Before Recruiting in Ivy League, Applying Some Math (New York Times)

Applying to College
41

<p>

Seeing as how both of those words are censored by CC, I knew very well what I was doing when I spelled them like that. You try spelling them correctly and see how they come up as merely *****. For someone with so many posts, you should know that many people spell words incorrectly here when they wish to have them not censored. Thanks for implying I can’t spell. </p>

<p>Also, I never said it was every student. However, seeing it happen at all is upsetting. And it is true. If the person is ranked well nationally, their academic stats could be extremely low and it would not matter. That is not to say that all athletes have low grades, but rather that athletes that have low grades do exist, and that it what “pizzes” me off. So no need to take my quote out of context and imply I am insulting all athletes and criticizing their collective lack of intelligence (which I don’t actually think exists). Because like it or not, what I said was completely true. If you are ranked top 5 in the country in a revenue-producing sport, your subpar grades won’t prevent you from being admitted. No need to mock me and say that I think all athletes are stupid. I know many that are not. I know a scholar-athlete playing tennis at Harvard, another playing golf at Princeton, and a really smart kid recruited to Yale for lacrosse who then chose the Navy. However, I also know those with low grades who got into those same institutions as athletes.</p>

<p>@Xiggi from the following:

I’m not sure if that is how you meant it, but the above quote, coupled with its accompanying post, seemed as if you were implying I am a “female dog” but wrote “girl” instead. If that is not how you meant it, I apologize; that is how I interpreted it.</p>

42

<p>Not sure what kind of athletes you’re referring to, but the ones I know are as well qualified as any other student worthy of admission to an Ivy, top university or LAC. Actually, the ones I know spend ‘copious amounts of time’ on all of the things required to make him/her a compelling applicant to admissions, not just their sport. Grades, rigor, test scores, EC’s, character, to name a few. Be careful trying to draw all athletes as so one dimensional.
Further, it’s obvious from the numbers involved that top schools could fill their freshman classes many times over. Without the effort to make each class as diverse as our world, a class could easily be filled by stats alone. Would you find it more interesting or fair for admissions to fill a class that way? Maybe your class would be one comprised of all male, ‘over represented’ URM’s who have 2400 SAT’s, three 800 SAT II’s, 15 AP course with 5’s on all tests, an enviable list of EC’s, never mind all the awards from being top scholars, etc. You see the point. Such a class would lack the very thing that makes the world such an interesting place: diversity. Instead of this approach, admissions tries to make a quilt of sorts with their applicant pool. Athletics is but one of the squares.</p>

43

<p>Of course it’s discouraging when someone who you don’t think is as good as you gets an offer of admissions to college (or a job, internship, romantic partner, etc.) Get used to it. Life is unfair. Sometimes one person gets a job when another one seemingly has more of the credentials required for the job. There are also unknowns that aren’t quantifiable. Maybe an interview didn’t go well. The resume may have a few typos or experience that isn’t as good as another applicant’s. Perhaps the boss has another internal applicant in mind, or looking for someone with quality X that applicant A didn’t have. So many factors, and odds are good that you (or I) don’t have all the facts on a particular applicant to know if they should be offered that spot at Harvard or Flagship U. </p>

<p>What is laughable to me, and pardon my sarcasm, is that it’s offered up here by many posters as almost gospel that athletes aren’t academically of the same caliber as other applicants. </p>

<p>It’s also a hoot to hear that athletes can pretty much write their own ticket if they are of a certain caliber. Some of them will. Most of them, won’t. They are simply going to continue to play the game or sport that they love, while at the same time working their butts off in college classes and keeping up with their classmates. </p>

<p>Having gone through the recruiting process with one kid who is in the top 5% of her class, loaded with academic and athletic honors, extracurricular activities on top of a demanding year round two sport regime…it’s far from that easy. There are only a certain number of slots in the country for her sport and with her major. I only wish that she had a scholarship that paid the whole way. It doesn’t. She was offered admission in November. I still won’t see that financial aid package until March, so it doesn’t help me all that much. Perhaps if she got accepted to an Ivy, she would have gotten a financial aid read early. </p>

