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
Well, I think it would be pretty easy to show that grades and test scores correlate to post graduation success and being a good alum, for people of all races, than race does alone. In fact, I think race alone probably doesn't correlate at all with how successful of an alum you are.
Yeah but I don't think anyone is ever admitted to anything based on race alone.
SCOTUS determined that the Asian students were being denied solely on their race.
Well no, that is not what they determined. They determined that race was a consideration.
At Harvard, each application for admission is initially screened by a “first reader,” who assigns a numerical score in each of six categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, school support, personal, and overall. For the “overall” category—a composite of the five other ratings— a first reader can and does consider the applicant’s race. Harvard’s admissions subcommittees then review all applications from a particular geographic area. These regional subcommittees make recommendations to the full admissions committee, and they take an applicant’s race into account. When the 40-member full admissions committee begins its deliberations, it discusses the relative breakdown of applicants by race.
So it was a subcategory of 1 of 6 categories, and wasn't the primary screening factor. All categories were weighted equally before arriving at a 40 member committee which voted on each applicant. Race was a factor, but at no point was anyone denied solely for race.
Also I think it is important to keep in mind the scale of the issue here. So for Harvard's most recent class, the decision is claiming basically 200 admissions out of 61,221 applicants benefitted from any consideration of race in the application. So like 0.3%.
I tend to think this decision isn't going to change a whole lot. And the people saying they got denied because of affirmative action will move on to something else to complain about.
Yes, but it applied it's weighing of race in an unequal manner, being prejudiced against Asians.
"Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. Accordingly, the Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause applies “without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality”— it is “universal in [its] application.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369. For '[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.'"
And here they do state that the schools did use Asian's race as a negative against them.
"Respondents’ race-based admissions systems also fail to com- ply with the Equal Protection Clause’s twin commands that race may never be used as a “negative” and that it may not operate as a stereotype. The First Circuit found that Harvard’s consideration of race has resulted in fewer admissions of Asian-American students. Respondents’ assertion that race is never a negative factor in their admissions programs cannot withstand scrutiny. College admissions are zero-sum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter."
Well said 4thphase. I mean, I think it sucks for those kids. They are brilliant and talented and work extremely hard and are often denied spots in schools they should probably get into (but I don't believe any student is entitled to a spot in any incoming class). Oddly, a solution to this would be to encourage top minority students to get involved in all these rich white kid sports. Get them in that way.
But I was disappointed at the Supreme Court case and the fact that the plaintiffs challenged the affirmative action policies rather than the athletic, legacy and donor admissions. If you were a top, hard-working student in the class of '99 and dreamed of going to Harvard your whole life, it's disappointing to know that Jared Kushner - a poor student- got in because his old man donated $2 million to the school the year before.
To your last point: after the SC ruling, U of M made a post on LinkedIn saying that they disagreed with it and the U would stay committed to creating opportunity for students and building a diverse student body. In the comments, some dude said that Michigan was his dream school but didn't get in and he blamed the affirmative action policy. But he said he did get into Notre Dame and Northwestern (although according to his profile, it looks like he didn't go to either one but he runs some investment firm now, so boo-fucking-hoo). And not to mention this was FIFTY YEARS AGO. Give it up, dude.
U of M in particular, does NOT use race as a factor in its admission anymore because of the state law. I am all for diversity and applaud the university's effort of continuing pursuing a diverse student body. But I cannot support a metric that would favor the royal highness Archie over a dark skin kid from a poor south-Asian family, which was the one struck down by the SCOTUS.
Like complaining about how they denied in favor of an athlete
High School grades are about the best college success predictor - better than any other measures used.
Problem is - that "best" accuracy is equivalent to a 50% coin flip.
Is athletic talent not supposed to count as talent?
Are admissions offices supposed to consider grades and test scores only, and not the fact that one applicant is also a world class violinist, award-winning poet, or already published some scientific research? What an awful, sterile, and pedantic admissions process that would be.
