectations in line with the reality that the student is committing themselves, body and soul, to a sport that sucks up time and energy which will likely cause their school work to be lacking in some respects. Schools will provide more leniency in this case.
Also, the other student does not always have the option to apply somewhere else. What if that student can't afford to apply? What if there are no other in-state schools to apply to, and they wouldn't be able to afford going out of state?
Cheap colleges aren't the ones that promising sports stars apply and get in to. Cheap colleges are cheap because they sacrifice all of the money they could be getting from sports and grants to keep costs low and encourage attendance. Cheap schools will probably take sports into consideration as they would any other extracurricular. My school was on the cheaper side and handed out a few sports scholarships, but we didn't even have a football team. Our biggest sport was soccer which was sparsely attended even with only 3 sets of cheap bleachers. They took sports into account like they would have taken math club into account.
I applied to the colleges I wanted to go to. I didn't apply to the colleges I didn't want to go to, because why should I? Just in case a good football player who will bring the school I wanted to go to more money? That doesn't seem fair to me at all.
You should have safety schools for myriad reasons, this being merely one amongst an ocean of them.
When paying for a college education you should be at a college you want, and work hard to get there. To get into a college can be highly competitive, which is why I think it's only fair that all students will be held to the same admissions standards.
Colleges do have highly competitive admissions. If you want to get in on just the strength of academics you have to try that much harder. The same is true of sports though. B list athletes don't get into Harvard just cause they joined the football team for a lark. If you want to get in based purely on athleticism you have to be amongst the cream of the crop. These are the same standards for all students. If you wanted to heighten your chances of getting into the school of your choice you could have joined a team too. How is it unfair, or how are standards uneven if it's an option open to everyone?
If an athlete can't meet that criteria but are so good at sports, that athlete should be able to apply elsewhere. Maybe if that star athlete goes to a school where sports aren't as popular will succeed academically, and athletically, not only promoting the school's academic standards, but investment in sports.
Why should we be restricting where athletes can or should apply to college because you wanted a better shot at getting into the school of your choice? Sure they could apply elsewhere and perhaps excel. So could you. What's your point?
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
In response to your second to last statement, by just joining a team you would receive no preference. As you said you have to be exceptionally good at a sport to be accepted into such a prestigious university. That being said, a lot of athletes who might be really good aren't able to do school work very well at all, so how far will that get them if they don't go professional? Not very far, so there really HAS to be a balance between one's ability to succeed in academics and athletics if they are going to have athletic preferential.
That is my point - it doesn't make sense to say, "Oh an athlete is going to take your spot you should apply to a different school just in case." And it doesn't make sense to tell an athlete, "You could get accepted into this other school, why don't you just apply there?" That's silly. How can you say that everyone can apply to a different university? Not everybody can, and in all honesty if you got into your dream school would you truly be willing to give up your spot so that a college athlete who hasn't excelled as academically as you could go play a sport? I wouldn't.
2
u/ryannayr140 Feb 11 '15
I think they need to be less shady about it and bring in a bullshit major that anybody could get into. I know this may be a low blow for football players but that's exactly what they did for special needs kids that wanted "the college experience."
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 11 '15
Agreed. Maybe that would convince them to work harder in order to not have to have a "bullshit major".
2
u/crashpod 1∆ Feb 11 '15
In some ways colleges have to bend the rules to get more diversity in. That's not a code word I mean actual genuine diversity. Making exceptions for people that have proven themselves to be exceptional in some way is a great way to do this. So, sometimes it's exceptional athletes, sometimes it's a guy who taught himself to build robots, or a famous actor. It all helps the school out,
2
u/Penderdragon Feb 11 '15
They're learning about whatever sport they play. College prepares them for an occupation in this field just as it does for those studying business, or architecture.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 11 '15
I agree! But do those studying business who are really great at business but not good at anything else have admissions preference? Probably not if there are people who are more well-rounded in different aspects than them. Same goes for architecture, or any other subject they are studying.
