As the title says, I have a 212 on the Academic Index scale. I had a pre-read done in the summer, and recently applied early, and got this number back from the coach at an Ivy. Is 212 good enough? I know I am being fully supported by the coaches, if that information helps at all. I understand it may be tough to give concrete feedback, but any sort of feedback would be much appreciated!
First thing to remember is that the AI score is just a tool used to see if you are recruitable, it is not really something that is of itself decisive with admissions. The admissions people who look at likely letters are going to be looking at the whole application, not just the raw stats. While this is true at all the Ivys, it is particularly true at HYP. So the other parts of your application are going to matter, at least in a “rule in” fashion (no bad recs, showing some care and forethought in the essays, etc.).
But, if you had a pre read and it came back positive without qualifications, and the coach is supporting you for a likely letter, then your chances are very good. Hopefully, you will hear back soon!
I agree with Ohiodad51 that if you received a positive pre-read from the admissions liaison, then your AI is good. Each Ivys have a different mandated AI, usually Harvard having the highest (>220). The coach, not us, should be able to tell you if your AI is good enough. But knowing your AI, if the coach is still willing to fully support you, then you should be in good shape, assuming your LoR’s and personal essay are also satisfactory for the AO.
^Just to clarify, I believe what @noanswers is referring to as the “mandated AI” is the average academic index score for all students (not just athletes) in the previous four admitted classes. Each sport will have a different target AI for recruits based on criteria set out by the AD’s office and the Ivy Common Agreement.
IMO full support of the coaches is more important than your actual AI, if anything your AI allows the coaches to provide their full support. For football, an AI of 212 would probably put you in the 3rd of 4 bands for the HYP schools and 4th (top band) for Penn and others, Each school is allocated different band allocations based on performance in the prior season. So Princeton for example, which shared the Ivy title last year, has to bring in 10 4th band recruits for its football roster of 30, whereas Dartmouth, which finished near the bottom, only needs 5 4th band recruits this year, i.e. it gets somewhat complex. The key is that you have the support of the coach(I assume you have an “offer”), which means they should have already managed the complex allocations on your behalf behind the scenes.
^ four years ago, 212 would have been 3rd band at HYP (that year, I believe Yale was the highest, with Princeton and Harvard one point behind), right on the border between 3rd and 4th at Columbia and Dartmouth and solidly 4th everywhere else. I assume things have ticked up slightly since then.
And not to get to far off the topic, but that is the first I have ever heard that band slots are allocated based on the previous year’s finish. There has been reporting that Columbia petitioned for and was granted some extra low band slots when Bagnoli was hired because the program was a hot mess.
You might find this somewhat helpful.
^i don’t want to be critical or nit picky, but to the extent people are following this thread, there are a few big problems with the “ivyguru” article. One, the band system only applies to football. There is a similar system in place in basketball and men’s hockey, but the majority of athletes are subject to the general Rule that the average athletic admit must have an AI within one standard deviation for their entering class. Two, the minimum AI was raised to 176 several years ago, it is no longer 171 as mentioned in the article. I have no idea whether the band ranges listed in the article were accurate when written, but I do know they are nowhere near accurate now.
@Ohiodad51 I’m not sure what year that was from, 2013 I think. What do you make of what they state in #3? Is that a fair statement?
I think the band system was put in place to stop, or at least control, “dumbbelling” which is what the author is referring to in point #3. One of the ways the Ivy does this in football is that the individual AI is not important, only the band. In other words, in football and I believe basketball and Men’s hockey, there is no difference between a 220 AI say and a 230. All that matters is both fit in Band 4. That annoyed me when my son was getting recruited, because his AI was very high, and I thought it would be a tie breaker at least. No school cared. They only cared he crossed the threshold into band 4.
In general though, I think the author is absolutely correct that the higher the band, the less athletic talent required. Personal example, my son and his best buddy from high school went through Ivy recruiting together. Both are “box” players, one an OL, the other a DL. Both were roughly equal talent wise, my son’s buddy probably a little better overall. My son was a band 4 kid, and he had a number of Ivy offers. His buddy landed right on the cusp between band 2 and 3, and was told directly by at least one coach in my hearing that if he could goose his number into band 3 they would have a spot for him. He couldn’t get his ACT up enough and ended up taking an offer in the MAC. Another high school teammate who was better than both and was probably a solid band 2 kid had offers from every Ivy school. He is in the BIG now.
A point of caution. I have been very surprised these last few years by the general level of play in the Ivy. It is much better than when I played against Ivy teams in the 80s (I played at a school now in the Patriot). I think the increase in financial aid begun by P and H after the anti trust settlement several years ago has substantially increased the number of good football players who look at the Ivy as a legitimate target. I think this is in part because for the vast majority of football players Ivy financial aid is going to be at least equivalent to a partial scholarship to an FCS school, especially one that is out of state. So for a whole lot of people, need based aid and a Brown degree trump a 3/4 ride to Northern Iowa, especially when the money is close.
From what I have observed, the significant athletic breakdown is really between the band 3-4 guys on one hand and the band 1-2 guys on the other. The band 1-2 kids are studs, guys who coming in would be at home at lower level power five schools at least. The band 3-4 kids are not generally, and are more bottom group of five/general FCS type recruits. But everybody in the Ivy can play, and play at a pretty high level. You have to remember that there are only 240 slots every year in the Ivy, and several thousand kids out there hunting them.
@Ohiodad51 " In fact, some Ivies have been known to pad their teams’ Academic Indices by recruiting football players with 1550 SAT scores and virtually no chance of ever seeing game action." This is the part that took me by surprise. I don’t know if it’s strictly limited to football but still surprising to me unless they are trying to fill spots simply by numbers so use it on a scout player with a high AI who will never play I guess.
I think it’s more football because to field a good team, you generally have to dip farther. In swimming by contrast, here are ton of good swimmers who also have excellent academic stats.
@Luska19, as I said above, what you are referring to is called dumbbelling, pairing a high stats, low skill recruit with a high skill low stats recruit. As I also said above, the band system was put in place to discourage this practice. The practice was reportedly most common in basketball, most famously at Harvard, where a jv high school player was announced as a recruit but never appeared on a roster at Harvard.
@vhsdad, yes, in general sports which are mostly played by upper middle class and higher kids are going to show higher academic stats than sports which are more generally popular. On the other hand, it is probably easier to pair a potential Olympian with a less competitive swimmer, both because of the proportionally greater contribution a single swimmer can make compared to a single football player, and because in football there has to be a minimum level of required talent, or kids will get severely injured.