Here's how you get into Harvard and Princeton

Parents Forum
61

<p>Bay -- The NYT article, written last spring, was about upcoming changes in Harvard's recruitment policy. I note that two of the freshmen on the current roster you linked are discussed by name in the article:</p>

<p>
[quote]
But Max Kenyi, a 6-3 shooting guard from Gonzaga College High School in Washington, D.C., and Keith Wright, a 6-7 forward at Norfolk Collegiate in Virginia, said that they had each received a likely letter. They were well below index levels that the previous staff members said they had adhered to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So while many of the current players, especially upperclassmen, may be very strong academic achievers, it appears that, as reported in the Times, Harvard has now decided to shift gears and recruit players with a lower academic standing than it did previously.</p>

62

<p>INHO, being a "top-ranked," state/nationally recognized musician takes at least the same amount of time it takes to be an All-State/nationally recognized athelete. What's the difference between a three hour athletic practice and a three hour rehearsal? In terms of time-None. So, please do not say that athletes have a built-in excuse for lesser academic credentials because of practice, games, travel, etc. That's bull. It just isn't so. They just happen to have a talent that is "recruited for," while musicians (and other equally-talented kids) do not. </p>

<p>Interesting: The kid that got into Harvard from our school last year, was also a swimmer.</p>

63

<p>what I don't think folks always understand is that academics are not the only critical factor in top school admission decisions. If that was the case, have an entrance exam and simply take the top scorers. The Yale Dean of Admissions Jeffrey Brenzel has been quoted in a number of articles talking about how Yale tries to build an "interesting class". While certainly there are base line academic standards for everyone, these schools dont hide the fact that 2400 SATers dont always get in and athletes, musicians, etc do .My d's likely letter was perhaps the most thoughtful and insightful window into admissions I have seen (more than her acceptance letter)</p>

<p>In part:</p>

<p>" You bring a special skill to Yale, and the demonstrated capacity to balance your academic life with your serious commitment to sports.We believe we have built a very positive athletic ethic at Yale, based on the belief that competitive athletics can be a factor in the development of a whole person. Yet we do not admit "athletes" to Yale anymore than we admit "musicians" or "chemists" or " community leaders". We admit people of great promise.</p>

<p>This letter therefore is an act of faith in you overall potential for excellence at Yale.It demonstrates we have full confidence in your full set of capabilities, including a strong dedication to academic excellence. We are proud to welcome you to the Yale family."</p>

<p>That, my friends, provides a glimpse into admissions. And its the letter I will keep forever.</p>

64

<p>wjb,
While the article does state that Wright and Kenyi had AI scores below the usual past standard of 195-206 (this was a little unclear), even so, I found it notable that Wright was an NHS member at a private independent school, and Kenyi was a Commended NMS and a Nat'l Achievement Scholar candidate. So it is not exactly like they are academic slouches.</p>

<p>Collegemom08,
While you may think it is "bull" that Div.I athletes have a "built in excuse for lesser academic credentials," the reality is that the top universities in this country disagree with you. It has been this way since you and your children were born.</p>

65

<p>Collegemom08- I disagree with you. It isn't just a matter of adding up practice hours. It's the intense schedule of games- including travel time. It's off-season work. It's fitting into a team environment. I am in no way diminishing the demands on musicians- I put one of those through college already! However, it just isn't the same thing. You aren't putting it on the line with the same frequency, for one thing.</p>

66

<p>Collegemom08:</p>

<p>I don't disagree that top musicians work hard at their ECs as well - but you may be under-estimating the time required to be a D1 athlete. </p>

<p>When my 08 Son was applying for colleges, we tracked the time required for his sport - and he averaged, over the course of the full year - both in and out of season - 34 hours a week. In season, during the school year, he had weights from 5-630 every morning, practice/games every afternoon which typically went from 130 - 630 or later if there was a bus to the games. Saturday and Sunday were a minimum of 6 hours each day. Total for the week around 45-50 hours. In the summer, it was closer to 60-70 hours unless he had an away event which normally meant basically 8-10 days.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
While you may think it is "bull" that Div.I athletes have a "built in excuse for lesser academic credentials," the reality is that the top universities in this country disagree with you. It has been this way since you and your children were born.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely correct. Thousands of generous alumni fill stadium seats. They do not fill concert hall seats. They open their wallets when teams win NCAA titles. They do not open their wallets when a student wins the International Chopin competition.</p>

<p>Do not flame me. I say this with no cynicism, and as the parent of a non-athlete who is a serious musician. I understand that every elite athlete makes a huge commitment to his/her sport. Moreover, I WANT my child's school to have the benefit of the money that athletics programs bring into the University's coffers.</p>

