READ! Athletic Recruitment- What do you really think?

Applying to College
1

Am I the only one who feels athletic recruitment at many of America’s top universities (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc) is unfair?

Athletes get the chance to shine their whole lives-on the field, on the court, winning games, at school. For athletes, there’s national competitions, sports channels, and Olympics. They can gain prestige in so many ways. Many of us academically-inclined students simply want to get in to the college of our dreams, and that’s it! So why should someone who’s good with a ball be able to come in and take that chance away from us simply because we’re not as sporty?

To me, the whole point of going to college is to learn (academically), and the top colleges should want the top MINDS to go to their schools. I just don’t understand why the top colleges would rather reserve spots for recruited athletes, many of whom perform well below their peers in grades and SAT/ACT scores.

I would be totally fine if top colleges looked at an applicant who was really smart AND had good grades and ACTs AND great extracurriculars AND stood out in some way AND was a really good athlete and said "he’s an impressive applicant, but his athletic commitment puts him over the top. Let’s admit him.” But that’s not what happens. Instead, you can get C students with a 20 on the ACT admitted into some of our nation’s most prestigious universities simply because of…why?

Oh yeah, they can do something cool with a ball.

Why don’t colleges reserve places for top musicians or top academics or top anythings other than athletes? Why is athletic ability valued above any other kind of strength? I’m not devaluing athletic achievement. I simply think it has it’s place and time to be valued, and the college admission process should not be that place or time. I’m an excellent student with top ACTs, extracurriculars, and all that jazz, and someday I would like the chance to attend one of the top colleges in the countries. I have no athletic ability, and somehow I feel as if I am being punished for that. Does anyone else agree?

Can anyone give me some insight? Why do colleges, especially the top schools, do this?

2

Here’s the reality. You are not competing for a football player/oboe player/[insert specialty here] spot. You just aren’t.

To make it as simple as possible (and please note that I am not denigrating anybody’s qualifications), most top colleges will field a football team next year. And the year after. And the year after that. So every year, you should expect to take ~22 slots off the table from the beginning.

Using another analogy. Let’s say your HS is doing Wicked as its Spring musical. There are 33 parts available (12 principal/21 chorus). You (let’s assume you’re male for this exercise) are one of 100 students trying out. Does that mean that you have a 1:3 shot at a part? No, because there is no way you will be cast as Elphaba. Just accept that and move on.

3

Being accepted to a top school is about having a well rounded application. Being good at a sport helps that application stand out. The people that play football at the Ivies and Stanford dont have 2.5 GPAS and 1400 SAT’s. Some are in the bottom 25% percentile off students, most are in the middle, and some are at the top. Those students also create revenue for the schools.

4

Make a petition at www.change.org, have a bake sale to raise awareness, or even write to the president of a university.

The fact of the matter is this: the athletic venues bring millions of dollars to the school every year - through donations and sales - especially schools with nationally/world renowned athletic programs. Why should the school forgo that revenue by admitting you? Remember, schools accept students who they think have the greatest potential to succeed in the real world and ultimately contribute back to the institution.

Besides which, the athletes take up minimal space within the class. You’re fearful and upset because ~22 people (as per @skieurope) threatened your chance at the school?

Move on.

5

Colleges want to do well in sports because it is fun for the students on campus to have a winning team and it is very good for alumni donations. The students who are recruited athletes have likely put a ton of time into the sport to develop outstanding skills. Athletes have a different skill set as compared to high stat students like yourself, but it does not make their skills and potential contribution to the school any less valuable. Top colleges want a well rounded class including athletes, scientists, musicians etc. That does not mean that every student will be well rounded.

I wouldn’t waste time sulking about recruited athletes any more than you should worry about people who are legacies or who have another type of hook. All you can do is work to make your application as strong as possible, apply to a wide range of schools and go to the school that is affordable and the best fit.

6

Basically what the other people said. Colleges are a business and they admit people who they think will be successful in the future and ultimately donate back to the institution. Athletes have one of the highest chances of being successful as if they go pro, they instantly earn millions and many of the athletes give back to their undergrad program which obviously benefits the same undergrad program that admitted them.

