A star athlete can be admitted to a top university besides the fact that his academics are clearly sub-par for the school. Universities argue that athletes bring another dimension to the university and possess a valuable skill. I think this is fine.
However, why don't we see the same preferential admission for extremely tallented students for other fields. Wouldn't a national championship-winning debater be just as valuable to the school as an All-State football player?
Currently, success in extra-curricular activities adds to applicants resumes and improves their chances of admission. However, they do not recieve nearly as much of a boost in the admissions game (talent in a sport can be worth the equivalent of 300 points or more on the SAT). Universities seek to have a diverse, talented student body. I think it would be only fair to give preferential admission to extraordinarily talented artists, musicians, debaters, etc.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
The "dimension" the athletes bring to the university is CASH in the form of Alumni support and television contracts (at least for basketball and football). So as soon as national championship-winning debaters, etc. start to bring in the big bucks you'll start seeing the same kind of preferential admissions. I don't think it's right but I think that's the way it is.
What we need is ideas on how to make these non-athletically talented students the cash cows the athletes are. How about extreme debate team! Kind of a cross between an academic quiz show and Fear Factor. Or maybe Team Millionaire, the college version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" with teams of academically gifted students competing for scholarship money. JV Cheerleaders could be recruited and the college mascot should also be present to whip up alumni pride!
Excellent point prion9 - but like you said, that only applies to football and basketball (and some schools lose money on those sports also). Universities lose money on almost every single varsity sport.
Actually many studies question the economic value of even the most successful football programs. Usually they lose money overall, even if they make a lot of money in one year. My more radical suggestion - get rid of university athletics above the intramural level. This should at least be done at state-schools. Why should my tax dollars subsidize a non-educational/non-core mission of the school? As I said, pretty radical, but I think that's what WhyNot is all about.
I don't think you'll ever see any state universities get rid of varsity football. If they did, sports fans would put pressure on the governor and legislature, which in turn would put pressure on the college. Private colleges don't have a similar channel for sports fans to apply pressure, so it may happen there. For example, Boston University got rid of its varsity football about 10 years ago. Instead of extending privileged admissions to talents other than athletics, colleges should hold athletically talented candidates to the same academic standards as other candidates. If this means they have a second-rate football team, so be it.
In principle I agree that universities should look to recruit a diversity of talents as well as, more generally, a diverse student body. However, the problem for the university or college is what Barry and Ian in the book of this website call (and economists have long called) 'internalisation'. We need to find a way in which the 'external benefit' of the talented student can be made to benefit the university in order for them to value it. Here are some possibilities:
(i) the university acts as a 'talent agency/broker' for students offered scholarships on the basis of their talent ('You come to Gray U with your marvellous tenor singing voice and get a scholarship AND Gray U's agency will guarantee bookings to sing at the Met within three years of graduation in exchange for 10% of the booking fee you earn'). This diversificiation, in common with much internalisation activity, has a cost of course and the cost/benefit picture had better be good!
(ii) the university sells access to the talent through a specialist facility operating as a business. ('Come to Gray U as a promising tenor on our singing scholarship and join the Gray Choir; you'll tour major concert venues in the vacation and gain lots of experience and benefit your University when seats are sold. All your costs will be paid'). The scholarship had better be good too!
(iii) the student hires out their talent but there is an access fee payable to the University ('You'll want to take time to promote your singing while at Gray U and we understand that. In exchange for a 5% access fee, you are free to promote your private talents to a wider world.')
Other possibilities?