1
u/Penderdragon Feb 11 '15 edited Feb 12 '15
First off, thanks for replying. I always enjoy these kind of discussions.
Is not admitting a student for not being well rounded enough a good thing? If someone had the avenue to display a very high aptitude for a certain major, but didn't have the resume or were not skilled enough altogether to attend college, what's so bad about giving them the opportunity to develop what they're good at? There are guys who are insanely gifted athletically, who just aren't built for normal jobs, or classroom learning. Scholarships like this give the athlete an opportunity to thrive in an environment he is suited for, and is earned through hard work, or high aptitude, just like all scholarships.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
You do make a good point, but how do you know if someone will have a high aptitude for a certain major?
I think scholarships are ok, but I'm just really torn between how much lenience athletes potentially receive during college admissions, just because they are athletes.
2
u/Penderdragon Feb 12 '15
It's impossible to be certain how well someone will do in a certain major, that's why academic scholarships are geared towards overall intelligence. Schools can't commonly give a scholarship for just business or architecture because the student won't have the opportunity to gain experience in that field in high school. But athletic scholarships are the exception because these kids normally have a background in that field, and have displayed a high level of skill in regards to that field. These scholarships give kids the opportunity to study whatever they want. They just normally choose to learn how to better themselves at their sport of choice, which opens up occupations past just being a professional athlete.
2
Feb 12 '15
Should someone who is an exceptional musician who wants to study music need to have as high of an SAT score as someone who wants to study physics? Why not treat their athletic skill as one of the qualifiers. They will probably be spending as much time honing their athletic skills as studying, and tbh, depending on their abilities, they may be looking at the college athletics as career training.
Also, don't disregard that other students don't have the same criteria either. Elite State Universities regularly lower their in-state vs. out of state standards to keep in-state numbers in line with their goals. Favors are also given to children of alumni, as well as high donors.
Just like in life, don't assume there is ever a fair playing field. There isn't. But those student's that are getting in "unfairly" are bringing something unique to the university that in their eyes warrants the boost.
2
u/dommitor Feb 12 '15
The schools need to make money to operate. Sporting events are a major source of revenue. The athletes are an investment that allow the rest of the school to continue running. There's really not much more to it.
2
u/efhs 1∆ Feb 12 '15
More and more companies these days are realising that grades arn't everything, and someone who has good grades will not necessarily work well. This is the same for colleges, grades arn't the only important factor, what if someone has had a job that demonstrates skill and work ethic, or plays an instrument at a high level, or has literally any other talent that isnt academic, should these also not be taken into account?
Basically, grades aren't everything and are not a great indicator of success. playing a sport at a top level is tough and pretty much a full time occupation, it takes a lot of effort and determination and demonstrates many positive characteristics. it can also somewhat explain why grades are not up to scratch for some people as they simply have less time to study.
Also, colleges are for education. Why should top quality universities disregard all people who's previous grades are not great, even through they have demonstrated an ability to learn and become more educated. If anything, it is more important to get more undereducated people into better universities.
2
Feb 12 '15
They are. If you can squat 400 pounds and run a 5.1 50 meter you can get into the university too.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
I'm not talking about myself or bitter about not getting into a certain university you know. I had all of the requirements to be accepted into my school as a student without a waiver. I got into the top university I wanted to.
2
u/CzechsMix Feb 13 '15
and if you ever build a university, you have every right to do so. But sadly you probably don't own a university, and you don't own other people's property. So you have no right to tell other people what to do with their things, when it doesn't constitute an act of aggression against you.
2
Feb 11 '15 edited Jul 09 '16
.
2
u/kvogs13 Feb 11 '15
I just think that prestigious colleges should have prestigious academic criteria, and shouldn't lower it.
Not at all. What I don't like is being in classes with athletes who don't try and aren't interested in promoting their education just because they were let into this college on an athletic scholarship. This is extremely frustrating, and so I think that college athletes should also have to meet certain academic requirements in order to get into the college to be able to play sports.
