<p>When D was filling out applications and got to the "how many hours" part of the EC list, we could not help laughing when she asked me if she should include all the hours she spent at the sports therapy clinic getting messed up body parts fixed!</p>
<p>tactics, the schools who do not offer athletic scholarships have to recruit more athletes than the schools that do. Without the scholarship to hold over the athletes' heads, many of them quit before junior or senior year.</p>
<p>I think I get what you are saying but it could be read that the athletes quit for the pro leagues......hehehe Just a funny thought.</p>
<p>LOL, no they don't quit to go pro. They quit for lots of reasons, but that's not one of them.</p>
<p>Tactics, I do not disagree that the students who are on the varsity team work hard or are as equally committed to theri sports. My comment addressed the added demands that arise from participation in regional or national events. My main issue was that the extraordinary demands are not always well known by other parents or even schoolmates. It is also far from being a one way street ... parents and friends of athletes may not know the rigor and demands placed upon musicians, debaters, academic teams at school or outside school. </p>
<p>Regarding the sheer number of recruited athletes, football has to be viewed a bit differently.</p>
<p>Well that just must be what the NCAA thinks.......keep 'em in college getting that education and not signing big contracts with the pros.....Miles Brand.</p>
<p>worried_mom,</p>
<p>do you live in arizona?</p>
<p>I was recruited this past year and at my school (competative public, not nationally ranked) about once every 5 years we send a kid to an ivy league school. many applicants each year are qualified academically and extracurricular wise, but it just seems like someone said earlier being an athlete just helps you stand out from the other 15-20000 applicants, and these days anything will help.</p>
<p>Read 'Reclaim the Game" coauthored by Bowen (former Pton president) and another person. They document the significant advantage in admissions that athletes have at the elite schools. They also further document the significant underperformance after admission (Given their test scores/HS grades, they underperform relative to other groups). In sum, if you want to 'game the system,' being an athlete is perhaps the best trick.</p>
<p>Someone noted,"
But, as Xiggi so eloquently put it, unless you live with a student-athlete, you have no idea of the sacrifices these kids make for their team and their sport. Up early, home late. "</p>
<p>Response: If athletes were the only ones to put in a lot of hours, I would say that Xiggi and others maybe have a point. HOWEVER, there are a number of other activities that take as much time that don't seem to have the same clout as athletics. For example, my daughter was first chair flute in pit orchestra for her school plays each year. Her, hours for rehearsal were at least two to three each day for the first month of practice ,and during the last two to three weeks before the play ,she was at rehearsal at least till 9-10PM after school for four days a week. This also doesn't count the actual time that she put into the plays, which lasted over two weekends. Moreover, the cast even put in more time! I don't see either the musicians or the cast getting special hooks. IN fact a girl who did exactly what my daughter did, and who got 800 on the math SAT and 675 verbal and who is valdictorian of her class, just got deferred from Yale! However, she had no athletics ECs on her application.</p>
<p>We have kids in marching band who attend school two weeks early and practice for several hours per week in marching, above and beyond class time, who aren't given any consideration.</p>
<p>We have people who spend literally hundreds upon hundreds of hours preparing a portfolio for admission to various art programs who aren't given a bit of sympathy for their huge dedication to their work.</p>
<p>How about the folks who get accepted into county or state wide honors orchestra? They put in thousands of hours of practicing to get to this level of skill. Rarely, do I see this type of musical EC get as rewarded as with any varsity athletics.</p>
<p>How about the guy at our high school that had 4,000 hours of community service and maybe even 5,000. Yes, you read right. He had strong stats and grades yet didn't get accepted to one ivy or Williams or other top LAC despite having 1400 in math and verbal SATs and weighted GPA of about 4.4 and top 10% of the class in a tough, competive high school.</p>
<p>How about the poorer kids who are required to work 15- 20 hours per week to help support themselves and their families? I don't see them getting any special hook for hard work.</p>
<p>Bottom line: I don't buy the implication raised by Xiggi and others that college athletes are accepted in greater numbers solely because of their demonstrated harder work. Sorry, I can say that for many types of ECs, they do put on a LOT of similar time and effort, without being given a special hook.</p>
