OT: CNN Article - Athletes have an advantage in Admission: Supreme Court decision on AA
I came across an interesting article on CNN regarding the recent Supreme Court decision on Affirmative Action. The article (which is not paywalled, and link is provided below) notes that prospective athletes are called out as a group that receives noted consideration. I found the article interesting.
Both my children are students at Michigan - which, as an alum, makes me very happy. Neither are Michigan athletes, however - both were impacted by athletics. One was recruited by highly regarded academic institutions, and the other was not granted admission because an athlete was provided a scholarship instead.
Two statements in the article that surprised me were:
- Harvard University has more student athletes than Michigan (Harvard with 1,191 to Michigan's 886), and
- At "smaller" schools (Ivies, "Highly Selective Admission" D3 schools) student athletes represent about 20% of the student body.
This isn't intended to be a political discussion, rather - the impact of athletics in college. Since I enrolled at Michigan - many years ago - my preference has been toward collegiate athletics over professional sports.
Any perspectives - or thoughts to share?
Here's the link: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions/college-admissions-elite-sports-harvard-affirmative-action-macintosh/index.html
Please explain how you know you kid didn't get admitted because an athlete got a scholarship.
Came here for this. In a school of 40kish students how would anyone be able to know the admissions decisions on a 1:1 basis? Theoretically, the same amount of athletes are enrolled every year (give or take a few). If we assume those slots are always taken, then your son/daughter was not overtaken by an athlete. And this is not judgement on them. I didn't get into Michigan.
MH, The school which I referred to admits just over 1,000 students per year - as incoming freshmen. The interview process was rigorous, and - our child (according to the Admissions Advisors and Interviewers we spoke with) did extremely well. The other prospect (who was identified as a student athlete) - also attended the same high school.
The student athlete was accomplished academically - so, in no way am I challenging their academic credentials. The institution was not going to offer admission to two students from their high school - and, the college opted to extend an offer of admission to the student athlete.
It's really mixed emotions for me. I'm very happy that both our children are at Michigan - yet, I also know how strong (for this field of study) the other institution is.
And, as an aside - if you asked me to "rank" the overall student experience - balancing academic, social, community, and athletics - no school in the county compares to Michigan.
Way to go out on a limb and rank Michigan so high in the County
Close call, but we edged out the competition.
best school in all of Washtenaw, no doubt
From what I know of university admissions (granted, I know more about Michigan's than a small school's) this seems hard to believe.
It seems very implausible that they'd narrow it down to two students for one spot and compare them head-to-head like this. In admissions, you don't know exactly what your yield (the proportion of admitted students who enroll) will be, so you can't be that precise. (Michigan's yield was 47% last year.) You admit more than can actually enroll, based on recent years' yields, and then it works itself out - although some years you end up with more overflow triple rooms when the yield is unexpectedly high. A student is measured up against general criteria, which may include academic averages for their peers that year, but almost certainly not against one other specific student.
Second, it seems very odd that they'd share this kind of sensitive information, especially with someone whose child was denied admission.
I'm sure these poor admissions counselors have a number of canned responses to get off the phone with disappointed helicopter parents.
You are essentially anonymous, there is zero reason not to name the institution. Seems like you're making it up.
FYI your statement your child "was not granted admission because an athlete was provided a scholarship instead" is a bit misleading. Another prospective student was granted admission over your kid because s/he had a better overal profile for admissions - part of which might have been their ability to contribute to a University sports team - but the University did not admit an otherwise unqualified student only because of their athletic ability.
CCC - you're accurate and fair in your assessment / perspective. I have immense respect for ALL of schools our children applied to, and understand the admittance decisions they reached.
The student that was offered admission was certainly "qualified".
I’ll take things that never happened for $1000, Alex.
That’s odd. A lot of the top schools admit multiple students from the same schools in the same class. Schools that come to mind off the top are Andover, Exeter, Choate, Milton, Hotchkiss. They have multiple students admitted to top schools all the time.
Blueprint - I agree for those very notable schools the answer is “yes, multiple offers of admission.” Though our children attended a y good high school, it was not quite the same caliber as the schools you noted.
It took me several reads to realize that OP is not referring to Michigan when he says his kid was passed over for an athlete. The story actually makes a lot of sense for a smaller school.
MH - one other point that may be of interest. Admitted students - and, it's probably "admitted AND enrolled" students - can actually see the evaluation provided by Academic Advisors / Counselors for their application.
Students can view this - I believe - in a secure area - and, probably not permitted to copy any of the observations / remarks / comments provided by the Admissions staff.