68

<p>While we focus on that one kid who also happens to be an athlete (as if that is the secret, the athletic part), we do not see the numbers of student-athletes who don't get in, or, as a I said in a previous post, don't bother to apply.</p>

<p>In some sports (such as soccer) a coach may need to bring in about 6 players for that year. Let us also assume Harvard's admit rate at about 9%.</p>

<p>Don't forget all the student-athletes out there who are very good students who also want to play D1. A lot of these students will want to go to Harvard. Now the coach only wants to bring in 5 or 6. It only takes about 67 players in that particular sport to show interest, with Harvard only taking 6 of them, to equal the general admit rate of 9%. </p>

<p>Now do only 67 very bright, very committed and very good soccer players want to go to Harvard? I doubt it is that low. I bet the Harvard soccer coach is handling inquiries from at least double that, and maybe even triple that. But again, if the coach shows no interest, or gives you a look and decides he/she can't use you, then if you want to play D1 soccer, you won't apply to Harvard.</p>

<p>For every athlete who gets in and plays, I bet I can show you 10 athletes who would have liked to get in.</p>

<p>So it really isn't that much different for athletes.</p>

<p>We tend to focus on those admittances that surprise us, or confirm our suspicions etc. For example, those students with the 2400 SATs and the medical research, the community service and the straight As who do not get in get lots of attention. It confirms our own beliefs that admittance is something of a 'crapshoot' or it surprises us because that applicant looks like an automatic admit.</p>

<p>But if you look closely, the number of students with records such as those above probably have a much higher overall admit rate than 9%.</p>

<p>Likewise, there is this idea that athletes have somewhat of an edge, but then again, if you look closely at the number of student-athletes for a particular sport who wish to play at Harvard, and make some effort to get seen, and then look closely at the number they admit for a particular sport, I bet the overall 'admit' rate is lower than 9% (and I put 'admit' in quotes because if you know the coach isn't interested, after sending tapes, showing interest and going to camps, you might not even apply).</p>

<p>It's just hard to get into Harvard and Princeton, for all students, including some very talented student-athletes.</p>

69

<p>While the time commitment for athletic practice for a high school varsity sport and a high school musician can be comparable there are some differences. And unless you yourself or your child actually participated in these sports one might not be aware of the differences.</p>

<p>Practice at home on an instrument or in a music room with a band or orchestra is contrasted strongly with 5 hour football practices on a field with the rest of the team in full pads in over 100 degree temperatures 5 days a week with games on weekends, every weekend. There are physical demands that just do no exist with other ECs. In addition to field time, there is time in the weight room (daily), time for film (daily) and strength and endurance training. Having 3 sons who did this and wrestling showed me the huge time commitment and physical taxing it does on a students' body.</p>

<p>This does not take into consideration the "given" that they will be injured. It is just a question of how bad. How long it will hurt, how much time it will take to get better and and how soon they can get back out there. It is a team, time intensive EC, not to be taken lightly nor for the faint of heart.</p>

<p>Daughters were also scholar athletes. Middle daughters sport(s) required high school practice time (2x a day, morning and afternoon practice 5:30 pool time) and club practice time (again daily, 6 days a week). Meets for high school 2 times a week and 1-2 a month for club/regional meets. The injuries are not as severe as often but can happen in non-contact sports. However, gymnasts and divers have and can be as badly injured as football players. Having practice for both of these sports daily and not including the "fear" factor associated with both sports can take their toll on scholar athletes in which no other EC can.</p>

<p>I am sure there are other parents on this board whose students participated in these sports and can attest to some of the other "intangibles" that can and will result in their students that would not be visible to other parents whose kiddos do not participate.</p>

<p>I have a son at this threads ivy who did NOT disclose his want or desire to play football in college, he put on his app his other sport but knew it would not be a factor at that particular ivy. Rather he did walk-on and play after he was already matriculated. Interesting to note that one of his other schools did want to recruit him for his sport AFTER he was accepted EA (MIT). Again was not a factor for recruitment purposes but rather, as reflected in his acceptance letter from the school (personal, handwritten) it was because of his leadership skills he obtained from being captain of his hs team and his ability to be a team player.</p>

<p>As was true for my daughter and other son. It was the skills and perspectives they acquired from participating in their time-intensive, and physically demanding sport that made them attractive to adcoms, 8+ years of participation+3 years as captains. This would be one of the "intangibles" that level and type of participation in an EC would give that others do not.</p>

