Yes, but the "cull" number at the elites is lower than you might think. Obviously those with weaker scores need to have other credentials, hooks or tip factors to offset the scores. I can pretty much guess the cull number at any college that publishes its common data set, because the CDS shows the number admitted within each score range.</p>
<p>For example, at Yale the cull number is probably around 600 on the SATs. I get this by looking at the CDS at <a href="http://www.yale.edu/oir/cds.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.yale.edu/oir/cds.pdf</a> and seeing that 21-25% of their admitted students have scores in the 600-690 range, but only 2-3% of their students have scores in the 500-590 range. Knowing that there is some fraction of students with scores below 600 tells us that the full 600-690 range is full; but since there are no students scoring below 500 and only a tiny fraction below 600, we can guess that the students reported in the 500-590 range probably have high-end scores there (say, 580 +) and probably only have a single score of the set in that level.. So we can then extrapolate and assume that probably at Yale a combined SAT range at some point between 1800-1900 would be the "cull" point (the bare minimum required for consideration). </p>
<p>The irony of it all is that it may be that many of the most interesting and accomplished students are in that 600-690 range -- simply because they are the ones who need to win admission despite their scores rather than because of them. So those lower-scoring students might be the least "normal" of the bunch.</p>
<p>Calmom makes a really good point, one with which I agree. However, I suspect that a significant percentage (not all) of the students admitted to Yale with sub-2000 SATs are interesting and accomplished in their ability to score goals and to tackle running backs.</p>
<p>JHS - are you saying the jocks have lower scores? Or this is the legacy - leg-up? Don't generalize here either. I know some of the jock families with kids at Ivy schools who graduated top of their respective classes from similarly ranked universities. I would say the kids are probably pretty smart and though athletics may be a hook, they probably had the grades and scores to get in without it.</p>
<p>I read this thread thinking it would be about superstars v. normal kids. However, I ended up reading about Univmom's D and her chances. Humm? Re. Univmom's D, while her stats are very good, I have to say she would be amazed by some of the competition.</p>
<p>UnivMom: I'm saying some jocks have lower scores. I'm well aware that many do not. But I'm also well aware -- from my time in college, and from watching acceptances among my friends' kids and my kids' friends -- that many do have lower scores, especially (but not exclusively) in "helmet" sports.</p>
<p>Let me hasten to add that I do not believe a kid with a 1900 SAT I is dumb by any stretch of the imagination, or that such a student might not graduate with flying colors from Harvard or anywhere else. "Lower" in this context is highly relative, and does not mean the same thing as "low".</p>
<p>I do agree with calmom, though: I think the kids who get accepted to highly selective colleges with relatively lower test scores and/or grades tend to have something really extraordinary to offer, and so are really not "normal" at all. And one of those extraordinary qualities is sometimes sports ability.</p>
<p>I do think looking at the AI calculation also gives some insight into the interplay between GPA/class rank and test scores -- something that really doesn't show up when we look at test scores in isolation. For example, using that particular chart I calculate an AI for my daughter of around 200 -- her class rank was a huge offsetting factor for her test scores. Since she is not an athlete, I have no idea whether her schools would even have computed an AI ... but that does illustrate that there is a huge piece of information missing from the equation when we look at test scores in isolation -- and something that probably does go into the "cull" factor that UnivMom suggested.</p>
<p>It's too bad that the CDS doesn't have statistics reflected in a grid format that also shows the GPA or class rank -- that would probably give us a better picture of the overall range of students who get in. </p>
<p>But the observation still stands that the ones at the lower end of the numerical spectrum are also the ones most likely to bring something extraordinary to the table (even if that is in the form of athletic talent or fame or fortune)... and the ones on the highest end are the most likely to be "normal" (albeit excellent) well-rounded students.</p>
<p>Calmom, we don't disagree at all. The three situations I'm thinking about involved (1) an athlete with a single-digit national junior ranking in the relevant sport (whose AI was probably in the mid 170s), (2) a baseball player of draftable quality (with an AI probably around 190), and (3) a swimmer with a scholarship offer from Duke (AI in the low 170s, but also excellent reasons to disregard a very low class rank). None of them dumb or lazy in the least, but none of them otherwise a strong academic candidate for the college he or she is attending, either.</p>
