<p>I don’t agree with the way athletes are recruited for Ivy League, they basically telly you you just need like a 500 min score on each section of SAT and as long as you aren’t in tech prep classes you can get in. That being said though those schools also don’t give a crap if you’re an athlete once you’re attending the school. So a lot of times they have a crappy experience because they get bad grades, dedicate lots of time to sport and then don’t get other opportunities.</p>
<p>I just read the entire thread, and I agree completely with born2dance94’s opinions. I feel that it is completely unfair for athletes (and other hooked applicants) to be held to lower admission standards than everyone else. The very fact that different groups of students have different admission standards means that it is not an equal (or “fair”) playing field. As another fellow student who worked extremely hard in high school, I was understandably disappointed when hooked applicants with lower academic stats got into schools that I didn’t. </p>
<p>I understand the importance of diversity in elite universities. I do not feel that these hooked applicants took a spot away from me, because we are on separate playing fields. I do believe that colleges should be allowed to accept whoever they like (athletes, URM’s, etc.) for the sake of diversity. After all, students with great academic stats will surely be able to find a great college to attend. </p>
<p>However, the elite colleges ARE sending a terrible message by accepting applicants with lower stats. For overachievers like me, after studying hard for 4 years, it was a crushing blow to be denied from my dream college (which wasn’t an Ivy by the way). I experienced a feeling of disillusionment. Why did I study for all those hours and work hard to get straight A’s, if hooked applicant attained the same goals with lower grades and test scores? Why didn’t I slack off more in high school, since I could have ended up the same college I’m at anyway? This message that “athletics and other hooks are more important than academics” felt absolutely demoralizing when I was a high school senior. The fact is that the nation’s best institutions of higher education are sending this message to high school students every year. </p>
<p>@Pancaked, the Ivies are NOT sending a “GREAT message to kids”. In my opinion, which countless other share, a 3.0 GPA and a 1800 SAT (stats cited elsewhere in this thread) are not decent academic standards - especially since the Ivies are presumably the best colleges in the nation. You may be correct that they are trying to say that “athletics are an important part of their institution”. But that’s not the message that high school students get when hooked applicants are accepted into elite colleges, and they are denied. </p>
<p>Yes, the Ivies can accept whoever they want. I understand that URM’s and athletes add diversity to colleges, and they will continue to be held to lower admission standards. I just wish people could understand the viewpoint that this practice is unfair. Society has always told students “if you study hard and get good grades, you’ll be able to get into a great college”. The Ivies are sending the exact opposite message with their admission practices, which value athletics over academics. Therefore, un-hooked applicants who are denied are bound to feel negatively when their grades are overlooked for other attributes. </p>
<p>In my opinion, what needs to be changed is the society mentality that good grades and test scores are all you need. On a side note, people also need to realize that there are tons of other colleges (besides the Ivies) where you can get an equivalent education. If elite universities openly admitted that their admission practices are unfair, unequal, and favor hooks such as athletics and URM, people would stop calling foul and feeling cheated. The reason that high school applicants place such emphasis on academics is because that’s what they’ve always been taught. If the Ivies would simply issue statements saying that their admission practices favor hooked applicants, I believe a lot of this animosity toward athletes would end.</p>
<p>SamuraiLandShard and vlines,
Yes I know it’s not a “scholarship” in the true sense of the word, but that’s the best word I can use to explain it. They are paying 90% of his fees.
It wouldn’t be need based aid. I come from Carlsbad, California, where, chances are, you’re either a very upper middle class white family or a lower class Latino family (he’s the former). I played Pop Warner with him back in middle school, and I’ve seen his glamorous house.
