awaken
Well-known member
Pro's and cons of legacy admissions
https://www.yahoo.com/news/should-colleges-end-legacy-admissions-150735135.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/should-colleges-end-legacy-admissions-150735135.html
A college degree is a lousy investment
- Thread starter awaken
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Grabs Turds Bare
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2017
- Messages
- 4,177
- Reaction score
- 408
If consideration of legacy admission is outlawed, schools like Wake are going to have a hell of a time staying afloat. The financial lifeblood that legacy admits represent really can't be overstated.
DistrictDeacon
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 13,054
- Reaction score
- 1,068
Link?
HoosierDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 97
Can someone explain dropping $30k+ in out of state tuition per year on a just decently ok state school? I've seen multiple examples of that recently.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,342
- Reaction score
- 22,351
Location? Family? Work? Own state doesn’t had great universities? Aren’t paying full price? Could be any number of reasons. Doesn’t take much time to establish residency.
You live in Charlotte and your kid got into South Carolina, Clemson, NC State, UNC-W, and App State. USC and CU are the two closest schools to home.
That's just one example, but I've got a lot of friends with kids at USC, UGA, Alabama, and Ole Miss. Those schools have big networks.
HoosierDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 97
That's kinda what I was getting at- stroking a $35k tuition check to Clemson when you can go to App or State or UNCW for $7k. Can you cost justify a 5x difference?
awaken
Well-known member
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Welcome-to-the-Wild/247253
They did it despite their reservations. They did it because they saw no other choice. Under pressure from the Justice Department, admissions officers and college counselors on Saturday voted to delete portions of their ethics code. And just like that, the rules of competition among colleges changed.
Previously, the National Association for College Admission Counseling, known as NACAC, barred colleges from offering incentives, such as special housing or better financial-aid packages, exclusively to applicants who apply under binding early-decision programs. The organization’s “Code of Ethics and Professional Practices” also said colleges must stop recruiting a student once he or she has submitted a deposit to another institution. And the code said colleges can’t solicit transfer applications from a previous applicant or prospect unless that student inquires about transferring. Now all three provisions are gone.
The changes made here at NACAC’s 75th national conference will inject even more uncertainty into the admissions realm. For one thing, the old calendar just went out the window: Because colleges now are free to pursue students who’ve committed elsewhere after the May 1 deposit deadline, financial-aid offers could keep flying all summer long. Poaching another institution’s students while devising ways to protect your own could become a familiar exercise for many enrollment leaders.
“Welcome,” one insider tweeted after Saturday’s vote, “to the Wild West.”
Colleges find themselves in this situation because of a dispute over two related questions: Do key provisions of NACAC’s ethics code restrain competition among colleges? And do those provisions help applicants or harm them?
Nearly two years ago, the Justice Department opened an investigation into whether the code, with its long list of mandatory practices, violates federal antitrust laws. In a recent message to members, the association said the Justice Department interpreted some provisions restricting recruitment before or after May 1 as hindering students “who may be able to lower college costs if they remain subject to competition among colleges.”
One college official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential conversations between the association’s members and the Justice Department, described the dialogue as frustrating. “We tried to explain that students should be free from pressure from the many players with a vested interest in the outcomes of those decisions,” the official said. “But the DOJ sees this purely through the lens of restraint of trade. They think they’re protecting applicants’ financial outcomes.”
Recently NACAC informed its members that the investigation threatened the organization’s future. Hoping to avoid costly litigation and burdensome requirements, the association’s leaders urged voting members to approve the removal of the three provisions.
Before the changes were approved — by a vote of 211 to 3 — Stefanie D. Niles, NACAC’s departing president, said she hoped the changes would be seen as “a good-faith compromise with the DOJ.” But it remains to be seen whether the changes will bring the investigation to a close. Just in case, NACAC’s members voted to grant its Board of Directors temporary authority to make changes in its bylaws in the event of “extraordinary legal circumstances.”