<p>Perhaps you or the poster knows an applicant who they deem not as superior, but you just have no way of knowing what that prospective student can bring to the university. It may be about more than their athletic accomplishments. </p>

<p>I am also astounded at how many people here say that someone they know from their high school isn’t as qualified and are “shocked, I tell you shocked, when they got into _______”.</p>

<p>When I was in high school, we had one of those girls. She was a nice kid, smart but not stellar student. Or so we thought. She was a cheerleader and a leader on campus. Went to Stanford, and became an attorney. I knew her pretty well and was one of those kids that initially was surprised that she got into that school. Yet, it wasn’t totally fair, because for whatever reason, Stanford saw something in her that other kids didn’t. Apparently, she was an amazing writer and nearly got perfect scores on her SAT’s. Back in those days, we didn’t have 20 AP classes and weighted GPA’s, either.</p>

<p>That’s the problem with this whole college admissions process. We all think we know what a college wants. It may want X number of bassoonists or swimmers or debaters. It also may want a certain number of quirky kids and scientists and whatever else. In the end, they are building a class, and diversity is what they want. </p>

<p>Ivy League schools and even top schools with Division 1 schools want interesting classes with kids that can do the work. It doesn’t do them much good if they have a superior athlete who can’t graduate. If they end up with a quarterback who can throw for a certain number of yards, they also want a kid who can graduate, because it effects their graduation rates.</p>

<p>Some schools have sports teams with nearly 100% graduation rates. Conversely, some do not.</p>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>The posters totally in support of recruited athletes keep implying that the rest of us are universally saying all athletes are stupid. Not at all the case. Take a good look through this entire thread. What you’ll see is that nearly everyone asserts that many of the recruited athletes are scholar-athletes through-and-through. We DO NOT deny this. All we are saying is that such is NOT the case for every athlete. </p>

<p>You cry foul and claim we insult all athletes, yet looking at the words we’ve actually said, you’ll see how far that is from the truth. And until the pro-all-recruited athletes posters can admit that the rest of us are only talking about a number of academically under-qualified kids, this will never calm down. This is like a debate round in which the opponents keep citing a quote or idea you never brought up, yet will not agree that you never said that.</p>

45

<p>It’s inconceivably impossible to have 2 billion posts. Some quirk of the CC software. Like having some taboo words come up as ****, even though some come through, as in your last post.</p>

<p>I have never encountered a single athlete with less than stellar grades and test scores who was admitted into an Ivy League. </p>

<p>In terms of nationally ranked revenue generating sports, I suspect that if you are in the top five, it would be easier to gain admission. But most sports aren’t revenue generating, are they?</p>

<p>Yet, still the colleges want the sports and athletes. Ask yourself why? Is it because it’s a team sport and even kids that don’t play the sport come and watch these activities as a way to build campus spirit? Even a perpetually losing team like Cal Tech’s basketball team, one that has lost games for 26 years in a row, still supports it. Why? </p>

<p>[The</a> Caltech Beavers men’s basketball team finally solves equation - ESPN Los Angeles](<a href=“Impressive Test debut vs India adds to Alick Athanaze's special year - ESPN”>The Caltech Beavers men's basketball team finally solves equation - ESPN)</p>

<p>Those are some brainy kids at Cal Tech, and I suspect that those that are in charge of administration have a plan to continue to sponsor these non-winning teams. </p>

<p>Would they be better served to have 100 more artists than 100 more athletes in an admissions class? </p>

<p>I am not judging that athletes are better than artists. Just a hypothetical statement. </p>

<p>In terms of alumni donations, there is a correlation between successful athletic teams and alumni giving. Bigger endowments = bigger scholarships which make everyone happy on campus, even those who don’t play sports.</p>

46

<p>In post #38, I did poke fun of your quote from post #2. Read what you wrote again. To paraphrase, you said you were angry that some athletes get admission even when they aren’t intelligent. If you meant something else, than my apologies. </p>

