MODERATOR’S NOTE:
As I have said many times, the plural of anecdote, even when n=3, is not data.
While there may be an exception or two for a specific coach, it has been stated by MIT coaches themselves that they have little, if any, pull in admissions. The kid got in based on the strength of his application packet, IMO.
Such a thing does not exist. Ivy League schools offer no athletic scholarships, either named/endowed or otherwise.
Only need-based scholarships, right. That’s regardless of who may have endowed it or what name is on it.
All undergraduate financial assistance at Ivy League schools is need-based, correct Whether any particular school terms such aid as a “scholarship” is specific to that university.
It’s the same FA monies available TO ALL students regardless if they are athletes, musicians, debate club, blue man group, etc…
Ain’t that grand 
No academic scholarships as all those kids excel academically…
It is pretty incredible the amount of misinformation that gets perpetuated about Ivy and selective D3 athletics, especially from anecdotes starting with “I know of a kid/family …” There are a bunch of posters here who have kids that were/are actually athletic recruits at these schools and have gone through the full process. Kids and families tend to exaggerate where they are in the process and often the outcome when it comes to FA. An “athletic” or “merit” scholarship or claims of a “full ride” sound a lot better than getting some need based FA. To summarize and restate what a lot of knowledgeable posters have written:
The admissions decisions for Ivies and most if not all selective D3’s resides with the AO. For true athletic recruits, coaches may have a limited number of spots to use to support these recruits with the AO for which the AO will usually defer if the recruit meets academic standards. The coaches separately have to balance academics with athletic talent because they have a “group” standard to fulfill, whether it is within a “band” or AI system. Some coaches may offer to write “support” letters for students outside of their quota’s, but the efficacy varies and is clearly less than if the kid were an official recruit.
MIT and Caltech coaches have a limited number of support letters they can write which will provide some help, but they will tell you there are absolutely no guaranties or even likely outcomes whereas other D3’s and Ivy coaches can provide more optimistic assurances, especially if they have seen the recruit’s transcripts and test scores.
Athletic recruits for these schools are not guaranteed admission until they are officially accepted, although “likely letters” from the AO are pretty close. Non acceptance after a LL is going to be based on similar standards as a rescission of an actual admissions offer.
Ivies only offer need based aid. Many grants have a nice sounding name to them, e.g. “The XYZ Scholarship”, but they are all need based. I know for Yale, one of the marketing pitches to donors is for $X (a modest amount), we will name a one time scholarship of a name of your choosing. The donor then receives a bio of the beneficiary and a nice letter from the recipient. I can easily see parents assuming or representing a named scholarship as something other than need based financial aid.
Ime, it’s not cheap to get your name on a scholarship and in many cases, the fund needs to climb to a certain level before it’s implemented. It’s a lot of effort for what may be a one-time, relatively smaller donation. Things run through various levels to construct and approve.
My discomfort is having seen lackluster candidates for the smaller revenue and attention-getting sports, (ie, other than football, basketball, baseball,) not subject to the same standards as the pool. Sure they meet minimums, but other than the sport and level of skill, some just don’t stand out. And the ultimate comment, “Let’s see if the coach wants him.” (Less often, “her.”) I do see that as deferring to the coach.
In fairness, I’ve also seen it with a level of musicians. Not your ordinary bassoonist, but a kid who seems to have a higher skill, and includes a recording/supp.
And despite reports that athletes may graduate in higher percentages, I’m uncomfortable about reports of how they struggle, at some big name publics.
I am well aware n=3 is not data.
If you read my post I never said I was 100% SURE on the State Champ kid. It did sound off to me. (FWIW, the kid is in an IVY but not HYP)
Look at it from another angle:
Run a NPC on a family with a $175K income at HYP vs. CPDBC. The needs based grant sure looks different. So if a hockey player gets a bigger needs based grant from H over say Cornell, then Cornell matches the needs based grant, what has really happened. The athlete now has a bigger needs grant than the non-athlete and in the CDS it all shows as needs based. Its all just an entry on the ledger anyway.
I’m pretty jaded over the lack of transparency of the admissions process at the Ivys and don’t particularly believe the religion of no-needs based aid touted here. Colleges seem to run like a government IMHO. I’ve seen government at work moving funds to different buckets and claiming all kinds of nonsense. It makes for a good photo op or press release.
The no-needs mantra is probably closer to the truth, but I’m just not buying there are no exceptions.
Of course, H has.more generous aid. How matching aid works at other schools, with different policies, isn’t a sure thing.
https://www.thecrimson.com/admissions/article/2013/11/4/letters-of-intent-and-likely-letters/
I’m curious if some here have seen a Likely Letter. The format I’m familiar with, (academic LLs,) is not a guarantee, doesn’t say, we plan to accept you, if you keep up the good work. It seems vague, to me.
“Run a NPC on a family with a $175K income at HYP vs. CPDBC. The needs based grant sure looks different. So if a hockey player gets a bigger needs based grant from H over say Cornell, then Cornell matches the needs based grant, what has really happened. The athlete now has a bigger needs grant than the non-athlete and in the CDS it all shows as needs based. Its all just an entry on the ledger anyway.”
Matching FA packages to secure students of any kind (athlete, musician, STEM etc) happens across the board. The Ivies have different levels of aid they can give based on their endowments and use that draw to attract the best candidates. Here on CC you see plenty of folks who often go back to negotiate a better FA award using another school’s award as leverage.
