<p>A good article from today's NY Times sports section -- about a specific sport (basketball), but with lots of info. about what's "approved" and "unapproved" in terms of recruiting:</p>
<p>There have been a number of threads about athletic recruiting, which should be of interest to both students and parents....does anyone else think they should be collected into a new topic, or sub-topic, on CC?</p>
<p>If what is described in this article is anywhere near accurate, and Amaker stays, it tells us far more about the culture at Harvard than any grandstand play that provides more financial aid for the those who are simply extremely affluent rather than super rich.</p>
<p>I second the idea of a new topic for student athletes. Good suggestion.</p>
<p>From the article:</p>
<p>“For example, a student with a 3.1 grade-point average and just over 1,560 out of a possible 2,400 on the SAT would register roughly a 171 on the Academic Index, the minimum score allowed by the Ivy League for athletes.
The 6-foot-10 center Frank Ben-Eze from Bishop O’Connell High School in Arlington, Va., embodies the change in Harvard’s basketball recruiting. He orally committed to Harvard over traditional powers like Marquette, West Virginia, Virginia and Penn. Although he and the rest of the recruited athletes have yet to be admitted to Harvard, Ben-Eze is considered Amaker’s biggest coup, one Amaker proudly mentions to other potential players.
Ben-Eze, a native of Nigeria, has yet to receive what is called a likely letter from the admissions office, a written assurance that a player will be accepted, because he has not attained the 171 index minimum.”</p>
<p>I am stunned at how low the minimum AI is for Ivy League athletes to begin with: a 3.1 GPA and 1560/2400 SAT. And Harvard’s top recruit this season doesn’t even meet that threshold. What is Harvard’s motive? Certainly it has no burning need to build its endowment. Is winning an Ivy League title that important?</p>
<p>Its not about building the endowment. Its about WINNING, Harvard being the BEST, at any cost.</p>
<p>Put another way, Harvard is embarrassed because they have been getting their butts publicly kicked by the "lower forms of life" at Penn and Cornell. Basketball is particularly embarrassing for them because of the highly-publicized national championship tournament.</p>
<p>But is winning more important to Harvard than preserving its academic standards? From this article, it would appear that the answer is "yes." That blows my mind.</p>
<p>The minimum AI is 171. However, the average AI for all athletes at an Ivy school must fall within a certain percentage of the average AI for all admitted students. The average AI for athletes falls more around the 200 range. Most Ivy schools only have room for a few bball, football or hockey players in the 171 range.</p>
<p>A few top recruits can change the face of a basketball or a football team. In the end, their academic achievements (or lack thereof) is hardly noticeable at a school with 1000+ entering students. Their athletic achievements will be much more visible, particularly in basketball, football, and hockey. This is not just a Harvard or Ivy League phenomenon. The average SAT score of Stanford or Duke basketball players are hardly higher than 1500 (out of 2400). Brook Lopez (who will be a top 5 pick in the NBA draft) missed the first 9 games of Stanford's season because he was academically ineligible. Cookiemom's right that not every athlete will be at the minimum AI but for star athletes these schools will be willing to make a lot of academic concessions.</p>
<p>Losing 111-56 to Stanford in the first game of the season or 86-53 last night to Cornell is more embarrassing than what any of these athletes will do in the classroom.</p>
<p>I was recently told by a Ivy coach that their AI cutoff was 210. This was for a non-revenue sport.</p>
<p>And I like the idea of a student/athlete subforum.</p>
<p>From the Times article:</p>
<p>Harvard’s athletic director, Bob Scalise, acknowledged that Amaker’s staff had recruited some players with lower academic profiles than the previous staff had, but he stressed that no athletes had yet been admitted.</p>
<p>“It’s also a willingness to basically say, ‘O.K., maybe we need to accept a few more kids and maybe we need to go after a few more kids in the initial years when Tommy is trying to change the culture of the program,’ ” Scalise said last week. “It’s a willingness to say that we really do want to compete for the Ivy championship.”</p>
<p>Harvard, of course, is free to do what they want. But don't they realize how this looks?</p>
<p>Hmmmn.....
Harvard is a college....perhaps they can actually teach these kids a thing or two....maybe what they need to measure is their AI as they graduate? This potential basketball player may not have accomplished academically what is needed, but he is smart enough to know that a Harvard education would benefit him, yes?????????????? </p>
<p>I would love a student athlete subforum. We went to a special guidance event the other nite....for parents of junior athletes....guest speaker was the Athletic Director of Bowdoin....he did a really nice job covering many topics, but a subforum would be beneficial....as we have many unanswered questions that student athletes might be able to address based on their current experiences.</p>
<p>My concern is for these student-athletes. Basketball season is pretty short. I am not, admittedly, a sports fan, but it seems pretty obvious that even a basketball player will have to take some classes...? How will any athlete who is not up to par be able to hold his/her own with the classes that s/he has to take? Winning might be important, but I would hope that everyone agrees that there is a whole lot more to life than the playing field. It is not in any student's interest, athlete or not, to be thrust into any kind of arena where s/he can't hold his/her own. These are basically still kids, and they have to feel comfortable in whatever school they go to. Winning might be important, but there is so much more to life than that. I was pretty disgusted when I read the article this morning.</p>
<p>Weep not for the recruits; trust me, they will not flunk out of Harvard. Moreover, employers will LOVE a Division I basketball player with a Harvard degree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How will any athlete who is not up to par be able to hold his/her own with the classes that s/he has to take?
[/quote]
By being carefully led to an easy major & carefully placed in the easiest courses.</p>
<p>I believe that most recruited athletes are truly scholar/athletes, but most schools leave room for a few who are anything but.</p>
<p>210 is the AI for non-revenue sports in the Ivy League....which is basically everything except football, basketball, and hockey.</p>
<p>"Revenue sport?" Do these sports actually pay for themselves?</p>
<p>Keep in mind that Harvard's basketball team has a total of THREE Freshman players. (Out of 15 players total). 3 out of an entering class of 1,700 seems hardly worth getting into a lather about. Especially if it results in a more competitive team that adds to the campus environment for all students.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that NONE of the athletes discussed in the linked article have been admitted by Harvard's admission office yet.</p>
<p>Top college basketball and football programs generate tens of millions of dollars for the university each year. </p>
<p>Alumni are not going to complain about "deteriorating academic standards" when the college is putting a winning team on the floor. Even though no Ivy League team is going to win a national championship in basketball or football anytime soon, you can ask the folks at Penn or even at Cornell this year about the excitement that even a moderately competitive team can generate. That's what the alumni will ultimately want to see. A couple of subpar students among thousands of students won't make a dent in the school's academic standards, which are lowered for legacies, URMs, developmental admits, etc. anyway.</p>
<p>I agree. More power to these kids who are top recruits and are willing to put their education first by choosing a school like Harvard over a number of other stronger athletic programs. I think they have more to contribute than many of the 2400/4.5 kids who make up so much of the school's population.</p>
<p>And then we'll get to see statements from admissions about how "flexible" their admissions are, and how kids lower on the academic scale should feel free to apply - after all, some get in! (conveniently overlooking the athlete angle for these less bright souls). After all, the more apps the greater the selectivity</p>