Top Academics: People do get admitted based on top academics. People who win International Math/Physics/Chemistry/Biology etc. Olympiad basically are auto-admits. Winners of the Intel/Siemens competitions are also highly sought-after applicants as well.

Top musicians: They would probably go to some place like Juliard instead if they were truly dedicated and exceptional.

Ultimately, colleges want to admit people who will be beneficial to them in the future. Athletes, even the lower-paid ones, still make millions. They can donate even a small portion of that and still contribute significantly to Harvard’s well being.

Normal joes generally will not make millions in the future. They will not be a potential donor to Harvard and help their institution grow. They will not become famous and make Harvard’s reputation higher. They probably will not directly benefit Harvard, which is why average joes do not get in Harvard.

That’s why stats don’t matter as much to Ivies. 4.0/2400 does not guarantee financial success in the future. Most extracurriculars do not guarantee fame or success in the future. They are not an accurate gauge for how successful you will be, how famous you’ll be, which is why Harvard doesn’t use scores/EC’s as the sole factor in admissions. However, athletics is a huge plus as going pro provides money and fame, both of which Harvard desire.

I just used Harvard as an example. Most of the top schools (Ivies/Stanford) have this kind of a mindset when they admit students.

7

Not sure where you are getting your athlete admitted stats from. My son is going to an Ivy next fall. He received offers from all 8 ivies. Coaches can’t even strike up a conversation with an athlete that has a C average. Except for a few athletes on the bottom tier of the academic index, athletes that are recruited to ivies are not too much different than kids who were admitted without the hook. Plus sports, music, and other specialties make a college more well rounded which is why they try to take kids from different states, ethnicities and socio-economic backgrounds. I’ve never understood the bitterness of non-athletes. My son worked his behind off for four years.

8

You need to check your facts. The students I know that go and/or were recruited to play sports at Ivies definitely had the stats to be there. I am very tired of the assumption that a student can be strong academically or athletically, but not both. Sports do require both physical skill and mental skill. Stop assuming someone is getting an unfair advantage and focus on building your own application.

9

It is completely fair, the truth is top students are a dime a dozen, great student athletes are exceedingly rare.

My son didn’t start his homework until 7:30 and had practice all year, went to meets during school breaks, couldn’t go to the prom, sat in ice baths two or three times a week. Still managed a 97% average.

10

I have no problem with it where athletes are one of many. However, in schools where they dominate or really serve no function I have to question it. For example, I have heard that a significant percentage of Amherst are athletic recruits in one sport or another. Seems a little crazy. Also, while Duke for example definitely gets a boost from athletics, Columbia does not (beyong the initial one in being in the Ivy League). I know MANY people who graduated Columbia or Barnard who never attended a single sporting event. If anything, the football team was an embarrassment during most of the 80s according to some of my friends parents. UChicago got rid of their teams back in the 1920s to change the atmosphere on campus.

I have more of a problem with how sports is treated in most lower and high schools. It is the most public form of discrimination based on ability that most will encounter. The way coaches and others treat less than stellar athelets K-12 would never be tolerated if it was in an academic forum.

BatesParents, most kids do not start their homework until 7:30 or later. I could never be recruited but played on two teams, as well as debate, as well as community service and student government. Most days I did not have time for lunch. I often got home much later than 7:30 because our games were sometimes over an hour away without traffic and my school is some distance from my house. EVERYONE who is applying to competitive schools is doing something after school for hours. I asked if I should tell colleges about my schedule and that was the response I got.

11

and reinstated them in the 1960’s. Your point?

Once again, that is the decision of the school. Amherst has a smallish enrollment(~1785), yet chooses to field 27 teams, hence the higher than average percentage of recruited athletes. If the school chooses to field a team, the school will therefore need players. In the unlikely event that Amherst opts to only have ~15 teams in the future, that does not necessarily mean that those spots will now be available for the non-athletic recruit.

12

@SaphireNY

Re Amherst, this is true of all the schools in NESCAC as well as many other small schools. You can’t field 20 or more teams on a student body of 1500 - 2000 unless the students wear two hats.

