<p>I don't know how u guys (parents in particular) feel about this but im about sick of ivies saying they don't recruit and giving full rides to atheletes who would otherwise not get in to that school. BELIEVE ME, I have absolutely NO interest in attending an ivy next yr...as a matter of fact i was already accepted at my school ED. But I am a bit concerned. There was this one person at my school who played a sport really really well, had a 3.2, a 1950 on the SAT's and got into a top 5 school (IVY) FULL RIDE! When are the ivies going to come out and say they YES they DO recruit and they DO give MERIT-based scholarships (even the the board of ivies claims they only give need based)? All a sports scholarship is is Merit based.</p>
<p>Ivy league schools have never said that they don't recruit athletes. In fact they have made it plain that they quite actively DO recruit athletes. What they say is that they do not offer athletic scholarships, which is not the same thing as not recruiting.</p>
<p>I have no first hand experience with Ivy League athletics, but I can tell you this: back when the Ivy schools did offer athletic scholarships (before the Ivy League banned them), they were among the powerhouses in college sports. They were like the Big Ten is today - regularly competing for national championships in major sports. Not any more. Today they cling to their Div. 1 status more out of nostalgia than anything else.</p>
<p>Now, it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be common for prized athletic recruits to get a second look when putting together their "need-based" finaid package to make sure that ALL of the athlete's demonstrated needs were being met. But that is a far cry from offering full rides based solely on athletics. If they were still offering lots of full rides, they'd still be the bigtime athletic giants that they once were.</p>
<p>^im not making generalizations but Penn and Dartmouth have offered full rides to at least 3 track runners/CC runners from my school a yr. in the past 4 years....i understand what you are saying coureur but it's a little fishy to me..but i do understand what you are saying.</p>
<p>They most certainly recruit. Princeton flat out said that they use the "likely letter" in Oct to let their atheletes know they are in. Most of kids that got into ivies ED from my D's school were mostly atheletes. Many of them were told they were in before letters were sent out in Dec. I am not sure about merit-based scholarships for sports because most of those kids from my D's school don't need scholarships. They are just happy to be in. </p>
<p>My D was upset in Dec when she got deferred. But, unlike those atheletes, I know whatever schools she'll get into in April she will be qualified to be there. There are a lot of atheletes with high GPAs, but the ones that don't would find it very difficult to juggle school work and demanding sports schedule. I would imagine some of them would either drop out of school, or stop playing.</p>
<p>I think it is a shame that the ivies do not recruit kids with special art/music/dance talent. Professors in those departments are not given X spots to recruit students of their choice. My D was told by many dance instructors at those schools that there is nothing they could do for her even though they would love to have her as a student. But this is really more a reflection of this country - we care more about sports than anything else. How many ballet or opera are on TV Sun afternoons?</p>
<p>^^ OMG i totally agree..More college need to recruit for the arts and such. I'm going to be a Musical Theater major next year and it will be very nice if the colleges would treat us like athletes sometimes.</p>
<p>bsb--There may be some sweetening of the financial aid pot for athletes as coureur suggests, but how much do you know about the family financial situations of the kids from your school who got full rides? Appearances of wealth may be deceiving. These people may have legitimately needed lots of aid money and the Ivies are in a better position to give out aid money to all who need it than many schools. </p>
<p>And I agree with all who said that the Ivy League recruits athletes and is open about that fact.</p>
<p>ivies recruit athletes. ivies do not give full ride scholarships for athletics. they do meet 100% of financial need. the ivies have an academic index. the index is divided into bands. athletes must fall within the requirements set for the bands and statistically they must be within a certain range of their schools academic index.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm going to be a Musical Theater major next year and it will be very nice if the colleges would treat us like athletes sometimes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While it is true that schools do not recruit for musical theater majors and in fact, there are far too many qualified candidates than slots available and it is very competitive to get into college in that field....most schools with this major/program, do offer merit scholarships. My D got into many of these and all offered merit scholarships. The school she is attending for msuical theater offered a substantial merit and need based scholarship. In that regard, it is not so different than sports. In the case of the Ivies (which do recruit athletes), there are no merit scholarships. Ivies are indeed interested in top level artistically talented kids, as well, in terms of admissions.</p>
<p>I do know several athletes who were recruited, however, aid is totally seperate from admission, and they did not receive aid, if they did not qualify at other schools.
It was interesting to hear, the parents opinions of how the Ivies were "ranked" in selectivity, which was different than what I have gathered from CC.
