https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/6/30/athlete-admissions/
From the article, this appears to apply to recruited athletes.
Which, given the meaning of the word ârecruitâ is hardly a surprise.
So no, merely playing high school sports, even on varsity level, isnât going to significantly alter admission standards.
I donât know why this would surprise anyone.
According to the lawsuit documents, Harvard gives all applicants a rating of 1 to 6 in a category called athletics, with 1 being highest and 6 being lowest. Recruited athletes receive a 1, which was the strongest hook that was analyzed in any of the lawsuit models â much stronger than URM, Dean/Directorâs special interest list, legacy, etc. However, getting a 2 rating in athletics also gave a notable boost in chance of admission, even though they were not recruited athletes. Only 9% of unhooked (besides URM) applicants received this 2 rating, suggesting it requires quite a bit more than just playing a varsity sport in HS. The specific regression coefficients from the Arcidiaconoâs model are below (model 6 â full controls). I listed some other hooks/criteria as a comparison.
Being Hispanic: +1.959 (0.086)
Applying Early Action: +1.531 ((0.096)
Academic Rating = 2: +1.512 (0.102)
Athletic Rating = 2: +1.357 (0.123)
Admit rate during 2009-16 with a 1 to 2 Academic rating (among the upper 43% of applicants) for some other groups is below, according to Harvardâs OIR publication:
Athletic Rating = 1 â 83%
Legacy â 55%
Low income â 24%
All Applicants â 16%
Asian â 11%
Not surprising that a recruited athlete gets a huge boost, but to meâŠstartling. 83% is significant.
And thisâŠ
âFor example, Arcidiacono noted that recruited athletes with an academic rating of 4 had an acceptance rate of 70.46 percent, nearly a thousand times greater than the 0.076 percent admit rate for non-athletes with the same academic rating.â
Again, not surprising that a recruited athlete would have a much better chance at acceptance as compared to an academic equal who is not recruited, but at a thousand times greater admit rate? That reality is again, startling.
Well, the recruits have a rare skill. Many are top players in their states, some have national rankings and international rankings. It wouldnât be outrageous to say many of them are a thousand times greater than the average student in their given sport. Itâs certainly not news that the Ivies like to have superb athletes in their schools. We live in a country that values sports. In a country where college sports are a valued part of the schoolâs identity and vibe. So why be startled? If a top athlete has the academic chops to also be a viable Ivy student â and most certainly do â more power to them.
Yes, I suppose it is seeing these numbers that makes me realize how very much we value athletics in our academic institutions. I find it startling. If others donât, fair enough.
But the whole point of recruiting is that the coach is selecting specific players, and is also competing against other schools. So even though that coach canât guarantee admission to a candidate, he has to be able to predict with reasonable likelihood. Otherwise the coaches would be wasting their time and the time of the athlete they spoke to. They are essentially asking the athletes to give up potential spots at other schools in order to accept at Harvard. They are also often recruiting for specific spots and roles on a team.
Iâm not a fan of college athletics, but if that is part of the mix and there is going to be recruiting, Iâd expect that most recruits would be admitted unless there is a pretty good to reject them.
Iâm more troubled by the 55% admit rate for legacies. The athletic recruit is bringing something that Harvard wants and needs, even if it might involve tossing a ball around rather than bolstering the quality of the academic program. But on an individual level, what does the legacy student offer above and beyond others?
I donât find this at all surprising.
- Isnât this the definition of ârecruited athlete?â âWe want you so much that if your academics are acceptable you will be admittedâ?
- The vast majority of recruited athletes at this level do a pre-read with admissions from which they learn if theâre likely to be admitted. Most coaches wonât continue to pursue a kid whoâs received a negative pre-read and most kids wonât commit to a school where theyâve received one. From a recruited athleteâs point of view the admission rate should be 100% if theyâve done a pre-read and have a coachâs full support.
My guess is that a lot of the recruited athletes who are not admitted fail to apply ED, leaving themselves vulnerable to a situation where the coach has already exhausted his slots during the ED round.
Well Harvard doesnât have ED â but you are probably right that the recruited athletes need to complete REA apps on a timely basis to secure their spot.
Something that is also a significant consideration is that Harvard doesnât award athletic scholarships. Harvard. coaches have to recruit with the disadvantage of not being able to provide these student athletes any financial incentive to attend Harvard which is a Division 1 school.
I am not surprised at all with the percentage of recruited athletes who are admitted. I am not bothered by it either. These kids are the definition of student athletes. Many of them have given up athletic scholarships because of the importance of academics to them and for the appreciation of what it means to graduate from Harvard.
The athletes our daughter knew had no problem holding their own in the classroom either.
In this day of big time college athletics and all the seedy things that go with it being a student athlete at a non athletic scholarship Ivy League school is as pure as it gets.
I would also add that coaches are probably not wasting their time recruiting students who have no shot of making it past a minimum review of academic rigor. Again, the key word in this piece is ârecruitedâ.
I read an article written by a Yale coach. First question to the 10th graders? What are your gpa and test scores? The recruiting doesnât even get off the ground until the coach knows that the student can be accepted.
The other key word that is not mentioned in the article, but mentioned by @Sue22, is âpre-read.â Athletic recruits get initial feedback based on transcripts/SAT/ACT before even submitting the application. Since, based on my reading of the Crimson article, the 83% is based on completed, submitted applications, Iâm surprised itâs so low.
Out of each class, what percent of the admits are recruited athletes?
Roughly 12%. The average class size is 1660. The Ivy League limits the number of athletic recruits per year to somewhere between 225-230, but most schools recruit fewer. Iâm estimating Harvard recruits in the 200-205 range.
So out of approx 1700 students, there are roughly 200 recruited athletes. It would be interesting to survey the students to see if they think thatâs an appropriate number given their concept of how important athletics is to their experience and campus culture.
Well, there all sorts of surveys that one can do for kicks and giggles. At the end of the day though, it is what it is. Few college administrators base their strategic planning on student surveys. 
Isnât it more shocking that 17% of recruited athletes are rejected, despite recruitment and pre-reads?
If I was the parent of a recruited athlete, that would be something I would want to be aware of.
@Postmodern Absolutely, that 17% rejection rate should raise eyebrows more than the 83% admit rate. Iâd like to know what ârecruitedâ means in this scenario. If it means passing a pre-read and being supported through admissions with a coachâs slot, then supported athletes certainly arenât getting the deal they thought they were by âcommitting to the processâ. However, I suspect recruited in this case simply means coach contact at some point in the process for the purpose of recruitment. In that case it would include athletes who did not receive coach support but perhaps were told âif you get accepted, weâd love to have you on the teamâ.