[Goose]

The thought is that once you add points to admissions scorecard for anything but proven academic record or recognized knowledge tests, you move away from the best and the brightest. You may have the best and brightest who are also legacies or the best and the brightest who meet your DEI specs but not just the plain best and brightest. I’m not arguing for against a broadened criteria just saying that once you use it you are moving away from just the best and brightest regardless of who parents are, who,gave money or the race, ethnicity and gender of the applicant .  Since we do those things and since some some athletes will have those credentials, why not also recognize that the ability to play basketball at .d1 level while having a successful academic career at a good school is more important than having a slightly more successful academic career without a commitment to varsity athletics?

I thing the argument is that while the undergraduate admissions process explicitly takes these other factors into account and awards "points" to them, the faculty committees that decide graduate admissions generally do not. There may be some faculty members that are more aware of these factors than others. However, IMO almost no faculty member would agree that "the ability to play basketball at .d1 level while having a successful academic career at a good school is more important than having a slightly more successful academic career without a commitment to varsity athletics". They generally care not at all about college athletics.

[Goose]

The thought is that once you add points to admissions scorecard for anything but proven academic record or recognized knowledge tests, you move away from the best and the brightest. You may have the best and brightest who are also legacies or the best and the brightest who meet your DEI specs but not just the plain best and brightest. I’m not arguing for against a broadened criteria just saying that once you use it you are moving away from just the best and brightest regardless of who parents are, who,gave money or the race, ethnicity and gender of the applicant .  Since we do those things and since some some athletes will have those credentials, why not also recognize that the ability to play basketball at .d1 level while having a successful academic career at a good school is more important than having a slightly more successful academic career without a commitment to varsity athletics?

I thing the argument is that while the undergraduate admissions process explicitly takes these other factors into account and awards "points" to them, the faculty committees that decide graduate admissions generally do not. There may be some faculty members that are more aware of these factors than others. However, IMO almost no faculty member would agree that "the ability to play basketball at .d1 level while having a successful academic career at a good school is more important than having a slightly more successful academic career without a commitment to varsity athletics". They generally care not at all about college athletics.