<p>To play a sport at an Ivy League school, you still have to be VERY good. The guys who play at big time D1 programs (such as SEC schools) are ridiculously good.</p>
<p>The Ivy League, by definition is a sports conference. What I don’t get is all the complaints about athletic recruits. The members of this League make sports a priority. If one disagrees with that environment, don’t apply. Look to Chicago and WashU instead.</p>
<p>How can I POSE A NEW THREAD?</p>
<p>
The schools have quite a bit if freedom of how they assign their AI slots by sport … from the outside I’d guess Harvard has decided to use more of their lowe AI slots on basketball … however if they are that means they have fewer lower AI slots for other sports. Each school can prioritize their sports differently … for example, Cornell probably uses more lowr AI slots on hockay and lacrosse than most of the other IVYies</p>
<p>The article stated that 13% of the ivy attendees are athletes. Add in legacies and good luck in the lottery. Otherwise you need to be strong in something the ivy schools value.</p>
<p>BTW, i suspect donations increase when teams do well</p>
<p>[How</a> to Get Into an Ivy League School: 9 steps - wikiHow](<a href=“http://www.wikihow.com/Get-Into-an-Ivy-League-School]How”>How to Get Into an Ivy League School (with Pictures) - wikiHow)</p>
<p>“Over all, there are hundreds of teams with A.I. averages well into the 200s. In a response to a commissioned report on Brown athletics issued this year, the university’s president, Ruth J. Simmons, said that for the four most recent admissions classes throughout the league, Brown had seven sports with average A.I.’s under 200; Dartmouth and Penn had 5; Columbia 3; Yale 1; and Harvard and Princeton none. Simmons did not mention Cornell in her written response.”</p>
<p>This made my day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Black students get in with those stats all the time (and I’m talking about ordinary black kids with no special athletic or artistic talents).</p>
<p>^That statement makes great press but is not true. Just take a look at Collegeboard SAT data tables. HYP can find plenty of African American students with SAT scores over 2100. These top 3 schools do not have to dip. All they need is approximately 350 students to fill the class for these three schools.</p>
<p>I was/am being lightly recruited by an Ivy League school for athletics (won’t be taking the offer up). For the record, the coach told all of his potential recruits that anything north of a 3.0 and 1800 SAT was doable… but suffice to say, the 3.0, 1800er is the exception, not the rule. A lot of negative presumptions are afloat concerning athletes at academically prestigious schools, so I’d like to point this out: just because an athlete was accepted by an Ivy does not mean that they were accepted solely because of their athletics. They still have the academic bar to meet, it’s just set lower… and, for the record, that academic bar for athletes is higher at the Ivy League than at any other sports conference, as it should be. Of course, let us credit some of these athletes, because many of them really are Ivy-caliber overachievers in the classroom. An illustration is hardly necessary, but for what it’s worth, a friend of mine has a brother that’s currently rowing at Harvard, and everyone I know who met has met him agrees that he is a very bright guy. I’m certain he had a 3.9+, and probably 2100+.</p>
<p>I personally do not harbor the same feelings of animosity some others do toward recruited athletes at such institutions. Perhaps this is due to my proximity to the recruitment scene, but I really don’t think my rationale is unfounded. DI schools will always be seeking recruits, and they will always be given wiggle room (sometimes judiciously so). Typical applicants are therefore not competing with them, no way around it. Athletes compete with one another to be recognized by coaches, whereas academically-geared students compete with one another to be recognized by admissions officers. This goes for all schools, not just ones in the Ivy League, and you can think of it as more or less a quota. To me, then, born2dance94 saying that his classmate got into a HYP undeservedly is nonsensical. </p>
<p>I have to say, transfers 2010, your post was absolutely stupid and ridiculously untrue. To imply that any ethnicity has as much leverage in Ivy admissions that they can frequently be accepted with 1800s and 3.4s, with a non-rigorous courseload and lack of outstanding qualities/ECs on top of that, is humorously false, sorry to say.</p>
<p>when you’re spending 10-30 hrs/wk training, traveling to tournaments on weekends, maintaining a 3.96 uw gpa, and breaking 750 on all standardized tests, get back to me.</p>
<p>Lioness…there are MANY non-athletic activities that use the same amount of time/energy and have students that have those stats. My son is involved in FIRST Robotics- the amount of time involved surpasses sports, and requires significant travel on weekends for tournaments that are 12 hour days, 3 days long. Chess can have the same schedule, as can some of the other academic olympiads. Then there are those students that work, or do volunteer work for those hours as well. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, I believe you have bought into the very false presumption that dedication to sports is the only thing that can take up a significant and worthwhile amount of a students time.</p>
<p>If there are sour grapes out there, it is because of people with attitudes like yours that elevate athletes above academics, and apply a lower standard to an athletic application in the college entrance process.</p>
<p>a 3.0, 1800 SAT bar is in a completely different playing field than for the applicant who comes in without a hook. That record wouldn’t get a second look.</p>
<p>And, it’s not just D1 that sets the academic bar lower for recruited athletes…</p>
<p>These schools also stress the importance of course rigor. Yet, when I look at our Naviance, it is very clear that alot of these recruited athletes who get in over higher stats students also are not taking the honors / AP classes…</p>
<p>Lioness4- I wish they have a “Like” button for your post!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could that be the reason the admission officers try to build balanced classes with academically gifted students, with athletes, with people who excel in performing arts, with people who have made a difference in their communities, with people who have overcome odds, and with plenty of people with additional qualifiers. </p>
