<p>Athletics is a major factor in admission for non-recruited athletes, i.e. it raises the chances of admission substantially. There is a large cohort of enrolled students with good but unspectacular HS academic credentials that would not be admitted but for the athletic performance being at a high, if not recruitable, level.</p>
<p>What is the evidence for this assertion? I don't doubt that ahtletics helps at the margins if a student is within the same academic cohort as other potential admittees. But you seem instead to be arguing that unrecruited athletes are given preference even if they would not have otherwise met the academic standars of an elite school because they might somehow contribute to the success of some varsity sport. How would you expect the admissions office to evaluate an applicant's athletic performance if the coach is not pushing him/her?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Athletics is a major factor in admission for non-recruited athletes, i.e. it raises the chances of admission substantially. There is a large cohort of enrolled students with good but unspectacular HS academic credentials that would not be admitted but for the athletic performance being at a high, if not recruitable, level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ditto what EMM1 said. Even if this were true, however...</p>
<p>In their experience admitting students over literally hundreds of years, colleges have determined (nearly universally), that a scholar-athlete makes a more valuable contribution to the university campus (and beyond) than another perfect-scoring brain-in-jar.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Speaking of Harvard, it now claims to reduce EFC to <em>zero</em> for families below $60K, which is certainly below the Federal FAFSA calculation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One needs to understand the fine print. </p>
<p>The non-contribution applies *to parents * in families with incomes of less than xxx, but this does apply to the student. There IS a family (parents AND student) contribution! Students receiving grant assistance are expected to contribute to their expenses by meeting a self-help requirement during the school year, and are also expected to contribute from their summer earnings.</p>
<p>The self-help expectations (to be earned or borrowed by the student) are very comparable to the parental contributions (parental federal EFC) of a typical family earning between 40,000 and 60,000. The number is not trivial and is typically between $3,000 and $5,500.</p>
<p>So the argument is that athletics is a more highly valued EC than, what, forensics? math club? I would just say that has not been our experience or our observed experience. At our hs there are quite a few recruited athletes that got into top schools obviously with the help of their sport; most frequently lacrosse, but also some soccer and track, and in a few instances, football. I don't know of anyone that clearly got a boost from any sport as an EC that was not a recruited athlete. </p>
<p>And Bay, as a person who thinks athletics and physical activity is very important and desirable for people of all ages, let me be the first to chastise you for that horrible characterization, "....perfect-scoring brain-in-jar".. although it did make me laugh! (Parents of nonathletic kids will take offense)</p>
<p>I would love how to see how they calculate "home equity" these days. That's a loophole you could drive a truck though. Are they requiring a current appraisal? If so, who gets to hire the appraiser and what are the instructions. Is the value as of today or 6 months from now when tuition is due? Or do you just right down a number you like? Same for other non stock investments. Good luck valuing many partnerships, rental properties, etc etc. I doubt any school or the other financial aids folks have time or money to verify any of this. The IRS can't even do half of it.</p>
<p>As a corollary to this discussion, I would add that even among recruited athletes there are strata. My son is a pole vaulter and was recruited by Harvard and Columbia. Even after recruiting trips, both schools ultimately rejected him. He is a very good, but not elite, vaulter, and he is a very good, but not elite, student, with a 3.9 gpa and 2180 SAT. Just a cautionary tale for those looking at the Ivies who are not at the very top of their sport and/or class.</p>
<p>It varies a lot by sport. Provider, Harvard recruits horribly for track and field and the coach has almost no clout with admissions. You could be the next Frank Shorter and Harvard wouldn't care. Columbia is better about recruiting, but it really depends what they need that particular year.</p>
<p>MofWC,</p>
<p>You couldn't be more inaccurate with your statement about the Harvard track coach. He is new as of last school year. His recruiting roster for next fall is 40 strong, and even includes at least one National Champion!</p>
<p>Hopefully the new coach will do better.</p>