Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting article in the Atlantic about the boost that white athletes get in admissions to Ivies, especially considering the uproar over affirmative action. https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...udents/573688/
By the National College Athletics Association’s own estimate, 61 percent of student athletes last year were white. At elite colleges, that number is even higher: 65 percent in the Ivy League, not including international students, and 79 percent in the Division III New England Small College Athletic Conference, which includes elite liberal-arts colleges like Williams and Amherst. As Harvard heads to court to fend off allegations that it discriminates against Asian American applicants, the plaintiffs behind the case have released to the public reams and reams of data analyzing the school's admissions process. They allege that one factor used in admissions, called “personal rating,” systematically disadvantages Asian American students. But tucked into the 168-page-long analysis of Harvard’s admissions data is a curious statistic about another non-academic factor considered by the school: athletics.
All applicants to Harvard are ranked on a scale of one to six based on their academic qualifications, and athletes who scored a four were accepted at a rate of about 70 percent. Yet, the admit rate for non-athletes with the same score was 0.076 percent—nearly one thousand times lower. Similarly, 83 percent of athletes with a top academic score got an acceptance letter, compared to 16 percent of non-athletes. Legacy admissions policies get a lot of flak for privileging white applicants, but athletes have a much bigger effect on admissions, and make up a much bigger percentage of the class. And it’s not just Harvard—in 2002, James Schulman and the former Princeton University President William Bowen looked at 30 selective colleges and found that athletes were given a 48 percent boost in admissions, compared to 25 percent for legacies and 18 percent for racial minorities.
Interesting article in the Atlantic about the boost that white athletes get in admissions to Ivies, especially considering the uproar over affirmative action. https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...udents/573688/
By the National College Athletics Association’s own estimate, 61 percent of student athletes last year were white. At elite colleges, that number is even higher: 65 percent in the Ivy League, not including international students, and 79 percent in the Division III New England Small College Athletic Conference, which includes elite liberal-arts colleges like Williams and Amherst. As Harvard heads to court to fend off allegations that it discriminates against Asian American applicants, the plaintiffs behind the case have released to the public reams and reams of data analyzing the school's admissions process. They allege that one factor used in admissions, called “personal rating,” systematically disadvantages Asian American students. But tucked into the 168-page-long analysis of Harvard’s admissions data is a curious statistic about another non-academic factor considered by the school: athletics.
All applicants to Harvard are ranked on a scale of one to six based on their academic qualifications, and athletes who scored a four were accepted at a rate of about 70 percent. Yet, the admit rate for non-athletes with the same score was 0.076 percent—nearly one thousand times lower. Similarly, 83 percent of athletes with a top academic score got an acceptance letter, compared to 16 percent of non-athletes. Legacy admissions policies get a lot of flak for privileging white applicants, but athletes have a much bigger effect on admissions, and make up a much bigger percentage of the class. And it’s not just Harvard—in 2002, James Schulman and the former Princeton University President William Bowen looked at 30 selective colleges and found that athletes were given a 48 percent boost in admissions, compared to 25 percent for legacies and 18 percent for racial minorities.
I posted an article that includes mega-donors, alumni and legacy that favor white people most. Affirmative action benefits white women the most. Affirmative Action is not only based on race.
Interesting article in the Atlantic about the boost that white athletes get in admissions to Ivies, especially considering the uproar over affirmative action. https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...udents/573688/
By the National College Athletics Association’s own estimate, 61 percent of student athletes last year were white. At elite colleges, that number is even higher: 65 percent in the Ivy League, not including international students, and 79 percent in the Division III New England Small College Athletic Conference, which includes elite liberal-arts colleges like Williams and Amherst. As Harvard heads to court to fend off allegations that it discriminates against Asian American applicants, the plaintiffs behind the case have released to the public reams and reams of data analyzing the school's admissions process. They allege that one factor used in admissions, called “personal rating,” systematically disadvantages Asian American students. But tucked into the 168-page-long analysis of Harvard’s admissions data is a curious statistic about another non-academic factor considered by the school: athletics.
All applicants to Harvard are ranked on a scale of one to six based on their academic qualifications, and athletes who scored a four were accepted at a rate of about 70 percent. Yet, the admit rate for non-athletes with the same score was 0.076 percent—nearly one thousand times lower. Similarly, 83 percent of athletes with a top academic score got an acceptance letter, compared to 16 percent of non-athletes. Legacy admissions policies get a lot of flak for privileging white applicants, but athletes have a much bigger effect on admissions, and make up a much bigger percentage of the class. And it’s not just Harvard—in 2002, James Schulman and the former Princeton University President William Bowen looked at 30 selective colleges and found that athletes were given a 48 percent boost in admissions, compared to 25 percent for legacies and 18 percent for racial minorities.
Why do we have this quota bull**** in this country? Why do we obsess so much over race?
So, basically the number of white athletes reflects the percent of whites in the population, and that is a problem. Got it.
