I understand, but that’s just one small microcosm of the recruiting world, which doesn’t necessarily apply to all. There are definitely coaches at Ivies and other TO schools requiring test scores.
I remember that when the Ivy League made the announcement that they were going test optional in 12/2021, lax coaches immediately told committed recruits they didn’t have to take the test anymore. There were commits who were intending to take the test every single month to maximize their chance of meeting the school minimum who stopped studying and never submitted a score.
I am surprised that coaches in other sports from the same school would still make their recruits submit, especially since non-athlete regular applicants to the school were no longer required to do so. That would be a bit of a double standard.
Agree. Not to mention why would someone who excels enough to gain admission at Harvard/similar look for easy courses, especially if 1. they are given a unique opportunity via FA or 2. their parents are sacrificing to pay? Doesn’t make any sense that kids at Harvard or other tops schools are going to be looking for the easy A. Sure maybe a few.
Sure some will look to fulfill core requirements in subjects they don’t enjoy with easy courses, but filling an entire 4 years with fluff, IMO very doubtful.
1 Like
Since the thread is about ALDC admits, the A(thletes) may not want to go too hard on academics in order to have time for their sport, and the L(egacy) and D(ean’s list) admits may include a greater percentage of those satisfied with “gentleman’s A-” grades in standard level courses (i.e. not honors courses like Math 23/25/55) compared to the unhooked strivers who had to get admitted more on their own achievements.
2 Likes
The legacies have been shown via the data set to be more highly educated, wealthier and with more advantages than any other accepted group. So, the likelihood of looking for a gentleman’s A is probably a notion rooted in JFK’s C’s that still has traction in some quarters. That world doesn’t exist anymore. Weak legacies might have been a factor up until the 1980’s/90s. Not anymore. The competition is fierce and there are many legacies who have the total package. And still don’t get an admit.
The Dean’s admits, yes, I’d agree there is some real lightweight material on the Z list/Dean’s list.
Athletes vary. Many are outstanding student athletes whose work in the classroom and in the field are superb. And they can balance things very well. So with the exception of a few, most are going to be fine academically. Will they chose classes that are easier just to keep balance? Maybe. But again, most Div I athletes have had years of learning to balance school and sports. I wouldn’t put them in the Z list category, at all.
1 Like
It’s true that recruited athletes often get a pre-screen, which can act as a filter such that the recruited athletes who do apply are the ones who are extremely likely to be admitted. However, it’s also true that athletes who are admitted average substantially lower academic qualifications than non-athletes, including LDC hooked non-athletes.
This fits with AI index comments above. Under Ivy League athletic conference rules, athletes must have a AI index that averages no more than 1 SD less than the student body as a whole. AI is based on stats are well correlated with the academic rating that was posted earlier.
If athletes average 1 SD lower academic index than non-athletes, then under a normal distribution we expect that the top ~16% of athletes should receive the average academic rating for non-athletes or better. The actual numbers posted earlier in the thread were:
Average non-athlete = 2 academic, Top 25% of athletes receive or 2 or better.
We also expect that bottom ~16% of non-athletes should receive the average academic rating for athletes or worse. The actual numbers posted earlier in the thread were:
Average athlete = 3 academic, Bottom ~19% of non-athletes receive 3 or worse
This seems reasonably consistent with expectations, given the lack of precision with the 1-5 scale.
The 4 academic rating is also relevant to the discussion. A 4 academic rating is essentially an auto-reject for non-ALDC kids. The admit rates was 3 / 18162 during the Harvard lawsuit sample. ~0% of non-ALDC admits have this rating and less than 1% of ALDC admit have this rating. However, a far more substantial ~15% of athletes have a 4 or worse academic rating. Some athletes are admitted with stats in the near auto-reject range for non-ALDC. Harvard also admitted a 5 academic athlete most years, which is the lowest possible rating of applicants Harvard’s scale.
As mentioned above, I believe the specific distribution is largely driven by the Ivy League athletic conference rules of requiring athletes AI to be within 1 SD of the overall student body. Different colleges and different conferences have different policies about athlete admissions. For example, LACs playing in the DIII conference are likely to have a much larger portion of students being varsity athletes, but are likely to give a much smaller degree of boost on average, with a larger potion of athletes having similar admission stats to non-athletes. There are also DI schools that give far larger boost to athletes than the Ivy League conference, particularly for revenue-earning sports, like football and men’s basketball.
1 Like
However, there are also NCAA Division I schools which effectively give no preference to athletes or hold them to higher academic standards, because their normal admission standards approximate the NCAA minimum academic standards or are lower. For example, Mississippi public universities auto-admit any Mississippi resident applicant (does not have to be an athlete) who meets the NCAA minimum academic standards, and have pathways to admission for those who do not meet those standards.
