4 ms·

I would argue that athletes are deserving in this framing. They were outstanding enough in a particular way to earn a spot at the most prestigious school in the

I would argue that athletes are deserving in this framing. They were outstanding enough in a particular way to earn a spot at the most prestigious school in the country.

rory 3y ago
I think that's fair so long as you exclude e.g. sailing "athletes."
KingOfCoders 3y ago
Because you're good at football you get free entry into a university? I can understand a football school or something, but why do they need to get into Harvard? Just because I'm an excellent coder (I wish!) should not mean I can get into the New York Philharmonic Orchestra.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Harvard's admission goal is to find the most successful people in the world, not the most successful academics. Top athletes are very successful, so yes, they probably deserve admission.
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    "not the most successful academics" I totally agree. What I do not agree is that athletes should have a VIP lane to admission. Either they make it in like everyone else or the rules for everyone need to be changed to reflect the "most successful people".
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      The rules largely do reflect "most successful people". Harvard commonly admits people who are spectacular in non academic ways. Athletes are just the tip of the iceberg, they'll admit people with successful business, they'll admit students who lead popular political movements, they'll accept legacies because they're very likely to be successful. Harvard has never just accepted the top test scores for this exact reason. It just turns out the academic success is a good predictor for general success and there aren't tons of 18 year olds with tons of general success so a lot of the admits are from academic success.
      - KingOfCoders 3y ago
        "It just turns out the academic success is a good predictor for general success" It turns out that this is not the case and a myth. "Last month, accountancy firm Ernst & Young, one of the UK’s biggest graduate employers, announced that they were to scrap a requirement of at least a 2:1 from its graduate application process. The company claimed there was no evidence that academic success at university was linked to achievement in professional assessments." Guardian, Sep 2015 https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2015/sep/01/graduate-jobs-employers-degree-result https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2015/sep/01/graduate-job... Others like PwC followed. The one thing that Harvard is useful for are the connections you make in your time at Harvard, start something with the people you meet there and other people from Harvard you meet that help you with your career. That is what you pay for. And Harvard is in the game for the money.

I would argue that athletes are deserving in this framing. They were outstanding enough in a particular way to earn a spot at the most prestigious school in the country.

rory 3y ago

I think that's fair so long as you exclude e.g. sailing "athletes."

KingOfCoders 3y ago

Because you're good at football you get free entry into a university? I can understand a football school or something, but why do they need to get into Harvard? Just because I'm an excellent coder (I wish!) should not mean I can get into the New York Philharmonic Orchestra.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Harvard's admission goal is to find the most successful people in the world, not the most successful academics. Top athletes are very successful, so yes, they probably deserve admission.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  "not the most successful academics" I totally agree. What I do not agree is that athletes should have a VIP lane to admission. Either they make it in like everyone else or the rules for everyone need to be changed to reflect the "most successful people".
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    The rules largely do reflect "most successful people". Harvard commonly admits people who are spectacular in non academic ways. Athletes are just the tip of the iceberg, they'll admit people with successful business, they'll admit students who lead popular political movements, they'll accept legacies because they're very likely to be successful. Harvard has never just accepted the top test scores for this exact reason. It just turns out the academic success is a good predictor for general success and there aren't tons of 18 year olds with tons of general success so a lot of the admits are from academic success.
    - KingOfCoders 3y ago
      "It just turns out the academic success is a good predictor for general success" It turns out that this is not the case and a myth. "Last month, accountancy firm Ernst & Young, one of the UK’s biggest graduate employers, announced that they were to scrap a requirement of at least a 2:1 from its graduate application process. The company claimed there was no evidence that academic success at university was linked to achievement in professional assessments." Guardian, Sep 2015 https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2015/sep/01/graduate-jobs-employers-degree-result https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2015/sep/01/graduate-job... Others like PwC followed. The one thing that Harvard is useful for are the connections you make in your time at Harvard, start something with the people you meet there and other people from Harvard you meet that help you with your career. That is what you pay for. And Harvard is in the game for the money.