Duke? Have you googled what Fitzsimmons has said about categories and rating?
It’s not relevant to the admissions confusion that the Ivy League was formed as an athletic conference. It would be like saing some college was formed for religious reasons, when in the interim they evolved.
Just as it’s not relevant to continue to point to the issues in the late 1920’s.
Transparency creates confusion when people can’t understand. Or continue to expect miracles. Or continue to disagree, for whatever reason. Here we are 18 pages in on a thread about 83% of recruited athletes being accepted…and still arguing over that point. See it?
Or I say, your prep for your stated potential major matters- and people say, no, only when there’s a specific sub college you apply directly to. Or some say physics and calc are important in a stem application and others say, but it’s an available freshman class.
I think this is a fair point. A priori there is no reason to assume that (although some positive character traits – grit, perseverance, teamwork, leadership, creativity, attentiveness, diligence, etc. – clearly would be expected to be correlated with academic performance). However, once the overall relationship is shown, if one can demonstrate that said relationship is very different among the different racial groups (which certainly appears to be the case), then an explanation should be forthcoming.
It’s primarily the lack of transparency about the recruited athletic admissions that created the confusion in this thread, rather than the transparency. Harvard could be extremely clear about how many recruited athletes they have per sport, how the recruited athlete stats compare to the overall student body on both a team and individual basis, what the criteria is for being admitted as a recruited athlete, how the admission process differs, why they favor giving such a boost to sports that are not popular with the general public, and answer the key questions posters have made in this thread, It’s the lack of such information that leaves people guessing and creates the confusion.
Of course I don’t expect Harvard to post this level of detailed information about athletic recruiting on their website, as it would reflect poorly on the university. This is the primary reason for the lack of transparency about athletic recruiting admissions – not that it creates confusion.
The relationship likely occurs because Asian students are concentrated in the top academic decile, while hardly any Black students and to a lesser extent Hispanic students appear in that decile. For example, if you look at top academic decile, you’ll be looking at the extremely rare black students who likely have something really special going on that is not captured by academic decile; while you’ll be looking at more of a typical Asian applicant. If you compare rating of top X% AI of Black students to top X% AI of Asian, the results will appear notably different. In short, it’s a misleading way of presenting the numbers.
Yes, we all know this. Pointing out that Cornell is by far the newest Ivy (still with more history outside the league than in it, BTW) doesn’t change that.
Also, we are talking about Harvard’s admissions policies, not the “Ivy League’s”.
You stated:
Then what does it matter what athletic league Harvard chooses to be in? Why prioritize athletic admits to the extreme that it does if sports are not the primary mission? THAT is my question.
"Why prioritize athletic admits to the extreme that it does if sports are not the primary mission? "
It is a bit ironic that the same types of colleges that loftily tell students to “show not tell” on their apps are put out when people examine what the college admissions numbers are showing. Guess we’re supposed to listen and trust what they tell us instead of what their own data clearly shows.
I would actually argue that the admissions process for recruited athletes is more transparent than for general admissions. Based on direct personal experience for H (and a number of other Ivies and selective LAC’s), the coaches will tell you how many spots they have for their sport and whether you are being considered for a spot. During the “dance”, they will tell you what you need to score/achieve in tests and gpa for AI purposes for their team. After they get to their final list, they require transcripts, test score reports and fall academic schedule to submit to the AO for pre-reads. There are well defined rules on AI criteria and “band” criteria for band sports (primarily football). Frankly like many others on this thread, I was surprised by the low rate of admissions (83%) for recruited athletes unless the athletes being included also included athletes exceeding coaches’ quota’s and were merely “supported” which Harvard coaches do and many other Ivies do not. Otherwise you would think the reject rate should be roughly the same as the rescission rate on other likely letter recipients or actual accepted students – certainly for recruited athletes that received a pre-read and a likely letter.
Well, I’m not privy to their thinking, but I’d assume they think they’re handling their academic mission quite well, and on top of that they can add an athletic dimension. Judging by Harvard’s exalted reputation, it would appear most of the world agrees. I certainly have no quibble with that. And I’d say the same of Stanford, Duke, Notre Dame, and Michigan, all of which give even larger admissions breaks to recruited athletes, and athletic scholarships to boot.
Do you seriously think Harvard’s teaching and research mission is materially impaired as a consequence of the steps they take to field competitive athletic teams?