Special Incentives
Many admissions officials described the association’s move as disruptive to students and colleges alike. Johnny and Susie might not see a clear-cut finish line to the recruitment process on the back end. And they could see many more enticements to apply early on the front end.
NACAC’s president-elect, Todd Rinehart, who is vice chancellor for enrollment at the University of Denver, said he was most concerned about the eased restrictions on what colleges can offer to early-decision applicants: “I worry that instead of making an informed choice to apply early to their No. 1 college, some students will apply early somewhere just because they were offered special incentives.”
Last fall High Point University, in North Carolina, offered incentives through its website to students who applied for early decision. Those included “first priority” in choosing their housing and creating their class schedules, and moving in a day earlier than other students. Such offers, a no-no under the old policy, could become common.
That worries Louis L. Hirsh, a former director of admissions at the University of Delaware. After NACAC’s members cast their votes in a convention-center exhibit hall on Saturday, he sat several rows behind them, looking glum. “I just watched some of my own words disappear,” he said.
Hirsh, who is retired, helped lead the steering committee that overhauled NACAC’s ethics codes a few years ago. “You have to look at this process from the standpoint of a 17-year-old kid,” he said. “Our focus should be on how to make this process less stressful and more meaningful for students, who should not have colleges badger them after they’ve decided which college they’re going to. This document was created to protect people who are vulnerable, and that’s what the Justice Department missed.”
As NACAC’s annual conference ended, members discussed the need to explain the new rules to high-school seniors and their parents. Patrick J. O’Connor, associate dean of college counseling at Cranbrook Schools, in Michigan, planned to inform families via email and newsletter.
“We’ve got to let them know that the landscape has changed,” he said. “In this day and age, when cost is driving a big part of the discussion, it’s hard not to think that an extra $2,000 in July won’t reshape the college decision for some families.”
‘Market Disruption’
Many enrollment offcials were considering what, if any, changes they might make during this recruitment cycle. “Many of us are a little more sensitive to market disruption because of what happened this summer,” said Robert G. Springall, vice president for enrollment management at Muhlenberg College, in Pennsylvania.
A higher degree of “melt” — the proportion of committed students who don’t end up enrolling — this academic year already had prompted him to think harder about how to hold on to students who send deposits. “We now have an extra incentive,” Springall said, “to think about those strategies.”
Those strategies might include sending more messages to students who commit, moving affinity-building events for incoming freshmen from spring to summer, and connecting them with academic advisers sooner than before. Though Springall wasn’t inclined to increase Muhlenberg’s deposit fee — a strategy that other enrollment officials plan to adopt to deter poaching — he might give it some thought. “In this new environment,” he said, “we at least have to consider whether our deposit fee helps us or hurts us.”
In some corners of higher education, the changes in the ethics code were welcome. Officials at some NACAC member colleges, including art schools, said the ethics code had hindered their ability to compete with nonmember institutions that play by different rules. And some enrollment officials predicted that the effects of the changes wouldn’t be so dire.
Still, on many campuses, the prospect of a wilder Wild West in admissons surely will pose some bottom-line challenges, especially for tuition-dependent institutions that must scrap for each applicant they enroll.
“Colleges are going to have to spend more energy and resources just to hold on to their class,” said Ken Anselment, dean of admissions and financial aid at Lawrence University, in Wisconsin. “They’ll have to think about how much money they might have to set aside for offers that come later. And it could change the way some institutions think about how to price themselves in the first place.”
Many members of NACAC went home from the conference feeling that their association, for understandable reasons, had just kicked itself in the teeth. Anselment shared many of his colleagues’ concerns about the revised ethics code, but he saw reason for optimism, too.
“Many folks out there understand that we straddle the space between the best interests of the student and the best interests of the institution,” he said. “Even without an external ethics document to police human nature, I still think there are enough of us who will say, ‘Man, if we do this, it won’t be good for this student.’”
Eric Hoover writes about the challenges of getting to, and through, college. Follow him on Twitter @erichoov, or email him, at eric.hoover@chronicle.com.