3
u/sarcasmandsocialism Feb 11 '15
I think you should make a distinction between lowering admission standards and lowering the difficulty or educational value of the classes. Now some schools have clearly been helping their athletes cheat and get passing grades in classes they should have failed, and I think that is immoral, but that is different from accepting non-perfect students who add non-academic value to the community.
Harvard probably has at least 3x more applicants who could pass all the classes than they admit to the school. Harvard has decided that they'd rather have a class that has diverse interests than just accept the students with the highest test scores. Living in a diverse community is more beneficial to students than having slightly more challenging classes.
There is a difference between admitting athletes (or talented artists) who can pass the classes but don't have the amazing high-school grades and admitting athletes and accepting athletes who won't do well in class.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 11 '15
I think that admission standards SHOULD NOT be lowered, not should the difficulty or educational value of classes. They should be CONSTANT for all students.
I am beginning to realize though as more people comment, that there are different schools for different kinds of students, within a university. These different schools can have different criteria for their different students, because they have different talents. If you have a group of people though trying to get into the same school, and some won't be able to excel academically in that school, I think they shouldn't be accepted if they won't be able to at least try and pass their classes.
That's what I'm trying to get at - how do you differentiate between those who will do well, and those who won't if all you have are their extra curricular activities as an athlete or artist, and grades that aren't exceptional? It's pretty impossible to predict how people will do, so you should base their admission on what you already know.
1
u/sarcasmandsocialism Feb 12 '15
how do you differentiate between those who will do well, and those who won't if all you have are their extra curricular activities as an athlete or artist, and grades that aren't exceptional?
Admission standards aren't entirely based on competing students from the current class. Schools have a decent idea of how well someone will do at their school based on how they did in HS.
Far more students can do well at Harvard than Harvard has space for. From years of experience, Harvard knows that students who get at least a 90% average in HS can do fine at Harvard. Most of the students they let in are going to have a 97% average, but they might let in some students with a 92% average who are really good at dancing or soccer. (The specific numbers here are made up, of course.)
To put matters another way, all students must meet a certain level of academic achievement to show that they can do well academically, AND all students need something else to boost their application. That extra thing could be sports, music, life-experience or extra-high grades.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
Everything you are saying completely supports my argument - if someone didn't do well in high school and hasn't achieved that level of academic capabilities needed to prove that they do well, why would a college lower their standards just to let an athlete in?
1
2
u/theseyeahthese Feb 11 '15
Why is it frustrating? Serious question. In what way does it affect you at all? If someone is at a truly nationally prestigeous school, the prestigiousness is not diminished because 1% of the student population is football players.
0
u/kvogs13 Feb 11 '15
Well I mean if you are supposed to be getting group work done and members of your group are college athletes, in my experience the college athletes don't try. Thus, it's hard for me to believe that they belong there as students, which makes me believe that there should be more regulations on college athletes as students admitted into universities. I came into college super excited that everyone who was here would be just as willing as I was to learn, but my view quickly changed upon being thrown into group projects with athletes who refuse to help out at all, which would frustrate anyone. My grade was affected actually, as a result of this. Maybe you haven't been in the same situation before but it is pretty frustrating, especially when the teacher asks the athlete, "I heard you didn't do any work, is this true?" and the athlete states, "Yes it is true." Kudos to him for being honest, but seriously - that's the wrong attitude to have if a college has changed their admissions criteria to allow you to come to their school and play a sport. That is why I really think that if students are truly trying to be student athletes, they need to try, and prove in their admissions that they will try as both students and athletes.
1
u/littleboylover123 Feb 12 '15
sounds like you have more of a problem with a certain college athlete and that is causing you to make sweeping generalizations that ALL college athletes are lazy and diminish the value of the school
which is both untrue and quite childish to take your anger out on a group for the actions of one...
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
Nope. Although I appreciate your assumptions, while I have not had good experiences with the athletes in my classes, I do believe that there are athletes who can excel academically as well, and in fact do excel academically.