<p>On the other side, my "normal" children accumulated many rejections with AIs of 230 and 215-220, respectively. So even a "High" AI isn't anything like being a shoo-in regardless of athletics.</p>
<p>OP, it depends on what your definition of normal is. Almost without exception, these students are well above average academically but I suspect that many, if not most are otherwise normal teenagers. I know the students which go on to the most selective universities from my during my son's hs days were quite normal. The ones that come immediately to mind attend Amherst, Penn, Harvard, Yale and Cornell. Every one was very smart but otherwise very typical teenagers. No Intel winners. Now mission trips to Central America. And no summer enrichment courses. In fact several spent summers lifeguarding at the town lake with my son. Another spent several summers in India visiting family. One was an All-State athlete however.</p>
<p>I think Cal mom is about right. D has been recruited by ivies and appears 600s in SATs and SATII make you recruitable AS LONG AS rest of package also meets standards. Transcsript, ECs all must be ok for recruiting process to continue. And don't think for one minute that competition for recruiting slots isn't as intense as rest of ivy admissions. The assistant coach in charge of recruiting at the school my D gave a verbal to ( team sport) told us that he has had over 800 emails asking for looks. That is in addition to kids he identifies.Ultimately that one team supports 4-5 kids in admissions. Lets say the recruiting pool is 900 and 10% meet athletic / academics standards. That still 90 kids for 4-5 spots. Being the contrarian I am, I would say it is very, very difficult and rare to be a recruited athlete at an ivy And it is a harsh process. With my older D, one ivy wrote to her for a year expressing interest. She was then invited to "junior recruit day"The recruiting list had been culled down to 15 kids. Coach made it very clear that he was looking for five kids. At a certain point, D did not make that select cut and never heard from school again (all ok, graduating from great LAC this year and applying to med school)My only point is that it takes a special kid to get recruited to an ivy.Except for football / basketball, many ivy teams compete in D I at highest level in the country.Ivies appear to take pride in playing national powers in many sports and competing with those teams. Fair to admit athletes? I dont know...that's been debated as much as the mideast peace process. But the athletes attending / playing in the ivies are the complete package</p>
<p>The Ivy League likes their Rhodes Scholars. I am certain that this plays into the athlete - scholar selection somewhat. Look at the Rhodes Scholars from state to state. The</a> Rhodes Scholarships</p>
<p>I tutored athletes in college. Many were very bright, but missed classes during season and needed to get notes and review them with someone to keep up with their studies, others -- weeellllll...</p>
<p>Many of the Ivies, especially in hockey, basketball and lacrosse, have already provisionally admitted for the class of 2013, let alone next year's class. Yale has admitted a football player this fall who has an 1115/1600 with a 3.6 gpa. This is possible because of banding within the AI and the opportunity to fill the lowest football band with an occasional outlier and the overall AI structure where women polo players can be "balanced" with men's basketball, for example. </p>
<p>On the Rhodes scholarship issue, it is a mistake to believe that success in collegiate athletics plays a particular role in selection. It is not one of the criteria for selection and it is rare indeed for a successful athlete in a major sport to become a Rhodes. I don't mean it would be a negative, but most Rhodes scholars were not even on varsity teams. Several who unsuccessfully seek a Rhodes after successful team sports competitions, in my recent experience, go on to law school at Harvard, medical school at Cornell, etc. The academics were there but athletics were not only not required but did not tip the process. Because of the geographical requirements for selection, and the regionalized nature of the process, your best chance is if you come from a midwestern or southern state, which is where the scholars without "top 20" college backgrounds usually come from. </p>
<p>Sounds a lot like the Ivy admissions process doesn't it?</p>
<p>In the very short bios of the 2008 Scholars on the Rhodes U.S. website , 12 of the Scholars had mention of their sports. We had :</p>
<p>a lightweight boxer
a figure skating champ
a sweet sixteen D1 basketball player
a marathon runner
a parachuting, mountain climbing scuba diver
a women's football player
a women's ice hockey player
a women's power-lifter
a cyclist
a national caliber Ultimate Frisbee star
a champion/record-holding pole vaulter
a rower</p>
<p>Remember- this is what the Rhodes Scholarship folks chose to highlight about these young men and women and put on their website. Other recipients could have been athletes also. </p>
