<p>All else being equal, tall, athletic, assertive people tend to earn far more than their counterparts. These people also tend to play football. This doesn't mean that football itself causes them to make more, and I think that the statistical adage "correlation is not causation" might be useful here.</p>
<p>Right, I am not claiming that they are more successful BECAUSE they play sports. As I said, seeing their accomplishents iin sports may simply tell you that they have the traits that lead to accomplishments later in life. </p>
<p>But if you want to turn out people who make a difference in the world, then you want to admit people who are likely to do so. Perversely, good athletes tend to qualify. It may be a restriction of range effect. The overall academic level of Harvard students is so high that small differences among them may be meaningless. But there may be big differences in determination, self confidence, team work, etc. These are difficult to glean from GPA's and SAT scores, but required for a good high school athlete. There may be a small spread in academic ability between people at the 33th and the 66th percentile in class rank, but big differences between the less and more ambitious, assertive, confident, and goal-oriented students.</p>
<p>Look, I think the Ivies have made a mistake by trying to turn themselves into miniature copies of the CFA in sports. I can't imagine anything more humiliating for an Ivy school than to be nationally ranked in football. Considering what goes on at the top footbal schools- recruiting scandals, no-show classes, pathetic graduation rates for the athletes- I would think the Ivies would want as little to do with that scene as they can manage. </p>
<p>I'm just pointing out that it may not be quite as irrational as it seems.</p>
<p>"I simply do not accept that being on the soccer team somehow teaches crucial life lessons that you can't get from the choir or the yearbook."</p>
<p>IMO, this depends on the particular activity (or sport). Dedication and accomplishment in many activities teach important lessons. But by their fundamental nature, many sports require a form of teamwork and cooperation that isn't replicated in other activities (such as the oboe example). For better or worse, former athletes and fraternity members are heavily over-represented in fields such as business that rely on related qualities.</p>
<p>It frustrates me to see people criticize athletes as a knee-jerk response simply because their grades and SAT scores are lower on average or because they're not perceived as being as "intellectual." To my mind, that misses many of the qualities that are most important in life.</p>
<p>If these schools were interested only in training scholars, then focussing exclusively on academic credentials might make more sense. Even here, a successful trip through grad school and rising in the ranks at a university requires perseverance and goal-oriented behavior. But of course these colleges have broader ambitions, and they realize that relatively few of their students will go on to doctoral study. So the super high GPA's and SAT scores may not be the best indicators of later life success. Important, yes, but not the only thing that counts.</p>
<p>I don't have data, but suppose you did have an index of life accomplishment and you found that, in addition to high school GPA and SAT, being an athlete was a positive predictor. Suppose further that athletes, on average, tended to be as successful (whatever that means) as non athletes with academic indices 1.2 SD higher. Then should you use athletic accomplishment as an admission criterion? If so, how much weight should it get? Should you target your athletes to be within 1.2 SD of the rest of the students on AI? Less? More?</p>
<p>The closer you look, the more interesting the question becomes.</p>
<br>
<p>But by their fundamental nature, many sports require a form of teamwork and cooperation that isn't replicated in other activities (such as the oboe example).</p>
<br>
<p>Oh, please. A symphony orchestra doesn't need to learn about teamwork and cooperation? A marching band doesn't? I never claimed that sports weren't useful activities, just that they shouldn't be given special status above other, equally enriching skills.</p>
<p>And by the way, if it's about teamwork and cooperation, why give huge preferences to singles tennis players or cross country runners or gymnasts, whose skill is almost entirely individual?</p>
<br>
<p>Show me that the 1350-scoring lacrosse players at Harvard are contributing more to the university than the 1500-scoring Crimson editors-in-chief, musical directors of a cappella groups, and presidents of the Uni-Lu Homeless Shelter, and I'll concede your point. Till then, yes, I'm actually going to expect that Harvard applicants should be expected to show extraordinary academic achievement on top of the great activities and personal qualities they bring to the mix. If it's unfair to judge applicants harshly because their GPA's and SAT's are lower, then it seems that the entire Harvard admissions process needs to be chucked.</p>
<br> [QUOTE=""]
<p>So the super high GPA's and SAT scores may not be the best indicators of later life success.</p>
<br>
<p>Yes, but they're not the only things athletes get a pass on. They also get a pass on having a really outstanding interview, fabulous teacher recs, a beautifully crafted essay, and everything else non-athletes need to have a good shot of getting into Harvard. If the coach wants you, and you meet the academic minimum for the sport, then barring some disaster (like a plagiarized essay), you're in.</p>
<p>Yeah, but those other things may be intended to sort among academic types, and not particularly relevant for the athlete trait. After all, top students get the best recs. If all the teacher can say is "nice kid, not a Harvard level student" because of a string of B-'s, then the rec merely restates what one can see from the transcript. If you are looking for athletic traits, then be honest and look for them.</p>
<p>Again, the traits that make for Crimson editors tend to follow those that make good students. The traits that make good athletes have some overlap, but less. </p>
<p>Most Harvard athletes are well above the AI minimums. Those B-, 1300 admits are the superstars. If you are an A-, 1450 and the coach wants you, you're in. If you are barely legal for Ivy athletics, then you had better be one great athlete. </p>
<p>The athletes need to be good enough to make it through, but they do not need to be competing for summas.</p>
<p>Harvard could certainly fill its class on academic promise alone, but it would be a very different place. Some of its top academic recruits also would not want to come if everyone were so obsessed with grades that the extracurriculars suffered. Harvard does get some good students who are also good athletes-not world champions, but good- who come in part for the sports. If Harvard switched to a Caltech like policy, then the composition of the class, and the tenor of the college, would change dramatically. It would turn out huge numbers of PhD's, but not so many business people, lawyers, politicians or physicians. Some of them might have the grades, but would not want to be there. Also say goodbye to many of the actors, artists and writers- their math SAT's would be too low. </p>
<p>I think athletics is overemphasized in the Ivies, but I don't think the people who run the schools are stupid or crazy. There are reasons for bringing in athletes, beyond providing the rest of the undergrads with entertainment.</p>
<br>
<p>After all, top students get the best recs.</p>
<br>
<p>This is often not the case. There are many straight-A students whose recs do nothing to get them into Harvard. The teacher recs are considered as part of the personal-qualities calculus, not the academic calculus. Recs that say simply, "Smartest kid in the class, his work is excellent" or worse, "He's pretty impatient and snotty toward the kids who can't keep up," have killed many a straight-A application to Harvard. The kids who get in have recs that say, "He's a thoughtful leader in every conversation; he doesn't just have the right answer, he wants to know if we're asking the right question; I'm going to miss him so much next year."</p>
<br>
<p>Harvard could certainly fill its class on academic promise alone</p>
<br>
<p>Who, here or elsewhere, has suggested this? I'm advocating that (a few sports excepted) Harvard should treat athletic skill and dedication as it treats musical, political, literary, and volunteer skill and dedication.</p>
<p>Has the Ivy League every considered moving to D-III?</p>
<p>Be careful what you say. There are Harvard athletes that post on this board, you probably wouldn't want to offend them</p>
<p>I don't know if you were addressing me, Keynes, or even if you're being serious, but if others are personally offended when they observe disagreement on a question like whether athletes, artists, and community volunteers should all be judged on the same scale, then they probably live in a constant state of offense at Harvard.</p>
<p>If someone wants to explain to me why it's more important for Harvard to have strong sweepers on the soccer team than to have strong basses in the Glee Club (which struggles every year to find true basses, who are born, not made), I'm all ears.</p>