<p>I know that often really talented athletes are recruited by Ivy League schools, but how forgiving are they of poor SATS and an easy courseload?
I know someone who is a great pole vaulter (like top 15 in the nation) but has horrible SATs, an extremely easy courseload, and not a great GPA either, but she thinks she’s absolutely going to get into Columbia. Which horrifies me, because I don’t think she would ever be able to handle a class there.
Do colleges completely disregard that the athlete is not qualified?</p>
<p>Depends on the college. At the ivies and some other colleges athletes(I forget if this is individually or the average for all athletes) need to have stats within one standard deviation from everyone else. That said one standard deviation is still a lot. </p>
<p>If the athlete is good enough though, generally a lot of slack will be cut.</p>
<p>It depends on the school - how academics minded vs. athletics minded it is. An above average student may be ivy material if (s)he is a nationally ranked athlete. However, being an athlete will be much less beneficial at schools like MIT and UChicago than it will be schools like Duke or Ohio State.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s any student athlete who is truly unable to handle the classes at his/her institution. They may take notoriously easy courses and major in the “easy” disciplines, but they are still capable of doing the work. I mean, no top 10 school (academically) is going to accept a student that doesn’t have at least a 3.0 GPA and a 1700 SAT/25 ACT, no matter how good of an athlete they are.</p>
<p>An athlete from my school 2 years ago got into U Penn with a 3.4 somethin GPA and a 24 ACT. He was the #1 ranked football player in our state, though.</p>
<p>
If they’re truly world-ranked level and such, like far, far beyond “top” athlete, I really doubt this minimum academic criteria to be the case. i’ve seen URM’s get accepted, sometimes even Whites with those stats and they were no special athletes. Statistics?</p>
<p>i don’t think colleges recruit many track and field athletes…i’m not even sure if ivies have track and field teams haha…mostly they cut slack to football and basketball players b/c those people fill the arenas and stadiums which makes the university money. sports like track and field bring the university minimal revenue so it kinda depends…i mean if a columbia coach hasn’t come knockin on her door and she’s a senior, i would doubt she’s gonna get in…</p>
<p>Depends on the school and depends on the athlete. Nothing would surprise me. If a coach really wants a kid bad enough and can convince the admissions counselor that the athlete can do the work, exceptions could be made. I know a kid who got into Stanford (notoriously difficult, even for athletes sometimes) a couple of years ago after having to take the SAT TWICE just to qualify. So one never knows.</p>
<p>A lot of athletes (especially footballers) failed and got kicked out of Berkeley. The coaches recruited them on anyway knowing they wouldn’t make it. Both Stanford and Berkeley are known to cut great deal of slack to athletes.</p>
<p>Stanford, unlike the Ivies, gives out athletic scholarships, and seeing how much better their basketball and football teams are compared to the Ivy teams, it must be because they give basketball and football players a very large boost in admissions.</p>
<p>that may be true, but its smarter to choose to be an academic nerd than to be a top level athlete</p>
<p>chances of getting into an ivy league school and thus getting a legitimate job: 7-11 out of 100, so approximately 1/10 (collegeboard.com admission statistics) about 10 percent</p>
<p>chances of becoming a division I athlete:
for basketball and then making the nba: 3/10,000 about 0.03 percent([Estimated</a> Probability of Competing in Athletics Beyond the High School Interscholastic Level - Page 2](<a href=“http://www.ncaa.org/research/prob_of_competing/probability_of_competing2.html]Estimated”>http://www.ncaa.org/research/prob_of_competing/probability_of_competing2.html))</p>
<p>for football, then going to the nfl: 8/10,000 so about 0.08 percent</p>
<p>anyone can succeed in academics with enough determination, although sports take a great deal of determination, to make the pros, make a living and truly become great you need natural talent that most people do not have</p>
<p>also its not easy to get into top schools either, i applaud everyone on here who has been accepted into top 25 schools, the odds just make it seem easy compared to how difficult it is to make it in a professional sport</p>
<p>because being a top level athlete is unrealistic, it’s just a dream unless you are really that good, I have many friends who work hard everyday in athletics and chase after a dream that just isn’t going to happen, they go to D3 even D4 schools thinking they can transfer to play for D1 schools and make the pros, not everyone is gifted with the natural talent to become a d1 football or basketball player at a big school</p>
<p>Actually, ivy league schools do have T&F programs. It is what they are known best for (as far as being competitive with larger conferences). The ivies cannot give out athletic scholarships, but they do create scholarship packages for good athletes. </p>
<p>Top 20 schools do give preference to top athletes. I was one of them. I had a friend who was recruited by Penn to play lacrosse, but only had an 1150. He had to raise his score by 50 points to get in. Keep in mind, he was a good, not great, lacrosse player. If a top bball recruit or McD all-american wanted to attend one of these schools, that minimum score of 1200 would definitely be decreased by 100 to 200 points.</p>
