<p>
Based on my observations, more likely a 2250 and a 3.85. Below that, the legacies don’t get in (at least early) either. Indeed, some quite a bit better than that were deferred (at least from Yale) this year and last year.</p>
<p>I know a sophmore at Princeton, wasn’t a stellar HS student, maybe top 25% but, a highly recruited athlete. He’s holding his own and is a credit to his peers, family and those that know him.
He’s a good, decent kid that deserved this, even if it was with a big hook.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with a qualified legacy receiving a “tip” in admissions, but what I do think is wrong is the back door admission of many athletes. I’ve seen case after case where a student is accepted over much more qualified peers, simply because he or she can run around a track or hit a ball. Not to mention that they receive special treatment during the admission progress. It’s disgusting. These are kids who would NEVER have a shot at the school otherwise because of their academics. Thats why 2300+ valedictorians are often passed over - to make room for athletes.</p>
<p>I understand that some sports are huge revenue generators, such as football, hockey, or basketball, but why does Harvard need fencing, water polo, two classes of crew, etc? The numbers are huge - anywhere from 200 to 600 seats in a class go to these folks. BTW, they are almost overwhelmingly white - just a way to make sure that the majority remains Caucasian and middle to upper middle class. </p>
<p>Athletic recruiting needs a serious review - the numbers allowed in are much too large.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not my impression. My son and all his friends are really worried about having a job when they graduate. This son, who is home from college for three weeks on break, is working over break at the firm that hired him last summer. He wants the money, but also, he wants to make sure he there will be a job for him next summer there.</p>
<p>It’s not always about being the fastest at a sprint, or having the best GPA, or making the big play in one game or hitting 2300 in one sitting…it’s about the whole person and I for one, am glad that we have colleges and universities that have all kinds of kids…much like every team in every sport and in every business setting…each person brings different attributes that make a whole.</p>
<p>Gorillaglue,
At the end of the day it is the school who says who is qualified. Students who score 2300 are not the only people qualified. Theoretically a student scoring a 600 on the critical reading and writing will be capable of doing the work. As I stated in my previous post, maybe they will not have a 4 .0 nit they are capable of finishing. Admissions to the Ivies has never been and never will be simply based on who has the “best” scores. The institutional mission trumps everything</p>
<p>Some of these posts about athletes made me think about a HS classmate of mine. Everyone knew that he was a recruited athlete at the prestigious college he attended. Some people knew that he was also a legacy. Fewer people knew that he was one of the top students in a HS class of 500+ students.</p>
<p>Yes my youngest is a “helmet sport” kid multiple varsity letters before junior year and one of the really bright ones but I guarantee very few parents of his friends know that unless the kids told the parents. He loves the union at University of Michigan with the athlete on one side of the door and the scholar on the other side of the door. Once you get to selective colleges generally the athletes are no slouches academically. No college will admit someone they think might “flunk out”…what good does that do for any school?</p>
<p>Isn’t it enough that the athletes get the girls?
Now they get all of the spots in the Ivy’s.