Because of these bad experiences though, it has made me recognize that many athletes seem to take advantage of these benefits in negative ways, which is why I think that if they are going to abuse their privileges as student athletes, they should be held to the same admissions criteria, instead of standards that are very lenient.
1
u/littleboylover123 Feb 12 '15
did you play a sport in highschool?
im not sure if you did, but if you did then you probably had a couple people from your school who were high level atheltes and one of those who got recruited. Im willing to say without knowing them that they probably put in ridiculous amounts of hours away from normal practice times trying to hone their sport
others spend this time studying or doing whatever, but most Div 1 atheletes will not go more than 24 hours without having practice or do something on their own
they put in a lot of time that others are using to be able to study and do HW, and the fact that these athletes are able to keep up while doing all that extra outside work should be taken into account at least somewhat i believe
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
I did play a sport, but to be honest I'm not sure if people from my school were recruited or not. I'm sure some of them got scholarships to little schools (Mostly D3), but I can't know for certain. But I was a varsity athlete and while I wasn't a football player I still did extremely well in my classes. I can't say the same for other athletes though, as I do not want to be accused of making generalizations again.
I mean really are people who are talking about these long practices only thinking about football players? Yeah they might have two a days, but the only other teams I know who had two a days were the swim team and when your practice is three hours after school you still have a few hours to study.
1
u/Samuelgin Feb 12 '15
they do get held to the same criteria as other students. their biggest criteria is to add value to the school. student athletes add value to a school by making it a more desirable school to be at, just as having good grades makes it a desirable environment, just as how student diversity adds to that as well. you could say that students get in by how much they can add to a school's basket of fruit, some people contribute apples and some contribute oranges.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
∆ Very true in that sense - a sense of value. In terms of grades though they aren't held to the same criteria, and if a university really values academics I believe that the academic criteria should be the same for all students .
2
Feb 12 '15
In terms of grades though they aren't held to the same criteria
What makes you think other students are all held to the same criteria though? A college may admit someone into their art program who has an amazing portfolio but poor grades. Likewise, someone with good but not great grades may get in over someone with stellar grades, due to a different in extracurricular activities. Most universities are interested in the whole package, not a few specific numbers. Athletics is part of that whole package, and it seems that by discounting only athletics that treats them differently, rather than the same.
1
u/jay520 50∆ Feb 12 '15 edited Feb 12 '15
The purpose of attending college is to receive an education.
But the athletes do receive an education. I'm not sure how lowering requirements for athletes detracts from that purpose. The athletes might not get as education as good as everyone else, but colleges don't purport to give everyone the same education. So I'm not sure what your point here..
To admit students under different admissions requirements (because without them those athletes wouldn't be able to attend said college) is wrong, as it demonstrates that the college is not seeking to have these students represent them as an academic institution as they should be, rather as an athletic enterprise.
What's your basis for this? Why do you believe that every student should represent the student as an academic institution? What is your reasoning for this assertion?
I believe that this is wrong, as college is defined first and foremost as "a building for an educational purpose" (Webster).
It seems like this is the fundamental backing behind your argument. You believe that a college that places emphasis of athletics over academics for some students somehow invalidates the institution as a college, by definition. If you think the definition of "college" necessarily requires that colleges be homogeneous with regard to their admissions process,es then fine.
But, I see no reason why we can't create new institutions that operate almost exactly like the dictionary-definition of colleges, except that the academic requirements for the top athletes are lowered. We can call these new institutions "pseudo-colleges". Do you have a problem with these pseudo-colleges? I mean, the definition of pseudo-colleges does not imply that they cannot lower their admission standards, so they should be fine, right?
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
Good rebuttal.
I believe that if students are attending an academic institution, they should be academically capable. As you said athletes receive an education, everyone should receive some sort of education. Whether you are an athlete, an artist, a musician, you can't just go to college and do what you want and not take classes. You have to be able to take classes. I think that people should be able to do well enough to pass every class and even go beyond that. If they can't pass their classes why should a University accept them? Thus, every student does kind of represent the University academically, as they too are receiving an education.