<p>Believe it or not, athletics are extremely important to these schools. Ask any ivy league athlete how important the heptagonal rivalry is between the schools. This is the outlet to the outside world for them. Why do you think schools like Chicago, Wash U, Pomona and Amherst are unknown to people outside of the world of academia? If they were D1 and were able to recruit with scholarships then I guarantee they would be as well-known.</p>
<p>“they go to D3 even D4 schools thinking they can”…D4 schools do not exist. D1, D2 and D3 are the three divisions for 4 year schools…2 year schools have smaller conference like the NAIA, but a division 4 does not exist.</p>
<p>As far as Berkely goes, it may be a top academic institution, but like UMich it is also one of the largest schools in the nation that places a great deal of importance on athletics. Watch a Cal football game on tv and see how many people attend that game. That revenue from attendance is exactly why they are able to lower their standards for athletes.</p>
<p>Wow, there are so many factors that go into how much slack. The quarterback from my school is a certain ivy’s star recruit. He was being recruited by the likes of Michigan, Miami, and Clemson and had 8 D-1A scholarships on the table (was 15 at one point). He had 9 APs/Honors, a 3.2 GPA (I think that’s with school weight though), a 28 ACT and good SAT II scores. He was accepted to every ivy, including Harvard. Obviously he got quite a bit of slack…</p>
<p>I’m probably just biased because I truly have no athletic talent, but I think it’s ridiculous to let in an athlete with poor SAT scores and gpa over someone who has a great academic record.</p>
<p>Quote: “I mean, no top 10 school (academically) is going to accept a student that doesn’t have at least a 3.0 GPA and a 1700 SAT/25 ACT, no matter how good of an athlete they are.”</p>
<p>This is just not true. I know a recruited female basketball player who got into Stanford with a 2.8/2.9 and less than a 1700.</p>
<p>Titan, that qb from your school has good scores even for a non athlete. Maybe not Ivy material but that’s definitely above the normal HS student. I wouldn’t really consider that as being cut a ton of slack b/c those scores show he has some intelligence. </p>
<p>Claire, I don’t think it’s ridiculous to let an athlete in over a person with a better academic record. These colleges set aside spots for these athletes so it’s not like they’re taking up someone’s spot b/c they have a spot for themselves. If you’re arguing that they shouldn’t be getting in, that may be a fair statement. However, life isn’t fair. That’s like saying that a guy who doesn’t do as much work as you at work getting promoted over you. It happens all the time. Just b/c you have good academic qualifications does not mean you’ll succeed in this world. Just look at engineers. They’re probably some of the smartest academic people in the world but they don’t make the most money. Heck, athletes even make more money then CEOs. But why? Well, the answer why athletes are paid so much is because we the fans pay ridiculous prices for tickets, jerseys, etc. So if people want to blame others, blame the American public who allow these people to do this. Even in recessions, people would rather give up all else before giving up their season tickets.</p>
<p>Why is it ridiculous? For larger schools like Stanford, Mich, Berekely, etc. these athletes are bringing more attention and putting the spotlight on the school (sometimes negative, sometimes positive), which in turn produces more revenue for the school. Yes, a portion of these athletes do believe that they deserve everything that is handed to them, but a large percentage of them understand how lucky they are and take advantage of this.</p>
<p>An athlete with marginally lower scores should definitely get in over the “introvert” with 5 ap’s. So many people bag athletes because they get preferential treatment, but to get good sat scores and maintain a good gpa while practicing 3 to 4 hours a day is much more impressive than going home every day and getting your snack while you watch an hour of tv before opening the books for 2 hours. </p>
<p>Maybe they are supposed to be held to a higher standard, but at the end of the day it is a business.</p>
<p>“D3 and D4” haha.
Well, i bet people on cc are less athletic and more studious, which is why so many people on here dont feel like athletes shoudl get any slack. Realize that these athletes that are recruited place just as much time and effort (actually, prob more) in their respective sports as you do in your studies/EC’s. Schools want to diversify their student body with people with all sorts of talents, not just accept a bunch of nerds.</p>
<p>there is a division 3 in college athletics</p>
<p>
SFGIANT already covered this to some degree, but Ivies certainly have track teams. The only top-ranked school I’ve heard of that doesn’t is Northwestern. My experience is that a lot of track athletes also tend to be very smart (although this may be my own bias).<br>
Aside from the sports that bring in revenue to large schools, a lot of schools may limit recruitment for sports like track due to Title IX and the fact that they recruit so much for football and there’s no equivalent female sport. This does not effect the Ivies, though, as they don’t give athletic scholarships.</p>
<p>
I don’t think that most people who participate in collegiate athletics intend to play professionally. For most people, it’s something they enjoy and like to do. If they were not as successful academically in high school, it may enable them to get into a “better” school and thus get a “better” (entirely subjective education), allowing them to (possibly) get a better job/make more money later on. Also, for those who can not afford to go to college without a scholarship, it can be very helpful.
I agree completely. I think athletes (or others with similar talents) may be deserving of the “slack” they receive for academics in admissions because it’s not that they’re goofing off in school, but are instead putting their time and energy into other pursuits.</p>