<p>Ought to be stopped? By whom? The Ivys are private schools that can admit kids however they choose. Who is going to stop them from valuing athletics as a worthy EC to consider in the admissions process? </p>
<p>The reason why Ivys recruit so fiercely is that they want to beat their rivals (mostly other Ivy schools) at sports but don’t want to give true athletic scholarships or lower their academic standards to the point of embarrassment to do it. Thus the Ivys and their rival/peer schools are all competing for the handful of fairly talented athletes, who are also reasonably academically qualified, and who also don’t mind passing up athletic scholarships from other schools. That’s a fairly narrow slice of the high school athletic pie. And in the case of Harvard they have about 40 varsity teams to fill. No wonder they recruit.</p>
<p>Explosive? Hardly. Look, if Ivy athletic recruiting were all that scandalous, why are their teams so lousy? Why aren’t they loaded with national caliber blue chip athletes? Why can’t they beat the powerhouses at football? Why can they win NCAA championships only in minor niche sports like crew? And if Ivy athletes are diluting academic strength of their schools so scandalously then how come the schools’ average incoming SAT and GPAs stay so high? The only way that can happen is if the Ivy athletes either aren’t all that dumb or not very many with questionable stats are admitted - which would be contrary to the point pushed by the article. </p>
<p>If you want to dig up dirt on athletic recruiting look to the SEC or even the PAC-10. Ivy League is recruiting for all its flaws is downright respectable compared many of the big-time athletic programs.</p>
<p>Most serious athletes really have no interest in the Ivy league. The ACC, UCLA or Stanford, yes… But, honestly, most of them don’t want to play at those schools.</p>
<p>I’m sure they have to recruit very heavily to get good players, especially since they offer no money. Athletes would rather play at ND or a school where they are appreciated and valued for thier strengths, not begrudging allowed in, in spite of their weaknesses.</p>
<p>I’m sure the kids who end up going Ivy have a strong desire for an Ivy education. They have many better options as athletes so that they MUST be making the choice as students. fwiw</p>
<p>There are many kids who are HS stars, but way too small to play D1; they are genetically-challenged. Even if they walk-on and make the D1 team, playing time willbe limited. At D1AA, the Ivy League is a great place to continue to play a sport for four more years. Alternatively, they could play D2/D3.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our HS has sent several kids to the Ivies to play bcos they were recruited. All were nationally-ranked juniors, which is “serious” to me. The issue was that they never grew enough after age 14 to make big-time D1 a real possibility. So, they take their one 700 test score and join the Ancient Eight.</p>
<p>UCLA and Stanford are NOT interested in these kids.</p>
<p>I think we are defining serious athletes differently.</p>
<p>Under my definition? My post stands.</p>
<p>Under your definition? I would say that it is the same as saying that people in the 90th percentile on thier standardized tests and gpas are serious students. Maybe, but not according to those at Harvard…</p>
<p>There’s a hierarchy to both of these things, btw.</p>
<p>coureur: Why do you assert that athletic success is a back door to get in? Maybe it is GPA and SAT scores that are the back door. Maybe there is no back door. The top schools want interesting people with a demonstrated drive to succeed. It is not all about the class room.</p>
<p>Why look at ECs? Why look at socio-economic history? Why look at race? Why look at geography? Why look at sex?</p>
<p>You are only correct about two sports for boys. In almost every sport but football and basketball the ives field teams that can compete with Stanford/ND/Northwestern. The reason the ives are attractive is because in these sports full scholarships are uncommon so that ivy FA often is equal or better than the athletic award.</p>
<p>Plainsman- use the “Search” function. We’ve had this discussion about 10 times in the last couple of years.</p>
<p>Yes, the Ivy schools and other highly selective schools recruit athletes. Yes, outside the helmet sports and basketball, almost all the recruited athletes have stats comparable to the rest of the student body. Major sport (football, basketball, hockey) athletes hoping to play their sport at a professional level generally do not choose the Ivy league or D3 schools.</p>
<p>Are you sure? I think the Ivies should heavily recruit athletes, but I’m just saying that serious athletes, for the most part, have other options they would prefer.</p>
<p>The ones who do choose to go to the ivies do so based on thier ambitions as students, which is why I’m sure they do quite well there, frankly.</p>
<p>And don’t forget that athletics are accessible to all (except some disabled students). There is nothing stopping a 4.0, 2100 nerd from going out for a 10 mile run every day, or shooting hoops for 2 hours in his backyard.</p>
<p>Are you talking to me? I didn’t assert that at all. I quoted that from the article in post #1. You’ve got the wrong guy. In admissions I support considering ECs, socio-economic factors, and all that stuff in addition to academics. Academics should be the biggest single factor, but I am by no means a grades & SAT purist.</p>
<p>Yes WSTL does recruit but the coach has no slots like in the NESCAC so that he/she has very little pull in admissions and they don’t go much below the standards to get an athlete. The coach directly said this unlike coaches in other schools. Now in truth the coaches often exaggerate their pull to get the student to apply ED and in the end the admissions committee has the final say.</p>
<p>poetgrl- I don’t post this to be rude because many people don’t realize how big time D1 sports is at the ives. This is precisely why 20% of the admits are athletes. The truth is schools/alums/students like to field winning teams. The resurgence of the boys sports teams at schools like NU also makes the schools better known and is one the reasons applications have surged at the school. </p>
<p>This is the NCAA D1 Ranking for soccer. Notice # 23,25,28,35 are all men’s ivies. </p>
<p>college soccer is bush league and even the all american soccer players couldn’t make the second or third division in european clubs. At the age of 18 or 19 the best soccer players are aleady playing in the world cup and on top club teams. There are a few exceptions but not many.</p>
<p>And playing on the top club teams is how they are recruited for college (the do go to college), and they don’t go to the Ivies. This is true of all the girls who are in the national pool, as well.</p>
<p>Let’s compare how an Ivy league student feels about the school ranked 21…in academics.</p>
<p>that is how serious hockey players, most of whom go to the juniors, anyway, feel about Ivy league hockey.</p>
<p>That’s why I’m saying that the athletes who choose to go Ivy do it for academic reasons and should not be disdained by any of their academic peers. They are true student athletes, student first.</p>
<p>Just look at stats in a book like “The Millionaire Mind,” the average multi-millionaire has an SAT score of 1200/1600…when i was an investment banker it was interesting to contrast the analyst class vs. the managing directors (MDs). The analyst classes were made up primarily of extremely smart/brilliant asian/indian kids (not trying to be racist - just stating the facts) with a few recruited athletes sprinkled throughout. Then you look at the group fo MDs - most of them recruited athlete types…few to none of the smart asian/indian kids made it there.</p>
<p>The thing that got the athletes there is that they are smart enough (not brilliant but have basic intelligence), have people skills, leadership abilities, etc etc…while I noticed that my brilliant analyst colleagues only had the intelligence and had no people, sales, leadership skills. Initially I thought this was a trend you saw just on Wall St…but then I moved to the tech industry…again most of the junior people were brilliant/even more brilliant than my banking colleagues. Then you looked at the senior leadership teams…mostly white former ivy athletes. There were a few non-athletes on the leadership team but these tended to be on the engineering side and not the business side of the firm. </p>
<p>So maybe schools have realized this…purely smart people are not as successful as above average intelligence people with other skills and success usually leads to money…which then leads to donations :)</p>