So - if you have a child, or know someone who is a current student at Michigan - and, they want to know how their application was reviewed - tell them to look into it.
and still managed to become a student
I think he means his kid applied and wanted to go to a different school possibly Ivy league but didn't get admitted so he/she went to Michigan.
Yes, but how do they know they were passed on in favor of an athlete?
That's why I asked the question?
The Admissions Advisor / Counselor provided that feedback.
I was going to ask the same question. Being admitted and how it's paid for are two different things. Not to pry into your finances but if your kid didn't get a scholarship, was that based on the need of the student who did? I believe all highly selective schools have an obligation to create a diverse student body through admissions and to eradicate barriers that prevent under-represented populations from attending, such as affordability. It's important that this country produces leaders and a work force that's emulative of America, so that populations that were historically discriminated against in the past, have more of a hand in shaping our future.
One of the things that bothers me is that diversity programs that were put in place with the intent of creating opportunities for person's who have been discriminated against for decades in this country, by it's institutions are being used to advance populations that are new to this here. I'm sorry but it seems disingenuous to set aside 20 slots for the descendants of slaves and then give those opportunities to people who have never felt the affects of slavery, jim crow and segregation in this country (because they are a different type of minority).
Most "other" minorities' experiences here in America have been very different. Many come and join the country as fully integrated citizens with access to housing, education and employment, while others have had to sacrifice, fight, bleed and even risked death, to fight institutionalized systemic racism. It's deplorable how a detractor of affirmative action could be an (other) minority and claim he was discriminated against in admissions because he wasn't admitted to MIT above a descendant of slaves. Where is his gratitude for the people who were lynched to paved the way for him to even be considered at MIT or at Deloitte, at all? Are we so selfish that we are willing to destroy opportunities for those who have historically needed and benefited from them, as long as we get what they want? Or is the the problem one that many of them (and whites as well) don't adequately appreciate the benefit of recompense because deep down the discrimination continues silently and it's even permeated the souls of "new" Americans, who are quick to take advantage of a preference that was never intended for them but will destroy the preference when it doesn't go their way?
This is false.
Asian Americans have endured a massive history of discrimination in the USA, and continue to face significant problems with ethically-based violence in the present.
The USA launched a campaign of genocide against Native American tribes that reduced their population to token percentages and irrevocably stamped out many of their cultural traditions.
Latinos continue to face widespread discrimination, as they historically have throughout the history of the U.S.
Discrimination remains common against LGBTQ+ persons, religious minorities, women...
Arguing over which group has/had it worse is pointless and exactly what the opponents of civil rights want.
D - I appreciate your comment and the thought that went into it.
My point wasn't scholarship - it was admittance. (In fact my child's admission status was "waitlist", but we opted to accept and enroll at Michigan instead.)
Regarding financial status - I'm not going to go into specific details; however, my children are "out of state students" at Michigan. They were offered varying degrees of scholarships from other schools in the country - which ranged from "full ride plus stipend" to no financial assistance.
From a Michigan perspective - I pay "full freight" - and, neither child receives any financial aid from the University. As a family, we reached a decision that the value of a Michigan education - reflecting on the difference in cost - was worth it.
I'm completely supportive of a diverse student body - which reflects DEI and socioeconomic background. In one of my child's cases, which I referred to - it was the impact of an athlete vs a non-athlete. There was no racial difference - and, candidly, I don't know the financial differences.
I understood your point and commented about it may have been a matter of need being the reason they weren't offered a scholarship, specifically to your post. What I didn't understand was if they were accepted or not. I simply wanted to shift the conversation a bit to see what attitudes were on something that gets under my skin a bit.
As to the other poster, that's the same game all the affirmative action detractors play. Muddy up the waters by throwing in a bunch of minority groups that have not endured the systemic problems with equal access to education, employment and housing that some minorities have endured. Not wanting to talk about it or give credence to the point because Chinese, Mexican's or other minorities have also endured struggles is a typical response but dwarfs in comparison. My point was none of these programs would exist if it weren't for the efforts of thousands of trailblazers who sacrificed so much because of a specific problem in America. We shouldn't now act like we didn't know what the problem was.
The fact that the guy in the case was Asian, doesn't automatically qualify him to take advantage of benefits that may not have been intended for him to begin. Specific questions need to answered. Where does he live, what's his economic status, how long has he and his family been in this country, has his family actually lived through institutionalized discrimination for decades, such that he should be afforded the benefit. Native Americans, Japanese and ethnic groups that have been systemically been discriminated against for decades obviously qualify. My point was salient and we shouldn't muddy up the water talking about apples and cherries because they're both red or because we think all minorities come from the same place.
D - I found the Admissions and application for our process to be both interesting and educational (for a parent). So much depends on opportunities and environment - as you noted.
