<p>1) URM
2) Athlete
3) Legacy</p>
<p>recruited athlete, not just athlete. Next question? </p>
<p>Some schools offer no boost to ethnicity or legacy status. Some schools don’t have athletic team set asides.</p>
<p>It depends. Depends on the student, the school, and all of the other circumstances involved.</p>
<p>Depends where. For a top level D1 program and some D3 programs, athletics can get you into that school like nothing else can. Legacy appears to be a decreasingly important factor in admissions. URM is important everywhere, though.</p>
<p>every situation is different. URM > legacy, unless legacy is a development target.</p>
<p>I know at MIT recruited athletes have very little advantage in admissions, while at Kentucky, for example, a recruited basketball player would be in instantly.</p>
<p>My point is it varies from college to college.</p>
<p>i know someone that is a recruited athlete, URM and meets a geographic development goal…29 ACT, 3.5 uw, 3.8w, tough classes at a top high school</p>
<p>I also think it depends on the URM - Native American would definitely help more than Hispanic, for example.</p>
<p>“I know at MIT recruited athletes have very little advantage in admissions”</p>
<p>That is not true. Our friend has great stats, and an MIT coach told them “don’t worry. I will walk your app over to admissions and they will let you in”. Sure enough, he did, and they did. </p>
<p>Your statement is probably true if the athlete has questionable stats.</p>
<p>I have heard otherwise first-hand from a perspective MIT tennis recruit. Perhaps it was because tennis is not a very recruitable sport, or maybe my source was misinformed.</p>
<p>at reputable schools (meaning athletics arent first priority) the recruiting process is a stressful, shadowy universe in which the only thing that is certain is that no two recruits have an identical experience in the admissions process. one year a recruited athlete with platinum stats will be denied while an athlete with modest stats sails right through the process. there are many many variables…both known and unknown. </p>
<p>if one is looking for certainty or an advantage in the admissions process- do not look to athletics. first one has to convince the coach (could take two years of emails, phone calls, successful live performance evaluations, interviews, editing/sending game video, sending transcripts/test scores, etc). once the coach is convinced an athlete can help the team (help keep his/her job), the fun is just beginning…time to dance with admissions staff that are thinking, ‘here comes another jock…’ ahhh athletes have it so easy :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some coaches literally drool over prospects - I wouldn’t say your description of the recruitment process is true for all recruits. I highly doubt that admissions officers think of recruits as “just another jock” either…</p>
<p>I’m going to say a recruited athlete … a friend of mine once said that a nationally ranked lacrosse player at our school would probably “get in wherever he applied even if he filled out his application in crayon.”</p>
<p>Recruited athlete, hands down. They often have entirely different admissions processes (at Princeton, for example, the top recruits apply in September and hear back by October). Not every good, desirable athlete will get this treatment, but for those that do, the admissions process is much less stressful.</p>