I don't know enough about the Ivies sports wise, but it did seem that a few Ivies were much more interested in particular sports than the others.</p>
<p>I also think that many schools carefully consider applications, and don't just go by an academic index for admits, while many students who are deferred or even rejected are well qualified, I wouldn't say that those who are admitted don't "deserve" to be there.</p>
<p>Ivys recruit for academics as well. Friends' EFC was about $18,000. Top Ivy waived that after it found out kid was seriously considering another school and gave kid full ride (did not fall into automatic full-ride need category). Kid had a history with, and planned to major in, an area in which they were desperate to have more majors. (Big specified endowment support for a program attracting few majors.)</p>
<p>the two most recruited sports in the Ivy League are Lacrosse and Crew, not football or hockey (hockey is big though). What is the problem with recruiting athletes? Why are they not qualified just because they dont have the same academic stats? One of my best friends was recruited by every top lacrosse program, including all the ivies, and chose Harvard. He had a 1350 old SAT and was ranked barely in the top ten percent, but there is no way you could tell me he wasnt qualified to attend Harvard. Instead of using his time to do an intel STS project, he spent just as much time refining his game in order to be a top 50 recruit. I also have friends that are intel semifinalists and finalists, and I respect them for that as well, but one is not harder than the other. He also did not have an SAT tutor, nor take the test three times. He took the last old test, in november of his junior year, got a 1350 and then forgot about it. Sure there may be some athletes that dont deserve it, but many do and you just cant make sweeping generalizations about them.</p>
<p>An excellent athelete with a solid B+/A- average and ~2000 SAT could get in through a spot that's guaranteed to a coach. Any other student with a 4.0 GPA and over 2300 SAT, ivies would still be a stretch. It's not to say that antheletes are less qualified, they are just treated differently. Other students that spend just as much time as atheletes doing other ECs do not get special dispensation from adcom, they do not get guaranteed spot, special tour/over night, housing.</p>
<p>oldfort- there have been lots of threads on this topic. Do a search. Athletics are important to colleges- some of the sports bring in revenue and others are simply an important part of the school culture and important to alums. Athletes who are good enough to be recruits have a lot to contribute to a university. My son is an Ivy athlete and was recruited by a number of DI and DIII programs. He is academically qualified for his school, but it sure helped to be a recruit. He has spent many years training hard and, if he ever recovers from some knee issues, he will be proud to compete for his university. By the way, we pay full freight.
D, on the other hand, is a musician and DID receive merit money from her school.</p>
<p>Something about athletics is so compelling that athletes are treated differently than those who excel in other ECs by many, if not most colleges. It may also be that a love of athletic competition is deeply imbedded in our culture. I think the whole phenomenon is quite interesting. My two kids competed at the varsity level in high school and my daughter went on to play club soccer in college, and I came to understand the near-addictiveness of games and matches. I just don't really see that athletics is a natural fit with education. . . People have a hard time stepping back and taking a look at athletics in America in a dispassionate, unbiased way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There was this one person at my school who played a sport really really well, had a 3.2, a 1950 on the SAT's and got into a top 5 school (IVY) FULL RIDE! When are the ivies going to come out and say they YES they DO recruit and they DO give MERIT-based scholarships (even the the board of ivies claims they only give need based)? All a sports scholarship is is Merit based.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you all feel about this?</p>
<p>Well, I feel that your story is just ... what the first two letters of your name spell out! Pure and unadulterated B.S. !</p>
<p>Ckmets, concerning HYPS admissions, are athletic recruits held to the same level of academic standards as applicants who are not (artistis, musicians, activists, etc.)?</p>
<p>As an athlete being recruited by multiple Ivies, I don't see what is wrong with using athletics to get into an Ivy League school. What better way to display your desire to work hard and strive for the best and all of those other cliches than through sports. </p>
<p>Any nationally or even state ranked athlete has logged so many hours practicing, undoubtedly more than any musician or artist. And, I know I have been unable to join clubs because I do not have the time due to sports.</p>
<p>Also, the people being recruited are not dumb and have at least a minimum Academic Index. The focus and determination that they have honed through athletics carry over to schoolwork as well. The teams that I'm looking at all have higher average GPAs than the average schoolwide GPA.</p>
<p>Finally, we must remember that colleges are entitled to admit whoever they desire, often to build a strong and balanced class. It only makes sense that athletes will help to balance the school, so they admit nationally ranked athletes.</p>
<p>and 'tisthetruth, athletes with slightly lower SATs/GPA are able to get into some Ivies, but only if they are exceptional (We're talking top 20 in the country). However, from my own experience, I got my foot in the door with my SATs/GPA and then as I progressed through my fall sports season, I improved to a state-wide, borderline national level, and am now being recruitede, and will hopefully get likely letters in mid January.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Any nationally or even state ranked athlete has logged so many hours practicing, undoubtedly more than any musician or artist.
[/quote]
I have great respect for athletes who achieve great success. But this statement is much too broad. Plenty of kids who excel at artistic & musical endeavors, as well as academic ECs, put in crazy hours, too. I don't value one above the other. All show dedication.</p>