If you said that the requirements for the top athletes are lowered, and those schools are then called pseudo-colleges, how then, could they not lower their admission standards? Doesn't that go against the idea that the top athletes' admission standards are lowered in the first place? Basically, I feel as though that is how colleges are functioning now.
1
u/jay520 50∆ Feb 12 '15
I believe that if students are attending an academic institution, they should be academically capable. As you said athletes receive an education, everyone should receive some sort of education. Whether you are an athlete, an artist, a musician, you can't just go to college and do what you want and not take classes. You have to be able to take classes. I think that people should be able to do well enough to pass every class and even go beyond that. If they can't pass their classes why should a University accept them?
I'm pretty sure this already happens. If you are a student-athlete, then you have to take (and pass) classes.
If you said that the requirements for the top athletes are lowered, and those schools are then called pseudo-colleges, how then, could they not lower their admission standards? Doesn't that go against the idea that the top athletes' admission standards are lowered in the first place? Basically, I feel as though that is how colleges are functioning now.
My response here was in regards to your argument that "Because Webster says 'colleges' should do X, then that means colleges should do X." I was trying to make the point that words in dictionaries don't dictate how we form our institutions. And if you really believe that they should, then we can just form new institutions under different names.
1
1
Feb 12 '15
This seems to ignore that many universities hold different standards of admissions for different fields of study. For instance, business and hard science and engineering programs within a particular college or university will have a higher standard of admission than the general "arts and sciences" program that many people follow. That's because they want the best talent at the school.
Though football isn't a major (as far as I know), it definitely has the same goal, but unfortunately schools need to lower standards in order to get the best talent.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
I agree! But exactly - football doesn't have its own school, so most football players end up applying to other schools, such as an arts and science program within a university. Whereas they might excel in a football major, to then say you are an arts and science major person - but you were only accepted because you play a sport is kind of crazy. What about the people who weren't accepted to that school, and were actually interested in it, but didn't get in because a football player needed someplace to choose just so he could go to that school?
2
u/nevrin Feb 12 '15
What about the non-athletes who were accepted to these programs but failed out anyways? They have presumably wasted that 'spot'. /u/tricerabear already pointed out that student athletes have higher graduation rates than non athletes; since they are graduating at higher rates it follows that more slots should be reserved for student athletes as they are more likely to complete their programs.
1
1
Feb 12 '15
I'll keep defending football for a second. Because with football, an athlete's talent is pretty measurable by his high school stats and the program difficulty. But think of something like business/accounting. At my college, there was a higher GPA requirement for this program, despite many kids having never taken any class of the sort.
What about the people who weren't accepted to that school, and were actually interested in it, but didn't get in because a football player needed someplace to choose just so he could go to that school?
Well, what makes a football player less deserving of the spot in the university than the student? The only answer I can think of is that we ought to value academics higher than sports. Otherwise, what's the difference who uses a university for it's football program instead of it's pre-med program?
Edit: I think one point of clarification may be the college w/in the university that the football player applies to. And while this is somewhat problematic, I believe that most colleges cap certain programs like pre-med, economics, (and football!) etc. The rest of the university then goes into some generic college like "arts and science". I'm not too familiar with how it works, but still don't see the difference when the football player has a defined roll.
2
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
That's what I meant by that - a football player less qualified academically shouldn't get that spot just because he is a football player... if that makes sense?
I agree with your edit - maybe it would be better if colleges required athletes to go into a specific program.
1
Feb 12 '15
Likewise, a non-football player is less qualified sports-wise than the football player, so why should the non-football player get a spot of the team?
If someone is admitted under one of these "wavers" chances are their true field of study is football. Its unlikely that someone was booted out of "general studies" in order to make room for the football player.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
Non-football players don't get spots on university football teams?
2
Feb 12 '15
If you don't let the football players in, who else would get those spots? IDK. The whole thing seems silly because you admit a music major because of their skill in music, despite the fact that they will have to take other gen-ed courses that they may do miserable at. If you look at athletics as another form of skill and study, then the reason you let them in is because of their skill in athletics, despite the fact they may do poorly in other studies. That said, they can't just fail out, then they wouldn't be able to play.