My child’s school has a few athletic recruits and they tend to be in fencing, equestrian, field hockey, crew, etc. Would I say they are the brightest in the bunch? It is definitely a mixed bag - there are many who have been skating by since 10th grade and do not take a very rigorous load, but there are also some who do take a challenging load as well (usually not the most challenging, but challenging). IMO, I think colleges should only grant the 85% preference to high revenue-generating sports and the remaining athletes should compete with the musicians, scientists, etc. in balancing the class - just my view.
3 Likes
So am I understanding correctly that you think revenue-generating sports, the athletes should have 85% greater chance, but other sports, it should be an extracurricular on par with musical accomplishments, leadership in academic clubs, etc?
I would be curious to see how much of a difference there is in GPAs between recruited athletes in non-revenue-generating sports and students who have demonstrated significant talent/accomplishments in other extracurriculars that they will continue in college. The accomplished musicians who will continue to participate in band/orchestra, the ones who had the leads in their school plays/musicals who have already reached out to the college/university about that, etc. I have always assumed that these types of students are also getting accepted with slightly lower GPAs than kids without that level of accomplishment in extracurriculars.
It’s my understanding “gentlemen’s C” refers to a past era where students would do unsatisfactory in the course, such as not understanding the concepts or simply not doing the course work, such that they are deserving of a failing grade. However, rather than a failing grade, they would be awarded a C, in some cases due to name or social standing.
In more modern times, it is extremely rare for students to do unsatisfactory in the course, such that they are deserving of failing grade at schools like Harvard. Some students master the material to greater degrees than others and are more/less successful in the course than others, but the class is full of high achievers who put the effort in to do the course work and have adequate understanding of the concepts. Extremely few students are deserving of a failing grade, which makes it a matter of speculation what grades those few students would receive . For example, what would happen if Malia Obama stopped doing coursework for her classes and did not sufficiently understand class concepts, as reflected by unacceptably poor exam grades. Would the professors give her a A/B/C because of her name/status in spite of being deserving of failing? Some colleges do not report failing grades on transcripts. For example, Brown does not list grades below C on transcripts, which could be considered a form of a modern gentlemen’s C.
I expect “gentlemen’s A-” refers to general grade inflation, with the average grade for many courses being A-/A. I’d expect the students who receive A- grades generally do the coursework, understand the concepts well, and are absolutely not deserving of failing grade – very different from “gentlemen’s C”. I expect Harvard and similar colleges do generally have a large portion of underclassmen math/science courses with average grades of B+ or B, but I’d expect upperclassmen major-specific courses or courses that are filtered for top performers (math 55) usually have average grades of A-/A. In general, when a larger portion of students sufficiently understand or master the material, the portion of students receiving A grades goes up. The portion of A grades also goes up when grades are primarily based on subjective metrics, such as papers; rather than objective metrics, such as quantitative, numerical problems.
Regarding athletes, athletes do usually average lower college grades than non-athletes. For example, a list for Berkeley is at https://asc.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/aps_2018_d_fall.pdf . It looks like the average athlete GPA prior to COVID was near 3.0. In contrast, the average grades for non-athletes was probably near 3.4 during this period.
Stanford seems have a larger degree of GPA variation among teams than Berkeley. Several of the non-revenue generating sports average similar or higher GPA than non-athletes. For example, Women’s indoor volleyball has averaged a ~3.8 GPA in recent years, with several team members above 4.0. However, the revenue generating sports average much lower GPAs. I believe football often averages near 3.0 college GPAs, which pulls down the overall average across all athletes to ~3.4. An old article from 2008 mentions Stanford football matriculating students averaged a 3.68 HS GPA and 1176 SAT (other Pac 10 schools all were <= 3.15 HS GPA and <= 990 SAT). At the time, the overall class averages listed in CDS were 87% >3.75 HS GPA and ~1430 SAT.