<p>So the formula stated by the OP is not as simple as football+grades+scores but rather grades (showing commitment/hard work)+time intensive EC (commitment/hard work)+scores+community service (commitment/hard work)+ what can student bring to college community (commitment/hard work). So yes they are building a class, and what will your scholar athlete bring to that class- there is the formula.</p>

<p>Every year there are threads/posts that are not as favorable to the scholar athletes and every year it is similar responses. The resentment is sad and unnecessary. For those with the resentment it wastes their time and energy. Better that time was spent on other things.</p>

<p>Kat</p>

70

<p>Well, there are many factors. An intellectual activity such as music is going to drain your capacity to sit down after long practice and study calculus or history or whatever. A non-intellectual activity such as a physical sport is going to make you fit, better able to concentrate, and able to use your intellectual study time more effectively.</p>

71

<p>I do not agree with the idea expressed by some in this thread that the time, fortitude, and grit demanded of elite student athletes is somehow greater than that required of elite student musicians. For top young musicians, too, there are many hours of solo practice and many hours of rehearsal with orchestras, chamber ensembles, etc. There is intense preparation for competitions and concerts and master classes and recording sessions, some of them very far from home. Kids who compete at the highest levels prepare and prepare and prepare, then have a single shot to “stand and deliver.” For solo competitors, the pressure is enormous, and the best of them have ice water running through their veins. Like elite athletes, elite musicians work all year long. No summers off. They also suffer career-ending injuries, although I do grant that they are never life-threatening. </p>

<p>I give enormous credit to elite student athletes. I wish parents of elite athletes would give the same credit to elite student musicians.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
I give enormous credit to elite student athletes. I wish parents of elite athletes would give the same credit to elite student musicians.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have a tremendous appreciation for musicians - I was one in high school. On CC at least, there is so much athlete-bashing, and no (that I am aware of) musician-bashing. This is why there is so much ink in defense of athletes.</p>

73

<p>Yes, Bay, Good point. Son is great athlete as well as 1st chair in his section in orchestra. Glad he has had music in his life. Very glad also that he has gotten so much from his sport-ability, teamwork, confidence,leadership,etc. Anything that brings enjoyment to life, whether athletics or music, is great!</p>

74

<br>


<br>

<p>Agreed. In the same vein, I wish people would also give credit to students who compete in the more nerdy extracurriculars like debate, math, so on and so forth.</p>

<p>I think it is great to value all-round students. </p>

<p>Having said that, I do feel that at the very top levels (eg Harvard, Princeton), the emphasis should be first and foremost on academic and intellectual merit. These are after all the most elite of academic institutions.</p>

<p>Let us turn the tables for a second and ask: When choosing players for a top ranked national football team (eg Florida, USC, Utah), should coaches factor in players' GPAs and SAT scores? If there are two excellent quarterbacks to pick from, should the coach choose the one with the higher GPA, or the one who is a slightly better player than the other? Similarly, should Julliard or Curtis factor in GPAs and SAT's when they pick musicians for their conservatories? Well, they don't.</p>

75

<p>Thank you, wjb, re: post # 71. You hit the nail on the head. Bravo!</p>

76

<p>As much as non-athletes might not like it, Harvard and Princeton put a premium (in the form of more flexible academic standards) on scholar-athletes, over scholar-musicians or plain scholars. This has been occurring since before any of us were born and has never been a secret. If it is as easy as some seem to think, to be a scholar-athlete of the level desired by Harvard and Princeton, and admission to those schools is your top goal, then it would behoove a student and his/her parents to drop the music, debate, etc and do sports instead. You are a little behind the ball, if you are simply complaining after the fact that you don't agree with Harvard's and Princeton's values.</p>

77

<p>^^Let's be clear, though. The "premium" Harvard, Princeton, and their peers place on scholar-athletes has nothing at all to do with a determination that a scholar-athlete is somehow better, more dedicated, more talented, or more worthy than a scholar-musician (or a scholar-debater, scholar-scientist, etc.). It has to do with which type of student generates more revenue for the university. No contest there.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
It has to do with which type of student generates more revenue for the university. No contest there.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No it doesn't. Other than football or basketball (and even those may be break-even or money-losers), none of Harvard's or Princeton's sports are revenue generators.</p>

79

<p>A number of students have been accepted based on music regardless of revenue generation.</p>

80

<p>Re post #78: If what you're saying is accurate, then it is indeed true that elite universities employ preferences and relaxed academic standards for recruited athletes not because varsity teams generate alumni enthusiasm and revenue for the universities, but because universities deem student athletes more talented, more dedicated, more worthy of admission than non-athletes.</p>

<p>Sorry, but that does not pass the reasonableness test.</p>