<p>I think Xiggi acknowledged other similar areas that take up a lot of time--he mentioned theater, debate, music. And all of these things are hooks for admissions, to one degree or another. </p>
<p>It's my understanding that the swimmer from your school still would have gotten into NYU ED even if he had never put a toe in the water. Several of the posters are saying that for many extracurriculars, when the kid is at the top of their field, whether it's athletics, music, community service, most parents have no idea how many hours are spent on that pursuit. Parents whose kids focus mainly on grades and SAT prep spend a lot of hours on those things and the payoff should be obvious--in better grades and SAT scores. But many of those parents seems to be bewildered when an athlete or NFAA artist gets an extra look.</p>
<p>"Read 'Reclaim the Game" coauthored by Bowen (former Pton president) and another person. They document the significant advantage in admissions that athletes have at the elite schools. They also further document the significant underperformance after admission (Given their test scores/HS grades, they underperform relative to other groups). In sum, if you want to 'game the system,' being an athlete is perhaps the best trick."</p>
<p>Wsox, inasmuch as "Reclaim the Game" is an oft cited source and that Bowen is a very credible person, it a stretch to find conclusive evidence of significant underformance by athletes at ALL elite schools. For instance, another study by Harvard went a long way in debunking that a significant underperformance existed at Harvard. The same study also revealed the considerable role played by students-athletes at the school in non trivial matters such as recruiting and money raising. </p>
<p>For what it is worth, it must be quite hard to find "significant" underperformance at a school that graduates 96 to 98% of its students while maintaining the reputation of being the most noteworthy school in the world.</p>
<p>"Response: If athletes were the only ones to put in a lot of hours, I would say that Xiggi and others maybe have a point. </p>
<p>Bottom line: I don't buy the implication raised by Xiggi and others that college athletes are accepted in greater numbers solely because of their demonstrated harder work."</p>
<p>Taxguy, with all due respect, I believe to have acknowledged that many people put tremendous hours in practicing their craft. AT no point did I say or implied that athletics activities should receive a special treatment because it is hard work. Without repeating most of my earlier posts, I simply pointed out that the demands posed on highly competitive athletes may exceed was is viewed by outsiders. FWIW, I believe that the same may be said about the champion fencer or national champion debater. </p>
<p>On the other hand, there is a profound misconception in your rebuttal as you seem to intimate that many or a great number of varsity athletes earn recognition based on their mere participation in high school sports. You should know that for many sports and for many regions that may not be the case at all. For instance -and this vary by geographical regions- for a sport such as soccer, high school participation means close to nothing. The recruiting AND recognition takes place at the club level. A soccer player could be a 4 year varsity starter at many schools without meaning ANYTHING for college recruiting. The recognition comes from playing at high club levels or from ODP participation at regional and national levels. </p>
<p>This brings us to a parallel to other activities. Recognition for musician who plays in a band comes from participation in all-city, all-state, or higher selective bands. Each activity presents its own idiosyncracies ranging from participation is national or international tournaments, specific summer camps or programs .... and the list goes on. In the end, the mere participation, even at competitive levels, does not make anyone "recruitable." The schools are looking for the best talent in the country and it IS extremely competitive. </p>
<p>A few years ago, HBO made a movie about Joe Sandberg, all-world player at one of the best football HS in the country: Bergen Catholic HS. He was the captain of the football basketball teams... Awarded Tri-State Heisman in 2001 and 2002 ... All-state as a running back and safety in 2001 and 2002 ... Bergen Catholic Offensive Player of the Year in 2001 and 2002 ... Elected to all-county and All-North Jersey in 2001 and 2002. The movie related the quest of Joe and his family to land a scholarship. The parents and coaches believed there would be a bidding war between schools and sports. In the end, Joe did not receive a single offer and walked on at Penn. He later transferred out to return to Penn last year. If you ever have the chance to see the movie, do not miss it! It captures the chasm between the reality and the myths of athletic recruiting.</p>
<p>OK, time for some quirkiness to bring us all back to the basic truth: for most qualified applicants to these very elite colleges, it's a roll of the dice. </p>