Middlebury’s men’s and women swim teams have a roster of 70 students. Just one sport.

13

I’m not opposed to athletic recruitment because having teams and sporting events is part of the college experience but it is true that the benchmarks are a bit lower. We have friends whose kids were told that they needed a 32 on the ACT to be recruited for Princeton and Brown but at least for Princeton, that’s a relatively low ACT score.

14

@uesmomof2 Actually a 32 is not far from the average of 33. Is there any discernible difference between the 98% and 99% percentile?

The middle 50% is 31 - 35, and 10% scored below 30.

15

I don’t think most recruited athletes go anywhere near pro when they graduate. There are very few pro spots available let alone ones that pay millions.

16

My (very possibly incorrect) understanding of the situation: Way back in the 80s, many schools considered athletics a “nice to have” and while there might have been some low-level recruiting, I don’t think it was as much of a “hook” as it is today. MIT, Caltech, most of the NESCACs (in fact, most LACs in general) were in this camp.

But schools realized over time that athletics are an excellent way to build a bond with your alumni base long after graduation and riase awareness of your brand with prospective applicants. It doesn’t have to be at the level of Alabama, which has supporters who have no connection to the school outside of football; keeping your alumni engaged is a great sources of donations even for small LACs and a pipeline of new applications every year. So, now sports has a prominent place in my NESCAC’s monthly magazine and I get emails from the AD with athletics updates as often as I get one from the president of the college with campus updates. Even Caltech and MIT are taking recruiting quite seriously. I doubt they would do that if they didn’t think it’s a good idea.

On a different tack, as others have pointed out maybe 10-20% of a class are recruits. If you choose to play the athletics game, that’s where you compete. However, the weeding out process is pretty rigorous there too. I think I read that 3-5% of those playing sports in HS go on to play in college. So, if you are in that 3-5%, your reward is a >95% chance of admission to a school that wants you. In the academics game, you have 100% chance to apply to Stanford RD but only a 3% of being accepted. Not that dissimilar from the 5% chance of being a recruited athelete with a 95% chance of acceptance.

17

I am not a stats person and my own daughter took the SAT so I don’t know ACT scores as well but it looks like Princeton’s 25th percentile score is a 31 and 75th percentile is a 35 so 32 seems like it would be closer to 25th percentile. Again, I’m not arguing against athletic recruits. Just that the standards, at least test wise, seem lower.

18

My son accepted recruitment at Stanford and was recruited by several Ivies. He in a national champion in a non-revenue sport. His AI is 235. However, the coach at Stanford stressed that she was unable to guarantee acceptance. Acceptance at Stanford is controlled by admissions, period. He met many other athletes at Admit Weekend. All were exceptional students. The evidence of low standardized test scores and GPAs for athletes at these elite institutions seems highly anecdotal. Does any actually know (not a story from someone who knows someone’s third cousin) of an athlete’s acceptance at these with an SAT score of 1800 or below? At no point in his recruitment did any coach at any of these institutions suggest that academics were insignificant.

19

@tkrueger13: For non-revenue sports, you are correct. I am sure someone is going to post about Duke/UNC basketball or Notre Dame football. Revenue sports are one place where, if you are good enough (i.e. pro-caliber), minimum scores have some flexibility. I am being diplomatic.

That being said, no coach wants to recruit someone who will be academically ineligble or flunk out of school. So there is some amount of rigor required even at the highest levels.

20

If a school like Amherst is so watered down by dumb athletes, wouldn’t the school become less desirable to academics in a very short time? Wouldn’t all those intellectuals not want to be surrounded by so many who are beneath them academically and head to schools like Cal Tech that do not recruit? The athletes at schools are academically competitive too, just like those who also play the piano must be able to handle the bio class, and those who are outstanding in math must take a writing course.

If a school only cared about statistics, admissions officers would be out of their jobs as admission letters could be sent out by a computer after determining who the top 1000 students were, who had the highest gpa and the best test scores, who had won a science prize or the math competition. No one would care about community service or poetry writing or other subjective things. Even the smart athletes wouldn’t want to go to Yale or Amherst or Bates because the schools would be no fun for them.