<p>I don’t know many stereotypical “dumb jocks” that got a ticket to Division 1 programs. Perhaps you do. I know a couple of kids that couldn’t get into Division 1 schools for their sports because they were below the criteria for the admissions requirements of those schools. They weren’t terrible students, but not academically what the coaches were looking for. They were pretty good athletes, too. </p>

<p>We could go round and round about it. I could play this game all day, if you wish. It’s not just this thread, but multiple threads that have said this over the years. </p>

<p>I have been on CC for several years now, so I know how it works. THings do get taken out of context all the time.</p>

47

<p>Born 2 Dance - the IVY schools do as good a job rewarding merit as any “institution” in our society and at the margin an accepted 2250 is the same as a rejected 2300. I think the bigger risk to the IVY league is the rejection of thousands of qualified applicants. </p>

<p>If you do well in school and in your career you will have an opportunity to reject the IVY’s. although i would not suggest becoming bitter at your age you may have an opportunity later in life to even the score and use your rejection as a motivating factor in your life. Whatever you do - don’t consider yourself a reject</p>

48

<p>Remember Howard Gardner (and Ivy Leaguer) and Daniel Goleman wrote about many types of intelligence including athletic intelligence.</p>

49

<p>Many ivy athletes have sub 2000 sat scores. I am in the athletic circle and know for a fact this occurs quite often. The ivy schools should first admit according to academic quality then fill their sport teams.</p>

50

<p>Scores of 2400 on the new SAT are rare, period. </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/413821-sat-score-frequencies-freshman-class-sizes.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/413821-sat-score-frequencies-freshman-class-sizes.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>Every college, without exception, admits students who missed questions on the SAT, even though every question on every SAT has the right answer staring the test-taker in the face. (“Perfect” grade averages, or at least what are called “straight-A” grade averages, on the other hand, are rather common. Grade averages are more meaningful coming from high schools with known records of serving up challenging courses that stimulate college-readiness, but if colleges had only ONE criterion for filling the entire entering class, with no other issue to consider, repeated study results suggest that high school grade average would be the criterion to choose.) The confusion about which criterion trumps which other criterion arises because </p>

<p>a) grades plainly aren’t completely comparable between one set of courses taken at the same high school and another, </p>

<p>b) grades are even less comparable between one high school and another, </p>

<p>c) colleges in a position of being highly selective like to have students who are outstanding in extracurricular activities as well as in schoolwork, </p>

<p>d) everyone thinks “my activity is hard, and that applicant’s activity is easy,” </p>

<p>and </p>

<p>e) nobody posting on College Confidential has seen a COMPLETE set of admission files from any college.</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>Absolutely correct.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But WHY should they? The “ivy schools” are a group that banded together to play sports. And since they want to win, it should be of no surprise that they accept gifted athletes. They make it clear to the world that they do – it ain’t a secret, just as Amherst and Williams readily admit that they accept athletes first. (And despite the so-called ‘news’ in the NYT, the 1800 threshold is well known in any HS that sends athletes to the Ancient Eight. Every coach readily tells his/her recruits that 1800 is the minimum.) </p>

<p>But back to the question: WHY should they be something other than they are?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If that type of admissions policy ‘pizzes’ you off, don’t apply! Find a school that is a better – non-sports – fit.</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, they deserve admissions support. But any other equally great EC should as well. I don’t think people with a 3.0 weighted and 1500/2400 would get in to HYPS no matter what their ECs were, unless they were the President’s kid. But I’ve heard things like that happening to recruited athletes. I’m not saying all athletes are unqualified of course. There are many 4.0/2400 athletes and I’m sure most of the athletes at Ivies are academically qualified. But some aren’t and wouldn’t have gotten in if athletics was viewed the same way as other ECs that require time. I doubt being an IMO winner takes any less effort than being a recruit-level athlete, but HYPS would never reject a top athlete with perfect academics however bad their essays were, while IMO winners with otherwise stellar academics and decent other ECs have been rejected in the past.</p>

