<p>It’s interesting that the author reminds us that athletics at Ivies and like institutions (with rare exceptions like Duke basketball and one or two sports at Stanford and Northwestern which come to my mind) are not a source of positive revenue for the school. So, why do the schools put so much emphasis on it? Very few Ivy athletes ever succeed in professional athletics, putting themselves in position to kickback millions to their alma mater. So, why do the schools lock up so many slots for athletes when they could easily fill their classrooms with students with higher grades and test scores? Why so many athletes, more than the athletic powerhouses proportionally? Is this fair?</p>
<p>All of this is pretty common knowledge amongst those “in the know” about Ivy admissions.</p>
<p>Whenever anyone voices such concerns on CC, the parents of athletes leap in and start talking about how their kids are just as academically qualified as everyone else, but–naturally–more disciplined, more dedicated, etc. They go on to claim that schools also reserve slots for musicians–although no one has ever heard of an orchestra director having tips to use an at elite school–and so forth. I’ve found it to be a fruitless argument. The bottom line is that private schools can accept whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish, and apparently they have decided that it is desirable to field strong teams in various sports. The supposition is that it attracts alumni dollars.</p>
<p>It is mostly important for kids to realize that if they are unhooked that their ED chances are probably not really significantly better than their RD chances at some top schools, because a large number of ED slots are for recruited athletes, legacies, and other hooked kids.</p>
<p>Like most admissions decisions, fair has little to do with it.</p>
<p>The situation is even more extreme at sports-minded LAC such as Williams, where up to 1/3rd of the incoming male Frosh may be recruited. It leaves few slot remaining for the unhooked.</p>
<p>An informed buyer makes a decision about the priorities of each school under consideration. One of those priorities is the relative emphasis placed on recruiting varsity athletes. Another is the emphasis placed on recruiting minority students. Another is the emphasis placed on athletics. All of these priorities contribute to the campus and institutional cultures of school. </p>
<p>Among similar schools, this should be a key differentiating factor in the buying decision.</p>
<p>I guess I wasn’t “in the know.” Because they don’t provide athletic scholarships, these schools over-recruit athletes knowing that some won’t even make the teams they were recruited for or simply decide not to play once admitted. The school has no control over this deception because there is no athletic scholarship to yank. I do find it shocking that recruited athletes who would not ordinarily be admitted practically use their ostensible commitment to a sport as a ruse to get into the school.</p>
<p>As long as these “hooks” exist (athletics, legacy, full pay, celebrity status) people need to stop complaining about under represented minorities receiving an advantage. It seems to me a lot of different “groups” have advantages. Being lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family and sent to exclusive prep schools is an advantage. And we know that some elite colleges have a pipeline into favorite exclusive prep schools, relationships with the rich and powerful through business alliances and organizations (Skull and Bones, anyone?). </p>
<p>It just seems that minorities are the only groups that are openly criticized, disparaged and demonized for accepting an “advantage.” That’s just wrong.</p>
<p>A few years ago, Williams recruited and accepted a sports star from our HS. Per Naviance, his stats were a 3.2 unweighted GPA (which, with the grade inflation at our school placed him in the BOTTOM 10% of the class) and an SAT score in the high 1800s.</p>
<p>This issue was extensively discussed in a recent thread. In the top LAC’s the number of varsity athletes in the admitted class ranges from 30 to almost 50% at very small schools. Some of these student/athletes are give direct admission help but a much larger number are given subtle but significant advantages. For these students there are no guarantees but the students directly submit their stats to the coach who then takes it to the admissions committe for pre-screening. The coach then puts these students on a list that is submitted to the admissons comittee. All of this takes place in the ED process at the LAC’s.</p>
<p>At my kids’ school, so far there’s a Yale and Stanford acceptance, both recruited athletes and the Stanford girl is a legacy (both parents and older sibling). I agree it’s pathetic how athletes are recruited, but I pretty much ignore it - not much I can do.</p>
<p>personally, I think this is pretty repulsive. Private schools have the right to distance themselves from academia/intellectualism if they wish, but I think they should be more upfront about their sports recruiting practices. If more people knew about this, the ivy (and top LAC) image would be tarnished significantly. Thanks for posting this. I will now review my college list with the awareness that I want to go somewhere where I will foster my INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY - not watch others play sports.</p>
<p>What the top schools do for wealthy donors/famous people/powerful people is far more objectionable. Moreover these schools admit a large number of URM that are non-US citizens as well. This is why getting into the very top schools is so difficult for the merely smart student with excellent GPA/SAT/EC. I know far more athletes and UMR that gained admission than merely very smart students. Now granted all of the admitted students were good to very good students as well. I’ve mentioned this on another thread but the best source of info is the book the Price of Admission written by a Pulitzer prize winner.</p>
<p>"Roughly 20 percent, or one-fifth, of the entering class at the Ivy League universities and the leading small liberal arts colleges are recruited athletes. They are not “walk-ons”; they are actively recruited and there is a great deal of competition within and beyond the Ivy League for the best of those athletes in order to produce winning sports teams. In contrast, about 5 percent of the students at athletic powerhouses like the University of Michigan, Notre Dame, and the Pac 10 schools are recruited scholarship athletes. "</p>
<p>The comparison is meaningless because the size of the schools is so different. What are the raw numbers?</p>
<p>And this is why the “ED/EA advantage” is bogus. It looks like a higher percentage acceptance rate, but if you took out the athletic recruits the acceptance rate is probably a lot closer to the regular decision one. But so many students don’t realize this and anxiously look for that ED school simply because they think their chance of getting in is higher.</p>
<p>I’m don’t think it makes sense to criticize this practice as wrong. Aren’t these schools (Ivies and top LACs) considered the best in the country and possibly the world? Having this many recruited athletes is obviously not hurting their reputations, and may in fact be an important ingredient of what makes them so appealing and admired.</p>
<p>That it correct along with WSTL. The biggest athletic recruiting among LAC’s is in the NESCAC though most of the othersdo this to some extent. As for the ivies the posters are correct about football/basketball but in most other sports the ivies are big time D1 and compete with everyone. In those sports scholarships are limited for boys and the ives have great FA which make them very competitive.</p>
<p>I don’t know how much they recruit but I know that a girl who did crew in my school was admitted to MIT a couple years ago. She was also third in the class but the fact that she was an excellent rower no doubt helped. Her brother however, who was in the top ten the next year (not sure of the rank exactly) was not admitted although he was really good at crew too. I think this could also be because girls in engineering are a big deal too.</p>
<p>She got no real help with admission. Even legacy means almost nothing. At these few schools the coaches openly tell athletic recruits they can’t help get them in.</p>
<p>True but the ivies will go very much lower to get an impact player in an impact sport. The most famous is Bill Bradley who got into Princeton with a SAT(1600) below 1000. So this has been going on for a long time.</p>
<p>And Bradley ended up a U.S. Senator from New Jersey. Who is to say that a high SAT score is more desireable than a superior student-athlete? It takes the “right stuff” to compete at a world-class level. That sort of skill set pays dividends off the field (or court) for a lifetime. Gerald Ford was a football star at Michigan.</p>