<p>
[quote]
A new report suggests that the most academically rigorous institutions in Division III often recruit athletes with far weaker academic credentials than the overall student body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>More like "Duh!" than cutting edge research! </p>
<p>Sure, there are certainly many bright athletes at the most selective schools, but I don't think we need a "new report" to present this information.</p>
<p>Also, the colleges surveyed in this study are an odd mix. Some of 'em aren't all that selective for anyone.</p>
<p>hmm… on this list are some nice schools and then there a bunch that are NOT selective…
Definitely a weird mix…</p>
<p>I know that a few of the more selective ones–the coaches looking at our athletes stats–wanted very strong academics, and test scores etc…
Our scholar-athlete ended up ot including those on the list due to the schools not having the major, or being too small etc…</p>
<p>So I am not convinced this data is very good and the article is weak
…While we have only had contact with a few–the stats our student presented had to be in line with mid 50% and better, definitely not below…
That said, our student isn’t part of a helmet/revenue sport so perhaps this is best sub divided by sport as well…</p>
<p>These schools dont have an AI and league rules to adhere to right? They can admit who they want?</p>
<p>^^The sports mentioned in the report for men are Football, basketball, ice hockey, lacrosse and soccer. For the NESCAC schools you can be below the mid-50 because of the slot system and other selective LAC’s have systems of assisting athletes through admissions which are not as formalized.</p>
<p>Isn’t it a bad practice to admit low stat students only for sport…It is to the student’s disadvantage because they will struggle academically and trying to balance both a sport and academics–if it wasn’t so successful in hs, what makes and AdCom think the kid can do it any better in college.</p>
<p>Which women’s sports are included in these stats? swimming, soccer, softball, basketball, lacrosse??</p>
<p>My son was a recruited “Low stat” athlete at his school as were many of his teammates.
Low stats meant he was a B student, with 85th-90th centile SAT scores (but mid 50th centile for this school). There were Cs on his high school transcript. He is thriving in college, is on the Dean’s List, has won awards for community service, has published a paper with one of his professors.
His peers have had similar experiences and have achieved in their sport and contributed to campus life.</p>
<p>None of them would have gotten in the parking lot of this school without coach support
Yes, they are “helmet” sport male athletes.</p>
<p>My point in sharing this is that the student-athletes I know on his team are not struggling academically at all.</p>
<p>fogfog…I don’t think it’s like the Big 10 or something. Maybe some of the athletes have lower stats than the bulk of the student body, but they are still capable of succeeding at the particular school, as momof2sons has outlined.</p>
<p>This “news” is poorly written, has little substantive content and yields nothing new. I suppose it must have been a real slow news day. And… it lists 84 colleges but does not list the 24 “offending” colleges that were, in theory, the point of the article. Hack journalism. Much ado about nothing.</p>
<p>And… I wonder whether the D3’s are actually doing a better job than D1’s. If Florida State, for example, has football players who can only read at the second grade level… what does that say about D1’s and is that better/worse than D3’s?</p>
<p>^ What kurtataltos says is true; there was an ESPN OTL video not too long ago that said that several of FSU’s football players were arguably mentally ■■■■■■■■ by some measures. A teacher was quoted regarding a student-athlete saying that he had about a 3rd grade reading level, I believe. All this, though, borders on sheer NCAA violation (which was the main focus of the video) more than anything else.</p>