They did it despite their reservations. They did it because they saw no other choice. Under pressure from the Justice Department, admissions officers and college counselors on Saturday voted to delete portions of their ethics code. And just like that, the rules of competition among colleges changed.
Previously, the National Association for College Admission Counseling, known as NACAC, barred colleges from offering incentives, such as special housing or better financial-aid packages, exclusively to applicants who apply under binding early-decision programs. The organization’s “Code of Ethics and Professional Practices” also said colleges must stop recruiting a student once he or she has submitted a deposit to another institution. And the code said colleges can’t solicit transfer applications from a previous applicant or prospect unless that student inquires about transferring. Now all three provisions are gone.
The changes made here at NACAC’s 75th national conference will inject even more uncertainty into the admissions realm. For one thing, the old calendar just went out the window: Because colleges now are free to pursue students who’ve committed elsewhere after the May 1 deposit deadline, financial-aid offers could keep flying all summer long. Poaching another institution’s students while devising ways to protect your own could become a familiar exercise for many enrollment leaders.
“Welcome,” one insider tweeted after Saturday’s vote, “to the Wild West.”
Colleges find themselves in this situation because of a dispute over two related questions: Do key provisions of NACAC’s ethics code restrain competition among colleges? And do those provisions help applicants or harm them?
Nearly two years ago, the Justice Department opened an investigation into whether the code, with its long list of mandatory practices, violates federal antitrust laws. In a recent message to members, the association said the Justice Department interpreted some provisions restricting recruitment before or after May 1 as hindering students “who may be able to lower college costs if they remain subject to competition among colleges.”
One college official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential conversations between the association’s members and the Justice Department, described the dialogue as frustrating. “We tried to explain that students should be free from pressure from the many players with a vested interest in the outcomes of those decisions,” the official said. “But the DOJ sees this purely through the lens of restraint of trade. They think they’re protecting applicants’ financial outcomes.”
Recently NACAC informed its members that the investigation threatened the organization’s future. Hoping to avoid costly litigation and burdensome requirements, the association’s leaders urged voting members to approve the removal of the three provisions.
Before the changes were approved — by a vote of 211 to 3 — Stefanie D. Niles, NACAC’s departing president, said she hoped the changes would be seen as “a good-faith compromise with the DOJ.” But it remains to be seen whether the changes will bring the investigation to a close. Just in case, NACAC’s members voted to grant its Board of Directors temporary authority to make changes in its bylaws in the event of “extraordinary legal circumstances.”
Special Incentives
Many admissions officials described the association’s move as disruptive to students and colleges alike. Johnny and Susie might not see a clear-cut finish line to the recruitment process on the back end. And they could see many more enticements to apply early on the front end.
NACAC’s president-elect, Todd Rinehart, who is vice chancellor for enrollment at the University of Denver, said he was most concerned about the eased restrictions on what colleges can offer to early-decision applicants: “I worry that instead of making an informed choice to apply early to their No. 1 college, some students will apply early somewhere just because they were offered special incentives.”
Last fall High Point University, in North Carolina, offered incentives through its website to students who applied for early decision. Those included “first priority” in choosing their housing and creating their class schedules, and moving in a day earlier than other students. Such offers, a no-no under the old policy, could become common.
That worries Louis L. Hirsh, a former director of admissions at the University of Delaware. After NACAC’s members cast their votes in a convention-center exhibit hall on Saturday, he sat several rows behind them, looking glum. “I just watched some of my own words disappear,” he said.
Hirsh, who is retired, helped lead the steering committee that overhauled NACAC’s ethics codes a few years ago. “You have to look at this process from the standpoint of a 17-year-old kid,” he said. “Our focus should be on how to make this process less stressful and more meaningful for students, who should not have colleges badger them after they’ve decided which college they’re going to. This document was created to protect people who are vulnerable, and that’s what the Justice Department missed.”