Anyway, what should make athletic talent meaningfully different from these things?
Very, very true and well put. You don't just look at grades and SAT/ACT scores when reviewing applications. If somebody is exceptional in some way that the University values, that should weigh heavily.
That seems a little disingenuous to me. Athletic talent is a little different, right? A poet will presumably take classes in English (and writing, and poetry), a scientist will study physics or biology or whatever, and so on. But does Michigan offer classes in ice hockey? Could I have gotten a degree in football? Can the average student study nickel coverage or the 2-3 zone?
I'm not saying athletes don't deserve special consideration. But let's not pretend all "talents" are the same. JJ McCarthy's "talent" happens to make money for the university in a way the poet's does not.
I love Michigan football, but I do have trouble articulating in what particular way it's a fundamental part of the university's mission. We're just used to it, and we like it. Fair enough. But the Sorbonne, Cambridge, and Oberlin all manage to do just fine without athletic scholarships and Division I college sports. It's not fundamental.
Not to mention the end product of other talents is something of inherent value (i.e., a novel, a scientific discovery, a work of art) as opposed to, say, carrying an inflated pigskin over a chalk line.
Does art have *inherent* value? Isn't the value in the art, the fact that people are willing to pay for it? Is a Picasso inherently worth $174 million? Athletics is similar. Athletes provide value because people will pay for it.
Well, I get your point. But a Picasso has inherent value because it is beautiful and I don't care how much money it's worth.
(And now you are going to tell me that beauty is subjective and it's only the fact that lots of people agree that Picasso's work is beautiful that means it has value and that's what distinguishes it from the work of some lesser artist whose work doesn't appeal to very many people and I am supposed to interpret that by some kind of analogy to an athlete who is successful by reason of being good achieving at whatever arbitrary physical accomplishments score the most points in a particular sport, to which I will respond by trying to explain the difference between the value that one may ascribe to great works such as transcendent artistic masterpieces vs. pedestrian goods that people will pay for simply because of sybaritic interests...)
"Does art have *inherent* value?"
Monetarily/economically - no, NOTHING has any inherent value in that sphere. Everything is worth exactly what someone will pay for it.
Morally/ethically? Yes, art has inherent value... it dates back to pre-human hominids.
What about virtuoso musicians? A brilliant violinist's end product might be their contribution in a symphony orchestra, which society enjoys as a form of entertainment. Why is that different from athletic entertainment?
Because it's "art"? Why is musical excellence worthy of our esteem, but not athletic excellence?
To be clear, I am NOT saying athletes should be treated better than musicians. I am saying that excellence is excellence, and if the only product of that excellence is entertainment, that doesn't give it less value.
I never said athletic excellence wasn't deserving of esteem. I said the end product of athletic excellence--and gave the example of running across a chalk line with an inflated pigskin--has no inherent value.
The reason seeing someone run across the chalk line with the pigskin entertains you is because there a set of rules called "football" and under those rules, crossing that line with the pigskin is worth six points and scoring six points is of significant benefit to the football team you have chosen to support. Without all the accompanying arbitrary rules and customs that goes along with it, running across that line with a pigskin wouldn't matter to you one iota. If the rules of football were written so that knocking a round rubber ball through an elevated hoop with your hip was worth points and nothing else mattered, you wouldn't give a rat's ass about some guy and a pigskin.
For a virtuoso musician to entertain you, all you need is to hear the music. Because the music itself has inherent value. It's not some arbitrary act that needs to be accompanied by an elaborate set of rules and customs and traditions that give it meaning.
"Because it's "art"? Why is musical excellence worthy of our esteem, but not athletic excellence?"
Because the MISSION of the university includes art, but not athletics.
The Universities motto:
"Artes, Scientia, Veritas"
The Universities mission statement:
"The mission of the University of Michigan is to serve the people of Michigan and the world through preeminence in creating, communicating, preserving and applying knowledge, art, and academic values, and in developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future."
