Explosive: Ivies and Other Top Schools Recruit More Atlhletes Than Jock Schools

Parents Forum
1

<p>Very explosive article by someone who should know, a former Ivy provost. Here's an excerpt:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm going to state a fact that most of you who follow admissions at highly selective colleges probably don't know. Roughly 20 percent, or one-fifth, of the entering class at the Ivy League universities and the leading small liberal arts colleges are recruited athletes. They are not "walk-ons"; they are actively recruited and there is a great deal of competition within and beyond the Ivy League for the best of those athletes in order to produce winning sports teams. In contrast, about 5 percent of the students at athletic powerhouses like the University of Michigan, Notre Dame, and the Pac 10 schools are recruited scholarship athletes. How did the number of recruited athletes reach today's proportions at these elite schools? First, the Ivy League supports more athletic teams than any other conference in the nation. Harvard has 39 intercollegiate teams; Cornell, Yale and Columbia have over 30. Correlatively, the University of Michigan has 25; Notre Dame has 24, and UCLA, 22.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then he breaks down the admissions effect:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Fourth, recruited athletes, for the high profile sports of football, basketball, and hockey (not all Ivy schools have a formal hockey team) receive a very substantial edge or advantage in the admissions process. Some are what are known as "coaches picks" and at least for the big time sports their SAT scores are over 100 points lower than the class average3 - yet they have about a 30 percent advantage in getting admitted compared to non-athletes in the applicant pool. These athletes' SAT scores are well above the national average, but far lower than most other students who are admitted into these distinguished schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The author, a former Ivy athlete, begins to question the motives of leaders at these elite institutions:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Given the extraordinary number of exceptionally qualified and superior candidates with diverse interests and talents who apply to the Ivy League schools, over 90 percent of whom are going to be disappointed by the outcome, why in the world are the schools using up 20 percent of their slots on recruited athletes? To be very concrete, if Columbia has a freshman class of 1,200, that means about 240 slots are allocated to recruited athletes. For too many, athletics has become a back-door ticket into some of the nation's leading universities and colleges and it ought to be stopped.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The author compares SATs of recruited athletes to minorities admitted through affirmative action and makes a good point [in the footnotes]:</p>

<p>
[quote]
It may surprise you that despite the vociferous and often expressed discontent about minority students getting an edge in admissions ("affirmative action"), the differences between minorities and the average class score are roughly the same as the difference among athletes and the average for the entire class. I can't say that I've heard the same level of public outrage against the lower scores of athletes as I have against "preferential admissions treatment" for minorities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Among the author's recommendations:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ivy athletics cost the universities money. They are not a source of positive revenue (unlike the athletic powerhouses). The idea is to recreate the real world of student athletes and to reduce the numbers of recruited athletes so that other applicants with exceptional talents could be admitted to these Ivy Schools and great liberal arts colleges. Over the next decade these elite schools should strive to reduce the percentage of recruited athletes by half.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The full article is on Huffpost:</p>

<p>Jonathan</a> R. Cole: "A Little Secret: Athletics at the Most Selective Colleges and Universities in the Nation": College and University Admissions, Part III</p>

<p>It's interesting that the author reminds us that athletics at Ivies and like institutions (with rare exceptions like Duke basketball and one or two sports at Stanford and Northwestern which come to my mind) are not a source of positive revenue for the school. So, why do the schools put so much emphasis on it? Very few Ivy athletes ever succeed in professional athletics, putting themselves in position to kickback millions to their alma mater. So, why do the schools lock up so many slots for athletes when they could easily fill their classrooms with students with higher grades and test scores? Why so many athletes, more than the athletic powerhouses proportionally? Is this fair?</p>

2

<p>All of this is pretty common knowledge amongst those “in the know” about Ivy admissions.</p>

<p>Whenever anyone voices such concerns on CC, the parents of athletes leap in and start talking about how their kids are just as academically qualified as everyone else, but–naturally–more disciplined, more dedicated, etc. They go on to claim that schools also reserve slots for musicians–although no one has ever heard of an orchestra director having tips to use an at elite school–and so forth. I’ve found it to be a fruitless argument. The bottom line is that private schools can accept whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish, and apparently they have decided that it is desirable to field strong teams in various sports. The supposition is that it attracts alumni dollars.</p>

<p>It is mostly important for kids to realize that if they are unhooked that their ED chances are probably not really significantly better than their RD chances at some top schools, because a large number of ED slots are for recruited athletes, legacies, and other hooked kids.</p>

<p>Like most admissions decisions, fair has little to do with it.</p>

3

<p>The situation is even more extreme at sports-minded LAC such as Williams, where up to 1/3rd of the incoming male Frosh may be recruited. It leaves few slot remaining for the unhooked.</p>

4

<p>An informed buyer makes a decision about the priorities of each school under consideration. One of those priorities is the relative emphasis placed on recruiting varsity athletes. Another is the emphasis placed on recruiting minority students. Another is the emphasis placed on athletics. All of these priorities contribute to the campus and institutional cultures of school. </p>

<p>Among similar schools, this should be a key differentiating factor in the buying decision.</p>

5

<p>I guess I wasn’t “in the know.” Because they don’t provide athletic scholarships, these schools over-recruit athletes knowing that some won’t even make the teams they were recruited for or simply decide not to play once admitted. The school has no control over this deception because there is no athletic scholarship to yank. I do find it shocking that recruited athletes who would not ordinarily be admitted practically use their ostensible commitment to a sport as a ruse to get into the school.</p>

