<p>Ivies are all about excellence. Why should it only be academic excellence? If an athlete can do the work - and I don’t think anyone is seriously questioning that the athletes being admitted are capable of doing the work - then why shouldn’t an Ivy have excellent sports teams?</p>
<p>Is 100 - 200 points on an SAT really a meaningful difference? Are kids with 2300s on SATs really that much smarter than kids with 2100s? I think not.</p>
<p>We’re talking about schools that reject 90% of applicants anyway. They are going to reject smart, talented kids because there are just WAY too many qualified kids in their applicant pool. No matter who they “favor” or deny, someone is going to be offended and believe it’s unfair. It’s NOT all about numbers - as Curm said, it’s about crafting a class. </p>
<p>As for the “explosive” news that sports powerhouses (usually state flagships) only recruit 5% of their student body, and Ivies recruit 20%… a significant part of that difference boils down to basic math. Most powerhouse State Flagships have 20,000 or more students. Most Ivy leages are more like 10,000. Ohio State’s basketball team isn’t going to be five times as large as Harvard’s. In addition, deep-pocketed Ivies field a wider variety of sports teams - hence they need more athletes. And again, this provides opportunities for a wider variety of students to be admitted to a great university, and to add their own unique flavor to the school.</p>
<p>I agree with post #57. To be a recruited athlete, it takes talent and determination. To be an URM, one is born into it. For every URM, I could come up with examples of ORM in similar social economic situation who are disadvantaged at college process. But if those private schools want to have a “well-crafted” class, who am I to say anything?</p>
<p>S is at Williams, not an Ivy, and not single digit selectivity, but mentioned on this thread in regard to academic recruits. White kid, no sports. I know his music was a hook. No doubt in my mind. He’s a violinist and there are two ensembles for string players, including one that is semi-professional. These have to be staffed just as sports teams do.</p>
<p>I have no problem with the athletic recruits either. It’s part of Williams’ culture, and S was free to set his sights for other schools. He loved Williams and was thrilled to be admitted RD, a kid with very good but not absolutely stratospheric stats, great recs and EC’s, and a tremendous commitment to music.</p>
<p>Top notch kids are often involved in pursuits that require many years of dedication and effort. Whether it is music or sports or something else is really moot. I would suspect that more kids are involved in athletics per capita than some of the other pursuits but the bottom line is that long standing dedication that generally begins in the elementary years does stand out on a college application. It’s pretty easy to spot the kids with a true passion vs. the kids that have dabbled at this or that during the high school years. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the kids might not grab onto one of the things they tried out in high school, but when you have so many kids to choose from it’s pretty easy to gravitate toward the kids where it is clear who they are and what they love. I imagine the kid who has spent his life since age 5 in the basement building computers, writing software, building a business on line is also attractive. Athletics is just an easy target because they are a larger target symbolically than the kid who plays the cello with passion. And who knows maybe the cellist is a heck of a swimmer to boot.</p>
<p>Attended a Harvard football game recently, and commented to my S (who attends a Patriot League school) on how amazingly good the Harvard Band was - not talking about their marching performance, but the way they sounded in the stands. Played a very wide variety of music and played it all extremely well. S responded, “Mom, what do you expect? They’re HARVARD.” And I realized that probably the majority of the kids in that band had been in the top ensembles in their hs, if not in regional and state level bands. Why? Because kids who do well enough in class to get into Harvard probably carry that same standard of excellence into most of their ECs. </p>
<p>D is at a selective but nowhere-near-Ivy mid-sized D1 school. She had never been cut from anything she tried out for - dance or athletic - until she got to college. She got cut from a dance team, took one look at the club volleyball practice and schedule and decided not to bother trying out. “Mom, everyone here is so GOOD at EVERYTHING!” I can just imagine how the competition is at the even more selective schools.</p>
<p>I think that the key issue debated here is whether sports and atheletes deserve such huge preferetial treatment by these academic institutions. I guess the fundamental purpose of these institutions is still to educate students of academic excellence. Otherwise, they’d have writers recruites, mathematicians recruits, just as they have athelete recruits. I am not against building a well-rounded class, but I think they are taking it too far. There really should be an “Institute of Sports” for these hugely talented athelets as a sports MIT.</p>
<p>I am more impressed with an athlete (or musician or debater) that has spent 20 hours a week for years and years on their one EC with a 2100 SAT and a 3.8 g.p.a. than a pure academic that has a 2400/4.0 and multiple “shallow” ECs.</p>
<p>With very rare exceptions, the tippy-top athletes are not at these institutions. The kids at these institutions are high level students who are also excellent at sports. This is not the same thing as being an elite athlete. I know people think it is, but it isn’t.</p>
<p>There are schools which are much more highly favored by athletes, frankly, which has been my point, and which is why your point is moot.</p>
<p>I have a recruited athlete who is being pursued by two ivies, but has less than NO interest in playing at these schools because she doesn’t consider the teams to be competitive. She has friends who are quite skilled at athletics who would very much love to play in the ivies, and they are very, very high caliber students. </p>
<p>I agree completely with the sentiment that the top schools should craft classes that are excellent in all regards. What I find appalling, however, is that many, MANY of these athletes drop off of their respective teams in the second year. As in, once they have received their admissions boost they renege on their commitment. I guarantee you don’t find that same phenomenon among kids who are “recruited” for their talent in tuba, dance or whatever else the school needs at a given time. I understand that being a student-athlete is the equivalent of a full-time job, but I find it unacceptable that a student is given a huge advantage and then turns his or her back on said benefit.</p>
