<p>At least from my school and my experience it seems as if the majority of people that i've met have gotten into an ivy/top level school through athletics. Is it that big of a draw when deciding between top students. I personally am not going to recruited although I have played and sometimes it is frustrating to see athletes who seem to be "less qualified" getting in where I want to go.</p>
<p>I know four people who've gotten into Ivies so far (two Brown, one Yale, and one Columbia), and none of them are athletes. On the other hand, a friend who's a top-ranked student and athlete (recruited at a number of schools) applied to Yale and did not get in. YMMV, but it's definitely not always the case.</p>
<p>most athletes who get into these schools are pretty smart so i guess you just have to deal with your feelings. technically since they are being recruited, athletically, they are "more qualified" than you are.</p>
<p>What do you mean by "less qualified"? It's not like it's easy to be a recruited athlete.</p>
<p>I know like 70 or 80 kids at Ivy League schools, and only a handful got in because of athletics. Look at the numbers, clearly the vast majority of Ivy Leage students aren't varsity athletes there.</p>
<p>And who says these athletes are any less intelligent than you? Hell, it'd be quite a feat for a good athlete to keep up with the non-athletes grade-wise while still excelling athletically and meeting all their after school commitments.</p>
<p>^ If you are smart and recruited then all the better for you and no one complains. But then come those who get in solely for their athletic achievement. Of the 3 who got into Brown this year, 2 of them are recruited athletes and let's just say that they would've been lucky to get into a state school w/o the athletic accomplishment. </p>
<p>You just get every sort I guess.</p>
<p>We had two early acceptances to Yale from our school this year. Neither of us were recruited. In fact, neither of us had played sports in high school at all.</p>
<p>Besides, it takes tons of effort, time, talent to even be a recruited athlete. I have respect for them.</p>
<p>I'm sorry about the whole less qualified thing ... but I put in AS MUCH time as many recruited athletes at my school ... i just don't have the natural talent ... and I have better grades/ecs than many so i think that subjectively i can call myself better qualified for top schools</p>
<p>"let's just say that they would've been lucky to get into a state school w/o the athletic accomplishment."</p>
<p>Just as you and many others would've been lucky to get into a state school w/o the academic accomplishment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and I have better grades/ecs than many so i think that subjectively i can call myself better qualified for top schools
[/quote]
Uh, no, you can't. Top schools are looking not just for academics but for other attributes, including natural talent and commitment in sports. They look at the "whole person" and what that person can contribute. Their excellence in sports, in addition to good (even if not stellar) academic records, could easily make them "better qualified" than you.</p>
<p>If you want to see whether athletes are truly "less qualified", look at the statistics for graduation rates of varsity athletes. Some schools are truly horrendous (mainly Div I), but not the Ivies and other top schools. If an athlete can get in and graduate, they are qualified to be there.</p>
<p>I once saw an article about the MIT football team in a magazine. Its title: "Actually, They ARE Rocket Scientists."</p>