“I largely got in based on athletic merit,” admits Yalie

Believe it or not, even an Olympian can get set aside if they’re only focused on their sport. (How hard is it to at least mentor others or get involved with some foundation’s work?)

The issue with recruits is not that many are qualified academically and in ECs. It’s the coach pull for kids who are not or are borderline.

In the end, there can always be some wild cards. As they build the class and know they’re near their goals, they may decide to give some kid a chance, though he or she isn’t “perfect.” But that’s under adcom control, not some wisdom or formula CC can impart to lesser qualified kids.

Presumably responding to the OP…

Athletes put in a lot of their own effort to earn their athletic merit.

What would the reaction be if someone at Yale or other college says openly “I largely got in based on inherited [legacy and/or development] merit”?

I think Chen did not get accepted to Harvard. Yale saw something in the app and took the chance and it sounds like Chen and Yale are happy.

As we all know, many of the 30k rejected from any Ivy could do the work and really contribute to the class.

I recall during the Olympics that one of the “fun facts” about him was that he had an 800 on the math portion of the SAT (and was no academic slouch). He certainly cleared the academic bar and had a rather amazing EC.

Yeah, if he’d been doing something less showy in the gazillion hours he invested in skating, Yale might have passed over his app in favor of another qualified applicant. But it’s all moot. He is an excellent student with a somewhat unique background. He didn’t pull a fast one on anyone.

Such an easy call. Any athlete at that level has three things most students do not: 1. An uncanny ability to focus and produce results for a very long period say 10 years + 2. The ability to lose and still get up and go it agin 3. they have put themselves out there and can juggle work, school and sports. This kid would blow away 99% of the other candidates. Companies also like to hire people who have been high level athletes for the same reason.

What would I say to: “I largely got in based on inherited [legacy and/or development] merit”?"

“Face it, you don’t know why you got in. But you completed an app like everyone else and are as legit as the next kid.”

Afaiac, the mission is more than “top sports competitiveness,” not sure any schools claim that. It does add to the atmosphere. Sports players are valued for the commitment, not just hours, but following the adult expectations, etc.

But: same as many other pursuits we could name. These others don’t get coach or mentor pull. It’s true some very bright physics or music students can get faculty endorsement But not the same scheme where someone puts them on a “want” list and gets them in, regardless of other missions of the school.

Yes it is. And it says nothing about his actual academic performance in HS. There are plenty of students here who think their 3.98/1530 is just terrible, they’ll never get into a good school, and they desperately need some ‘hook’ to get in anywhere.

I think it’s so unfortunate how judge-y and critical the public can be. Yes, while it is true that, on average, recruited athletes have lower academic levels of achievement than non-athletic recruits at the ivies, it is absolutely true that some of the recruits are near the top of their class. What a shame so many people have snide thoughts and comments; those brilliant student-athletes are unfairly assumed to be “dumber” than their classmates, which can hurt.

Legacy is even trickier. I have close knowledge of 1 ivy’s admission information (more than published), and know that at that particular school, the legacies have higher academic performance than the overall student body. Now, that is to be expected, as having a parent with an Ivy League degree probably means the student grew up far wealthier than average with associated benefits, or at least had the benefit of a well-educated parent speaking with them their whole life. So many of those children may not have gotten in without their legacy status because there is a higher expectation for non-URM, wealthier students (which seems appropriate), but as a group, they still exceed the student body average. They are NOT idiots, not in the least, and even though they enjoy a boost, still 80% of the legacy kids get rejected—they are not shoo-ins. And within that group, there are also stars who are amazingly brilliant and would get in without the legacy hook.

This judginess and shaming Especially irritates me as I believe it had a direct affect on my life ;-). My own daughter was a rockstar student with amazing ECs, etc. She applied to 6 ivies and got into 5. One of those was my alma mater, her only hook. It very well could have been her favorite, but I am certain a big hunk of the reason she chose to go elsewhere is because people can be so nasty making assumptions, and she felt that if she went where she was a legacy, she would be branded as undeserving. Now maybe she should have more spine than that, and shouldn’t care what people think. But there really does seem to be an awful lot of venom spewed on people with hooks, and I believe people should think of the kids’ feelings before they put that nastiness out there. This also applies to URM, and other hooks as well. Please don’t assume they had the lowest academic levels.

As for me, I think it would be great if they would abolish legacy preference (as for development cases, I actually don’t mind if 5-20 super rich kids get in and the school benefits immensely because of it). I think it would benefit the legacy students overall more NOT to have a hook—people would be less nasty. If there was no legacy preference, my daughter might be at my alma mater, which would have been a great thing to share.

I dint know anyone (though I know there are such people) who object to an Olympian, medaled you boot, getting a pass through admissions. Particularly one well prepared for college.

Where it hurts is when some not so outstanding athlete in some not so great sports who has definite deficits in academic resume get passed into highly selective schools.

There has been a lot of focus as to how parents paid their kids’ ways into highly selective schools using fake athletic hooks. That someone playing a summer league sport, sailing some boats etc at a level that was proven only by photos is galling.

I knew a Penn admit with 1100 SATs and a low 3 Gpa. Football quarterback. Yale’s baseball team does not have the scores that Chen sports. I know a number of athletes whose prowess in their sport is not all that incredible, and their academic resumes not even close to the averages these schools have.

