<p>It's obvious that athletes generally are not as qualified academically as other applicants, but I never realized how much of a hook being an athlete is. I know of several athletes that have gone to top schools with grades and test scores not quite on par with those of other applicants, but that were certainly good. But recently I found out that a baseball player at a private school in my city is going to Vanderbilt with a 17 ACT. I also know of a sophomore baseball player who is a C student that has committed to play at Vanderbilt. Is this common? I just don't understand how someone with a 17 ACT could keep up at a great school Vanderbilt. I also didn't think Vanderbilt offered scholarships to underclassmen who are bad students. I'm also curious as to how going to an elite college with the reading level of a middle schooler works out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not necessarily true everywhere. For example, Ole Miss and Mississippi State automatically admit applicants who meet the NCAA minimum academic standards, regardless of whether the applicants are athletes.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.admissions.msstate.edu/freshman/requirements.php”>http://www.admissions.msstate.edu/freshman/requirements.php</a>
(Ole Miss’ admissions web site is currently down)</p>
<p>If they go to college, they just have to survive two years until eligible for the MLB draft again. They might also be drafted next June and never make it to Vandy. If they go, I’m sure they can make sure they survive until they get drafted.</p>
<p>How common is it? More common than most people realize, and in a way, corrupt as hell. But alumni demand it, so it happens.</p>
<p>FWIW, a 17 ACT is right around average intelligence for the general population. A 19 is national average for the test, but the lower end doesn’t take the test in large enough numbers to even out the scores. A 17 is not Vandy material, but about average. And as someone once said, you’d be shocked how low average really is. Half the people are less intelligent than that.</p>
<p>
Not only is it not obvious, it isn’t true. Academically, athletes aren’t fundamentally academically inferior to non-athletes. They’re just students who also happen to be athletes. Some good athletes are good students and others aren’t, just as some good students are good athletes and others aren’t. </p>
<p>I apologize if I’m overreacting, but athlete bashing annoys me. My kids were both academic superstars in high school. Athletics consumed a lot of their time, but they both managed to become National AP Scholars and eventually, after graduation, both were honored as State AP Scholars, meaning both were our state’s highest achieving AP students of their sex the years they graduated.</p>
<p>So think twice before you call either of them underqualified. They might beat you up. :-* </p>
<p>That said, you’re right, being an athlete helps in admissions.</p>
<p>@sherpa Most RECRUITED athletes are not as qualified as non-athlete applicants.</p>
<p>@MrMom62 I’m fairly certain that the average ACT is about a 21. Also, the ACT isn’t an intelligence test, although I’m sure intelligent people usually do well on it.</p>
<p>@mtodd1 - Think carefully about what you’re saying. If you would have said that standards are lowered for athletes, then I would have agreed with you. </p>
<p>If you would have said that recruited athletes’ academic stats are, on average, lower than those of the overall accepted pool, I’d agree with that too.</p>
<p>I also would have agreed if you had said that athletes are generally less academically qualified than other admitted students.</p>
<p>But you didn’t say any of those of those things. You said that “athletes generally are not as qualified academically as other applicants…”, which is an entirely different thing.</p>
<p>Think of it this way:</p>
<p>Would you say that athletes are generally less intelligent than the general public? I doubt you would.</p>
<p>Would you say that athletes are generally less academically successful in high school as non-athletes? Probably not.</p>
<p>Once you accept the fact that there is no correlation between athleticism and academic prowess, you’ll be able to understand that athlete applicants are generally academically equal to non-athlete applicants, but the athletes generally are given a preference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it is. Both the ACT and SAT are forms of IQ tests, though they like to dance around that fact, since IQ tests are not politically correct in certain circles. That’s why it’s difficult for most people to raise their scores, they are measures of inherent ability, not learned material beyond a certain point. For example, the math section measures nothing beyond Algebra II, which is all that is expected of an average HS graduate who wishes to go to on to college.</p>
<p>@sherpa - Your kids were both academically and athletically gifted, which is great. But I think you have to admit, there are a certain set of highly talented college athletes who would never be admitted to their schools if not for their athletic prowess, which is what the OP was asking about. Even Ivies let in a few kids with really substandard scores compared to the average academic admit. Maybe not 17, but I’ve seen a 27 get into Harvard and a 25 get into Stanford. (I believe Ivies and NESCAC are limited on how many they can take like that, it’s a very small number, and there is a floor on the score and grades.)</p>
<p>@MrMom62 - Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, and I explicitly said so in post #6.</p>
<p>The OP’s contention with which I took issue was that athletes are academically inferior to other applicants, not other admitted students.</p>
<p>@MrMom62 The SAT is an aptitude test, while the ACT is an “achievement” test. The ACT’s questions are extremely straightforward, so it’s just a matter of whether or not you know the material. The math on the ACT does include trigonometry, while the SAT doesn’t go past Algebra II. Here’s an example of a hard SAT math question:</p>
<p>“To make an orange dye, parts of red dye are mixed with parts of yellow dye. To make a green dye, parts of blue dye are mixed with part of yellow dye. If equal amounts of green and orange are mixed, what fraction of the new mixture is yellow dye?”</p>
<p>A question like this is likely to appear on an IQ test, but never on the ACT. A hard ACT math problem will usually take some understanding of trigonometry to complete. Also, consider the reading section of the ACT compared to that of the SAT; ACT reading questions will ask for details, while SAT reading questions will ask for analyzation and even give you the line the question refers to. </p>
<p>The best proof I can give you that the ACT is not an IQ test comes from my own school’s test scores. The average ACT is a 31, while the average SAT is an 1800 (translates to a 26-27 on the conversion chart). Since the students at my school have a strong educational background, the ACT is easy for them, and they can usually raise their scores with preparation. Just last year eight students scored a 36.</p>