My fault, I guess I didn’t state it very clearly. What I was trying to say is that if the artist is majoring in the arts, some schools will give them a break on academics. If they are not majoring in their art, then they do not get a break; it is just an EC to list on their application.
Likewise, when my kids (D3 material, not D1) applied to schools, they certainly did not expect any break when they listed their sport as an EC. For schools where they were in contact with the coach, attended a prospect camp, etc. and expressed their interest in playing, yes, they might expect a break (or for D3, a favorable nudge in admissions). They had friends/teammates who were D1 level and played D1, and yes, they do get a break.
The frustrating thing in sports and top colleges has always been the athletes that were clearly not qualified in academics. As in could not hit NCAA eligible SAT score. Most top colleges would not accept that low a score, though we know that there have historically been a few colleges that will.
UMD participates in both D1 (in hockey) and D2 divisions and supports 14 teams
Harvard supports 42 D1 teams. Varsity athletes comprise nearly 20% of the student population.
UMD probably breaks even or makes a small profit with ice hockey
Harvard doesn’t make any profit from any of its sports teams
…And, like many of us who are following the Wesleyan ED thread, you are equating recruited athletes with tips and slots. Recruited athletes (apparently) include many more students than those numbers would indicate.
Athletic Factor Admits (athletics plays major role in admission decision) – NESCAC conference rules limit to 67 per year, split up as 14 for football and ~2 per sport for non-football.
Coded Athlete Admits (similar admission reader scores to non-athlete admits, but favored over non-athletes) – 60-90 per year
Walk-ons (no preference or recommendation from coach) – ~20 per year
Understood, and thanks for clarifying. I have two who experienced athletic recruiting and another who is a dancer and musician.
I realize it is what it is, but the admissions process is just so different between the two. Athletics just simply matter more or are seen to make a greater impact. I do question how that impact lessens beyond the big spectator sports however.
I don’t think Ive seen anyone stipulate as to the vast differences in being recruited for, say, football, at a powerhouse vs being a d3 recruit at an academically selective school like Amherst.
Huh. So many different definitions… OK, so “walk-on” only refer to students who have never actually participated in the sport in any meaningful way, rather than students who were not specifically recruited to play the sport.
Walk-ons means no recommendation by coach or admissions preference. The coded athletes have similar admission reader ratings to other admits, but they still are generally favored over other applicants, as indicated by a higher admit rate than the average applicant with similar reader ratings. It’s more that among the pool of well qualified applicants, they favor ones who meet institutional needs, and playing a sport is one of those institutional needs.
I expect this is one area where typical small DIII LACs differ from typical larger D1 colleges. With ~30% of the class being athletes, they need to get enough athlete admits to fill the team. However, playing in DIII, those admits do not have to be ranked as highly in their sport as might occur at certain other colleges, such as Stanford.
In your Amherst example, it’s really 127-157 (67+ 60-90) that get admissions benefits from Athletics. Even those that are highly qualified have no assurances of getting into schools with such low acceptance rates.
Another way of looking at it (since people don’t typically use that terminology from the Amherst report) is “Athletic Factor admits” is equivalent to fully supported by the coach and they are using one of their slots on this recruit (baseline 14 for football/2 for every other sport in the NESCAC). These recruits always have passed an academic pre-read. It is highly likely these athletes will be admitted.
“Coded Athlete Admits” is equivalent to receiving ‘soft’ support from the coach. These athletes may or may not have had an academic pre-read. Maybe semantics, but I struggle to call these athletes with no academic pre-read ‘recruited’…sure the coach will take them, but they don’t want them enough to give them full support/a slot. Much lower chance of admission for these athletes, at least at highly rejective colleges.
Lastly, the academic give at many highly rejective D3s is less, sometimes significantly so, than at the Ivies.
With that said, most schools are not highly rejective, and as such don’t have to extend academic consideration to many, if any, athletic recruits.
That’s the way it was explained to me, that the ~2 slots/team were for the top recruits regardless of their academic strength and were pretty much guaranteed. Then the coach had some pull for another 3-6 depending on the sport, but it was less of a sure thing.
I guess what has made it muddy in the definition of a “slot” vs. “tip” is that even student athletes with great stats/ECs may need a “slot” if a coach really wants them, as the applications increase, acceptance rates drop and there are other factors like prior overenrollment to deal with.
Part of the problem in recruiting is that the terminology is inconsistent. Slots and tips aren’t used at all schools, and it’s incumbent upon the student to understand what the coach is offering and the track record of acceptances in that category.
It can be difficult stuff, and often this is where the communication breaks down, for example the student thought they had the coach’s full support with a high likelihood of admission, when they really didn’t.
Coaches at the highly rejectives know they have to use a slot/full support if they really want a recruit, no matter the recruit’s academic stats (assuming they passed the pre-read).
Look at a school like U of Texas. Biggest athletic budget in the country, largest TV contract. They have 18 varsity sports, probably 800 athletes, many who do get an admissions boost. Many are from OOS and do take up the OOS 10% spots.
But UT has more than 50k students. They admit the top 6% of the high school students, leaving it up to the high schools to determine what makes a student the top 6% (gpa, honors, AP classes). Many more than just the athletes.
Even at the Ivys they are only admitting about 200 athletes each year with a tip or slot, and some of those have very high gpa/scores.
Schools like Notre Dame are more likely to hear complaints that they are letting in too many non-catholics than that they let in too many athletes.
At every level of Sports there are kids that getting into a school that would not have gotten in via their own academic record. It has happened for many many years and still does.
And you know what it sucks. I went to school with people that didn’t deserve to be on campus except for the sports aspect.
Hey Standford no one really cares how many current or former athletes won Olympic medals. Heck the country only cares about the Olympics for about 2 weeks every 4 years.
Ivy league schools just give up on sports. No one cares. You are letting in some kids that are taking up spots and you are missing out on some amazing kids.
Duke - just start a G-league team because that is all you really are.
ND - You say you are different, but you are not.
Non-revenue sports just give it up as well. (only caveat I 100% support Title IX)
No one has mentioned the next big thing. - ESports.