<p>Draw your own conclusions as to whether and how much athletics is valued in the selection process. I've drawn mine. ;)</p>
<p>I stand by my post and don't think "women's football," frisbee, bicycling, etc. change the equation. These are the type of activities in which a group of bright and interesting young men and women might engage.</p>
<p>Most importantly, collegiate athletics is expressly not one of the Rhodes selection criteria:</p>
<p>"Intellectual distinction is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for election to a Rhodes Scholarship. Selection committees are charged to seek excellence in qualities of mind and in qualities of person which, in combination, offer the promise of effective service to the world in the decades ahead."</p>
<p>Of the scores of Rhodeses I have known, there are some who were athletes, but only one who truly excelled. It is something akin to an urban myth (probably fostered with the selection of Bill Bradley about 40 years ago)to believe this is in any way an athletics-based award. Again, I think achievement in sports is a plus but it is intellectual depth and character that matter, as the Rhodes committee itself affirms.</p>
<p>Of course sports matter to the Rhodes. Not definitive, of course, but one of the criteria for selection:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mr. Rhodes’ Will contains four criteria by which prospective Rhodes Scholars are to be selected:</p>
<p>literary and scholastic attainments; </p>
<p>energy to use one’s talents to the full, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports; </p>
<p>truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship; </p>
<p>moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one’s fellow beings. </p>
<p><a href="emphasis%20added">/quote</a></p>
<p>While the trustees have long since abandoned requiring significant athletic accomplishment by all scholars, they rarely fail to choose several high-achievement athletes.</p>
<p>JHS--I agree, but the overwhelming majority are not. In the last two years I have known three all-Ivy sports stars (two in basketball and one in football) who were not selected. One is in medical school and the other two are at Harvard Law, while academically similarly non-athletes from these same schools are now at Oxford with the Rhodes.</p>
<p>That's a heck of an extrapolation- 3 folks? To the entire program? </p>
<p>I stand by my post also. If they didn't value it they wouldn't mention it in a one paragraph bio of the winners. ;) </p>
<p>The application today still states Mr. Rhodes criteria in the same language quoted by JHS. I have to think there is a reason for that other than a sticking "delete" button. ;)</p>
<p>JHS - Thank you for posting the Rhodes criteria. You beat me to the punch. A HS classmate of mine was a Rhodes scholar. Incredible female athlete. Brilliant. </p>
<p>I do believe that most prospective Rhodes Scholars do participate in athletics (not helmet sports), rowing team, tennis, golf, etc. and they were reasonably 'successful', but not always the champion.</p>
<h2>Much of the distinctiveness of the Rhodes Scholarships stems from this comprehensive set of criteria (Edit: as previously posted by JHS). Intellectual excellence is obviously required, but not in isolation from other qualities. Mr. Rhodes sought Scholars who were more than “mere bookworms;” he wanted their intellectual talents to be combined with concern for others. Thus the Selection Committees assign the highest importance to this blend of character with intellect.</h2>
<p>Page 5
Because Rhodes Scholars are selected for their potential over a lifetime, importance is properly attached to their capacity to meet the demands for physical fitness imposed by an active career. Satisfying the second standard does not require evidence of outstanding achievement in organized sports. All applicants, however, should be able to demonstrate the physical vigor which will enable them to make an effective contribution to the world around them. Moreover, American and other foreign students who are prepared to participate in sports played in the English amateur tradition have typically derived additional benefits from their Oxford experience. Many lifetime international friendships have been formed as by-products of the athletic competition among Oxford’s colleges.</p>
<p>Look, with Rhodes Scholarships, as with any other hyper-competitive thing, there are many more people who meet the selection criteria than there are slots. The fact that anyone in particular isn't chosen certainly doesn't mean that his or her good qualities were not considered important. The final choices reflect balancing various factors, and also a good deal of chance and luck for those selected.</p>
<p>I believe, as I implied above, that the selection committee (a) does not require significant sports achievement by all scholars (although it does require some kind of nod to sports participation by all scholars), and (b) does require that some of the scholars chosen each year display significant achievement in competitive sports.</p>