Additionally, an athlete brings an actually skill to the university and participates in a sport, which is a pretty objective measure, but that should not count in any way towards evaluating a student's application package.
But we circle back to the number; the number of white athletes is actually below representation of the percent of whites in the US. So essentially, other races are still being over represented. But hey, whites are the problem.
But this is not new information, everyone knows if you are an athlete, you get a boost to get accepted, no matter the school. May even get scholarships all the way up to a full ride. And schools in predominately white areas have a high percent of whites? No duh, just like schools in areas with a larger percent of blacks or any race have more of said race.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,981,862 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
So, basically the number of white athletes reflects the percent of whites in the population, and that is a problem. Got it.
Additionally, an athlete brings an actually skill to the university and participates in a sport, which is a pretty objective measure, but that should not count in any way towards evaluating a student's application package.
But we circle back to the number; the number of white athletes is actually below representation of the percent of whites in the US. So essentially, other races are still being over represented. But hey, whites are the problem.
But this is not new information, everyone knows if you are an athlete, you get a boost to get accepted, no matter the school. May even get scholarships all the way up to a full ride. And schools in predominately white areas have a high percent of whites? No duh, just like schools in areas with a larger percent of blacks or any race have more of said race.
So at the elites where I worked I was in a position to see grades and test scores for all students. It is absolutely true that the very lower end test scores/grades that were typically thought to be possesed by the black and latino students (think bottom 10-15% of the class) were actually possesed by the recruited athletes and sometimes the legacies. It's not a secret. And since sports like lacrosse, field hockey and rowing are among the sought-after spots at these places, it makes sense that alot of these are white prep school/well-off school district type males.
That said I don't have an issue with schools having looser criteria for athletes/legacies. If the school decides the trade off is worth it, so be it.
I think the real problem here is that people are so anxious to get into this small handful of colleges because of the outsized amount of access to power they wield. That power imbalance is the real couse of the problems to me.
Interesting article in the Atlantic about the boost that white athletes get in admissions to Ivies, especially considering the uproar over affirmative action. https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...udents/573688/
By the National College Athletics Association’s own estimate, 61 percent of student athletes last year were white. At elite colleges, that number is even higher: 65 percent in the Ivy League, not including international students, and 79 percent in the Division III New England Small College Athletic Conference, which includes elite liberal-arts colleges like Williams and Amherst. As Harvard heads to court to fend off allegations that it discriminates against Asian American applicants, the plaintiffs behind the case have released to the public reams and reams of data analyzing the school's admissions process. They allege that one factor used in admissions, called “personal rating,” systematically disadvantages Asian American students. But tucked into the 168-page-long analysis of Harvard’s admissions data is a curious statistic about another non-academic factor considered by the school: athletics.
All applicants to Harvard are ranked on a scale of one to six based on their academic qualifications, and athletes who scored a four were accepted at a rate of about 70 percent. Yet, the admit rate for non-athletes with the same score was 0.076 percent—nearly one thousand times lower. Similarly, 83 percent of athletes with a top academic score got an acceptance letter, compared to 16 percent of non-athletes. Legacy admissions policies get a lot of flak for privileging white applicants, but athletes have a much bigger effect on admissions, and make up a much bigger percentage of the class. And it’s not just Harvard—in 2002, James Schulman and the former Princeton University President William Bowen looked at 30 selective colleges and found that athletes were given a 48 percent boost in admissions, compared to 25 percent for legacies and 18 percent for racial minorities.
The "boost" is likely for the Ivy League. Ironically, at the SEC, Big 12, or ACC, there is (in modern times) reverse discrimination such that white athletes are considered too slow for sports and positions that require sprinting. The "dual threat quarterback" is code for "we don't want a slow white guy who can't run and throw" in the SEC. Brian Bosworth and his coach, Barry Switzer, were very blunt about it. It's really bizarre reverse racism that is common but not widely expressed "upfront". However, the reverise racism is prevalent. Ironically, the "Boz" is a white guy from Texas who actually supported that view in his book in complaining about Troy Aikman as a "slow white guy who takes until October to get to the sideline". https://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/sto...terback-022714
This competitive white sprinter talked about how many people found it hard to believe he was actually an indoor champion. But the stereotype is very deep in sports that require sprinting - a complete shift from the 1950s when college teams were generally all white. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/s...pionships.html
Last edited by grad_student200; 10-26-2018 at 02:27 AM..
Two separate issues are at play: (1) May a private university discriminate according to an applicant's race? and (2) May a private university discriminate according to an applicant's standing wrt academic ability, legacy, athletics, musical talent, and so forth?
The answer to (1) is NO, if that private university receives Federal funds of any kind. This is clearly stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (section 6, I believe). Asian students are now engaged in litigation with Harvard over this very issue, as they feel that they are the victims of racial discrimination (given the very much higher bar they need to clear compared to Blacks).
The answer to (2) is YES. A private school can do anything it wishes that does not violate the law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