<p>As long as these “hooks” exist (athletics, legacy, full pay, celebrity status) people need to stop complaining about under represented minorities receiving an advantage. It seems to me a lot of different “groups” have advantages. Being lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family and sent to exclusive prep schools is an advantage. And we know that some elite colleges have a pipeline into favorite exclusive prep schools, relationships with the rich and powerful through business alliances and organizations (Skull and Bones, anyone?). </p>

<p>It just seems that minorities are the only groups that are openly criticized, disparaged and demonized for accepting an “advantage.” That’s just wrong.</p>

6

<p>bluebayou:</p>

<p>A few years ago, Williams recruited and accepted a sports star from our HS. Per Naviance, his stats were a 3.2 unweighted GPA (which, with the grade inflation at our school placed him in the BOTTOM 10% of the class) and an SAT score in the high 1800s.</p>

7

<p>This issue was extensively discussed in a recent thread. In the top LAC’s the number of varsity athletes in the admitted class ranges from 30 to almost 50% at very small schools. Some of these student/athletes are give direct admission help but a much larger number are given subtle but significant advantages. For these students there are no guarantees but the students directly submit their stats to the coach who then takes it to the admissions committe for pre-screening. The coach then puts these students on a list that is submitted to the admissons comittee. All of this takes place in the ED process at the LAC’s.</p>

8

<p>At my kids’ school, so far there’s a Yale and Stanford acceptance, both recruited athletes and the Stanford girl is a legacy (both parents and older sibling). I agree it’s pathetic how athletes are recruited, but I pretty much ignore it - not much I can do.</p>

9

<p>personally, I think this is pretty repulsive. Private schools have the right to distance themselves from academia/intellectualism if they wish, but I think they should be more upfront about their sports recruiting practices. If more people knew about this, the ivy (and top LAC) image would be tarnished significantly. Thanks for posting this. I will now review my college list with the awareness that I want to go somewhere where I will foster my INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY - not watch others play sports.</p>

10

<p>What the top schools do for wealthy donors/famous people/powerful people is far more objectionable. Moreover these schools admit a large number of URM that are non-US citizens as well. This is why getting into the very top schools is so difficult for the merely smart student with excellent GPA/SAT/EC. I know far more athletes and UMR that gained admission than merely very smart students. Now granted all of the admitted students were good to very good students as well. I’ve mentioned this on another thread but the best source of info is the book the Price of Admission written by a Pulitzer prize winner.</p>

11

<p>"Roughly 20 percent, or one-fifth, of the entering class at the Ivy League universities and the leading small liberal arts colleges are recruited athletes. They are not “walk-ons”; they are actively recruited and there is a great deal of competition within and beyond the Ivy League for the best of those athletes in order to produce winning sports teams. In contrast, about 5 percent of the students at athletic powerhouses like the University of Michigan, Notre Dame, and the Pac 10 schools are recruited scholarship athletes. "</p>

<p>The comparison is meaningless because the size of the schools is so different. What are the raw numbers?</p>

12

<p>And this is why the “ED/EA advantage” is bogus. It looks like a higher percentage acceptance rate, but if you took out the athletic recruits the acceptance rate is probably a lot closer to the regular decision one. But so many students don’t realize this and anxiously look for that ED school simply because they think their chance of getting in is higher.</p>

13

<p>My impression is that Caltech, Chicago, and MIT (order alphabetic) do not recruit athletes, at least to the same extent. Is that accurate?</p>

14

<p>I’m don’t think it makes sense to criticize this practice as wrong. Aren’t these schools (Ivies and top LACs) considered the best in the country and possibly the world? Having this many recruited athletes is obviously not hurting their reputations, and may in fact be an important ingredient of what makes them so appealing and admired.</p>

15

<p>That it correct along with WSTL. The biggest athletic recruiting among LAC’s is in the NESCAC though most of the othersdo this to some extent. As for the ivies the posters are correct about football/basketball but in most other sports the ivies are big time D1 and compete with everyone. In those sports scholarships are limited for boys and the ives have great FA which make them very competitive.</p>

16

<p>I don’t know how much they recruit but I know that a girl who did crew in my school was admitted to MIT a couple years ago. She was also third in the class but the fact that she was an excellent rower no doubt helped. Her brother however, who was in the top ten the next year (not sure of the rank exactly) was not admitted although he was really good at crew too. I think this could also be because girls in engineering are a big deal too.</p>

17

<p>She got no real help with admission. Even legacy means almost nothing. At these few schools the coaches openly tell athletic recruits they can’t help get them in.</p>

18

<p>The difference is that the athletes recuited into the Ivies are not “jocks” - but student athletes. There are no 950/2400s.</p>

19

<p>True but the ivies will go very much lower to get an impact player in an impact sport. The most famous is Bill Bradley who got into Princeton with a SAT(1600) below 1000. So this has been going on for a long time.</p>

20

<p>And Bradley ended up a U.S. Senator from New Jersey. Who is to say that a high SAT score is more desireable than a superior student-athlete? It takes the “right stuff” to compete at a world-class level. That sort of skill set pays dividends off the field (or court) for a lifetime. Gerald Ford was a football star at Michigan.</p>