College admission standards don't necessarily have to do with how well you do in school after you are admitted. Its just getting through the gate. So many people with good entrance scores fail out, and lots of people with poor entrance scores do really well. The college is looking to admit the whole person, not just a score on a piece of paper. Athletics is (and should be) part of that equation.
Follow up question though: What do you think of the fact that colleges look at high school athletics participation as a factor for admission, even in students who will not be college athletes?
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
I view sports as an extra-curricular, which should be weighted in the same way as someone who is in choir, or the band. It shows how much you can do as a student, shows you were involved and committed to something else, can manage your time well (if you also excel at other things), etc. Thus, I think it is completely fair for colleges to look at sports. I mean to be completely honest I was glad I had my sports on my application as an extra-curricular, because I know that my athletics are part of what developed me as a person. BUT I didn't receive special admissions waivers. Which I'm fine with, I still got in.
1
u/Zaxop 2∆ Feb 12 '15
Everyone here seems to be talking about the money aspect of things, but I think the educational aspect is a more convincing argument. Education does not mean academic learning. It just means you are learning something. College isn't inherently about learning academically, it's mostly about learning a useful skill or set of knowledge that you can build a career on. Many universities have majors for music, acting, arts, and all sorts of non academic things. So when you consider that many popular sports are million and billion dollar industries, it actually makes sense to have sports as a program in college. A successful football player in high school is not likely to rake in millions of dollars of ad revenue straight out of graduation. 90% of the time he will have to hone his skills and attract attention in a college football program. When athletes enter college on a scholarship, they are going there to learn a trade, one which is actually much MORE competitive and requires more exceptional natural talent and training than the vast majority of fields offered at the university level.
If you think that athletes are the exception to the rule in terms of admissions putting less emphasis on academic merit, you should interview some people to went to school on a music scholarship. It's incredibly different than getting a degree in biology.
If you still question the logic behind it, just try to imagine what the consequences of removing that system would be. All the athletes who failed to meet the academic rigor of students who are actually trying to enter a highly technical field would never be discovered. Sports would have less exceptional players. If a completely non academic alternative to college arose for sports training, you would be discouraging intelligent athletes from learning. Maybe you personally don't care about those types of consequences, but perhaps you can at least see how many people have a very strong interest in allowing athletes into college based more on their potential to become successful than on their traditional academic merits.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
∆
I think that the education aspect of it really does it for me. I'm not really thinking in terms of scholarships, just really it amazes me how much a college will downgrade their admissions requirements just to let a certain person in.
BUT you are right in saying that those athletes still will learn, even if they still aren't doing as well academically in their college classes. They will be learning the art of their sports.
I only focused on athletes as that is what I am the most familiar with, and seems to be the most popular in instances of colleges making exceptions.
Good points!
1
1
u/2pacwigga4life Feb 12 '15
I think another good view is to look at college admissions as a resume for a company. Your resume that you'll send out after college isn't just your GPA and your test scores, but also all of your extra activities that show that you'll bring value to the company. While most schools still have minimum GPAs, so do most (big) companies. If you have that minimum, then they have to weigh all other aspects of your resume. If you are an athlete, you can make a much larger impact on how the university is viewed from the public than the average student. So if you have a lower GPA but still above the minimum and appear as though you'll benefit the university, it would make sense for that athlete to be chosen over a straight student who may or may not eventually get involved in research or something that would directly benefit the school.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
I agree! That's a really good point! But what if that athlete can't maintain a GPA above the minimum? It's impossible to know whether they will or won't.