As NACAC’s annual conference ended, members discussed the need to explain the new rules to high-school seniors and their parents. Patrick J. O’Connor, associate dean of college counseling at Cranbrook Schools, in Michigan, planned to inform families via email and newsletter.
“We’ve got to let them know that the landscape has changed,” he said. “In this day and age, when cost is driving a big part of the discussion, it’s hard not to think that an extra $2,000 in July won’t reshape the college decision for some families.”
‘Market Disruption’
Many enrollment offcials were considering what, if any, changes they might make during this recruitment cycle. “Many of us are a little more sensitive to market disruption because of what happened this summer,” said Robert G. Springall, vice president for enrollment management at Muhlenberg College, in Pennsylvania.
A higher degree of “melt” — the proportion of committed students who don’t end up enrolling — this academic year already had prompted him to think harder about how to hold on to students who send deposits. “We now have an extra incentive,” Springall said, “to think about those strategies.”
Those strategies might include sending more messages to students who commit, moving affinity-building events for incoming freshmen from spring to summer, and connecting them with academic advisers sooner than before. Though Springall wasn’t inclined to increase Muhlenberg’s deposit fee — a strategy that other enrollment officials plan to adopt to deter poaching — he might give it some thought. “In this new environment,” he said, “we at least have to consider whether our deposit fee helps us or hurts us.”
In some corners of higher education, the changes in the ethics code were welcome. Officials at some NACAC member colleges, including art schools, said the ethics code had hindered their ability to compete with nonmember institutions that play by different rules. And some enrollment officials predicted that the effects of the changes wouldn’t be so dire.
Still, on many campuses, the prospect of a wilder Wild West in admissons surely will pose some bottom-line challenges, especially for tuition-dependent institutions that must scrap for each applicant they enroll.
“Colleges are going to have to spend more energy and resources just to hold on to their class,” said Ken Anselment, dean of admissions and financial aid at Lawrence University, in Wisconsin. “They’ll have to think about how much money they might have to set aside for offers that come later. And it could change the way some institutions think about how to price themselves in the first place.”
Many members of NACAC went home from the conference feeling that their association, for understandable reasons, had just kicked itself in the teeth. Anselment shared many of his colleagues’ concerns about the revised ethics code, but he saw reason for optimism, too.
“Many folks out there understand that we straddle the space between the best interests of the student and the best interests of the institution,” he said. “Even without an external ethics document to police human nature, I still think there are enough of us who will say, ‘Man, if we do this, it won’t be good for this student.’”
Eric Hoover writes about the challenges of getting to, and through, college. Follow him on Twitter @erichoov, or email him, at eric.hoover@chronicle.com.
Yeah, I think you can if you can afford it at all. I wouldn't want to go to UNC-W unless my plan was to transfer out to UNC-CH.
No offense to UNC-W people, but their network can't compete with that of a flagship school.
HoosierDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 97
I guess so- but at the end of the day people are shelling out ~$200k for a Clemson degree? Like that happens in real life? Would you be better off with a UNCW degree and $150k more in your pocket?
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
I dunno, don’t discount the networks. Every job I’ve ever had came from the Wake network. Probably better off saving $150k and being a plumber/electrician, though
awaken
Well-known member
Harvard wins lawsuit. Does not discriminate against Asians
https://qz.com/1720349/harvard-admissions-trial-leads-to-changes-in-application-process
https://qz.com/1720349/harvard-admissions-trial-leads-to-changes-in-application-process
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,342
- Reaction score
- 22,351
The Cult of Rich-Kid Sports
A new paper provides stark evidence that Harvard gives preferential treatment to affluent white applicants through legacy preferences and sports recruitment.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ersity-and-scandal-sports-recruitment/599248/
----
But a new paper by several economists, including one directly involved in the trial, provides stark evidence that Harvard does give preferential treatment to affluent white applicants through legacy preferences and sports recruitment.
The researchers found that between 2009 and 2014, more than 40 percent of accepted white students were ALDC—athletes, legacies, “dean’s list” (meaning related to donors), or the children of faculty. Without such preferences, they said, three-quarters of those white students would have been rejected.
