<p>In consoling a colleague whose daughter had a rather brutal day yesterday, I decided to gather a bit of data to show him the "true" odds for unhooked kids.</p>
<p>Looking at Harvard, I counted the rosters of all the men's sports: 608 students, and that was ignoring the large frosh rosters for crew. divide by 4, means roughly 150 male athletes recruited. Add an equal number of female athletes (title IX, anyone?) and you have about 15% of their class is recruited athletes. Add the 15% legacy, 10% AA, and there goes 45% of the available slots. </p>
<p>So the real odds are not the 8% you see reported. The real odds are probably closer to 4-5%. Nothing like looking at the data to see the real story.</p>
<p>BTW, Harvard's biggest roster is Track and Field at 91. Football carries 70, Lacrosse 42, Heavy crew 38 plus 32 frosh!</p>
<p>Keep in mind too that smaller schools no doubt have an even higher percentage of athletes, although they may instead have fewer teams or smaller rosters.</p>
<p>Sports rosters at elite schools are also an interesting window into where those kids come from. Lots of elite private schools and wealthy public schools. Very few from Podunk Central High. Just another reality check.</p>
<p>Legacy is just a breeze, eh? A GPA of 3.5 (with positive trend!) didn't cut it for our Duke and Stanford legacy son, though his SAT's were 2240. The rejection rate for legacies at these schools is probably about 70-80%.</p>
<p>A lot of the legacy-athlete-minorities overlap though. And everyone seriously considering Harvard has some kind of "hook" -if they weren't a jock they won some amazing award or were head of something meaningful. Tons of athletes and legacies and minorities get rejected too!</p>
<p>You also need to take into account the fact that the groups overlap. The basketball and football teams usually have some African-American players. The "prep school sports" like lacrosse and squash invariably include some legacies and developmental cases. </p>
<p>Plus, in all honesty, some kids in ANY of these categories would get in without them. </p>
<p>Harvard's number this year--before the waitlist is taken into account-7.1%. My own rule of thumb has been that the "unhooked" acceptance rate is about half the published rate, so you are looking at 3.55% or so.</p>
<p>The situation at the schools that still have early action or decision is actually worse for RD. Yale's overall admit was higher than Harvard's at 8.3%, but that includes the early round. RD it was something like 5.5%. So you are looking at about 2.75% for the unhooked who did not apply early.</p>
<p>Your point is well taken that Harvard's admit rate for the unhooked is probably less than 6 %. However, Harvard did not recruit 91 track and field athletes. S ran against Harvard athletes at open meets while in high school and it was obvious many were not competitive runners. Track teams even at Ivy's and other elites have few recruited athletes and many walk ons.</p>
<p>you may or may not be right, but I would not rely on one person's anecdotal observation. I just report the numbers.</p>
<p>Keep in mind too that there is more to preferences than just athletes, legacies and URM. There are developmental admits, kids of famous people (you think all kids of famous people like Chelsea Clinton or the Bush girls get in because of their brilliant records?) and so on. But I don't have stats on those.</p>
<p>So feel free to fiddle around the edges and look for the odd exception. I don't care. My own daughter graduates from college in a few weeks. I have no dog in this fight.</p>
<p>Tell your friend to then divide the 4-5% figure by half (the elite universities aim for 50 percent boys, 50 percent girls). That's the true number for an unhooked boy or unhooked girl.</p>
<p>^That wouldn't make any difference. Although the number of spots is cut in half, the number of applications is cut in half too (assuming there are an equal number of male/female applications). Thus, the ratio is the same.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Tell your friend to then divide the 4-5% figure by half (the elite universities aim for 50 percent boys, 50 percent girls). That's the true number for an unhooked boy or unhooked girl.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except then you'd also need to divide the denominator in half (about half the applicant pool is male and half female) so the admit rate stays the same.</p>
<p>In any event, I'm not sure that there's really any point to slicing and dicing the numbers like this. The bottom line is that the odds of admission to the most competitive schools are long no matter who you are. The good news is that there are many, many terrific schools out there, and if you look hard enough and you're realistic, you'll find one (or more than one) where you'll be happy and get a great education.</p>
<p>You're right, assuming that the app numbers are equally split between girls and boys, though I thought that girls are more heavily represented in apps these days, so maybe there is a slight difference. Still, clearly, <em>I</em> am not Harvard material. :)</p>
<p>I agree (as you know) with those who question the legacy preference, and Harvard et al. do not recruit anything like the number of athletes on their teams' rosters. But you forgot to factor in a 10-15% target for international students. (Actually, that probably increases the odds for unhooked domestic kids, since the international acceptance rate, I think, is well below the average, and you would have to take those applicants out of the denominator, too.)</p>