53

<p>Why should the ivy schools “first admit according to academic quality”? Sincerely. And I do realize they are “schools”. My kid ( 2270, 770,700, NMSF, AP scholar, A minus average at a place where that is tall cotton, all american, all state, multiple time state champion) is a recruited athlete and if the Ivies were only or even mostly about pure academics i wouldn’t be that excited for kid to go there. Read these boards. Talk to the kids who go to the top schools for any reason. I haven’t found many on these HYPS sites or in person who rave about their classroom experience. It sounds tremendously variable, ranging from the incredible down to the disappointing, but on the average pretty good. Just pretty good. What everyone comments on and loves is the atmosphere at the school created by the amazing melting pot of students that these top tier schools deliberately choose (and have been choosing quite successfully for decades judging by the clamor for admission) to make up their student body. My kid is plenty smart, though by no means a brainiac; however, she really admires the brainiacs for their own worth. Maybe, just maybe, these schools are looking for brainiacs who can appreciate the athletes for what they bring to the mix. I understand why those with near perfect high school records are disappointed when they get deferred/denied and a “lesser” mind gets in, but I think you have to be honest about what these schools are after in terms of a student body.</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not actually that difficult if you have any understanding whatsoever of the definition of a percentile. By definition, when a school reports its 25th percentile SAT scores for its admitted class, it tells us that 25% of the students it admitted (yes, that’s one in four) had a score less than or equal to that score.</p>

<p>Let’s take a hypothetical school that admits 100 students. The school reports that its 25th percentile SAT math score among admitted students is 800. It is entirely possible that 76 of these students scored an 800 and the other 24 scored a 200. It is also entirely possible that all 100 students scored an 800. Percentiles technically tell us very little.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: Some definitions of percentile use “below” instead of “at or below.” Both technically allow for approximately 25% of admitted students to have scores <em>considerably lower</em> than the 25th percentile score, which is my point here. Additionally, I understand that while it is technically possible that 25% of admitted students have scores considerably lower than the 25th percentile, this is unlikely because of the reality of college admissions. My point is simply that percentiles are not as informative as some make them out to be and that most people don’t understand what information they’re really giving us.</p>

<p>–
Anyway, as to the main issue of this thread, my issue is with the primary and secondary education system in the US insofar as it tends to value and reward athleticism too highly while comparatively ignoring academic merit. Don’t get me wrong – athletic ability does have its place in a productive society and is important to a significant sector of the economy. However, its applications are far narrower than the applications of academic ability, for it is ridiculously difficult to pursue a career in sports (and sports-related careers require abilities beyond athletics that are usually academic in some regard).</p>

<p>What I take issue with is that it is socially far more desirable to be an excellent athlete than it is to be an excellent student, and schools tend to be far better at rewarding and honoring their athletes than they are at rewarding and honoring students for academic achievements. While there is generally not a perception that honoring athletic achievement is being mean to students who aren’t as good at sports, there are often cries that programs that reward academic achievement are unfair and harm the self-esteem of students who aren’t doing as well. </p>

<p>The emphasis of the primary and secondary education system, especially from a social standpoint created through socialization both in and out of school, is heavily on athletics over academics, which is ridiculous given that it is an education system. Placing a greater emphasis both officially and socially on academics would likely be beneficial to society by providing further incentive to do well in school.</p>

<p>Athletic success can’t continue to be a legitimate alternative to academic success. While it is certainly not a complete alternative, it is definitely a partial alternative. While someone who excels in robotics or debate is probably still expected to do just as well as everyone else academically, excellent athletes are given a bit of slack from an academic standpoint because of their athletic success and their commitment to their sport, regardless of the fact that many academic pursuits rival or exceed this commitment.</p>

<p>Anyway, end rant (for now).</p>

55

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, you’ve said it right there – they’re schools. They exist to educate people, not to train them to play sports. Thus, the primary consideration should be academics, not athletics. I do, however, agree that a diverse student body is important, and that it enhances the educational experience. I contend that such a student body must be created by emphasizing something else over academics. Yes, other things are important, but when building the student body for an educational institution, the primary consideration should be academics, as they relate most directly to education.</p>

<p>A diverse student body created at the expense of academic excellence still enhances the educational environment in its diversity, but it is not worth the harm it causes in the lack of academic excellence and motivation, the presence of both of which is essential to a strong educational and classroom environment.</p>

