David Leonhardt: The sports scam

An alleged admissions conspiracy is able to exist only because of the ridiculously large role that athletics plays in college admissions. View in [Browser]( | Add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your address book. [The New York Times]( [The New York Times]( Wednesday, March 13, 2019 [NYTimes.com/David-Leonhardt »]( [Op-Ed Columnist] Op-Ed Columnist First, I spoke with Elizabeth Warren about the economy for [the latest episode of “The Argument,”]( which is available a day early this week. The admissions scandal Getting a peek inside the college-admissions process isn’t easy. But a team of academic researchers managed to do so several years ago. It helped, no doubt, that two of the researchers were former college presidents — William Bowen of Princeton and Eugene Tobin of Hamilton. The researchers were given access to anonymous admissions records at 19 elite colleges and [then analyzed]( how admissions offices treated different groups of students. Low-income students, for example, were no more likely to be admitted than otherwise similar students with virtually identical academic records. So-called legacy students — those whose parents attended the same schools — received substantial boosts. So did underrepresented minorities. But the biggest boost went to recruited athletes: An athlete was about 30 percentage points more likely to be admitted than a nonathlete with the same academic record. I thought of that study yesterday, after the Justice Department announced it had indicted 50 people for trying to rig the admissions process. The alleged scam involved payments funneled from parents to college coaches, who in return would falsely identify applicants as athletic recruits to the admissions office. Just like that, the students then become virtual shoo-ins for acceptance. If the accusations are true, they’re outrageous. But they also highlight a larger problem in the admissions process that has somehow become acceptable: A scam like this could exist only because competitive sports occupy a ridiculously large place in that process. The situation is different for other extracurricular activities. Great musicians are more likely to be admitted to a college than similar students who don’t play an instrument — as is only fair, because musicians deserve credit for their accomplishments. But the musicians don’t generally receive a 30-percentage-point boost on their admissions chances. Stage managers for the high school theater don’t, either. Nor do student body presidents, debaters, yearbook editors or robotics competitors. Athletes do. Their extracurricular activities are not treated merely as an important part of a college application, but as a defining part. “Athletic recruiting is the biggest form of affirmative action in American higher education, even at schools such as ours,” as Philip Smith, a former dean of admissions at Williams College, has said. It’s a relic of the supposedly character-defining role that sports played in elite colleges a century ago. And sports have retained their unique place in the admissions process even though most teams at elite colleges are not good enough to compete for national championships. To put it another way, the student athletes being recruited to these colleges are not among the very best in the country at what they do. They are extremely good, yes, and they work hard, yes — but that also tends to be true of high school musicians, student government leaders and so on. I’m a sports fan and long-ago high school athlete. I have a lot of admiration for students who are talented enough and work hard enough to play sports in college. But they are not a different species. It’s time to end the extreme special treatment that colleges give to so many of them. College sports can still exist without it. For more … At some colleges, like Williams, nearly one-fifth of first-year students are recruited athletes, [EphBlog explains](. “Recruited athletes not only enter selective colleges with weaker academic records than their classmates as a whole but that, once in college, they ‘consistently underperform academically even after we control for standardized test scores and other variables,’” [Edward Fiske]( wrote in a 2001 book review for The Times. [The Times’s editorial board]( notes that the indictments do not challenge the legal uses of money to influence the admissions process: “What the government actually is defending is private property — the right of the colleges to make their own decisions about admissions, and collect the payments.” And my colleague [Frank Bruni]( weighs in as well. ADVERTISEMENT If you enjoy this newsletter, forward it to friends! They can [sign up for themselves here]( — and they don’t need to be a Times subscriber. The newsletter is published every weekday, with help from my colleague Ian Prasad Philbrick. David’s Morning NYT Read [How Many Defeats Can Britain Take?]( By DAWN FOSTER Brexit has trapped British politics. Burn it down and start fresh. The Latest Episode of ‘The Argument’ [One-on-One With Elizabeth Warren]( An interview with the Massachusetts senator and 2020 presidential contender. The Full Opinion Report [Turns Out There’s a Proper Way to Buy Your Kid a College Slot]( By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Charges against parents accused of gaming the admissions process are a defense of the institutions’ property, not of meritocracy. [Bribes to Get Into Yale and Stanford? What Else Is New?]( By FRANK BRUNI A new college admissions scandal is just the latest proof of a grossly uneven playing field. [I Learned in College That Admission Has Always Been For Sale]( By RAINESFORD STAUFFER The bribery scandal is no more abhorrent than the completely legal industry that helps many wealthy kids get into the schools of their dreams. [Whom to Elect for a Foreign Policy Crisis at 3 A.M.?]( By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN So far, no Democratic candidate is claiming to be ready. [No Hate Left Behind]( By THOMAS B. EDSALL Lethal partisanship is taking us into dangerous territory. [Antitrust Returns to American Politics]( By TIM WU Thankfully, monopoly power is shaping up as a central issue in the 2020 campaign. [The Biden Paradox, and How to Solve It]( By MICHAEL TOMASKY He’s the most popular Democrat, but right now he has almost no chance to win the nomination. [AMLO’s First 100 Days: The Ugly, the Absurd and the Good]( By JORGE G. CASTAÑEDA The campaign promises of Mexico’s president generated great expectations, but the country’s hard realities may bring a reckoning sooner than later. [Did the Clinton Impeachment Hurt Republicans?]( By PHILIPPE REINES Trying to remove Trump from office could help Democrats. [Britain Squirms After Another ‘No’ on Brexit]( By THE EDITORIAL BOARD With 17 days to go, Parliament rejects Theresa May’s latest plan. [Stop Funding Southeast Asia’s Brutal Drug War]( By PATRICK WINN Little pink meth pills are becoming more popular in the region than heroin or even marijuana. The United States is making the crisis worse. [A Landscape Lewis and Clark Would Recognize Is Now Under Threat]( By MIKE GARRITY AND CAROLE KING Logging, mining and development loom over the Northern Rockies. [Another Battle of Algiers]( By DALIA GHANEM Protests have stopped President Abdelaziz Bouteflika from seeking another term, but it won’t change the military’s domination of the political system. [Earning Prizes for Fighting an Addiction]( By SAHIL GUPTA Clinics in Canada and the United States are trying a new way to urge drug abusers to get clean: give them tangible gifts when they test negative. [Grown-Ups Get a Scolding on Climate]( By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Inspired by a Swedish teenager, students around the world on Friday will protest political inaction. [When Parents Don’t Vaccinate Their Children]( As cases of measles resurface, readers discuss the risks posed by “anti-vaxxers” while others explain their hesitation. ADVERTISEMENT FEEDBACK and HELP If you have thoughts about this newsletter, email me at [leonhardt@nytimes.com](mailto:leonhardt@nytimes.com?subject=David%20Leonhardt%20Newsletter%20Feedback). If you have questions about your Times account, delivery problems or other non-journalistic issues, you can visit our [Help Page]( or [contact The Times](. FOLLOW OPINION [Facebook] [FACEBOOK]( [Twitter] [@nytopinion]( [Pinterest] [Pinterest]( Get more [NYTimes.com newsletters »](  | Get unlimited access to NYTimes.com and our NYTimes apps. [Subscribe »]( ABOUT THIS EMAIL You received this message because you signed up for NYTimes.com's David Leonhardt newsletter. [Unsubscribe]( | [Manage Subscriptions]( | [Change Your Email]( | [Privacy Policy]( | [Contact]( | [Advertise]( Copyright 2019 The New York Times Company 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018