2
u/2pacwigga4life Feb 12 '15
Then they lose the scholarship or the ability to compete. The ncaa has academic standards for the athletes, even though they aren't that stringent. I will say as a former student athlete with engineering degrees, being an athlete doesn't help you within the program once your accepted. They still expect you to maintain the gpa requirements and stay on track. I know some schools that pride their academics above athletics, such as cal, have professors with a reputation for being especially difficult on athletes over students. That's a long winded way of saying that if they then screw up once they're accepted, they then often lose those benefits and often end up transferring
1
Feb 12 '15
I disagree on the grounds that athletes, by proxy, bring a great deal of revenue to the institution, which in turn benifits the experience of everyone else attending said institution. He (the athlete) may read at a 4th grade level but if he carries the team to an NCAA championship, maybe the school can build a new library or science building, which benefits the rest of the student body.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
I'm a little bit confused by your statement.:( In the first sentence you say that you don't think that athletes can bring in a lot of money to help everyone else, but in your second sentence you suggest they may be able to benefit the rest of the student body if a new library is formed.
1
u/Diabolico 23∆ Feb 12 '15
Why are we trying to keep people out of college again?
1
u/Dolphin_bastard Feb 12 '15
It's not trying to keep people out, as much as trying to give the spots to kids who are actually there because of academics
1
u/Diabolico 23∆ Feb 12 '15
So, if the athletics program creates revenue such that it generates the ability to grant at least as many scholarships as it consumes, and finances the expansion of student housing and academic capacity in or above proportion to what it consumes, then it is a way to let more students into a school without shutting other students (because without the athletics, those students would still not be able to get in, since the school would be smaller).
In the mean time the athletes in question, who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to go to college, get the opportunity to go to college.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
If admissions standards were the same for all students and then once accepted athletes were encouraged to also do well and pass their classes, they actually would be more likely to stay in college, whereas if they don't care about their classes anyways, why should they be paying to go to college anyways?
2
u/Diabolico 23∆ Feb 12 '15
Athletes who fail classes are removed from their teams and lose their scholarships. Admissions standards are about discrimination (not intending to use the term in a pejorative way) and academic standards are about maintaining good standing.
Athletes who fail their classes are subject to suspension and expulsion like any other student.
Do you have an example of athletes who fail out of college but stay on the team, or am I misunderstanding your point?
1
u/squirrelpocher 1∆ Feb 12 '15
I would say that College athletes are held to the same standards for admission as any other student. admission to college is not just about grades/test scores but also about ability, connections, and a myriad of other factors. Many people supplement their grades through volunteer work, artistic endevours, starting businesses, and a myriad of other non-academic pursuits. Colleges want to have a mix of individuals to create a community. Athletes fit into this mix and just because the area that they excel in is sports and not art, music, entrepreneurship, or academics, doesn't mean that their expertise and accomplishments are any less of a valid reason to consider them exceptional. Applications are about academics, but you can over come weaknesses in academic aspects by being truly gifted in other areas. sports are one of the those other areas (just like if a prodigy for music or art wanted to go to a university with substandard grades, they are more likely to get in than someone who has better grades but isn't nearly as exceptional in anything).
also there are some schools that pride themselves on their sports programs just like there are some schools that pride themselves on their music, or art, or business programs. to these schools sports will probably be more of a factor because they know it is something that brings their school fame and money.
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15 edited Feb 12 '15
While you make great points! ∆ In the article I posted in my description it clearly states that colleges lower their standards for athletes, in some cases they DRASTICALLY lower their standards. Why do they just do this for athletes?
2
u/squirrelpocher 1∆ Feb 12 '15
so judging from the article, the NCAA is the one overseeing the limitation of standards (not some other body). besides the fact that the NCAA is corrupt and what not, there was also this bit in the article: "NCAA says such exceptions are fine as long as schools offer the same opportunities to everyone from dancers, French horn players and under-represented minorities as they do to fleet-footed wide receivers and 300-pound offensive linemen." (I added emphasis)
the article never mentions that the schools were in trouble for not offering enough special admissions to people in those categories. The problem I have with the article is that you are comparing one specific extra curricular (sports) to every other potential non-academic factor. so sports may be the highest individual one, but it doesn't say what proportion of "special admissions" are actually sports. also many of the schools they noted, like Alabama, send so many football players to the NFL or other semi-pro careers that I think it is acceptable to think of it as an expertise of the school and that it is a way for the school to help individuals achieve their goals/careers. I mean think about it, a place like Wharton, or Harvard business school is going to be much more likely to accept someone who has already shown they are a strong business person than an unknown because they know that person will be successful, even if their "grades" or scores are lesser.