So he has little need. But he’s getting a huge amount of money.</p>
<p>@bernie, the graduation rate for NCAA athletes is actually significantly higher than the national average. They’re actually MORE likely to finish college. It’s not a crappy experience and bad grades.</p>
<p>@Elite, an 1800 on the SAT puts you in about the top 20% of SAT takers, and a 3.0 is a B average. If you don’t think that’s decent, you’re quite the elitist, and need to take a look at the average statistics in this country. When the non-athlete highschool applicant gets rejected, its because another non-athlete highschool applicant took his spot. It has nothing to do with the hooked athlete. They are in a separate pool.</p>
<p>Like I said, these colleges want athletes and certain spots in year’s class are reserved for athletes. By putting such academic standards on athlete admissions, these top institutions are doing something that almost every other university chooses not to do, and telling everyone that academics are important.</p>
<p>You pretend that colleges don’t admit there are lower standards for hooked applicants. THEY DO. They aren’t hiding it. The article in the first post is proof. They admit that they recruit athletes that aren’t quite up to par with the rest of the student body. They admit that legacy students get preference. They admit to recruiting URMs.</p>
<p>There are approximately 2 million high school graduates each year. A few years ago, the projections were that it was going to peak at 2.5 in 2009, and go down after that. </p>
<p>Of this number, there are only 50,000 or so Ivy League students at any given time from, Freshman to Senior year. </p>
<p>When the admissions statistics are somewhere less than 10% for most of the Ivies, it’s pretty tough to secure a spot. Even if you applied to all 8, you could theoretically be denied from all of them. </p>
<p>What’s a student to do? </p>
<p>A smart student will play the odds and know that these schools are a reach, even for the most intellectual amazing student and that these schools have a very specific mission. That said, of course it’s sad and frustrating and humbling when you do not get in or have the stats to apply, but the reality is that hard work and dedication do pay off. Even without an Ivy League education.</p>
<p>There are roughly 3000 colleges in the country. Most students can probably name less than 100. We are all so focused on achieving and here in CC-land, want to go to Ivies ever so badly, but in the end there are only so many slots available. </p>
<p>When I say life isn’t fair, I am not trying to be rude. It’s something I learned the hard way when I was your age, born2dance. I applied to two schools and got rejected from one. Or deferred, but to me, it was a rejection. Back then, students didn’t apply to a dozen or so schools. It was devastating and I remember it very clearly, and I think one of the reasons I post here is to share my perspectives…and that is, don’t sink all of your dreams into one or two schools. There are many excellent ones! Even if you do everything right in college admissions - or in life - there will be disappointments. We aren’t trying to be bubble bursters or snotty, it’s just happens every year. Someone or many posters will start moaning about how it’s not fair and something snaps. We don’t mean to be cruel, and that isn’t ever my intent. Just to point out that wishing on a dream is great, but don’t let it ruin your life, either. Being young and bitter isn’t a good recipe for happiness, IMO. Some of your posts did seem to suggest that you were cynical and angry about this - perhaps that is why you got some snarky posts in return. Not justifying it - just what it appears from my side of the keyboard. </p>
<p>I know far too many seniors who have never experienced true sadness and disappointment until they get a denial or two. They have never failed a test or bombed a paper or gotten anything except kudos from mom and dad and teachers. They have done everything right. They worked hard! They should be rewarded, right? </p>
<p>The realization that expectations and hopes don’t always meet a fruitful end is hard to deal with. You are not happy about one particular inequity in life - that some athletes do get lessened admissions standards to Ivy League schools. This is patently unfair and smacks of something that seems wrong.</p>
<p>The lesson that some of us are trying to impart is that sometimes there are things that suck and that college admissions is just the tip of the iceberg. Lots and lots of things truly aren’t fair and all things considered, it’s really not.</p>
<p>If you lived in another country, you may not even get a chance at a high school education, much less a chance at a college education. </p>
<p>There are kids who can’t afford to pay for their books, much less their tuition for State U and opt to go to a community college. Even with financial aid, there is still not enough money to make it work. Do you know what the odds are that the student will transfer to a 4 year university, going the community college route in California? It’s about 17% within 6 years.</p>
<p>Do you know what the earning power is for an individual without a college education, at all? </p>
<p>Anyway - the Ivies will always do what they want. They can. They are private schools and have their own agenda. That agenda will likely include athletes. And oboe players. They can write the rules of admissions however they see fit.</p>
<p>@Pancaked</p>
<p>OK, an 1800 SAT is decent compared to test-takers worldwide. But it is below the 25% percentile at every single one of the Ivy League colleges. My point was countering your point that the Ivies are sending a good message to kids, that academics still mattered regardless of athletics. I’m arguing that it doesn’t send that message, because the academic standards are lower for recruited athletes. It sends the message that academics can be overlooked if athletic ability is up-to-par, hence academics is not important in the long run.</p>
