<p>“As I said, if you think your kid has gotten all the qualities and attributes that are achieved via competitive/organized athletics, but they were able to obtain them through a different method, then convince the school.”</p>
<p>No need to do that. The proof is in the pudding: it is in the highly selective acceptances, & sometimes the stated reasons for that. Again, if athletics were SO valued relative to every other activity (given similar levels of achievement, prominence, & length/position, etc.), then every athlete would be an auto-admit as long as grades & scores were also competitive. That isn’t even vaguely what admissions results show.</p>
<p>Again, the admissions RESULTS prove the following: outstanding achievers are SO valued by colleges, and those achievers are generally in 3 broad categories (in addition to academics):
-sports
-arts (performing and/or visual)
-community service</p>
<p>There is no accuracy to a statement that assumes that automatically an athlete WILL be favored (based on a history of “results”) over other categories at any particular random school. Depends on what is presented to that school, just like everything else. You bet that if the quality of that athlete exceeds the achievement of other students in diff. categories at that admissions place in time, he or she gets in, presuming competitive academics as well. But certainly for the super-selective privates, it would be unusual for that to happen. By definition, highly talented, accomplished students in ALL categories apply to super-selective schools, and lots of non-athletes get in, as well as lots of athletes.</p>
<p>All the admits to HYP at D’s school over the last 5 years have been non-athletes, every one. The athletes went to selective publics.</p>
<p>Bay, I am just making a little joke about the likely prevalence of people with a strong interest in sailing amongst Harvard alumni vs alumni of, say, the University of Nebraska. I think that sailing is a fine pastime. It is not, however, often cited as a sport that brings in alumni dollars, such as football and basketball.</p>
<p>epiphany, while I’m sure colleges place some value on outstanding accomplishments outside of athletics, I have yet to hear of the chorus director or orchestra conductor at any highly selective school being given a certain number of “tips,” or whatever they are called. I have also yet to hear of the orchestra conductor being given a budget to travel around the country recruiting top instrumental prospects. And so forth.</p>
<p>Yes! Every one of them was a 4.0 student (I know this because they were honored at a ceremony for achieving the 4.0). I do not know what their SAT/ACT scores were, other than my D’s, which I won’t divulge other than to say it was in the 50% range for the school. Some of them were top/state champ athletes, others were middle-of-the-pack but good-enough-for-Ivies Varsity athletes in the following sports: softball, waterpolo and track.</p>
Well, after our first-time college experience, I might have to question that. I think that what colleges should look for are well-rounded students, but in reality I think they actually want a well-rounded student body made up of exceptional, if one-dimentional, students. The school with the best athlete, the musical prodigy and the Siemens winner is well-rounded overall, yes? </p>
<p>Someone said earlier in this thread that a college would probably take a recruitable star athlete ahead of a decent athlete who plays an instrument at a reasonably high level. I tend to agree with that. So maybe athletics as an EC is a great thing for individual development, but not really SO valued by colleges in a person of average ability.</p>
<p>Bay,
My point exactly. There IS no “absolute” ranking. This is the entire point. The admits you reference must have clearly shone above whatever different accomplishments in different categories the non-admitted students have. I have absolutely no doubt about that. </p>
<p>HYP have a glut of highly accomplished applicants from multiple categories. They get to pick & choose, big time. In some cases that will result in a lopsided showing of athletes, in other cases artists, and in many cases a mixture of categories (if there are multiple admits; naturally in many cases there are scant admits unless the school has quite a “history” and/or is quite large & has a large proportion of high-caliber e.c.'s as well.)</p>
<p>"I think they actually want a well-rounded student body made up of exceptional, if one-dimensional, students. "</p>
<p>^^ And indeed that’s what various reps have said on CC.</p>
<p>Yet there are plenty of colleges that still do want the well-rounded student who isn’t “spectacular” in a single category. I’m also glad that those avenues are available as well in this country.</p>
<p>To state the obvious, the elite colleges want high level achievers of every kind. If you’re mediocre in academics and/or just average in your primary field of extracurricular endeavor–whether it be a sport, community service, or performing arts–you’re unlikely to be admitted. For recruitment to elite schools, the top athletes must also be very good students and probably have some other noteworthy accomplishment. Being class president appears to work for athletes in my area to get into Princeton and UPenn.</p>
<p>I can’t prove this, but it seems that the talent combination of high achievement in athletics + high achievement in academics is harder to find in students than a combination of top academics with exceptional music ability, journalistic talent, or debating skill. That could be why it seems that academics are “so valued.”</p>