The study’s lead author, the Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono, was an expert witness against Harvard in a lawsuit accusing the university of discriminating against Asian applicants. The paper is based on data obtained during the trial.
The findings offer a grab bag for public indignation. You could get angry about the pernicious effect of legacy programs, which reproduce privilege at schools that publicly advertise themselves as crusaders for the poor. Or you could get angry about the dean’s list, which allows some of the richest people in the world to punch a ticket for their undeserving children with an eight-figure donation.
But the most important takeaway from the paper is a phenomenon that is bigger than this lawsuit, bigger than Harvard, and bigger than college education, altogether. It is the American scam of rich-kid sports.
What are rich-kid sports?
At a time when youth sport participation is stratifying by income, one could argue that even soccer fields have become the domain of the upper-middle class and above. But true rich-kid sports include water polo, squash, crew, lacrosse, and skiing. One does not simply fall into the river and come out a water-polo star, and no downhill-slalom champions casually roam the halls of low-income high schools. These sports often require formal training, expensive equipment, and upscale facilities. No wonder they are dominated by affluent young players.
While there is nothing morally wrong with enjoying a game of catch in a pool, participation in these activities has come to play a subtle, yet ludicrously powerful, role in the reproduction of elite status in the United States.
At Harvard, nearly 1,200 undergraduates—or 20 percent of the student body— participate in intercollegiate athletics. That’s more student athletes than Ohio State University, whose total undergraduate enrollment of 46,000 is nearly seven times larger.
Early in the Harvard admissions process, recruited athletes receive special treatment. Most of the school’s 42 sports have liaisons that relay the coach’s preferences for incoming athletes to the admissions department. Nearly 90 percent of recruited athletes gain admission to Harvard, versus about 6 percent of applicants overall. These athletes make up less than 1 percent of Harvard’s applicant pool but more than 10 percent of its admitted class. (The other 10 percent of Harvard’s players are walk-ons who likely have also benefited from high athletic ratings in the admissions process.)
It would be one thing if Harvard were giving a leg up to students who might not otherwise afford an education. But Harvard does not offer athletic scholarships. Its athletes tend to be neither promising low-income stalwarts, nor superstars with a chance of going pro. Sports recruitment, it would seem, is not about academics, or equality of opportunity, but about money; it functions as affirmative action for white affluence.
Across the Ivy League, many teams are whiter (and richer) than the rest of their class. Black and Hispanic students account for less than 10 percent of Ivy athletes in baseball, cross country, fencing, field hockey, golf, ice hockey, lacrosse, rowing, sailing, skiing, softball, squash, tennis, volleyball, water polo, and wrestling. In the 2017-18 year, about 700 Ivy League athletes participated in rowing and lacrosse; fewer than 30 were black, according to NCAA data.
At Harvard, these athletes tend to come from high-income families. According to a Harvard Crimson survey, families of recruited athletes are twice as likely as non-recruits to come from families earning more than $500,000 than from families earning less than $80,000. Recruited athletes are also slightly whiter—and slightly less Asian American—than legacy admits or donors’ children, according to data gathered for the Arcidiacono paper. In fact, recruited athletes at Harvard are almost twice as likely to be white, and one-third as likely to be Asian, as all non-ALDC admits.
If these numbers make it sound like Harvard’s—and the Ivy League’s—fancy-sport recruitment strategy is a shell game for maximizing the population of rich students who will pay the full ticket price of admission, Paul Tough would agree. The author of an excellent new book on college, The Years That Matter Most, Tough explains that the affluent-athlete hustle is widespread in higher education, especially at smaller schools struggling to stay afloat.
...
In her 2015 book Pedigree, the Northwestern sociologist Lauren A. Rivera asked what elite employers were looking for from potential hires. She found the answer came down to three simple words: Ivy League sports.