"....and in developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future."
Student athletes are well known for having excellent leadership skills, great discipline, and advanced interpersonal skills. Maybe athletics isn't directly referenced in our mission, but for that to be significant, it would mean adopting a very narrow interpretation of the mission.
Heck, by that logic, business doesn't seem to be in the mission. And yet, Ross is one of our premier programs and is -- rightly -- held in high esteem by the community.
Football has acted as a sort of connector to the general population. People who would otherwise never attend Michigan are emotionally invested in it because 100 kids in winged helmets perform for them on fall Saturdays. It creates a sense of community between the university and the average person that didn’t exist before college football.
Universities were seen as places where the elite go. It wasn’t for Joe and Jill Schmoe. It largely still is even with the ethnic diversity it has now.People who attend schools like Michigan are and/or will become among societies elite in terms of intelligence, academics, and wealth. That creates a level of stratification between the masses and UM’s students and alums.
People tend to gravitate towards like people. Meaning if you are highly educated you will tend to socialize with other highly educated people and the same for less educated people.
What football provides is a place where these two groups can intermingle and perhaps form friendships they otherwise wouldn’t have the opportunity to do so. It’s a social adhesive that, to be frank, we very much need these days.(This applies to other sports and entertainment as well)
Football and entertainment in general are far more important to US society than perhaps people realize.
But then there are schools like Stanford, where the academic rigor applies to athletes, too. They may get extra time to complete an assignment (I don't know this for a fact) but they still have to compete in the classroom just like everyone else, and that may be harder than competing in their sport. Plus the time that goes into practice, etc...I don't think all situations are the same regarding athletes in an academic environment.
I would assume most athletes at Stanford take the pass/fail option for their more difficult classes to mitigate the academic rigor.
Wendy, a good friend of mine’s son played football at Stanford. They had to complete their work; however, the instructors also provided some flexibility based on assignments, travel, etc. it seemed like their academic staff understood the demands of athletics.
CarolinaBlue, your argument re: athletes breaks down a bit when looking at the Ivy League schools.
Those athletes aren't exactly "world class."
This.
My son applied to Stanford. He, as did a bunch of applicants, had 4+ GPA, a perfect SAT, played 2 varsity sports (but was never going to be a college athlete).
Stanford's freshman class size is roughly 2,000. Its undergrad numbers are something like 7,000. 900 of which are student athletes (300 scholarship).
We all know Stanford has the full gambit of sports and prizes this. Without being a national robotics champion or virtuoso musician or something to stand out beside a damn strong high school resume, there was not much of a chance he was going to gain admission. There is a very good chance that an athlete "took his spot" but that was a talent that Stanford felt would most contribute to their university.
One of the counsellors said "We aren't looking for a well rounded student. We're looking for a well-rounded student body." Which I thought was interesting.
"what should make athletic talent meaningfully different from these things?"
Generally - the mission of many academic institutions.
I can not get past this sentence. "the other was not granted admission because an athlete was provided a scholarship instead." Regardless if you intended it to be, that part is pretty offensive to most athletes. Not all athletes get a golden ticket. Many of them work twice as hard as other students. Do they have an easier path to admissions? Of course, they do, and I am 100% committed to that should apply to other circumstances other than sports.
The rest would require me to step into politics, so we will end it on that note.
A student with good grades figured out that their talent and skills are better suited for academic excellence, and they concentrated on that. A student with good talent figure out that their talent and skills are better suited for sports, and they concentrated on that.
Both of them put in effort to showcase their best sides. I used to think academics are superior to sports. But I have come around. I do not have a child who is going to get an athletic scholarship from anywhere. No personal agenda so to speak.