Page 5 shows the following average GPAs:
| Group | Average GPA |
|---|---|
| Female Student Athletes | 3.150 |
| Male Student Athletes | 2.950 |
| All Student Athletes | 3.040 |
| Female Undergraduates | 3.342 |
| Male Undergraduates | 3.363 |
| Decline to State | 3.372 |
| All Undergraduates | 3.353 |
Page 7 shows the top 15 majors for student athletes and all undergraduates except student athletes.
| Rank | Student Athlete Major | Non Student Athlete Major |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Legal Studies | Computer Science |
| 2 | American Studies | Electrical Engineering and Computer Science |
| 3 | Business Administration+ | Economics+ |
| 4 | Sociology+ | Molecular and Cell Biology+ |
| 5 | Political Science+ | Political Science+ |
| 6 | Political Economy | Business Administration+ |
| 7 | Media Studies+ | Cognitive Science+ |
| 8 | Cognitive Science+ | Applied Mathematics |
| 9 | Interdisciplinary Studies | Sociology+ |
| 10 | Environmental Economics & Policy+ | Mechanical Engineering |
| 11 | Molecular and Cell Biology+ | Chemical Engineering |
| 12 | Public Health* | English |
| 13 | Public Policy* | Media Studies+ |
| 14 | Economics*+ | Environmental Economics & Policy+ |
| 15 | Social Welfare* | Integrative Biology |
*For student athletes, 12-15 are tied (same number of student athletes in each major).
+Major popular with both student athletes and other undergraduates. Italics indicates majors popular with student athletes but not other undergraduates, while boldface indicates majors popular with other undergraduates but not student athletes.
Majors like engineering and computer science can be really hard for a D1 athlete choose. Practicing 20 hrs a week limits the available time to study. In some cases, practice times directly conflict with the ability to sign up for certain classes- especially those that require an accompanying lab.
1 Like
Berkeley admits by major, which also has an influence. For example, in the Pac 10 football stats I mentioned earlier Berkeley football players averaged a 2.93 HS GPA and 984 SAT. Administration might be more open to admitting such athlete applicants to less selective majors than admitting them to highly selective majors, like CS or engineering.
Stanford does not admit by major and shows a very different pattern, as summarized below from a 2013 survey. Athletes appeared to have a similar or higher rate of engineering majors to non-athletes, but seem far less likely to major in CS.
Most Common Majors Among Stanford Athletes
- Human Biology
- Science, Technology, and Society
- Engineering
- Management Science & Engineering
- Psychology
Most Common Majors Among All Stanford Students
- Computer Science
- Human Biology
- Science, Technology, and Society
- Engineering
- Biology
1 Like
Why are you and Dataciting UC Berkeley schools in a conversation about Harvard admissions?
I wouldn’t doubt athletes at huge Universities have lower GPAs. But using these stats as an example of athletes having lower GPA’s at Harvard isn’t a proper correlation. The student athlete at many Ivies has high grades as well. Are there a handful of outstanding athletes with lower grades, yes, but I’d like to see data on that level not from giant uni’s.
There is a lot of variability based on the university, the sport, and the coach.
1 Like
Not sure why this jump. The discussion was Harvard and admissions. The jump to giant Uni’s and athletic GPA’s isn’t the same. Of course these giant schools have room for athletes with lower GPAs. They make a lot of money on their sports programs and they don’t have 1,700 kids in a year but maybe 17,000 or 30,000.
Seems like the scholar-athlete is going to Harvard and the athlete who has just decent academic ability and great athletic ability is likely going to some of the schools you mention. Very different thing.
The discussions on this forum often move in different directions from just the content of thread title. There have been recent comments on athletic admissions at a variety of colleges – not just Harvard. UC Berkeley publishes detailed information about athlete GPAs. I believe Harvard does not make this type of information public. However, if you have similar numbers for Harvard, I’m sure many people would be interested.
More accurately, UCB admits by division (L&S, CoE, etc.) and additionally by major in CoE.
Most of the popular majors among athletes and non-athletes at UCB are accessible to students who entered as L&S undeclared (the only way frosh enter L&S), but some like Computer Science, Economics, Business Administration, and Public Health have secondary admission criteria to declare the major (prerequisite GPA of 3.3 for Computer Science and 3.0 for Economics, and competitive holistic admission for Business Administration and Public Health). However, changing into a CoE major is typically very difficult.
This is exactly what our naviance looks like for many recruited athletes (especially certain sports) at top schools: SAT is hundreds of points lower than other accepted, gpa is near the middle of the class, and knowing some of the kids, not anywhere close to top rigor(one AP vs 7-9 for our top 20%). The legacies we know are not outliers on Naviance. Athletics is a huge boost and theHarvard study confirmed on average they do not have the same academics. However, Harvard and others need and want top athletes, so they can do what they want! Most graduate just fine.
1 Like
That’s my opinion,too. I’m not trying to denigrate the considerable accomplishments of recruited athletes. It’s just that gaining admission now to Harvard and peer schools is impossibly difficult - especially if you don’t have a strong hook.
In my opinion, very few committed recruits can make the claim that they had a realistic shot of getting admitted to Harvard if they weren’t recruited to play for their team.
As a result, I consider the athletics boost to admissions to be extremely considerable.