<p>The problem with dwelling on the "hook" advantage is that it leads many applicants to push their potential EC hook very, very hard - to the detriment of their gpa and scores. If the hook ends up not quite the hook they hoped for due to lack of talent, injury, luck, whatever - then they are left with academics that do not differentiate them for elites or even slightly lower tier schools. It is a real game of odds, that's for sure. I'm already concerned over DD2 coming up. Not even sure I will encourage her to enter the fray of elite admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm already concerned over DD2 coming up. Not even sure I will encourage her to enter the fray of elite admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The "fray" of admissions for some only come from their own expecations. Mammall, you have had great success with D1 if I recall. DD2 is a unique individual in her own right but if she is anywhere near the talent of her older sibling and with your guidance, she'll be fine and content wherever she decides to cast her lot.</p>
<p>As to the OP, this is such an emotional time for many and rationalization may only go so far in the early going. Each subsequent year for admissions have become more and more brutal. Hopefully in due time, this young lady will come to realize that this has nothing to do with her lack of ability or desirability, and more to do with the literal hordes of uber talented kids, coupled with finite spots.</p>
<p>Interesting point newsmassdad. I know our regional paper posts all area and all state athlete bios which typically include the college which senior athletes will be attending. The number going on to the Ivy League and other highly selective colleges is quite significant, far, far exceeding the percentage of students which would have a chance of admission considering that less than 10% of applicants are admitted and less than 5% of all students have qualifications to even apply in the first place.</p>
<p>And In the book "The Game of Life" by academics Bowen and Shulman, they note that athletics have a far more detrimental impact on highly selective colleges than that found at the big Div 1 universities for the numbers you cited in your OP. Athletic recruits at a univeristy like Ohio State constitute little more than 1% of the undergrad student body while at a small LAC or university the number often exceeds 15%. And while at both Div 1 colleges and the highly selective Div 3 colleges, most recruited athletes do have the academic preparation to graduate, a higher percentage at the highly selective colleges fall into that bottom quartile of admits because general admission standard are so high. And the less subjective impacts are also significant. Shulman and Bowen found that athletes were graduating from the highly selective colleges were under represented in alumni/fund raising activities and were far less involved in civic affairs compared to their non-athlete counterparts. And of course we all know about the Duke lacrosse team, not the false accusation, but the fact that team members lived in an off campus house where frequent alcohol related incidents had been reported and of course they did invite two strippers to perform on that fateful day.</p>
<p>You should take note that my comments/analysis are directed at true, quantifiable "hooks". Where the idea that ECs other than athletics can be a hook is beyond me. And perhaps that is a big part of the problem. For example, my colleague thought that since his daughter was a top violinist, concertmistress in the local youth orchestra and such, that she had a hook. Little did he know (and I did not tell him in advance) that such kids are a dime a dozen at HYP. To give you an example of what constitutes a musical hook, take a look at a friend of my daughter currently attending Harvard:
[quote]
Gabe has become such an outstanding violinist that he was asked to solo at the opening night of the 2004 Democratic National Convention. "I was up at Tanglewood and I got a call asking if I would play opening night because a big name soloist had dropped out," he recalls. Little did he know at the time that the soloist he was asked to play in place of was none other than world-renowned cellist Yo-Yo Ma. "I found out at the dress rehearsal," says Gabe. "It was the opportunity of a lifetime." Gabe played his own rendition of Amazing Grace for a crowd of millions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's the level of talent Harvard is looking for.</p>
<p>Some top drama schools admit between 2% and 4% of the kids who audition for them. Compared to those, highly selective LACs and universities that take between 6% and 24% of applicants look like a breeze to get into! :)</p>
<p>^ I agree! Heart breakingly true. The wonderful thing, though, is the musical kids and their families aren't going to abandon music just because it might not lead to Harvard. They will embrace their passion, be enriched by it, and enrich their school communities. Just so long as they know the chances of that passion leading to a super elite are minuscule.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sports rosters at elite schools are also an interesting window into where those kids come from. Lots of elite private schools and wealthy public schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Shhhhh!!!! No one is supposed to talk about that.</p>