Here's the kicker: A majority of those highly gifted athletes that drive the sports culture and community at Michigan are from minority classifications. And I've never heard anyone complaining about the color of these individuals taking up spots at the University, as long as they're scoring touchdowns and knocking down jumpers. Some, repeat "some," of these highly gifted athletes are not as academically gifted as other students the University annually considers for admission. Again, no public complaints that "they're not qualified," or "they're taking my daughter's/son's spot," as long as the wins against O-State and Sparty continue on. But bring up affirmative action: that's somehow a societal catastrophe that requires redress from the Supreme Court.
Nice point.
Nobody complains about the race of the athletes who get in with less academic achievement because everyone knows that the merit being measured is athletic instead of academic. Race doesn't even enter the equation. With the affirmative action question, race is the thing being factored in, there is no question of merit involved whatsoever. And it needed to be addressed because there is no compelling argument that an academically average or slightly above average African-American student who has attended private school all the way through their education because their mother is a lawyer and the father is a highly paid business executive deserves to be favored over an Asian kid whose parents scrape by running a bodega and live in a crappy neighborhood, but the child studies her ass off and gets exceptional grades and test scores.
Re: your last point, I don't quite agree. Athletes and non-athletes are not constitutionally protected classes. If federal funds are being used by an institution that discriminates based on race, that should be of interest to SCOTUS. Now, you may argue that there is no discrimination or that discrimination is actually good but I have a hard time understanding that SCOTUS should not have any interest in the matter.
The point is, people are not running to SCOTUS for relief over athletes from minority groups, some, again "some," who might not be "qualified" academically to attend a college/university, taking away spots from those who are "qualified." As the article points out, given SCOTUS's analysis, every single admissions spot at a school matters.
What matters is what the criteria being measured are for qualification. No one is saying that the AA students are "unqualified" necessarily. They are saying that more qualified students are being denied acceptance based solely on their race, in this case being Asian. These schools devised acceptance criteria to purposely disadvantage Asian students because these schools deemed that too many of them were qualified and taking more slots than they "deserved."
Being qualified is a binary. You either are, or you aren't.
Maybe, but many people that are qualified don't get in.
popcorn.gif
Well, yeah.
Legacy have been a thing for centuries. If ending AA means ending legacy admissions that would be…*shrugs*.
60% of white males do not go to college. Well over half of Asians collectively do go to college. Black and white Americans roughly attend college at the same rate.
Smaller universities and colleges are closing at an increasing rate across the country. College enrollment has decreased by 10% since 2011. College is slowly once again reverting back to it’s original sate of where only the wealthy attend.
Not surprising, when four years of college now costs as much as a starter home.
I think the U.S. will need to make some fundamental changes in the way higher education is organized and financed if we are ever to restore broad access to genuine upward mobility in this country.
That is true. But there is no reason for the cost to be so high. The current education system is incredibly inefficient. It is a classic situation where the person purchasing the product is not paying for it (or at least not not paying for it until much later).
With the trend over past several decades (not only using the recent court rulings, but merely considering them as data points in a progression), it would not surprise me if - some time down the road - athletics are removed from consideration for *admission* processes. It is de facto benefit that is not offered to those with physical disabilities nor to those without certain physical gifts.
That would open a can of worms. There probably aren't many music students who are hard of hearing, art students who are visually impaired, and in general there won't be many students at a selective institution who are cognitively impaired.
Yes, it is a "can or worms" - yet so is much of what has been happening. There is a degree of practicality as well. Your hypotheticals (deaf music majors, visually impaired art majors, etc.) already have some precedents in history... and again this is all about admissions to academic programs, not about who will actually make a sporting team.
This sounds suspiciously like the classic ideology of mandating equality of outcome.
two words. bell curve.
and entitlement.
Man, I would give anything to have highly regarded academic institutions recruit my kids.
How old are your children, and what sport(s) do they play?
This isn't intended to be a political discussion, rather - the impact of athletics in college.
It's an inherently political topic, though.
yeah, and? This isn't anything ground breaking.