<p>True poet, this year there is a young man at my kids school and Harvard would like him to play football (as well as a bunch of other tippy top schools). Comes from a doctor/doctor family. No financial need. Will graduate at the tippy top. Is a good football player (made the conference end of season “best” list) and would never, ever be considered for even Division 2. He’s just a heck of a kid and very good at everything he does. Those are the type of athletes that Harvard looks for. The person that went to Harvard from my older son’s class last year was a runner. State qualified but certainly not Division I or Olympic class but a very, very good runner with high financial need…and graduated at the top of the class yada yada yada. These kids are on everyone’s radar. We aren’t talking world class or maybe not necessarily nationally classed, but very good athletes who are also very smart, some come from wealth…some not. But they are outstanding kids. Our school is highly regarded so the colleges know these kids have the where withall to be successful academically. It’s a small public with great teachers and a short list of APs but the kids as a whole are well above state averages year after year. But no you don’t have to be Olympic or international ranked quality. And there are thousands of these kids all across the country.</p>
<p>Well it is certainly not news to the Ivies that student-athletes can and do, do this; not only by whim, but oftentimes due to injury. That is why the athletes must go through the exact same admissions committee review as regular students.</p>
<p>This is exactly the pattern of kids who I have seen go Ivy with an athletic tip. They bring excellent work ethics, great leadership and team building skills, along with, generally an inclusive, spirited love for life and enthusiasm. I would see them as a huge plus.</p>
<p>In addition, they have balanced tough outside schedules with strong study skills. I would hire any one of them, personally.</p>
<p>It’s a good addition to what might otherwise be a less lively campus, imho.</p>
<p>They do. At least for the very high-end kids. When math whiz Michael Viscardi graduated from high school here in San Diego a few years ago, Harvard recruited him hard. I know because my daughter was part of the team of local Harvard kids that the SD Harvard Club chapter asked to come to an event to tell him how wonderful Harvard was and how much they enjoyed it and answer any questions.</p>
<p>From above: “I think that the key issue debated here is whether sports and atheletes deserve such huge preferetial treatment by these academic institutions.”</p>
<p>The hidden assumption in this statement from post @#68 is that there a significiant difference in ACADEMIC capability between the athlete recruits and other applicants. </p>
<p>Many of the students turned down by these schools are fully capable of doing the work. In other words, the academic differences differences among many (most?) Ivy applicants is too slight to make any difference at all. That leaves plenty of room for elite schools to base many of their admissions decisions on non-academic factors, like leadership, drive, parental gifting capability, athletic competence, etc.</p>
<p>If Harvard has ~10000 students (out of the ~30k who apply) that can all do the work and are all academic stars, its seems illogical to use insignificant academic differences to make an admissions decision. Why NOT use other factors? </p>
<p>An example: Brown turns down about 3/4 of the valedictorians who apply. Does anyone believe that there is a signficiant academic difference between the vals who were denied and the vals that were admitted? Or what about - for Princeton - the applicants who scored 2300+ on their SATs. How much academic differecne do you think you’d find between the 3/4 of them who were denied and the 1/4 that were accepted?</p>
<p>This is incorrect. MANY kids get to college and discover new things to pursue and fascinating new interests. They DO quit the tuba, dance or whatever. In many cases they simply can not handle the extracurricular along with their academics. They “thought” they could balance pre-med with being in 3 musical ensembles, but it simply turned out not to be workable. They quit. It happens with musicians, actors, rowers…all of them. </p>
<p>My athlete son was recruited (non-revenue sport) while injured and despite the efforts of many medical professionals, coaches, his parents and himself, never was able to do his sport in college. He did very well at the Ivy he chose and had the stats to get in. He certainly wasn’t planning to drop his sport- and most who do drop would never have considered that possibility while a high school senior. College sports is a different deal and often proves to be too much stress or too much of an interference with academics. Coaches expect this and recruit accordingly, I assure you.</p>
Well the assumption is that as the Newsweek article revealled 20% of the spots each year are taken by recruited atheletes and the degree of preferential treatment the colleges give athelets in terms of grades and SAT scores. There is even a seperate admission process for recruted atheletes. If the sport is considered as as an extracurricular activitity or a passion such as the violin or writing, then I guess all extracurricular activities/passions are not equal. I understand that many athelete students are academic stars as well, but this is a dicussion on what’s revealled in the article about the general trend in this area not about individual students.</p>
<p>Thank you, Benley. That’s exactly one of my two main questions which most seem to prefer to avoid discussing. </p>
<p>It’s the principle. How many applicants to say Columbia know that they aren’t really competing for one of 1,200 slots because 20% are “reserved” for recruited athletes? In fact, they may not be competing for one of 960 slots (after subtracting the 240). What percentage is “targeted” for legacies? URMs? Internationals? Violinists? The TRUE number of slots open for the unhooked may be significantly lower than parents and applicants realize. I think this is the dirty little secret.</p>
<p>I would imagine that most applicants smart enough to have a legitimate shot at Columbia would have easily figured this out based on the most minimal research one would undertake on any college before applying. Columbia is an NCAA Div. 1 university, with 31 varsity sports. Its pretty easy to make a rough estimate of how many admits would be slotted for those many teams. Dirty little secret?? Every college and university offering NCAA sports reserves admissions slots for its athletes.</p>
<p>It’s not a secret at all if you’ve been reading CC. Every year or two Daniel Golden publishes another book or article blowing the lid off this same “secret,” and it usually gets rehashed in a thread or two on CC when he does. Old news.</p>