<p>The problem is rather simple: there will always be people who think their “spot” was taken by a member who possessed qualifications different from their own. The rejected 2400 SATer will always find slighted by the fact HIS school admitted an athlete with lesser stats. And the list of claims is wide ranging with similar displeasure among ethnic or SES groups. </p>
<p>Fwiw, here is a puzzling question for all the critics to digest. Why is it rather hard to reconcile the SAT and ranking percentiles at the tippy-top schools with the never-ending litany of PLENTY of poorly qualified students? </p>
<p>Isn’t it safe to assume that your very best chances to land one of those sought-after spots is still much higher for anyone who put together a very distinguished … academic pedigree?</p>
<p>First of all, not everyone thinks “their spot” was taken by an unqualified athlete. As a matter of fact, I have not yet even sent in my apps to some of these schools, so who knows how that will turn out. I understand those spots have always been reserved for athletes, and always will be. However, NO, I will never be supportive of the fact that those kids can be allowed in with such poor academic standing. I’m not even mad that this occurs, just mad that some people try to downplay it and say that it doesn’t take place. Just admit that it’s unfair and get on with it. Because it is. It is TOTALLY unfair that a less smart kid (yep, I said it! You aren’t as academically smart as the rest of the Ivy applicants if you’re applying with such low stats!!!) gets in not “in place” of smarter kids, but rather gets in while sooooooo many smart kids get turned away. Yes, there are a great many scholar-athletes, but it is TRULY sickening how many are not.</p>
<p>
How about you spend 10-25 hours a week on science research, 10-20 hours a week on debate, all your weekends researching or going to science or debate tournaments, maintaining a 3.99 GPA in 5 AP classes, and breaking 2300 on your SAT. Now can I come back to you? Seriously, so many athletes think that only sports take dedication. I understand and totally respect the effort and time that goes into sports. All I ask back is that athletes respect the time I and other academically-inclined students put into our respective extracurriculars.</p>
<p>As an aside… why does everyone think I’m a male? I’d assume someone with the name “born2dance” was a girl, but apparently not. ;P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. It would sound less hypocritical without the previous statement:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When you write “All I ask back is that athletes respect the time I and other academically-inclined students put into our respective extracurriculars.” what is that you’d expect those students to do to show such respect? Stop applying? Recognize that they should not have been recruited nor admitted?</p>
<p>Fwiw, have you considered the percentage of athletes who successfully parlay ten or more years of efforts into one scholarship or an admission at a prestigious school? </p>
<p>The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure why there was a confusion. Your posts made it abundantly clear that you are a … girl.</p>
<p>
No. I wasn’t saying that. I was referring to the poster who implied that sports is more effort than anything else one could do in high school: “when you’re spending 10-30 hrs/wk training, traveling to tournaments on weekends, maintaining a 3.96 uw gpa, and breaking 750 on all standardized tests, get back to me”
I would like people with that belief to realize that the kids applying with good academic credentials also put time and effort into doing well in school and extracurriculars, and wish they would not to discredit that.</p>
<p>Also, I was even saying that I understand they have always gotten these spots and will continue to do so. And that’s fine because nothing will ever change that. But it’s not fine for people to deny that it occurs. And, yet again, let me reiterate that I’m not suggesting they got in in the place of another specific student. Just the fact that a person could get in with such low scores, while many with great stats don’t, understandably makes people (like me) angry. We know we would never have a chance at HYP, despite spending copious amounts of time on academic-related pursuits. You can’t blame me for getting a bit angry when I see kids with low stats get into tough schools.</p>
<p>
2 people in this thread referred to me as a guy. And at least ten others have done so in the past few weeks here on CC. I was merely pondering why that is. No need for you to be rude and imply an offensive term with “…”. Do you understand how offensive it is to call a girl a b!tch? Have I personally insulted you anywhere here? No, so I ask that you treat me with the same respect.</p>
<p>howler of the day</p>
<p>From post #2:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, all athletes are stupid. Not intelligent at all. Not a single one of them is as smart as artists, musicians, debaters, writers, performers, STEM kids, etc. All they are good for is running or swimming fast or throwing a ball, and they can barely write their own names. </p>
<p>It must be so, since I read it on CC. </p>
<p>The amount of ridiculously unfounded assertions in some of these posts is phenomenal, and rather embarrassing. </p>
<p>It can “pizz” you off all you want, but “gottdam” it, you are probably wrong.</p>
<p>Also - you can always spellcheck your words if you aren’t sure of their spelling at Dictionary.com</p>
<p>Samuraulandshark…no one is saying that all athletes are stupid- far from it. But there are many times when athletes are admitted to schools based on a lower academic standard than others. Everyone knows this, it is not a secret. Yes, there are times when athletes meet both the athletic and academic standards of a particular university. Not a single person would begrudge that person their admission. But when a student that has spent many years working towards an academic goal sees a recruited athlete that is not in the top 10% of the HS class get into a selective school because of athletics (and has only mediocre academics), not athletics + stellar academics, it is discouraging.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Say what? Where does this come from? Surely not from my posts!</p>