Elite firms based their entry-level hiring decisions on two things, Rivera wrote. First they screened for the “best” universities, harvesting the senior crops of schools such as Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton. Second, they scrutinized candidates’ extracurricular activities, especially the sports they played in high school and college.
As you might have guessed, playing any sport wasn’t good enough. Recruiters strongly preferred candidates who played “hockey, tennis, squash, or crew”—rare and exclusive sports, whose rarity and exclusion was precisely the point. “You will never find a squash player in a public school in Detroit,“ one banker told her. “To them, squash is a vegetable." In elite firms, filtering for fancy sports allowed high-status adults to hire their socioeconomic clones without having to ask the rude question: “So, kid, is your family rich like mine, or no?”
-----
Not really new info, but it puts some things we already know into perspective.
A new paper provides stark evidence that Harvard gives preferential treatment to affluent white applicants through legacy preferences and sports recruitment.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ersity-and-scandal-sports-recruitment/599248/
----
But a new paper by several economists, including one directly involved in the trial, provides stark evidence that Harvard does give preferential treatment to affluent white applicants through legacy preferences and sports recruitment.
The researchers found that between 2009 and 2014, more than 40 percent of accepted white students were ALDC—athletes, legacies, “dean’s list” (meaning related to donors), or the children of faculty. Without such preferences, they said, three-quarters of those white students would have been rejected.
The study’s lead author, the Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono, was an expert witness against Harvard in a lawsuit accusing the university of discriminating against Asian applicants. The paper is based on data obtained during the trial.
The findings offer a grab bag for public indignation. You could get angry about the pernicious effect of legacy programs, which reproduce privilege at schools that publicly advertise themselves as crusaders for the poor. Or you could get angry about the dean’s list, which allows some of the richest people in the world to punch a ticket for their undeserving children with an eight-figure donation.
But the most important takeaway from the paper is a phenomenon that is bigger than this lawsuit, bigger than Harvard, and bigger than college education, altogether. It is the American scam of rich-kid sports.
What are rich-kid sports?
At a time when youth sport participation is stratifying by income, one could argue that even soccer fields have become the domain of the upper-middle class and above. But true rich-kid sports include water polo, squash, crew, lacrosse, and skiing. One does not simply fall into the river and come out a water-polo star, and no downhill-slalom champions casually roam the halls of low-income high schools. These sports often require formal training, expensive equipment, and upscale facilities. No wonder they are dominated by affluent young players.
While there is nothing morally wrong with enjoying a game of catch in a pool, participation in these activities has come to play a subtle, yet ludicrously powerful, role in the reproduction of elite status in the United States.
At Harvard, nearly 1,200 undergraduates—or 20 percent of the student body— participate in intercollegiate athletics. That’s more student athletes than Ohio State University, whose total undergraduate enrollment of 46,000 is nearly seven times larger.
Early in the Harvard admissions process, recruited athletes receive special treatment. Most of the school’s 42 sports have liaisons that relay the coach’s preferences for incoming athletes to the admissions department. Nearly 90 percent of recruited athletes gain admission to Harvard, versus about 6 percent of applicants overall. These athletes make up less than 1 percent of Harvard’s applicant pool but more than 10 percent of its admitted class. (The other 10 percent of Harvard’s players are walk-ons who likely have also benefited from high athletic ratings in the admissions process.)
It would be one thing if Harvard were giving a leg up to students who might not otherwise afford an education. But Harvard does not offer athletic scholarships. Its athletes tend to be neither promising low-income stalwarts, nor superstars with a chance of going pro. Sports recruitment, it would seem, is not about academics, or equality of opportunity, but about money; it functions as affirmative action for white affluence.
Across the Ivy League, many teams are whiter (and richer) than the rest of their class. Black and Hispanic students account for less than 10 percent of Ivy athletes in baseball, cross country, fencing, field hockey, golf, ice hockey, lacrosse, rowing, sailing, skiing, softball, squash, tennis, volleyball, water polo, and wrestling. In the 2017-18 year, about 700 Ivy League athletes participated in rowing and lacrosse; fewer than 30 were black, according to NCAA data.