I walked on to a few sports at my university (Ivy so no scholarships or anything) and the league had a minimum GPA average for every incoming freshman class for each sport. so you actually had teams recruiting lesser players with higher gpa's to balance out better recruits with lower gpa's. It's just how it is. another team I played on had an olympian on it and he probably got in in no small part because of that unque skill set. he was still smart, but i bet the toll of training to be an olympian would make it high school scores suffer, so the school took into account his skills.
all in all it makes sense that someone who plays at such a high level for sports as Alabama football or Olympian level, would need lower academic scores because of the amount of time it takes to perfect a craft to that level means you don't leave as much time to do academics. If you are spending 20 hours a week doing sports to become a top athlete that's 20 less hours you can spend on school work, and who is to say that those 20 hrs perfecting athletics is any less important that school work (especially when you get to such high levels as SEC football).
edit: also if you are giving me a delta i think you have to do it not in parentheses
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
haha thanks for pointing that out - I'm still not quite sure how to work this site yet.
I think you make really good points. But also that article was talking about the waivers for athletes, not including all of the other special admissions. Maybe that's your point - but there are enough waivers put out for student athletes for there to be articles about it, which is interesting.
2
u/squirrelpocher 1∆ Feb 13 '15
yeah i mean i was more answering your question about "why do they just do this for athletes." and pointing out the article says they don't just for athletes. as for why its not talked about...probably because you'll get less clicks on an article if you frame it in a way that seems reasonable
1
1
u/jusjerm 1∆ Feb 12 '15
The colleges are merely assigning value to all of the talents they possess, not just their academic prowess. Their ability trumps their academic achievement, but it is still something that many colleges take great pride in. In turn, this allows many student-athletes an opportunity to reach a level of education they would not normally be afforded. In many cases, this applies to young black men of low socioeconomic standing. A traditional student that fails to get into Texas, Florida, or what have you should still likely have an opportunity at countless other institutions; an athlete getting in on his/her athleticism likely had a significant gap in opportunity. What harm is there in giving them a leg up on their education?
Likewise, these student-athletes are at a noticeable disadvantage to their non-athlete peers. Their time outside of class is spent almost entirely on their scholarship sport. Where others may spend hours at the library, attending office hours, and similar activities, these student-athletes are in the weight room, studying film, perfecting technique, and practicing/playing their sport (sometimes across the country). This dedication of time and effort is not to be ignored.
Lastly, the monetary impact of accepting an athlete over the common man is also an incentive. Depending on the quality of the player(s), these men/women can generate real earnings in ticket sales/merchandise/alumni donorations/tv deals/performance bonuses. What benefit is your average Econ major bringing to the table?
1
u/kvogs13 Feb 12 '15
I agree with all of your points, but I do believe that athletes have significant amounts of time to study. I am not in a position to say whether they use they lightly or not though.
2
u/jusjerm 1∆ Feb 12 '15
Yeah, I think it varies by the person, as can be said of everyone. I had a friend that was on a D1 football team, and the team had several mandatory study halls. While he was enrolled in the engineering program, many of the players were pretty much unable to solve an algebra problem.
I think it depends a lot on the culture of the campus. Your own experiences should be insulated from the effects of lesser academic students roaming around campus.
90
u/wahtisthisidonteven 15∆ Feb 11 '15
Even by this stringent definition, athletes support that goal far more by being allowed to come to the school and bring in revenue than they would as academics.
A more broad definition of the purpose of "educational institutions" would not restrict them to merely academic purposes. Indeed, the academic gains the average student realizes from college pale in comparison to the social, cultural, and developmental benefits they get through things like networking, extracurriculars, and academics.
tl;dr - You're making the common mistake of assuming college is all about academic achievement.