<p>if one is recruited by a swarthmore coach, it's not a definite that you will be admitted, correct? (even if you are academically qualified, as well) it's D3 so there's not quite as much of an edge as there is at D1 schools..</p>
<p>From what I gather, Swarthmore is not a school that focuses on athletics. At all. I think their disbanding of the football team is representative of their general relation with sports.
So yea, you will not be admitted only based on sports. I do not know how much a coach's' recommendation would be worth, though.</p>
<p>If you are academically qualified, being recruited is certainly a nice hook...</p>
<p>I don't know, Swarthmore is pretty hardcore about tennis. I see Swat and Washington and Lee all over the NCAA tennis team and individual rankings at the place where the high school team I'm on takes lessons.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>if one is recruited by a swarthmore coach, it's not a definite that you will be admitted, correct? </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I guess the answer to that is, "it depends!"</p>
<p>As near as I can figure, Swarthmore has 54 athletic slots:</p>
<p>a) 10 of these slots are for "impact" players. These impact slots allow the athletic department to pick 10 students for admission who are below the normal academic qualifications. There is still some bottom-line threshold, but these are slots where athletics trumps academics. Just to pick an imaginary number out of thin air, let's say the cutoff is 1100 on the SATs. At most schools, these "impact" slots are allocated heavily to the football and ice hockey teams, but since Swat doesn't have either of those, they would be allocated elsewhere.</p>
<p>b) about 33 of these slots are allocated for athletic "tips". These would be athletes that may fall into the low end of Swat's academics, but who wouldn't be totally out of the question. For the sake of argument, lets pick an imaginary range of 1200 to 1350 SATs. In effect, the coach's list becomes a strong hook for admissions.</p>
<p>Although there is still negotiation back and forth with the admissions office, by and large the kids picked by the athletic department for these two groups will be the kids that get accepted. However, keep in mind that the coaches are not going to waste these slots on kids that aren't likely to enroll.</p>
<p>c) The third group of about 10 slots would be kids that basically could be accepted academically, but who the coaches have identified as varsity athletes. This group gets a little tricky because the coaches may put names on the list who are less likely to get accepted and leave off better athletes who are more likely to get accepted. Again, they don't want to waste slots on kids who aren't planning to enroll.</p>
<p>Being recruited by a coach doesn't tell you much. First, you don't know if what the coach wants will end up being on the overall athletic department's priority list. And, the degree of "tip" can vary.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, the admissions department (actually the Board of Managers) has agreed to reserve 54 admissions slots for athletes. To simply the process and ensure that these slots are allocated efficiently, the athletic department works with the admissions office to identify the 54 kids they want.</p>
<p>That's pretty impressive. I didn't know that!</p>
<p>Achat:</p>
<p>Don't take those numbers as gospel. I pieced them together from the many articles on what the Board approved when Swat dropped football. Needless to say, there were some contradictions. However, the 54 number is accurate (14% to 15%) of the freshman class. And, I believe the number of about 10 "impact" players is accurate (and very low compared to other similar schools).</p>
<p>Tiger Woods is probably the perfect example of an "impact" recruited athlete. For all I know, he was a valedictorian and had 1500 SATs when he applied to Stanford. But, I doubt it. Let's assume for the sake of argument that his academics took a back seat to his golf in high school.</p>
<p>By the time he finished high school, he had won (I think) four of his eventual six National Amateur championships. During his two year stint at Stanford, he won two more National Amateur titles and led Stanford to at least one NCAA championship. Now, of course, he's probably the most famous athlete in the world. Stanford gains immeasurably from Woods being a Stanford alum and it really doesn't make a darn bit of difference how he performed academically or that he "failed" to complete four years and earn his degree. Stanford didn't recruit Tiger Woods because they thought he would be an active participant in Philosophy seminars!</p>
<p>Interesteddad, thanks! That's funny but true. :)
But I also read an article by a Stanford economist who had taught Tiger Woods once in sophomore year. He talked about Tiger being a good student of his who had calculated the "opportunity cost" of staying in Stanford for 2 more years and come to the conclusion that it would be close to $200 million. So he decided to leave Stanford; but Tiger was a good student, it seems.</p>
<p>Actually, here is an article by same professor. I don't know if I read this one. It doesn't say anything about Tiger being a good student. And the opportunity cost is $40 million, not $200 million as I said. Still, some nice change, there.
<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ejohntayl/ShortArticles/ceremony.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/ShortArticles/ceremony.pdf</a></p>