<p>A school is, first and foremost, a school. That so many believe a school should not have as its first criteria for admission the academic ability of a student is a testament to the massive societal problem created by the undue emphasis on athletics over academics.</p>

56

<p>Massive societal problem? You mean this process that’s been going on for the last 50+ years and has led to greater and greater numbers of applications every year? That massive societal problem? Or the massive societal problem of kids thinking the only place they can actually learn is decided for them by those in the CC bubble or the editors of USNWR? I think I do know why schools don’t select solely on the basis of academic merit. Schools exist to educate and the education takes place in a lot of different places, the classroom just being one of them. We aren’t talking about CalTech or MIT, though they are excellent schools. The top schools by these standard measures are mostly liberal arts colleges. The majority of the students at these schools who graduate with any particular major will not work in those fields – the English majors typically don’t become English professors or writers, the govt. majors mostly don’t go into govt, the math majors don’t become mathmeticians just as the football players mostly don’t go on to play pro football. I’d even wager that most of the engineering graduates aren’t doing engineering 10 years after they graduate. So what was the purpose of their classroom activity? To paraphrase a popular saying, your education is what you’re left with when you forgot everything you learned in college. And to be honest, no matter how bloody brilliant you think you may be, that will be about four years after you graduate. I believe you learn to think, question, lead and get along on the field, on the stage and in the classroom and no place is necessarily more valid than the others. On another note, to be fair, as much as my family loves athletics I would agree with you that sports has taken on outsize importance in this country and in our schools.</p>

57

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure, but an IMO or Intel winner who could throw a football or run a 4.4-40 yard dash… :)</p>

58

<p>EC’s that “take the same time commitment” are NOT egual.</p>

<p>Many of you are not seeing the obvious reasons athletic participation is valued by the IVY’s and IMPORTANTLY by EMPLOYERS. Athletic participation generally demonstrates 1) an ability to commit to an endeavor over a relatively “long” time period, 2) an ability to assimilate into a team structure, 3) an ability to face a challenge and prepare for it, 4) an ability to overcome adversity, and 5) an ability to mentor others and 6) an ability to think and evaluate in a stressful environment among the headline reasons why athletes with solid academics are valued.</p>

<p>I have been in that type of work environment for a long time and although all hires have never focused on a candidates athletic background i can say without hesitation that washout employees who were not athletes are significantly more likely to have issues in the categories listed above.</p>

<p>Contest the points above but please do not identify a specific example of why you disagree (my son never participated in athletics and he got a job at XYZ).</p>

59

<p>And no comments on the spelling of equal :)</p>

60

<p>Education is not merely academic. Part of an education is learning how to survive in the world around you; if you want to dive into academia, all Ivy schools allow you to do that. For most, however, preparing for the real world means interacting with people with varied interests.</p>

<p>One thing that people really forget is that athletics aren’t the only hooks at Ivy institutions; they are simply the most visible. A friend of mine was recruited for Math; another was recruited for theater performance. I got in because I live in a favorable geographic area. Many people got in because their parents are wealthy or have good connections. </p>

<p>Every single hook allows applicants a better chance of admission with lower grades and scores… that’s just the way it is. </p>

<p>By the standards that many people are advocating (choose for academics first and everything else later), schools would need to just hope that they will get a diverse class rather than guarantee it. There could be no early decision, since that would allow less qualified students in. It would be one round in which the only things that mattered would be GPA and SAT/ACT.</p>

<p>The other thing that people often forget when going on a diatribe against athletic recruiting is that intelligence is NOT purely academic. A friend of mine was recruited to an Ivy League school for athletics, and she was not the most academically gifted person in the world, but she had an unshakable interest in psychology, specifically with regard to athletes. She did not graduate with a 4.0, but she did perform groundbreaking research that will soon affect sports at all levels.</p>

<p>Intelligence manifests itself in a multitude of ways, and the most successful people are not always the smartest: they are the people who balance academic intelligence with emotional intelligence, maturity, dynamism and ambition.</p>