I don't think it's a matter of that it shouldn't count but more a matter of how aggressively it's pursued.
Universities don't vie for the top 100 bassoonists each year and are willing to look past poorer tests results for top bassoon achievers.
back
1 comments
Seems a tad bit disingenuous, only because the Ivy leagues are probably not competing for the top 100 QBs or top 100 point guards or top 100 pitchers either.
To me being the best quarterback at your school and playing varsity football for four years should basically be considered the same way, as you point out, being the top bassoonist would. And my guess is that for the vast vast majority of cases extracurricular activities are pretty much all created equal unless you do it to a degree that makes it notable (like being an all-state athlete, or playing with you regional symphony or something)
Maybe a tad. Although I haven't seen a press conference for an incoming freshman bassoonist, and yet even the Ivies have them for promising incoming sports talent.
But that being said... this isn't a strongly-held opinion, and I'm in awe of anyone going to these schools and what it takes to get there. Being a top talent in one or more sports, and also academically, is amazing, and I don't want to diminish that.
Why should all talents be treated equally? Surely a university might care more about some talents than others, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem.
Money in sports distorts things, to be sure, but that doesn’t mean that everyone must treat football and bassoon talents equally.