Math Tutoring or Strength Lessons?

A recent study by Princeton Professor Thomas J. Espenshade in conjunction with senior fellow Chang Y. Chung reveals a surprising fact about college admissions at elite universities. The study states this about SAT scores for athletes: "Other things equal, recruited athletes gain an admission bonus worth 200 points." 


Within the last decade, Ivy League admissions have become especially competitive. Harvard and Princeton acceptance rates are predicted to be less than 5% this year; Dartmouth, Duke, MIT and CalTech are predicted to be less than 7.5% this year. However, for athletes (even 3-star or less in terms of Rivals.com rankings) competition is nowhere near that level. While there are certainly academically gifted athletes (who would get into top schools without an athletic angle), the supermajority of athletes gain a great admissions boost from even mediocre ability - no Ivy League athletes are being recruited by the SEC or dare I say it even the Pac 12 (which is still a BCS conference, somehow). 


My argument is centered around this concept: a 2-star athlete, especially in signature sports like football and basketball, will gain a large admissions advantage at elite schools. This fact is confirmed by Michelle Hernandez, a former admissions officer at Dartmouth, when she says, "If a coach needs a hockey goalie with subpar academic standards, the admissions office will do everything in our power to aid the coach."


And herein, I see the great dilemma in the United States. In Europe and other parts of the world, athletics are valued as secondary parts of a resume. In America, a 3/5 star recruit with 60th percentile standardized test scores can not only get into a top twenty school but also receive merit aid. Let's ask ourselves how long it takes to become a 3/5 star recruit versus a 99th percentile student. For the sake of argument, I will exclude people that have superb academic and athletic ability - someone who can sit and make a 2300 on the SAT without review, play in the NBA without solid basketball fundamentals, etc. 


Kumon and Sylvan learning centers are everywhere. Online tutoring services charge as much as $100/hour to tutor students from remedial math to differential calculus. Parents and students alike are willing to spend time and money to ensure that their kids excel at school. Amy Chua's "Tiger Mom" controversially spoke about stereotypical Asian parenting techniques: isolation from friends, mild starvation and repetitive practice. 


On the flip side of the coin, there has been a proliferation of sports camps, mentors, advisors, consultants, agents and scouts. The resources for sports acceleration exist. 


Here is the dilemma: Should a student who is the 312th best receiver in a football state pursue his time for football or spend more time in the classroom (let's say he's in the top 30 percent of his class)?


I believe that too many people opt for the latter. While the system is certainly broken, students should take advantage of a simple opportunity cost model. Why spend 500 hours in the classroom when 500 hours on the football field will result in a greater output? If the average student decides to compete against bookworms, intellectuals and great test takers, he will not fare well. But, if the student maintains his grades and improves to a 3/5 star athlete, his chances at a top school will exponentially increase. 


But, people will say: there is such great value to an education. I completely agree. This is why students should attempt to gain access to a top twenty school that has almost infinite resources, superior faculty and unparalleled networking. Why work hard to get into a state school that is completely numbers based when there are other options at play?


Division II and Division III schools have started to follow the framework first used by Ivy League admissions. Now, students that are even lower caliber (top 75%) can get full rides into smaller private schools by showing some athletic talent. As an economist would say, there is definitely a demand for moderate athletes with moderate intelligence levels. 


Granted, this analysis does not apply to everyone. But, it does underscore the huge problems our nation has with admissions, academics and athletics. Use the system and get the best bang for your time. 


Link to the study: http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Opportunity%20Cost%20of%20Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20June%202005.pdf

The Manning versus Brady Debate

This question continues to cause controvery and I am here to present the facts of this ordeal. 

The arguments for Brady are summed up as this: 

1) NFL experts rank him higher in their all-decade charts than Manning (by a thin margin)
2) He has won more rings.
3) He "does more with less"
My rebuttals: 

1) Any list brought forth by anyone is subjective in nature. It is opinionated. In 1937, Hitler was stated to be the greatest leader that Germany had seen by a newspaper. A bookie in Las vegas argues and bets on a team due to his own personal bias. I can find a blog online that states Manning is the best quarterback of all time, it doesn't make a difference. We have too look at objective facts.


2) If anything, this season shows that Manning was/is the MVP of the league. The Colts crumbled without him; a playoff team - with mostly returning pieces - crumbled without their seasoned play caller, assistant coach, etc. 


3) The Superbowl arguement is fallacious. It constitutes that the quarterback is always the reason for a team to win a Superbowl. Let us not forget that defensive powerhouses that go by the name of the 85' Bears, along with the Giants and Ravens of recent years. It is ridiculous to believe that an NFL team, which employs 52 players and all staffs must always bow to the greatness of their quarterback. The Patriots team itself is the best example of this. The first Superbowl the Patriots one, let's not forget that Brady was injured the second half against the Raiders and Drew Bledsoe led the game winning drive. Let's not forget the defense that set up Brady's chance of a game winning drive in the Superbowl. And last time I checked it was Vinateri's leg that won it, not Brady's arm. Thus, Manning cannot be said to be the lesser quarterback because he has fewer rings. If you buy into this logic, Reggie Miller should not be seen as one of the all-time NBA greats.



4) Manning calls the supermajority of the Colts' offensive plays. In any offensive scheme, it should be noted that the offensive coordinator and other players deserve as much or even more credit than the actions of the quarterback. After every drive, the coordinator improves his play calling; if the offense scores on a future drive, improved play calling has a lot to do with it. So, if Brady scores 5 TDs in a game, how much credit does he deserve? Let's say he gets 50% of the credit. On the other hand, Manning calls most of his plays and audibles frequently at the line of scrimmage. When Tom Moore was offensive coordinator, he gave Manning play choices (usually 3 to 5) and Manning would make the ultimate call. Therefore, Manning deserves more credit per successful play.


I'm tired of hearing mundane sports arguments about leadership, pocket presence, etc. I just wanted to throw some fresh ideas into this decade-long debate.