Water Flows Downhill

 

Years ago, I interviewed a brilliant high school student who asked me a simple question: Why should I go to Princeton when a third of the student body are athletes?

I admitted that he had a point: a third of my class at Princeton was not very bright because of preferential policies for one reason or another. And it was a damn shame. What I did not realize was that I was part of the problem, looking for “intangibles” as part of the admissions process.

A diploma from a prestigious school is valuable, both economically and socially. The admissions process is highly subjective and not transparent. There are carve-outs for athletes, minorities, legacies, and those deemed more desirable for other, non-objective reasons. These carve-outs can constitute as much as 50 to 70 percent of an entering class.

There is certainty that there will be corruption. There has been corruption since the first donation to Ug’s Cave-Academy. To me, the only surprising feature about this latest “scandal” is that the schools themselves were bypassed and did not directly reap the winnings. Oh, the horror!

The best we can and should do is to point out that without transparent and clear criteria, corruption is a certainty.

Edit: There are schools that admit every candidate above a certain cutoff point, basically defined by those likely to be able to do the work. Included in this category are some state schools. That would be much better — but for the Ivy League to do the same, they would need to make the school much more academically difficult than it is.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 63 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    Holy Schnikies!

    I just realized that West Point does the opposite of likely letters–and I think this is a valid means of de-risking that is not as corrupting.

    If you want to find out early whether you’re admitted, you can sign then send a form letter to the school declaring that if they select you early, you will attend.

    I remembered that piece only because I got notified in February (instead of the non-letter signers that found out from 1 month to 1 week out from Report Day, which is usually on 01 July), in the heart of wrestling season.

    On the night of a match, my Dad showed up and handed a letter off to my coach.

    Coach showed it to me, saying, “Huh, West Point?  Weren’t you hoping to hear from them about something?”

    Yes, sir.

    Coach slipped it into his gym bag and said, “You’ll get it right after your next win.”

    I think I stuck my opponent in about 8.7 seconds.

    • #61
  2. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Big Green (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    I have known some brilliant athletes. It is possible to be both.

    It is. But those who are admitted because they are athletes are not likely to be among them.

    The Ivy League plays a game with something called a “Likely Letter” – it means that you are a recruited athlete, and you are certain to be admitted as long as you still have a pulse come March. Likely Letter kids are almost never scholars.

    And 75% of recruited athletes don’t receive a “likely letter”, it’s utility is for those that would have no chance of being admitted otherwise. Perhaps that’s not “fair” but the vast majority of athletes deserve to be there as much as anyone else. Frankly, they represent Princeton much better in their professional lives that non-athletes.

    Ever soccer player on my daughters NCSU graduated on the Dean’s list. 22 years later they all are very successful women.

    • #62
  3. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    PHCheese (View Comment):
    Ever soccer player on my daughters NCSU graduated on the Dean’s list. 22 years later they all are very successful women.

    That is nice. Likely Letters are still preferential treatment based on non-academic factors. And on average, serious collegiate athletes  do much worse than other graduates in term of after-college success. 

    I don’t have a problem with the corruption or the favoritism. I have a problem with institutions lying about it. Especially when they do so with high-handed condescension.

    • #63
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.