<p>It seems to me that there is far too much traditional inertia for these schools to drastically change their policies, even if there are some people within these institutions who don’t like them. Also, the kind of public outcry that would be necessary to get them to change against their will is just not going to develop. As others have said, there is just not that much public sympathy for the poor 2400 SAT scorers who has to go to Duke instead of Harvard, or some such comparison. These schools are private and they really like their athletic programs. I agree that it seems unfair, but they are entitled to let in whomever they wish. </p>
<p>It is not true that these schools have a policy of admitting the best academic students, or that they have an institutional goal of being “fair” in the selection of students (outside of the legal sense of the word).</p>
<p>TO clarify the point above that “it is not true that these schools have a policy of admitting the best academic students” - I think that it is not true that their ONLY or sole criteria is admitting the best academic students. Clearly they DO admit many “super-power” academic students and academics plays a big part. I mean, it’s not as though these schools’ average SAT’s have dropped down to 1800 because they’ve let in so many allegedly-dumb-jocks. </p>
<p>But to prove that “Ivies (etc) are turning away too many academically superior students” – for that to happen, they’d all have to go elsewhere, and you’d find some super-academic school with a more academically inclined set of students existing. I don’t really think such a school appears to exist. (Well, possibly Caltech. But not really.) More to the point, though, what’s the big societal harm if the academic superstar winds up at Tufts instead of Harvard, or whatever? It’s not as though Harvard has a monopoly on the types of things that academic superstars can and should do.</p>
<p>“No societal harm at all. I’m arguing that it may be a loss to Harvard.”</p>
<p>Right, but Harvard can change their policy at any time if they feel they are not getting the quality students they desire. Is there any indication that selective schools in general are unhappy with their “pools”?</p>
<p>I haven’t read this whole thread, but lets have some historical perspective.</p>
<p>Not that long ago, Hargadon was dean of admissions at Princeton. Then a faculty study committee formed and put out a study. Reading it, some of us reacted with “hip hip hooray!” You had to read through the lines a bit, but the bottom line is the FACULTY decided enough was enough. Too many athletes, too few kids genuinely outstanding in other areas. Coupled with Hargadon’s attitude towards geographic diversity, it was almost impossible to get into Princeton from NYC if you weren’t URM, legacy or a recruited athlete.</p>
<p>Suddenly, there was the president of Princeton saying “We need more Stuyvesant types.” You could almost hear the Hallelujah chorus in NYC. </p>
<p>Because of problems with alums, Princeton decided to increase class size. This meant the # of recruited athletes was the same, but the percentage of each class reserved for athletes dropped. </p>
<p>The number of Princeton admittees from my offspring’s old high school has increased exponentially–in an era in which competition for admissions increased.</p>
<p>So, don’t tell me that athletic recruiting doesn’t impact kids–it does. It also impacts universities. There is a reason why Princeton’s performing arts scene has improved a lot in the last decade. And why Stanford’s is still very weak.</p>
<p>If we’re to take current student opinion into account, I’d sacrifice all the performing arts at my university to have a football team win the ivy league, and you can have all the geographic diversity too while you’re at it.</p>
<p>I think the beginnings of an answer starts here:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As for the “Stuyvesant types” remark, I think that may really be shorthand for more academically high achieving students, especially those from academically rigorous public magnet high schools. </p>
<p>As someone who is a Stuy alum, this is very refreshing considering back in the early-mid '90s and before, there was a common perception among Stuy kids that of the HYPSMCs…Princeton’s campus culture really had a strong dislike for kids from public magnets like Stuy compared with Harvard and Yale. </p>
<p>Not too surprising considering the negative accounts I’ve heard from older Stuy classmates and other public magnet graduate friends who attended Princeton in the 80’s and early '90s and the numbers they tended to admit from each of our graduating classes. Comparatively speaking, the other HYPSMC schools showed much more love to Stuy.</p>
<p>I know y’all have moved on but in the spirit of general edification (the purpose of CC, yes?) I will answer this and related questions for those of you not versed in the finer points of a fencing team.</p>
<p>There are three weapons (foil, epee and sabre) and 3 fencers/weapon. So a team needs minimum of 9 on the roster. Generally you want to have at least 4/weapon so that you can cover some contingencies. Many teams have more, but only 3/weapon can fence at a meet. So 2/gender/year for Brown would provide 8 of the 12 or so needed.</p>
<p>Each 3 fence 3 from the opposing team resulting in total of 27 bouts for the 3 weapons. Whichever team wins at least 14 of these bouts wins the match. The caveat is that for the NCAA finals, each team is only allowed max of 2 fencers, so theoretically if you had 2 great fencers/weapon, you could win NCAA national title while not necessarily winning the meets. However, this is combined male and female teams performance so Cornell, which has a womens, but no mens team, could never win NCAA title.</p>
<p>A little late jumping in. I am no expert but they do say during HS years is the time brain develops almost as much as in infancy. The emphasis of HS athletes by prestigeous institutions would seem to encourage muscle building over brain developing in our last chance to get smart. If future economy depends more on techs and engineering than networking athlets are good at, we are positioning ourselves on the losing side. Huge negative impact on society is possible.</p>
<p>Don’t know if this is just what the colleges want us to believe, but this was an interesting quote from the NYTimes article:</p>
<p>"A recruited Ivy League athlete must have the academic credentials to survive the stringent and highly selective admissions process at each institution. Coaches have little sway in the admissions process, although they do provide a list of potential athletes to admissions officials. Across the league, about 13 percent of each universitys incoming class is composed of athletes chosen from coaches lists. "</p>
My goodness. How unexpected. I’d like to thank the members of the academy here at CC, and everyone who made this possible …</p>
<p>Oops. Two steps back?</p>
<p>Seriously, if you don’t know how completely patronizing that comment is, I’d prefer to remain on your ignore list. Ditto if the condescension is intended.</p>
<p>I, and others, have posted about this several times over the years, but some people do not want to believe it. The athlete completes an application with recommendations and interviews just like everyone else, and the application is reviewed by the adcoms just like everyone else. The offer of admissions comes from the admissions office, not the coach. Because Ivy League athletes do not receive athletic scholarships, there is theoretically less incentive for them to stay on the team all four years, so they need to fit as regular students as well as athletes.</p>
<p>Bay, I am sorry, but while your statements are technically “correct”, the point here is about whether there is a significant difference in how athletes are identified, contacted and pre-selected, and in the timing.
There is a significant difference. The coaches send in a list of their selections, whom they have contacted in X months prior to the Fall of senior year after spending time and money looking at, even coaching many players starting in 9th or 10th grade. They already know the stats of the athletes. The coaches also know they will get a certain number of slots filled. Who else at these colleges outside of Admissions has that kind of guarantee and pull?
Very very different process from the point of view of all other applicants, even legacies, and Likely Letters. Of course, the Admissions Office makes the “final” decision, but everything is set up for them to pick from. I have a feeling that the percentage of rejects is not that high. It is closer to a rubber stamp unless a problem, than a full evaluation.</p>
<p>As I said earlier, the Ivies do not offer athletic scholarships, but now they do offer good FA. Is the field level enough for them to suspend recruiting activities in place to compete with D1 and D2 schools? How many of these athletes are really looking at schools that offer athletic scholarship in tandem with Ivies?</p>
<p>Anyway, there is a whole forum on Athletic Scholarships on CC.
It is important to be precise.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure the top SAT scorers and low-income and URMs are identified and contacted early too. Most organizations which are competing for the best in something don’t sit around and hope it walks in the door while others are courting them, too. I don’t get why this is such a big deal for some people.</p>