<p>Case 1: Son2's good friend "R" heavily recruited by Yale for crew, as a coxswain. R is a good student, SAT 2100+, but not top 5% student at our small competitive private independent HS. R had only so-so interest in Yale, but applied early as it was required by the crew coach, and honestly thought it was his only chance. After everything was in, R learned from coach that he was no longer being recruited. 5 weeks later, what's the outcome? Admitted ED. We're all hoping he winds up at Rice, his real first choice.</p>
<p>Case 2: Son1 is at Caltech, and one of his best friends "C" is a figure skater. Well, there is no competitive sports at Caltech, no scholarships, no nothing--PE credits are required for graduation but even club sports are strictly on demand. Not only was she admitted, but she was begged to organize a figure skating team to compete in DivIII, and they actually won the regional tournament. </p>
<p>I know from working at JHU and knowing some friends of my sons that are talented lacrosse players, they are given at least an early decision (early like September). But I think the real question is not "do they deserve this?" All who are qualified deserve it, but not all can be admitted. I think the question is more like "Will this applicant benefit, appreciate, and make the most of what we offer, and in the meantime contribute something back (which might be lacrosse, crew, football...whatever). There may very well be some "athletes" who will benefit, appreciate, and make the most of the college/university more than some non-athletes.</p>
<p>It's an art, not a science, and a crap shoot.</p>
<p>Having the luxury of reading all these posts at one time I believe Xiggi and Taxguy are not comparing apples to apples. IMO Taxguy is perturbed that a high school athlete is given greater credence EVEN IF NOT A RECRUITED OR STELLAR ATHLETE. While Xiggi is arguing that regional or national caliber athletes deserve a boost because of their super-human feats of discipline and perserverance required to reach and maintain that level. Apples to oranges. </p>
<p>"What we have here is a failure to communicate."</p>
<p>I don't think I have the energy to join in the scrum. Carry on. I'll watch and take on the winner. ;)</p>
<p>Well, in my community, which is a highly educated state capital, with the exception of two students who turned down H for BYU, the ONLY students I know of who have been accepted to any of the Ivies have been athletes. Doesn't matter if they have 1600 board scores, or are valedictorians - they don't get in. (Whoops - just remembered, a couple of years ago we did have several at Cornell, in the hotel school.) Pretty much the same story for Stanford, (though even more athletes end up, plus an occasional engineer.)</p>
<p>I'm sure they were all able to do the work, or they wouldn't have gotten in. (But then in 30 years I've almost never heard of anyone dropping out of an Ivy for academic reasons - they just aren't that hard.)</p>
<p>As I've written before, it's all about supply and demand. The BEST athletes, especially in major sports, tend to go to schools which offer athletic scholarships and/or field teams from which you have a better chance of making it into pro sports. As a result, you don't have to be anywhere near as good a quarterback or basketball center to stand out in the admissions pool at an Ivy as you need to be to stand out as a debater or musician or actor or chess player. </p>
<p>Being good enough to be recruited gives an athlete a HUGE boost in his/her chances of admission to an Ivy.As long as the athlete isn't too far below the rest of the class for AI, scores a bit below the median--by the standard of the particular institution in question--won't hurt. Otherwise, if you are a white or Asian kid with two US-born college-educated parents from a state that sends a lot of students to the college in question and you aren't a legacy, it's very unlikely that you'll be admitted if your scores are below the median for that college. </p>
<p>Debaters, musicians, artists, actors, dancers, chess players and students who pursue many other interests put in just as much time as the athletes, but they are given much less leeway than athletes in terms of GPA and test scores. It's not because the colleges value these activities less. It's because a much higher percentage of the best debaters, chess players, actors and musicians want to go to the Ivies--in the case of actors and musicians, if they go the liberal arts or traditional college route at all. </p>
<p>While the Harvard-Yale game isn't going to rival the USC-Michigan football game in terms of the quality of the football played, drama and music productions at Harvard and Yale will be as good as those at Michigan and USC . (I don't think Michigan even has a debate team these days. I'm not sure about chess.) </p>
<p>The end result is that it's easier to get into Harvard or Yale as a football quarterback than it is as a debater or chess player musician or actor, not because the Ivies value football more but because there are fewer top athletes in the Ivy pools than there are top debaters, actors and musicians. It's like the difference between getting into Harvard from Manhattan and Kodiak Island, Alaska--again, it's the number of other people like you who are applying. </p>