What’s next, they’ll get good jobs too?</p>
<p>I can understand why non-athletes don’t like the recruitment of athletes, but to complain that it’s unfair is just carping. Those colleges care about athletics, and you don’t. So go somewhere that doesn’t care, or start your own college.</p>
<p>And are recruited athletes more white than the non-athletes at highly selective colleges? I would be surprised if this is true across all sports, and especially surprised if it were true for the most intensely recruited sports. It might be true that recruited athletes are more non-Asian than non-athletes, but there’s no reason that Asian kids couldn’t excel in more sports if that’s what they want to do. I guarantee that a coach will recruit a fast Asian over a slow white kid any day.</p>
<p>Telling me to choose another school because I may not like its policies is wrong. Was it “carping” to complain in the 1960s that many elite colleges were mostly white and male? All of that “carping” led to a change of policies, and more fairness. Yes, even private schools should make an effort to be fair. Colleges which recruit 100s of athletes for crew, squash, rugby, sailing, water polo, fencing…should be ashamed. These sports are overwhelmingly populated by affluent whites - take a look at the list of prep and boarding schools on Harvard’s rowing roster. Give me a break. How many students have the opportunity to play, let alone get good at, any of these sports? These kids get in through a back door - saying they can “do the work” is a laugh. How about those 2300 vals - perhaps one of them could do a bit more than “the work” - and actually do something that matters in this world. Our values are really screwed up in this country, if this is the mindset.</p>
<p>I don’t think all the kids on the rowing roster are recruited. I suspect that many more recruiting slots are used to get kids for the big sports–and they are much more likely to come from public schools. If you think these schools are using athletic recruitment as a secret means of benefiting whites, OK. But at whose expense? They’re also scrambling to get URMs. Do you just mean Asians? If so, what’s preventing affluent Asians from taking up these sports and attending prep schools? Phillips Exeter is 24% Asian right now.</p>
<p>And GorillaGlue, doesn’t your own kid attend a private prep school with a sailing team?</p>
<p>Really stop generalizing… and mostly kids choose their sports in whatever manner kids choose their sports. My oldest two sailed, skied, played tennis, golfed, and swam for their letters. #3 just prefers football, lacrosse and sports where he gets to well, knock people down. Not my choice but doesn’t seem to have scrambled his brains although it’s been tough on his knees and the teams seem to “want” the kids year-round…unlike skiing, golfing, sailing and swimming the butterfly. We have an epidemic of kids that are unfit…perhaps MORE kids should participate in sports…not less.</p>
<p>Why is it that on this site all opinions must reflect one’s personal situation? I’m not an advocate for my own interests here. All of my kids play sports and I’m not arguing that sports are “bad.” Momofthree - it’s naive to think that many kids are not directed by parents to choose certain sports that are played at ivies and other elite schools. Oh yes, “my son just happens to love water polo.” True, not all positions are formally recruited, but wink, wink, nod, nod…these sports are a hook for most. </p>
<p>Hunt - it’s at the expense of the SMART kids. You know, those kids who have beautiful minds - a cut above intellectually. Those who walk among us and see the world differently. The kids who will one day develop things that we don’t even know we need yet, but we won’t be able to live without it. They are passed over in favor of a kid who can kick a ball and do the work.</p>
<p>
Leaving aside the fact that at the tippy-top schools there are plenty of kids who are both, all this amounts to is your opinion that you know better how to run Harvard than Harvard does.</p>
<p>I have not met many who are both to the same degree, and I’ve met a lot of people. However, I’m optimistic that the focus will start to shift away from so much athletic recruiting. Having a fencing or sailing team is great - just don’t place the ability the fence or sail above intellectual acumen. Priorities must make sense. There is a huge, enormous segment of the American population out there who is convinced that their kid is going to get an athletic hook or scholarship - so, what do they do? They place sports ahead of academics - the kid gets injured or is just not very good and they end up with nothing. A few have students with good academics, so they get the brass ring…huh hook, which just encourages so much nonsense. It should end.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a generalization, this is a load of cr*p. Our local public h.s. has sent 5 waterpolo players to H and P over the past 5 years, and every one of them was a val (we have 12-15 per year). One of them was Asian, btw.</p>
<p>My brilliant kid who did no sports at all got into a couple of great schools and was rejected from several (MIT, Caltech, Stanford) as well. No big deal. He graduated in June and is at his dream job. Did he lose a seat at some of these schools to more well rounded kids? - I am sure he did, but that’s okay. Those seats didn’t have his name on them.</p>
<p>GorillaGlue,
I want to help you educate yourself. Here is H’s fencing roster: [Men’s</a> Fencing Roster - 2011-12: Harvard Athletics - GoCrimson.com](<a href=“http://www.gocrimson.com/sports/mfencing/2011-12/roster]Men’s”>http://www.gocrimson.com/sports/mfencing/2011-12/roster)</p>
<p>Please take the time to click on each name, and note their athletic + academic credentials and the apparent race of each one, and get back to me with your conclusions about the wasted space they are occupying at H.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ones who see the world differently and who will make unique creative contributions to society are not necessarily those with the highest GPAs and SAT scores. So even if admissions were entirely based on “merit” – as determined by measurable academic credentials, some of the kids who are destined to change the world would not be admitted to the most selective colleges.</p>