How MUCH of a leeway should athletes and other special admissions kids get is a question to discuss.

The academic abilities of athletes at the Ivies are very, very different from the academic abilities of typical athletes at the “real” D1 schools, and the impact of athletics on the universities overall is quite different. This makes me look askance at generic praise for the contributions of athletes to their universities.

I don’t doubt the drive and dedication of athletes who compete at a very high level. To the extent that these qualities are transferrable to non-athletic activities, they can be valuable qualities for future success. On the other hand, I have not known many students who perform academically at a really high level, without having drive and dedication.

Discussions about athletes at the Ivies often focus on their ability to do “the work.” One of the great things about most universities is that there is no such thing as “the work.” There are many, many routes to a degree, and many different levels of rigor. As noted above, Caltech is an exception, since the minimum academic standard there is pretty high. The existence of various levels of rigor is true at many (though definitely not all) high schools. The minimum required to score an A is usually quite different from the time and effort required to gain a deep understanding of the subject.

The hours spent on athletics to perform at the Olympic level come at a cost. One cannot really think about solving a differential equation while performing a quadruple axel.

I think its great that he is at Yale, with the discipline to manage his training, his travel, his competitions, his success, and his academics. But, sigh… he rides a boosted board ( its a motorized skateboard with bluetooth brakes… that work unless that battery is full) https://boostedboards.com/nathan-chen?sscid=a1k3_igg58&utm_source=shareasale&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=314743&utm_creative=1308581 My DS#1 does as well. He (DS) loves it (gets him to/from his bus for work) but DS has already broken a collarbone and a rib on that thing over the years he has had them (he has 2). At least they wear a helmet. And surely Chen has great balance… but still… One bad spill could damage is skating. Skating alone has its injury risk.

But I digress…

@cptofthehouse I can tell about the Olymian, the actress from a hit tv show, and uber donor kids who did NOT get in based on that lure. Did not get in. Did not meet holistic criteria.

Unfortunately, there are also those coaches’ lists. For an all-around great kid who happens to be a great athlete, one bound to contribute in classrooms, study groups, research, make a variety of friendships, as well as on the field, no complaints.

There’s a huge difference between noting, “see what the physics dept thinks” and “see what the coach says.”

If you are so annoyed about athlete preferences in college admissions, why not attend a college where athletes are not given lower academic standards for admission, like Mississippi publics?

Of course there are development kids, URMs, athletes, friends-of, celebrities, legacy kids NOT accepted. I believe it’s a 50-50 chance from the athletic pool at an Ivy but, that’s a heck of a lot better than the single digit admissions rate, that even overstated the average unhooked applicant’s chances of admissions. Some of theses small select schools do not have a lot of seats left by the time those special categories are filled.

One of my kids was a recruited athlete at the ivies and it did not pan out (last minute accept from one after being wait listed, long ag after he was set with his school of choice) so, yes, I well know that it’s no auto admit. I also know that it’s not an easy process for most athletes trying to parlay athletic prowess into scholarships or selective admissions. It’s a nerve wracking process

There is a link on the college admissions scandal thread about a very good tennis player, definitely at some D-1 Level who could not get his sport to pan out. Not even a walk-on at his school, for all his years of the sport. This is not uncommon. My SIL’s niece had the very same experience. The competition for athletic scholarships and spots are not restricted to theUS high schools, and it’s eye opening how many international athletes come into this scene

I do not begrudge most of the special tags that applicants get. But clearly, as the admissions scandal showed, these admits need to be vetted by the AO as opening up the process allows unscrupulous persons into the scene.

Nathan seems like a great person…he is well spoken, talented and likely very smart. Individual sports like skating take a TON of training, perseverance, hard work, dealing with failure and success, etc.
Best of luck to him!

I don’t think this is accurate. I believe he had offers, but chose to turn them down to go to the school he preferred. He just wasn’t good enough to play there.

The admit rate for recruited athletes at Harvard is actually 80%.

Isn’t the admission of Nathan Chen consistent with the philosophy that a college creates a well balanced class not by admitting well balanced students, but by admitting students who all excel in different realms? Having an Olympic medalist, and one of the best ever in a high profile sport, fits that bill. He will fill Yalies of every generation with pride whenever he takes the ice. I strongly suspect he is academically qualified to be there. Frankly, I have trouble understanding at all how anyone might begrudge him his slot at Yale.

He earned his spot.

David Hogg is now at Harvard with reported statistics below anyone you would expect to be admitted without other preferences. No first gen. No economic misfortune, no legacy. No athletics. No big donations. No URM. He has something they value.

I think the Olympic medalist and fine student to boot is more of an obvious choice.

"the fact of the matter is that student-athletes, particularly in the Ivy League, are very successful once on campus. "

Based on my observations, I’d agree with @TiggerDad . For one, these tend to be disciplined and competitive types. They have the grades and the stats to be considered: you’re NOT going to see C-average high school students on Princeton teams. Plus, in contrast to many universities, the Ivies tend to put school first, sport second, thus giving athletes a very good shot at being able to excel academically. A family member played a popular Ivy team sport about a decade ago. I kept track of her team members: today that team has 1 doctor, three attorneys, a PhD and some successful Wall Street-ers. The kids continued to be successful even beyond undergrad.