<p>Yes, elite colleges do admit that there are lower standards for hooked applicants, but they could do a better job publicizing this fact. The majority of American society still believes that being an academic superstar is enough. That is why high-scoring high school seniors with straight A’s feel disillusioned and angry when athletes with lower stats get accepted.</p>
<p>Also, I completely agree that they are hooked and non-hooked applicants are in separate pools. That is why I believe that the Ivies should publicly proclaim this and make it known to the students who apply. (Maybe they could have a paragraph on their official application websites talking about which specific hooks they consider valuable during admissions.) Once society realizes that the Ivies value athletes, URM’s, and legacies during admissions, then high school applicants will stop feeling like their spot was stolen by someone with lower stats. They will realize people with hooks are on completely different playing fields. Then, like I said in my previous post, animosity toward these hooked groups would end. </p>
<p>Sure, savvy students could go on College Confidential (or read that article in the first post) and realize the unfairness of elite college admissions. The majority of American society will not do this though, and the myth that academic stats are all-important will prevail. which is why I believe the Ivies should take the initiative to make their preference for hooked applicants known. People will still think hooks are unfair, but they will learn to accept them as part of the admission process.</p>
<p>Just to clarify, having society realize that the Ivies value hooked applicants is only one of the possible positive results. I consider the fundamental problem with hooked applicants in college admissions to be what others in this thread have established: the preference for athletics (and other hooks) over academics. As institutions of higher education, they are supposed to be encouraging students to learn and study hard. However, their admission policies seemingly send the message that academics do not matter after all - since they accept applicants with lower grades in school as long as they have hooks. This is a terrible message to send to high school students, and I think we can all agree that hard work and diligence should be valued instead. Using the solution in my above post, if the Ivies could simply publicize that they value hooks during admissions, then everyone would realize that hooked and unhooked students are on two different playing fields. Unhooked applicants would realize that they cannot compare their stats with URM’s and athletes. Then, academics (and studying hard) would be emphasized again, and the “message that Ivies send” by accepting athletes, URM’s, and legacies with lower stats would not be so often misunderstood and misconstrued.</p>
<p>But it’s not a preference for hooks over academics at the Ivies.</p>
<p>It’s hooks, plus academics. And test scores.</p>
<p>There are just different things that each subgroup needs according to the mission of the university. Each doesn’t have the same bar necessarily, depending upon what the university wants, most.</p>
<p>Yet, there is a typical basic standard at the Ivies. Even that level is higher than some of the higher standards at most other universities.</p>
<p>Holistic admissions isn’t absolute. There simply isn’t enough supply to go around to make it happen for everyone who meets the standards.</p>
<p>Again I think it’s pretty absurd to insensate that any top tier institution is undermining the value of academics. They provide the best educations in the world and students dream of attending them.</p>
<p>I stand by my belief that the ivy league should be praised for holding their athletes to a pretty high academic standard when the majority of the college world would accept a great athlete without regard for their grades and scores. Of ALL the schools to target as devaluing education to kids, you’ve picked the wrong ones. The Ivy League is a beacon of light in this regard.</p>
<p>This sends a message that says: “Wow. Having strong athletic programs are an integral part of these schools, and they STILL only accept athletes that have good scores and grades. They really take academics seriously. Some of the greatest highschool athletes, who have the potential to lead Ivy League teams, school spirit, alumni support, reputation and prestige, etc. to incredible levels, are TURNED AWAY because they had a B- average or because they only scored in the top 70% of students on the SAT and THAT ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH at the Ivy League.”</p>
<p>Besides, I don’t think anyone in their right mind will stop trying in school and focus on becoming nationally ranked in a sport in order to get into one of these institutions…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THANK YOU. I can’t believe that some people are really undermining the skill you need to play in the Ivy League conference. This isn’t DIII sports, this is big boy DI where the difficulty of being recruited by an Ivy is pretty rough. </p>
<p>My school is known for consistently ranking in the top 10 NATIONALLY in girls field hockey - over a decade of consecutive championships and national coverage highlight their success. The two Ivy league kids who got in Penn and Harvard are not only intelligent, but were absolutely dominant on the field - as in, not only the best of the best of a highly touted field hockey program, but also among the best in their position in the entire country.</p>
<p>@ SamuraiLandshark, I agree with you. The Ivies are not saying that academics do not matter. The real message is that academics and studying hard in school ARE majorly important for unhooked applicants. Hooked applicants are in a separate category and academic stats just matter less for them.</p>