<p>While outsiders may not have much understanding as to how much time being a recruited athlete involves, I think the same is true of the kids who participate in LOTS of other activities. When it comes to glory, folks, athletes get more of it in the US than students who excel in any other endeavor, especially in college. Fellow students may not realize how much time it takes to be the quarterback of an Ivy football team, but they are likely to know the name of their college's quarterback. Ask a student the name of the captain of the chess team or which college the chess team is competing against this week, and it's highly unlikely that you'll get an answer. </p>
<p>Harvard reserves approximately 15% of each class for recruited athletes. It certainly takes into account excellence in other endeavors in admissions. However, it doesn't reserve a set percentage of each class for any of these groups. It doesn't at least in part because it doesn't need to do so to get enough actors, musicians, chess players or debaters.</p>
<p>It should be remembered that in my community, there are almost no kids who could afford full-freight, and the number of kids from families in the top quintile ($92k-$160) would be relatively rare. And we wouldn't have many Pell Grant applicants. So the broad class of applicants would be in the $40k-$92k range, precisely the places where, at most of the Ivies, the smallest number of admits come from. And, I'd also be willing to bet, though I can't prove, the largest percentage of athletes are drawn from. It just doesn't leave much room for anyone else (except some desired URMs, published novelists, or major patent holders.)</p>
<p>concerning athletes - it's been said that the ivies recruit against mid-major and lower d1 programs as well as against d3's. you can also figure that some of these same athletes getting looks from the ivies are also getting looks from the patriot league.............as well as looks from d2 programs, naia schools...........and in some cases, even junior college programs. the junior colleges can keep the d1 dream alive for athletes looking to play at the d1 level. a student athlete can transfer out of a junior college after only 1 year and move into the d1 ranks (some even go to top 25 sports programs)........ so.................i'm agreeing with jonri in that there are fewer top applicants in the ivy pools, ultimately, because many other schools want those same athletes for their sports programs. athletes are oftentimes not required to take sat II subject tests for the other schools recruiting them. so...........the supply of available athletes who are top athletes................and ..............who are willing to take sat II subject tests is something to consider. in addition, some of the top athletes across the country may not even take the SAT I test and instead take only the ACT. so...........that reduces the number in the ivy recruiting pool again.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, you summarized our differences perfectly. However, I was not trying to make a statement about athletics ,as a key hook, per se. I just noticed what seems to be an interesting trend at our high school and was wondering how widespread this trend is at highly selective colleges, especially ivy league schools.</p>
<p>If there is a trend to favor athletic ECs over other types of ECs in selective college admission, we may have found a way to "game the system," which should be published on CC. Thus, instead of being newspaper editor, class play leads, kids should join intermural sports!
Frankly, I personally am hoping that this is not a widespread trend, and that I am wrong.</p>
<p>Cur, thank you for trying to provide an analysis. However, you did not select the exact point that I tried to convey. </p>
<p>I am not really debating a different subject than Taxguy, I FLATLY reject his position that AVERAGE students -or average musicians- get a boost or hook for the mere fact of being a HS participant. The students who receive boosts are exceptional performers in their field and not exactly friday night benchwarmers or third chair violonists at Podunk HS. </p>
<p>Again I invite you to look up the story of Joe Sandberg. In the meantime, I also invite Taxguy to pick any athletic webpage of the eight Ivy LEague school and point out which athlete who is on a roster was an average player in high school. Short of that, the evidence to support Taxguy assertions does not amount to much more than unverifiable anedoctes. As far as intramural athletes getting recruited in college or getting some advantages at a highly selective college ... well, that is utter BS. </p>
<p>As far as Jonri claim that Ivy League schools do not make identical concessions to musicians or debaters, I'd like to think that students who reach the level of being recruited do indeed receive special treatments. Again, it depends of the level the students reached in the first place.</p>