I can't recall the essay questions on the Common / Coalition apps; however, I do recall the optional essay questions from specific schools - and, the degree to which they provided an opportunity to describe circumstances that impacted an applicant.
As a country, we face many issues. And, I'm a believer that education provides an opportunity to achieve and advance. It seems that many colleges are sincerely interested in supporting societal needs. The culture of any college / university has immense influence on that. As parents, we took the education of our children seriously - and, our children understood that.
The role of Admissions in the process and approach they taken seems to always be under scrutiny. Many of us have seen approaches that parents, or communities, take to develop youth. The approach my family (parents) took with my siblings and me - has certain elements in common with how my wife and I raised our children. Our goals have been associated with "well rounded" children, independence, and being focused. The greatest gift any parent / relative can give is their time - which we all understand is a precious commodity.
I hope that all children and young adults realize their potential, and receive the guidance and direction from their families, educators, administrators, etc. in order to live a rewarding life and make a difference.
A in B, Amen to that. Luv it!!! At the end of the day opportunity and making a difference is what it's all about.
Speaking of the "other minorities", you probably know that Japanese Americans were indiscriminately interned during WWII while nothing happened to white Nazi sympathizers, but you probably do not know that it was a Chinese American who went all the way to SCOTUS to defend his birthright citizenship, and I am not kidding, his birthright citizenship.
While most descendent of slavery still suffers from the decades of discriminatory policies, not all of them do. And when it comes to "race", the admission office don't differentiate descendants of antebellum slaves growing up in inner city America from grand children of Nigeria oil tycoons attending elite NE boarding schools.
Kyeblue, Actually I did know that and if you read my posts that was exactly the point I was making about the children of Nigerian or Saudi oil tycoons taking away spots that were contemplated for minorities in a specific class.
I’m with you. I could understand if this were a Ph.D program or even certain master’s programs, but extremely unlikely at an undergraduate level. Even at an ivy, swarthmore, williams, amherst, etc. If your child was that close, they’d be number one on the waitlist. Schools also put a priority on yield rate. They’d take your child in a heartbeat over a different fringe student if they knew they’d attend. I’m sure you would have conveyed that if you were close enough with them for them to tell you that your kid lost out to an athlete.
There are too other variables that come into play when crafting an enrolling class to list here, but I think that they told you that to placate you. Now you have an anecdote to share
Same assumption as when white people assumed their spot went to an affirmative action recipient. They think, “I never would be rejected, it HAS to be someone else’s fault! Hey! They do that affirmative action thing.” Let’s go yell as loud as we can because I’m upset about failing.
Either that or he got a letter saying: “Hey, your daughter is pretty sweet but we got this gift from the football gods, so….”
I believe athletes at ivies still pay tuition.
This is technically true, but they are often given inside track to other "grants" and "awards" that often, not always, help with tuition in a way that the general student body has a harder time getting.
Very few, most student athletes at Ivies and DIII are paying full freight or getting aid or scholarships outside of the school. They do get special consideration in terms of acceptance and many would not get into those schools based on their academics. Although, there is still a high bar for academic aptitude for all student athletes to be accepted.
One notable difference is - specific to Ivies and the D3 schools that were interested, or - that our children applied to - the nature of the Financial Aid / Scholarship.
At a D3, and - I assume the Ivies as well - the Financial Aid package / offering - is NOT associated with participating in Athletics. The Aid offered would be considered either "merit" - or financial need.
I know D3 athletes who accepted an Aid Package (Academic scholarship) because of their athletic abilities. They played the varsity sport for one season - and, then reached a conclusion that they didn't want to play that sport anymore. Those institutions honored their Financial Aid offer through the remainder of their undergraduate period.
At Michigan, I believe the Athletic Department pays "full freight" - the equivalent of an out of state student - for the scholarship an athlete receives. And, as a "generally admitted" student - the majority of merit based financial aid seems to be extended to in-state students.
We are in the process now, my daughter is looking to play DIII volleyball. The highly academic schools we are talking to do not offer merit aid of any type, all the aid is based on financial need.
Mike, it may be "semantics" - based on the institution. I wish your daughter nothing but the best as she applies and interviews. (I assume she's a rising junior or senior.)
My suggestion is - visit as many of the schools that are interested in her as possible. And, when you are there - have very direct conversations regarding the "aid" package. We found that private schools have greater flexibility in their Aid packages than public institutions.
Also, the coach (and their staff) will be very focused on your daughter during their visit - which you would expect. As a parent - you're essentially the "bill payer".
If your daughter has a field of study that's of interest - spend time in that academic department - sit in on a couple / few classes - and, ensure the volleyball staff clearly identify what the expectations are for 1) practice - both in season and out of season, and 2) S&C. We saw a noticeable difference in the approach that schools took.
