<p>what about the people with 2300+4.0 gpa who are good athletes, but don't devote the time to become good enough to be recruited? I ended up being a solid division I athlete as a walk-on, but didn't train year-round in hs or anything. I pretty much just showed up every year. I did well, but not well enough to get recruited. </p>
<p>It works both ways. And BTW, I don't know why you think 2300 +4.0 gpa represents the top academic achievement. I think if it looks like you will be able to do research at a school as a professor later on, then you deserve to study there more than someone who could play on one of their sports teams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i dunno if this is relevant but i noticed cornell recently sent out recruitment letter. I'm guessing the other ivies are around this time as well. Two kids in our grade got letters for track. From what I've seen, these schools send out letters based solely on athletics, with no academic research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A recruitment letter is an instrument used to gauge mutual interest. If the student athlete being recruited doesn't meet at least the minimum requirements, the recruitment will be short lived.</p>
<p>I think if it looks like you will be able to do research at a school as a professor later on, then you deserve to study there more than someone who could play on one of their sports teams.</p>
<p>From Assessing Admissions by Christopher Avery</p>
<p>As described in The Chosen, there are three distinct elements of merit in student applications: 1) intellectual capacity; 2) character and potential for leadership; and 3) diversity. Kingman Brewster observed that these definitions frequently clash: It is the fate of Presidents as well as Deans of Admission to have to bear the brunt of a two-front war. On one flank will be urged upon us men of high character and low intellect; on the other will be pressed the cause of young men of high intellect and moral callousness.</p>
<p>The Chosen documents consistent ambivalence by the Big Three toward brilliant but narrowly focused applicants. Wilbur Bender, admissions director of Harvard from 1953 to 1960, summarized this view: Do we really want a college in which practically everyone [is] headed for a career as a scholar, scientist, college teacher, or research doctor?</p>
<p>In the Ancient Eight, athlete recruitment is closely legislated by the Ivy League administration, which uses a standard measure, called the academic index (AI). The AI has existed for 20 years and weighs equally a student-athletes SAT I scores, SAT II scores, and class rank or GPA. Each year, Yale calculates the mean AI of each entering class to yield an average for all non-athletes at Yale. The same process occurs at the seven other Ivy League schools.The maximum AI possible is 240 (with an 80 in each of the three categories); The Ivy League has established a floor AI of 171 for all admitted students. To gain acceptance to an Ivy, all athletes and non-athletes must fall somewhere in this range. Moreover, the average AI of all recruited student-athletes in a given year (excluding football players) can be no lower than one standard deviation below the average AI of the non student-athletes. </p>
<p>.....[break].......</p>
<p>Parity in the Ivy League is accomplished through a different AI-based system known as the band system. The Ivy administration considers four bands of recruits each season. The first and highest band ranges from the maximum AI of 240 down to one standard deviation below the mean non-athlete AI. The fourth and lowest band includes athletes down to the AI floor of 171. The number of football recruits in each individual band is recorded every year by the school, and regulated every four years by the Ivy League. </p>
<p>While there is no requirement that teams split theirrecruits evenly among bands, the lower bands do have a maximum capacity. For instance, if a team were allowed 12 third-band recruits in a given year, but only filled 10 of those slots, the two remaining players must fall into a higher band. The system is designed to promote almost perfect relative parity among the football teams.</p>
<p>btw, there's a difference between someone who gets a PhD and someone who is good enough to be a tenured professor at Harvard. I would say that the latter person deserves to actually study at the university as an undergrad. I don't know why this is so hard to accept.</p>
<p>And also, the best students don't always become professors. Many of them become professionals (lawyers and doctors), but many of them go onto Wall Street or some type of business. Donald Trump graduated first in his class at Wharton.</p>
<p>I personally respect athletes, but it's ridiculous to assert that they should have preferential admission to the best academic institutions over people with similar talent in the academic area. Actually, you have asserted something even stronger--the average recruited ivy league athlete is nowhere near the same level of talent as the guy who gets tenure at Harvard. Maybe if you were comparing an olympic athlete to a tenured Harvard prof, then maybe they would be equal.</p>
<p>Nobody deserves to get in an Ivy League school. You are picked because of a combination of factors. Im pointing out how the system works not wishing it should be different. HYP have consistently fought for the right to pick students they think best meet their needs, not the most qualified academic applicants. See the Amicus Curiae briefs in the Michigan Law School case. </p>