Technically, no, not existing different levels of aid. You can see in Ivy NPCs which aren’t distinguishing among good, better, and best candidates.
And though we see “plenty” of CC families negotiating, it doesn’t make it slam dunk or mean the other award is matched 100%.
I have seen an athletic likely letter from one school and a non academic likely letter from another. This is a few years ago, but iirc, they were essentially the same. They sure seemed to me to be a promise that if the academic record remained the same, a positive admissions decision would follow.
Also, I believe that financial aid matching must be offered to all students if it is offered to athletic admits under the Ivy common agreement. Now, the number of non athletes who have the opportunity to take advantage of matching in the current admissions environment is a different story.
^^^my point is athletes are not the only student who negotiate their FA packages and if the school really wants you, call it best candidate/highly sought after…whatever, they will consider another school’s offer. It’s not limited to Early Action athletics…
The difference is that the non Ivy D1 schools (with a sort of exception for Stanford, the service academies and the Patriot schools) cede direct control over a certain number of admissions slots to the athletic department. In that circumstance, as long as the recruit meets certain objective benchmarks (which may or may not be higher than the NCAA minimum standards for eligibility) the recruit is admitted, no further action required. In the Ivy, while the athletic department is given a number of spots they can use to support recruits who meet defined academic benchmarks, the admissions department still makes the final decision on who will be admitted. It is a huge difference that is very often misunderstood here.
@BKSquared You are correct, sir. S1 was recruited by CHI and Swat, and the like, and was offered by more than one.
I think the whole sport/admissions thing is silly, but I think many things about admissions in US colleges are silly and beyond convoluted. I like what they do in Canada. Show us your gr. 10,11,12 marks, and test scores.
There are slight boosts up for EC's or athletics at some schools there, I believe, with the emphasis on the word, "slight". For the most part, if you say that you are great at Lacrosse, or throwing a discus, they'll say, "That's nice. Now, about that C in World History..."
There are scholarships and Bursaries available for underprivileged, or underrepresented groups of people, but that is something that you apply for separately from Admissions.
@tonymom, I understand what you are saying. But I think there is a legitimate point to be made that while matching is available to athletes in the Ivy when they can show “demonstrated recruiting interest” from another school, it is not really available to other students unless a likely letter is received, or after admissions decisions are released. In an era of large percentages of classes being filled ED or SCEA, and with the overall low admissions rates throughout the Ivy generally, there are probably not many non athletes who can take advantage of the program.
Of course, as we both know, the percentage of athletes who end up with a committable offer and a likely letter in the Ivy is much smaller than the general admit rate anyway.
“admissions department still makes the final decision on who will be admitted”
I might say, “plays a role.” I think we’d all agree. But ime, admissions isn’t taking the coach lists and then vetting them in the context of the full pool.
It’s a potent hook.
Regarding a “named academic scholarship” at an Ivy League school, there may be named scholars, but no additional money attached. For example:
@57special I still contend that if academic marks alone system was better, the people who are paid to make that decision would have changed to that a long time ago. As a raw material supplier, of course you think that’s better (raw material = student). But the goal of universities, more so private research to less so private liberal arts colleges, is to improve society. Believe it or not it isn’t to provide an academic degree to high stat kids.
Premise: it is a largely accepted fact that the US higher education system is best in the world.
Supported by:
Conclusion: Why should any University change their admissions practice to remove the slight to moderate admissions bump candidates who are recruited athletes get?
Now, in the spirit of innovation and market based economics, somebody should buy/start an elite university and see what happens if they go that route. I would love to see that new entity break into the CHYMPS echelon of universities. Every year 3-5 institutions of higher education close. You could get one on the cheap.
Ivy Fin-aid recipient may be informed that part of their need-based scholarship is a named scholarship and they should write a letter of appreciation. The donor has an option to invite the recipient of named scholarship out for lunch/dinner and the recipient should oblige.
Had to dig out our Likely Letter. Notwithstanding of other mumbo-jumbo it ends with “congratulations on your accomplishments and welcome to the X community”. This should tell you something about if it is a sure thing or not.
@Ohiodad51 “The difference is that the non Ivy D1 schools (with a sort of exception for Stanford, the service academies and the Patriot schools) cede direct control over a certain number of admissions slots to the athletic department. In that circumstance, as long as the recruit meets certain objective benchmarks (which may or may not be higher than the NCAA minimum standards for eligibility) the recruit is admitted, no further action required. In the Ivy, while the athletic department is given a number of spots they can use to support recruits who meet defined academic benchmarks, the admissions department still makes the final decision on who will be admitted. It is a huge difference that is very often misunderstood here.”
Do you have a link you can provide with information to support this? If this is the case, I would be curious to read the background on non-ivy D1 schools and become better informed.
This link was referenced earlier by @lastone03 http://www.und.com/genrel/110817aab.html
2017 NCAA Graduation Rates
All data for student-athletes who enrolled between 2007 and 2010 (numbers are percentages)
All Student-Athletes
GSR (NCAA)
Federal Rate (Dept of Ed)
I just copied the top 5 schools in the first category (“all student-athlete”), but there is more info in the link that is similar in all categories. As you can see, the top 5 schools are all elite D1 schools that are non-Ivy league. Surely schools like Notre Dame, Duke, Northwestern, etc can’t have standards that are significantly different from those of the ivy league with athlete grad rates like these? Would it be more appropriate to say “some non-ivy D1 schools”, so that we’re not lumping all of them into the same bag?