My daughter reached the conclusion that she would be focused on academics (and graduate school in the future). She didn't think she'd be able to spend as much time on athletics as certain schools expected. One example is "twice a day" training session - morning and night, which would be balanced with the S&C requirements. And - this - was at a D3 school
Again - my best wishes for your daughter. Enjoy the journey - and, if I can share a perspective on our experience - please let me know, it would be a pleasure.
Thank you!
For me, whose kids have no physical talents whatsoever to compete at college level, I would hate to see part of their tuition dollar subsidizing those on athletic scholarship at a small DII or DIII school. In my opinion, every college Athletic Department should be self-sustainable.
My son played at a small D3 school and it had a huge endowment given the size of the school. I can almost guarantee you that any scholarship money he received didn't come from other student's tuition money. Tuition doesn't even cover the cost of the student. It comes from donors. If athletic departments at those schools had to be self-sustaining, there would be no athletic department. The parents on our team donated a ton of money but not enough to pay for everything. Other donors chipped in, as well. And the rest comes from other sources, but not tuition.
There are no athletic scholarships at DIII schools.
This is true, but the angle the story is alluding to is that being a good cross country runner or volleyball player makes you much more likely to get accepted to Harvard than a really smart kid who scored 1500 instead of 1540 on her SAT. I'm not really critiquing the admissions policies, just pointing out that at those schools it's more about just getting admitted than about getting in on a scholarship.
Brad, I think at smaller, "highly selective" schools, athletics can be an influencer in the admission decision. And, if you're "good" at a sport AND possess strong academic credentials - the odds of admission improve.
I'm referring to the Ivies and D3 schools. Specifically, those that do NOT offer athletic scholarships.
So, if you're a good student - perhaps in the 1st quartile of an institutions academic admission criteria - e.g. GPA, SAT / ACT - then - you may see a bit of flexibility. But, if the prospective student is "significantly lower" - then, unless you're applying to USC - your athletic ability won't be enough to overcome the academic delta.
This is correct. #ClassOf25
A nephew just finished playing lacrosse and throwing the javelin at Dartmouth. They do definitely pay full price.
A couple thoughts, but first....you said one of your children "was not granted admission because an athlete was provided a scholarship instead." But you also said both were students at Michigan, so I'm confused.
As for athlete preference at Michigan and elsewhere, it makes sense to me. A huge part of the appeal of Michigan is the sports culture and the community it creates. Those benefits depend on having highly gifted athletes, so giving those athletes preference in the admissions process seems like a pretty logical move.
We've heard a bunch of stories where Michigan has lost recruits because they couldn't get through admissions (and not just transfers), so it isn't like Michigan is rubber stamping their admittance. It's the kids who are good students, but for whom Michigan would be a reach school, and I have no problem with that.
ECE - My children each applied to 15 schools. Both were offered admittance to Michigan, and are currently enrolled beginning their junior year this fall.
The situation I referenced was with another highly regarded school. The school I referenced is an AAU member and possesses a strong academic reputation.
As for Michigan - I feel I understand the application process, the importance of a diverse student body - which includes the arts, athletics, community, etc. The Athletic Department works with Admissions during the recruiting process - and, will also discuss with the prospective student athlete what they need to do and accomplish academically in high school to be considered - or meet Michigan's academic standards for incoming students.
I have no issue with how Michigan administers its Admissions process.
My son played in college, D3, not a highly selective college but still a good one. His academics were good enough to get him in without his sport so I don't feel that he took someone's place in that regard. But he wouldn't have applied there had he not been recruited to play there. He had been looking at large urban schools when he decided he wanted to continue to play in college and the school he went to is not that. He did get an academic scholarship in lieu of an athletic one since D3 schools don't do athletic scholarships. So did he technically take someone else's place? I don't know the answer to that question.
It's not been a secret that a significant percentage of Ivy League students are made up of kids who get preferred consideration based on being an athlete, a legacy, or a child of a major donor. My daughter went to high school with kids who ended up at Harvard...not because of their sterling academic credentials but because their last name is plastered on multiple campus buildings.
I also know of a kid from my area who was admitted to Columbia because he plays squash.
Students who grew up with significant privilege are much more the beneficiaries of "affirmative action" than the people of color who were the subject of the recent SCOTUS ruling.
By the way, this is neither political nor my opinion. Multiple data-based studies have confirmed what I've asserted above.
Frankly, I don't think the SCOTUS decision really changes anything with admissions. Schools are still going to take into account race in the admissions process because there is so much plausible deniability in the admissions process. Unless a school blatantly writes, "admitted due to race," nothing is going to change