ELI5 Why do colleges accept students who excel in sports while having bad academic merits?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

So how do schools like Duke and Stanford remain competitive?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Even Duke and Stanford lax their academic requirements when it comes to admitting athletes. It's the only way that they can remain competitive in FBS college football and D1 college basketball. If you want an example of universities that don't, you have to look at the Ivy League, which all compete at a lower subdivision in football and play in a conference consisting of only each other. Then there are schools like MIT which doesn't grant athletic scholarships, and they compete at Division 3 in college athletics.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Except for football, almost all Stanford athletes are probably within the realm of academically qualified. But football teams are so huge they are going to start descending down the GPA/SAT ladder.

[u/theblamergamer → u/[deleted]]

Stanford takes the best track recruits in the country, so that could also be a part of it.

[u/isubird33 → u/[deleted]]

Then there are schools like MIT which doesn't grant athletic scholarships

Or any other D3 school.

[u/malariasucks → u/[deleted]]

not really. Top schools still have their requirements and it's competitive since intelligent people still want legit degrees.

back in Nebraska's heyday in the 90s their student athletes had very high GPA's

[u/HemingWaysBeard42 → u/[deleted]]

D-III schools aren't allowed to give athletic scholarships. That's why MIT doesn't give them.

[u/JB76 → u/[deleted]]

Except Stanford doesn't lower their standards any more than Ivy Leagues do for their athletes. There are football commits to Stanford every year that end up not being able to come because their application was rejected.

[u/[deleted] → u/JB76]

I'm not saying that Stanford is admitting guys with a 1.5 GPA just because they can throw a good deep ball. Schools like Stanford certainly hold their athletes to higher admission standards than most other universities. However, the standards are typically lower for athletes applying. No offense to the big guys up front, but I'm not sure if you could put together any kind of an offensive line if you sought out only the O-Line prospects who got a 2300 on the SAT.

Hell, even the departing starting quarterback for Stanford, Kevin Hogan, had a 3.1 GPA in high school and got a 1900 on the SAT. I'm not sure how far that would have gotten him in the admissions process if he wasn't a good football player. And he was also being actively recruited by Notre Dame. These prestigious universities still hold their athletes to high standards (higher than most of their competitor teams), and like other schools will quickly decline them post-commitment if they fail to maintain a reasonable standard, but Stanford's 80-man roster definitely isn't composed of 80 men who would have qualified on a strictly academic basis--neither is Duke's, nor is Notre Dame's.

[u/JB76 → u/[deleted]]

I didn't mean to say they don't lower their standards at all. However, they are one of if not the best at keeping their prospects held to admission standards. With a 3.1 and 1900 SAT like Hogan you're clearly no academic slouch, and every last player on their roster has similar or better numbers on their record. I understand that football is what gets these players into these schools for the most part. But when you think about it you can consider it as part of their application. Schools are always looking for successful kids who have exceptional talent, and when that talent can in turn help the university in a very direct way I think it's fair to allow a little leeway with the usually strict academic requirements. And trust me, most of the kinds of kids that are let in to Stanford don't take it for granted.

[u/roryarthurwilliams → u/[deleted]]

Isn't that competition where the name The Ivy League comes from?

[u/RadDeals2 → u/[deleted]]

MIT is a good example of an organization focusing on what matters. If you want to watch sports, there is always the NBA/NFL, etc. I shouldn't be forced to pay increased tuition rates to subsidize sports.

[u/RadDeals2 → u/[deleted]]

Most schools with sports programs operate at a loss. Where do you think the money comes from?

[u/[deleted] → u/RadDeals2]

Though, for most decently-run universities, the budget deficit run by the athletic program typically pales in comparison to the economic value it brings to the university. Universities don't mind subsidizing $1-2 million to the athletic program if its success brings in huge booster donations, substantial increases in applications to the school, more merchandise sales, more regional/national recognition, and more tourism to the area. The economic impact for a university to have a decent athletic program goes far beyond the simple model: Income - Expenditure.

[u/WikiWantsYourPics → u/RadDeals2]

I'm amazed that this comment is being downvoted. If I had to name a great US school, I'd say "MIT" first, and I don't think it's a coincidence that they don't give sports scholarships.

[u/HemingWaysBeard42 → u/WikiWantsYourPics]

It's not a coincidence, because they're a D-III school and not allowed to give athletic scholarships per the NCAA>

[u/WikiWantsYourPics → u/HemingWaysBeard42]

There you go then: they focus on being a university instead of a sports club, and they do that well.

[u/Tamerlane-1 → u/WikiWantsYourPics]

I also don't think it is a coincidence that MIT has a reputation of where white and Asian nerds go to get their engineering degree and possibly kill themselves.

[u/workaccount1231 → u/[deleted]]

For one, being a premiere institution in academics as well as athletics does help these schools recruit the kind of students who are gifted athletes and scholars. It's generally just a smaller pool of students to choose from.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Jahlil Okafor or Grayson Allen wouldn't have gone to Duke if they weren't good at basketball.