<p>I quoted Kingman Brewster President of Yale, Wilbur Bender Harvard, Christopher Avery Harvard and Dan Kindlon Harvard in my posts. Im not asserting anything Im quoting two men who shaped admission policy and two current Harvard professors. </p>
<p>From my state who would Yale prefer Gary Locke or any tenured professor? Locke of course he was Governor 1997-2005. The successful politicians are harder to find in the admission process but they try. I only know one current Yale student; she has all the traits that may make her a political leader.</p>
<p>A few years ago the ivy leagues met and agreed that they needed to raise the academic standard they held for their athletic recruits. They now require that their athletic recruits have academic ability which fall within a certain range of their non-athletes. Were they wrong?</p>
<p>I think most people wonder why I raised this topic while not raising other special admits to top school.</p>
<p>Following is what came to my mind:</p>
<ul>
<li>For URM admissions, the candidates are chosen among the URM students based on their academic abilities.</li>
<li>For any other special admissions also the candidates are chosen among that group of students based on their academic abilities.</li>
<li>But for athletic admission, the candidates that are best athletes are chosen and not the student with best academics from the pool of the students with athletic abilities.</li>
</ul>
<p>good point...by the same logic, USC should be filling its football team with the smartest people who started on varsity. After all, if you've earned a varsity letter, you're athletic. You can "do the sport." It's just not what you are about.</p>
<p>"But for athletic admission, the candidates that are best athletes are chosen and not the student with best academics from the pool of the students with athletic abilities."</p>
<p>Again, there's a misunderstanding about how admissions works. It's really not scaled, per se. (A different process from many other countries.) If the athletes weren't able academically to handle the work at the 4-yr U, they wouldn't be admitted. It's not worth it to the U to actually sacrifice the academics for the athletics. But the athlete may not be a Rhodes scholar, either. In some caes, the athlete is quite the academic, with a high GPA, scores, everything. In some cases, less so, but admissions officers have come on the boards to say that their U does not admit athletes not capable of doing the work, and that increasingly so over the last several years, they are much more than merely capable.</p>
<p>I get your point (that it should be academically meritocratic within the athletic category), but apparently sometimes it does end up that way, because these pools are stronger than they once were. No, I'm sure it doesn't always end up that way. Again, there are other U's to choose from, where athletics is not a factor or hardly a factor.</p>
<p>Well . . . yes and no. The "best" athletes also have to qualify academically before they can be admitted. Selecting, say, a nationally ranked athlete over a non-ranked one with slightly better grades isn't all that different from selecting the applicant who runs his own business over one who has ordinary ECs with slightly better grades.</p>
<p>Momwaitingfornew: 30% of the student body in the graduating class will qualify academically; the notion is how athletes compare with rest of the class at the same University. Also the problem is the way these athletes get recruited even before the ED, so where and when their academic credentials are reviewed.</p>
<p>The athlete’s admission bypasses all norms, how can we justify there being any consideration to academic at all.</p>
<p>someone mentioned that there is no drive for sports academies...i know that the nba has been trying to start a developmental league. Also, that is basically what the minor leagues for baseball are.</p>
<p>It's worth noting that the new president of the ncaa is trying to raise the academic standards of athletic admits to the point where they can be expected to graduate. He is doing this by penalizing schools with very low graduation rates among their athletes.</p>
<p>what's with this post? are people against sports admission and scholarships?
Give athletes some respect, I dont see you swimming 10 times a week
and it's not like we are stupid. there are lots of athletes out their who are good at sports and do well in school
I say get over it</p>
<p>"Give athletes some respect, I dont see you swimming 10 times a week"</p>
<p>maybe they are textureless swimming grinds. many of us are exciting, dynamic individuals with "passion" for sports, but we don't like to practice a lot. we deserve to be recruited to play sports just as much as the grinds who practice all the time.</p>
<p>wolfnoir01: The university is to promote amateur athletics and not professional. You should spend 10 hours at academics and should be able to swim instead of swimming for 10 hours to get into a top school.</p>
<p>Because you go to top school to earn a degree in academics and not in swimming.</p>
<p>Universities are institutions of education.</p>
<p>Sports academies are for sports.</p>
<p>Why do we mix them? </p>
<p>For example, I know someone who got a soccer scholarship to Cal, and only had around a 3.3 gpa and 1600 SAT1. In what way does this mean he is as prepared to take advantage of the educational opportunities as does somebody with a 4.2 and 2100 that gets rejected? He succeeded in a sport, so why isn't he rewarded with something related to that, such as a career path to the professional leagues. Why fill up valuable places in institutions of higher learning with people who aren't quite as prepared for it as others, just because they have some physical skills?</p>