At Harvard, these athletes tend to come from high-income families. According to a Harvard Crimson survey, families of recruited athletes are twice as likely as non-recruits to come from families earning more than $500,000 than from families earning less than $80,000. Recruited athletes are also slightly whiter—and slightly less Asian American—than legacy admits or donors’ children, according to data gathered for the Arcidiacono paper. In fact, recruited athletes at Harvard are almost twice as likely to be white, and one-third as likely to be Asian, as all non-ALDC admits.
If these numbers make it sound like Harvard’s—and the Ivy League’s—fancy-sport recruitment strategy is a shell game for maximizing the population of rich students who will pay the full ticket price of admission, Paul Tough would agree. The author of an excellent new book on college, The Years That Matter Most, Tough explains that the affluent-athlete hustle is widespread in higher education, especially at smaller schools struggling to stay afloat.
...
In her 2015 book Pedigree, the Northwestern sociologist Lauren A. Rivera asked what elite employers were looking for from potential hires. She found the answer came down to three simple words: Ivy League sports.
Elite firms based their entry-level hiring decisions on two things, Rivera wrote. First they screened for the “best” universities, harvesting the senior crops of schools such as Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton. Second, they scrutinized candidates’ extracurricular activities, especially the sports they played in high school and college.
As you might have guessed, playing any sport wasn’t good enough. Recruiters strongly preferred candidates who played “hockey, tennis, squash, or crew”—rare and exclusive sports, whose rarity and exclusion was precisely the point. “You will never find a squash player in a public school in Detroit,“ one banker told her. “To them, squash is a vegetable." In elite firms, filtering for fancy sports allowed high-status adults to hire their socioeconomic clones without having to ask the rude question: “So, kid, is your family rich like mine, or no?”
-----
Not really new info, but it puts some things we already know into perspective.
Last edited:
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,342
- Reaction score
- 22,351
It’s definitely a country club sport. Tennis courts are generally located in private facilitates or well to do neighborhood. It’s not as rare and exclusive as water polo but it’s more exclusive than basketball, football, soccer, or track and field.
This is incorrect. There are free public tennis courts all over the place in the US. Tennis is also a very diverse sport, especially for US women. The top US women are Serena, Venus, Sloane Stephens, and Madison Keys. The next generation is Coco Gauff and Taylor Townsend. Tennis also pays men and women equally, which is why the top female athletes play tennis.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,342
- Reaction score
- 22,351
There are free public courts. I grew up playing on them. But they’re generally located in country clubs and neighborhoods and obviously those are in much better condition.
I’m aware that there is some diversity especially on the women’s side but refer back to the point of the article. The racial and socioeconomic make up of collegiate tennis players is closer to water polo, squash, crew, and lacrosse than basketball, football, and track and field.
Here's a good story about free tennis courts. These are the courts I grew up playing on located on the street that divided white and black neighborhoods in my hometown.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/H...n-refurbished-neighborhood-tennis-courts.html
I’m aware that there is some diversity especially on the women’s side but refer back to the point of the article. The racial and socioeconomic make up of collegiate tennis players is closer to water polo, squash, crew, and lacrosse than basketball, football, and track and field.
Here's a good story about free tennis courts. These are the courts I grew up playing on located on the street that divided white and black neighborhoods in my hometown.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/H...n-refurbished-neighborhood-tennis-courts.html
Last edited:
that's a great story, and it is repeated in most towns. There is a former Wake tennis star in Charlotte heavily involved with starting a very successful year around program for underprivileged kids. The notion that tennis is a country club sport is an out of date stereotype.
Cool article, thanks for posting it.
College tennis is quite different from the other sports listed, because it has the highest number of international student athletes (and it’s not even close).
This is correct - it’s a very outdated stereotype. Tennis can be a relatively inexpensive sport because there are free courts all over the place. My kids have played all youth sports - basketball, baseball, soccer, football, etc - and youth tennis has by far the most diverse participants.