<p>lkf725; I agree. I guess I didn’t say it clearly. That’s what I meant when I said they don’t want a school of student athletes. They want musicians, artists, dancers, frat, etc… </p>
<p>As far as getting into a school from an individual standpoint, it’s good to either excel in one area, or be a well rounded individual in many areas. When we’re talking about athletics here, we AREN’T necessarily talking about a student who is going to go to that school and play NCAA varsity sports. Only about 4-5% of high school varsity athletes get recruited to play at the college level. School however still like seeing athletics as an attribute of a potential student. As mentioned earlier, it shows a person who is into teamwork, commitment, dedication, hard work, rules, training, discipline, etc… Not that these can’t be achieved in other activities; let’s not start that again; they can be. It’s just that athletics is usually easier to recognize those accomplishments and it’s more measurable. But if you are going to be one of the 4-5% recruited athlete, that’s a whole different world. You’re not even going to be worrying about your applications. They will practically be done for you. The school will be coming to you if you are being recruited. If you are trying to get their attention, then you will most likely be a walk on at the most.</p>
<p>But yes, the schools want to be able to show they have a student body made up of different interests, races, sex, nationality, etc…</p>
<p>“But if you are going to be one of the 4-5% recruited athlete, that’s a whole different world. You’re not even going to be worrying about your applications. They will practically be done for you. The school will be coming to you if you are being recruited. If you are trying to get their attention, then you will most likely be a walk on at the most.”</p>
<p>I don’t agree with this statement, Christcorp. Athletes in many lower profile sports have to identify themselves to coaches, especially at the DIII level. At the Ivy level, students should also take the initiative. Coaches don’t know which very good athletes also have the academic qualifications to apply, unless the student lets them know.</p>
<p>Once contact is made, and the coach determines that the student is a fit both academically and athletically, they will be persistent about recruiting. And my d was advised to take her application, including the essays, very seriously. No one offered to “do it for” her!</p>
<p>Explain the Ivy-recruited athlete I know who had a B+ average and SATs in the 600s. And NO other activities. Sure, the kid is a decent student (who could in fact have done much better if he bothered to apply himself ) and is bright enough to get along at his Ivy. But in no way does he meet the description above. People continue to make this kind of statement, but there is ample evidence to discount it.</p>
<p>It simply is not true that <em>recruited</em> athletes have to meet the same standards others do at Ivies or anywhere else. Some do, of course. Others don’t. Partly it depends on the sport, as riverrunner points out. (Check out the story on the Harvard basketball players.)</p>
<p>Having a hard time finding SAT on Pryor, but found something on another “star”, Ed Tinker:</p>
<p>"Tinker reports 2.4 core GPA, but says this winter semester he earned a 2.8. He scored a 740 SAT and is retaking the test on Jan. 26. “I’m taking SAT prep classes because I really need to get my score up. I know I need to get around a 910 (SAT) to qualify.”</p>
<p>Ohio State is notorious for recruiting weak students with amazing athletic gifts. Certainly you can’t lump all true scholar/athletes in with this fellow.</p>
<p>“Explain the Ivy-recruited athlete I know who had a B+ average and SATs in the 600s. And NO other activities. Sure, the kid is a decent student (who could in fact have done much better if he bothered to apply himself ) and is bright enough to get along at his Ivy. But in no way does he meet the description above. People continue to make this kind of statement, but there is ample evidence to discount it.”</p>
<p>Consolation, I think when people talk about athletes now being much more competitive academically than they once were, that change is from previous C- averages to more like B++/A- averages. Admissions officers will tell you that the history of their particular U is that such a GPA (& score) works just fine for that student & for the school, & that it is much more true now that a similar solid GPA will be sustained throughout college, as well. They have a right to weigh such value, and clearly they do.</p>
<p>Just a tiny bit of qualification/modification on the above good observation, though: (“it shows a person who is into teamwork, commitment, dedication, hard work, rules, training, discipline, etc… Not that these can’t be achieved in other activities; let’s not start that again; they can be. It’s just that athletics is usually easier to recognize those accomplishments and it’s more measurable.”)</p>
<p>One of the key differences between performing artists who get admitted to HYP, and those who don’t, is in the measurable achievement area. I sometimes read on CC people whining about the “number of years” they did a particular artistic activity: what’s measurable is the level of progress over those years by virtue of higher & higher award levels in increasingly competitive, more public, & larger arenas. If that isn’t there, the arts in themselves won’t be enough of a factor to get you in without a highly well rounded profile combined with spectacular academics, most likely.</p>