Fence your way past low admission rates?

Data10
Thu, 27 Oct 2022 00:49:08 +0000

twoinanddone:

Those are the percentage of athletes in the entire student body. Schools aren’t admitting 67% of students as athletic recruits. It doesn’t show how many are recruited, or how many got an admissions advantage because of being a recruited athlete, thus ‘fenc(ing) your way past low admissions rates.’

Yes, the first sentence of the post said “% of undergrads that are varsity athletes”, and the preceding post said, " I realize portion of students who are varsity athletes is not the same as portion who are recruited athletes."

That said, I don’t think it would be possible to for all athletes to get a meaningful recruiting benefit at the listed 67% school – McKendree. In the most recent available year, McKendree had a 78% admit rate. They admit the vast majority of applicants, so a big admissions boost is not going to change the decision for typical applicants. They give $5.8 million in athletic scholarships (DII), which works out to an average of $8k per athlete. I’m not sure of what portion of athletes receive athletic scholarships, but it is obviously not 100%.

It may be more meaningful to focus on the more selective colleges with high % athletes. The previously linked Amherst reports suggests ~1/3 of Amherst students are athletes. Of that group, the report mentions that ~88% of varsity athletes were flagged by coaches during admissions and received a potential admissions advantage. ~42% of athletes were “athletic factor” with stats below typical admits, and ~45% were “coded” with similar stats to typical admits but higher admit rate.

twoinanddone:

Some schools, including the ivies, do give admissions weight to athletes in general, even if they aren’t recruited and won’t play for a college team. They like what sports has taught the students, from teamwork to leadership to physical fitness. But all applicants have those opportunities, and it is not that helpful in getting past the low admission rate.

The Harvard lawsuit analysis suggests a different pattern at Harvard – near negligible benefit unless can potentially play on varsity team. Roughly 35% of Harvard applicants listed athletics as their “primary” EC (I believe they mean first EC listed). However, only 9.5% of applicants received a high 1-2 athletic rating by readers, suggesting that the vast majority of students whose “primary” EC was athletics received a mediocre 3 rating in athletics. The regression analysis suggests a 3 rating offers a near negligible admissions benefit over no athletics participation. It suggests for most applicants, high school sports offer no admission advantage over corresponding degree of achievements in non-athletic ECs. However, if the applicant receives a 2 rating for which the reader guidelines state “possible walk-on to a varsity team, has an IRF of a 4 from a Harvard coach”, that’s a different story. Specific numbers are below.

Regression Analysis in Harvard Lawsuit
1 Athletic Rating (recruited athlete) – ~3000x increased chance of admission*
2 Athletic Rating (potential walk on) – 3.9x increased chance of admission
3 Athletic Rating (most applicants whose primary EC was athletics) – 1.04x increased chance of admission
4 Athletic Rating (no/little athletics participation) – Reference comparison
5 Athletic Rating (family obligations or work prevent athletics) – 2.0x increased chance of admission
*Does not consider that recruited athletes are often pre-screened prior to application