3 ms·

I have failed to be outraged. 1/3 of them were admitted as student athletes. Everyone knows that it is official policy at most schools to accept people with a

by btilly 6y ago

I have failed to be outraged. 1/3 of them were admitted as student athletes. Everyone knows that it is official policy at most schools to accept people with athletic ability who would not qualify academically. Why? Because those athletic programs make the university a lot of money! How is admitting someone because their family gave a lot of money any different in principle? It is just a question of reducing how many steps there are to making a profit for the school.

orangecat 6y ago
That's an excellent point. I'd be perfectly fine with eliminating both legacy admissions and athletic scholarships at public universities. It reminds me of the Lori Loughlin case, where she was arrested not because bribing a university to admit your child is unfair to other applicants and sullies the ideal of an academic meritocracy, but because she didn't follow the university's established process for bribery. (Matt Levine expounds on this with his usual hilarity at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-have-to-pay-the-right-person https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-ha...)
- btilly 6y ago
  I would as well. But if you accept the one, then it is inconsistent to object to the other.
- libria 6y ago
  But why? What if one {football player|kid-with-rich-parents} can subsidize 10 other need-based students who otherwise would not have been offered a premier education? In terms of reputation, imposters tend to fade into obscurity in time while those 10 will go on to build the schools brand.
wyxuan 6y ago
If you read the report, a lot of the student athletes aren't actually athletes, but have been designated as such to overcome poor scores in the admissions process. In any case, it might be negatively impacting the school's athletic program because real athletes have spots taken by opportunists.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Interesting. You accuse that guy of not having read the report but his comment doesn't make sense unless he's aware of the idea described in it. Ironically, if you had read his comment you would not have needed to have said "if you read the report".
- btilly 6y ago
  If I hadn't read the report, how could I have known that 1/3 of the students involved were designated as student athletes? My point remains. Once you've opened the door to accepting students for non-academic reasons, you've opened it to accepting them for other non-academic reasons. (In this case I don't care about the impact on "real athletes" because I don't think that athletic programs are important to the university's core mission.)
kooshball 6y ago
Totally false that athletics makes the school money. The exceptional cases are the top 10 division 1 basketball/football programs that people talk about. The vast majority of college athletics programs do not make money. Just think about it, you think a UC school is making money from a student golf or tennis player? Also these students admitted as "athletics" did not actually qualify and were never part of the team.
- btilly 6y ago
  My understanding is that participating in a range of athletics programs is required to be a member of an organization like the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which is required to participate in the most profitable sports (primarily football). Therefore the fact that individual sports and athletes do not make money doesn't mean that money isn't a reason for student athletic programs.

by btilly 6y ago

orangecat 6y ago

That's an excellent point. I'd be perfectly fine with eliminating both legacy admissions and athletic scholarships at public universities. It reminds me of the Lori Loughlin case, where she was arrested not because bribing a university to admit your child is unfair to other applicants and sullies the ideal of an academic meritocracy, but because she didn't follow the university's established process for bribery. (Matt Levine expounds on this with his usual hilarity at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-have-to-pay-the-right-person https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-ha...)

btilly 6y ago
I would as well. But if you accept the one, then it is inconsistent to object to the other.
libria 6y ago
But why? What if one {football player|kid-with-rich-parents} can subsidize 10 other need-based students who otherwise would not have been offered a premier education? In terms of reputation, imposters tend to fade into obscurity in time while those 10 will go on to build the schools brand.

wyxuan 6y ago

If you read the report, a lot of the student athletes aren't actually athletes, but have been designated as such to overcome poor scores in the admissions process. In any case, it might be negatively impacting the school's athletic program because real athletes have spots taken by opportunists.

renewiltord 6y ago
Interesting. You accuse that guy of not having read the report but his comment doesn't make sense unless he's aware of the idea described in it. Ironically, if you had read his comment you would not have needed to have said "if you read the report".
btilly 6y ago
If I hadn't read the report, how could I have known that 1/3 of the students involved were designated as student athletes? My point remains. Once you've opened the door to accepting students for non-academic reasons, you've opened it to accepting them for other non-academic reasons. (In this case I don't care about the impact on "real athletes" because I don't think that athletic programs are important to the university's core mission.)

kooshball 6y ago

Totally false that athletics makes the school money. The exceptional cases are the top 10 division 1 basketball/football programs that people talk about. The vast majority of college athletics programs do not make money. Just think about it, you think a UC school is making money from a student golf or tennis player? Also these students admitted as "athletics" did not actually qualify and were never part of the team.

btilly 6y ago
My understanding is that participating in a range of athletics programs is required to be a member of an organization like the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which is required to participate in the most profitable sports (primarily football). Therefore the fact that individual sports and athletes do not make money doesn't mean that money isn't a reason for student athletic programs.