<p>However, this message is often misconstrued when people don’t realize that there hooked and unhooked are two separate categories. I was one of the many high school seniors with high stats who felt like all their hard work went for nothing after being denied from my dream college. A URM with lower stats was accepted. I’m currently going to a college where my SAT score is above the 75th percentile. For a while, I got the message that academics didn’t matter. Why should I have studied hard in school if I could have gotten into my current college anyway? Why should I have practiced so much for the SAT’s, if a hooked applicant would “take my spot” in my dream college anyway? I mistakenly thought that the Ivies didn’t value academics, since they chose someone with lower SAT scores and grades - over me.</p>
<p>This happens everywhere. It will continue to happen as long as people don’t realize that hooked and unhooked are two different playing fields. The “message” will keep being misunderstood until it is made common knowledge. Like I mentioned before, this problem could be solved if the Ivies would just flat-out state these things.</p>
<p>You have to be in about the top 0.8% of student athletes to just be qualified for D1 sports. And after that, you need to be in the top 20% of all SAT takers and have decent grades. It’s not exactly the ideal route to the Ivy league.</p>
<p>Just saying. Not meant as a response to anything.</p>
<p>I was really here combat born2dance’s first post, which was totally out of line.</p>
<p>Saying it is ridiculous that a 3.0 and 1140 SAT (or whatever the exact number) are considered “on par” with other Ivy acceptances is in NO way out of line. The other point I made in my first post was the same repeated throughout-- that Ivies should come out and explicitly admit that hooks have the ability to make a huge difference.</p>
<p>Yet again, not “out of line.”</p>
<p>born2dance94 - I agree with most of what you’re saying. I agree that a 3.0/1140 is absurd for an Ivy, but try to find a reasonable middle ground. Take the case of DS, an Ivy athlete who had a 236 AI. I believe you’re OK with him being accepted, but he needs teammates, too. When his coach talks to recruits, he tells them they need a 3.8+ with rigor and 700s across the board to be in the hunt. This is a non revenue sport. Does that seem reasonable to you?</p>
<p>we are indeed talking in circles which, i know, is sometimes what cc is about. venting, preaching, educating etc. </p>
<p>Again, the bottom line is that it is impossible to be an educated consumer, which presumably tt college applicants are, and not realize that a hook is better than no hook…there is no mystery or conspiracy. the elite colleges value, among many things, athletics. Period. In combination with strong academics, athletic excellence is seen as a desirable asset. They never lie about this. If you can be the bassoonist they need for the orchestra -also great. If you can donate a library, even better. These are private institutions and they set their own standard for admission; you don’t like what they offer? Apply elsewhere…</p>
<p>University is not merely a laboratory or think tank; each school take great pride in their own particular flavor of lifestyle and for many, though not all, a strong athletic program is seen as a critical ingredient to the special sauce.</p>
<p>
@Sherpa that is excellent and commendable, and as I have said all along I do not find fault with that at all. It is only when a recruited athlete has very low stats that I believe it is sending the wrong message.</p>
<p>Some half-baked football player at my school is going to Harvard with a 25 ACT and a 3.00 GPA(W or UW idk). </p>
<p>It’s kind of sad that he gets to go when probably less than half of our top ten kids will go to an ivy league, working their butts off maintaining a stellar academic record.</p>
<p>Nothing would make me happier than being able to say that the “dumb jock” stereotype is a myth, because I think it’s unfair to the true student/athletes to be painted with that brush. But for some athletes in some sports, at least, the stereotype is true and, in my opinion, the admission advantage is unreasonable.</p>
<p>It would do all the juniors and seniors a world of good to have this short read on their list before filling out their applications. </p>
<p>It’s a transcript of an NPR interview/behind the scenes look at how the admissions process works at Amherst.</p>
<p>[Behind</a> The Scenes: How Do You Get Into Amherst? : NPR](<a href=“Behind The Scenes: How Do You Get Into Amherst? : NPR”>Behind The Scenes: How Do You Get Into Amherst? : NPR)</p>
<p>Once you see that, you will understand that some of the college admissions decisions are simply a luck of the draw/fate - that school wants what you have, that year.</p>
<p>It’s also somewhat of a sliding scale, with athletic ability and scores. Coaches need to balance out their recruits, so there are many athletes with top scores that a coach recruits to balance out the one or two 1800 recruits. Honestly, I believe it is harder to become a D1 recruit than it is to be academically strong enough to get accepted to an ivy. If they can balance both, they should get accepted. </p>
<p>Also, keep in mind that the recruiting process starts and finishes much before the admissions process does. Athletes often make a verbal commitment to a school before the start of their junior year, before even taking the SAT’s. Most sign an official NLI binding them to the school in late november, before the athletes receive their acceptance letter, so they need to have a guarantee with admissions. Coaches need to know earlier who’s coming for each recruiting class, so they fill each position. For the ivy’s, a coach can issue likely letters, where the athlete must submit a pre-application to admissions. </p>
<p>Above all, there are plenty of 1800 SAT score students getting in to ivy’s without athletics. Why focus on the hooks that an applicant has actually put in time and dedication to receive? What about all of the URM and legacy applicants?</p>