Those are numbers from the plantiff’s model. Card’s (Harvard’s) model of the same data suggests a small, but not statistically significant Asian boost, particularly for Asian women and Asians from CA. The differences primarily apply to what I consider minor difference in their respective models, such as whether you control for parents occupation, which has notable overlap with race. Card says adcoms have access to parents occupation and are instructed to consider it, so it should be a control. Arcidiacono says parents occupation is mostly used to determine whether disadvantaged, which is already controlled for by the disadvantaged indicator and SES indicators, so it should not be an additional control. If you add parents occupation as a control, like Card does, it removes ~half of the calculated negative Asian effect (for model that includes personal rating).
If you exclude the personal rating, the admission shares do not change as much as some news articles would suggest. Specific numbers are below, again for the plantiff’s model with the full (expanded sample), but excluding the personal rating:
Default: 22% Asian
No Asian Penalty: 24.5% Asian
No Racial Preferences (no URM or Asian Preferences): 29% Asian
No Athlete Preference: 24% Asian
No Race, Legacy, or Athlete Preference: 34% Asian
Oh no quibble here either, I don’t have a horse in this race. H can accept all the academically-below-average athletes it likes.
But this discussion is here to, well, discuss the athletic preference at H, and I personally would drop athletic ability down to equal footing with other talents (music, journalism, dance, debate, whatever).
I agree. The recruits know that there are about 200 spots available, that the overall AI needs to be within 1 standard deviation of the overall class for the 4 years before. When admissions is looking at the athletes, it’s a pretty small group. The coaches know what they want, they’ve worked with admissions before, so know which applications to submit. If admissions is looking at 250 applications to get the 200 admits, it’s really likely the coaches have already told the 300 or so other kids they spoke to not to apply, that it was a waste of time and money and they weren’t being supported. They can apply RD, but they are on their own.
Now it the regular round, or even ED, no one has told the applicants that they have NO chance, so they all ‘toss in an app.’ How many times have we read here on CC that a student who didn’t have the grades just sent in an app to 'see what would happen"? The athletes have already been weeded out.
Harvard has never been about only the grades and scores. They have always looked for more. There would be no need for an admissions committed if it were just about the numbers; a computer could sort the applications.
I am starting to be confused . It seems that many are saying that a small percentage of relatively wealthy students deserve fifty per cent of the slots at Harvard and who cares about blacks or browns or athletic participation or people of low socio economic status. That seems a very discriminatory position to take and counter to the values of this country which includes equal opportunity for the less fortunate.
The bump from being an athlete does not end with college admissions. According to the book Pedigree by Lauren A. Rivera, “Grade “discounts” were particularly strong for varsity athletes. Undergraduate grade floors were typically lowered from 3.5 to 3.0 for varsity athletes…” (Pedigree is a book that “takes readers behind the closed doors of prestigious investment banks, consulting firms and law firms…”).
I think the confusion stems from the misconception that Harvard aspires to be the top bastion of intellectualism (the brightest of the bright)-- when in fact Harvard is and wants to be the pinnacle of social influence. If it has a primary goal then that is not to produce a future best nuclear physicist – but more future US Presidents. And Senators. And CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies.
Howard Gardner, who is both a product of and a faculty member at Harvard, identified a set of separate “intelligences” - which include interpersonal, as well as bodily-kinesthetic. The framing of multiple intelligence theory seems to put equivalent value on each. But if I were to pick one that points to future success in the realm of social influence, then it would have to be interpersonal – the ability to engage in a constructive and effective way with others.
So why do athletes also do well at investment banks, consulting firms, law firms? Well, success in team sports tends to include people with strong interpersonal skills.
I think the assumption that students who rank highly on an academic metric should logically also rank highly on metric of “personal qualities” is just that – an assumption – and not something that can be construed as evidence of bias Because my guess is that there is probably an association between the “personal” qualities and extraversion, including participation in realms that are less academically-focused and more broadly inclusive. That doesn’t mean that an introvert can never get accepted to Harvard… but it’s probably a lot harder for the introvert to get rated well in the “personal” category. Because they are harder for others to get to know.
And if Harvard’s goal was limited to the intellectual side… then that priority would indeed cut out a lot of people.
But again, I don’t think that’s Harvard’s goal. George W. Bush (Yale) was a poor student and a cheerleader. Turns out that Reagan, Eisenhower, and FDR were also college cheerleaders. (Source: https://www.flocheer.com/articles/5067734-4-us-presidents-you-didnt-know-were-cheerleaders) This is not an activity that wins a lot of respect in academic circles. But seems to tap into or develop a skill that might be quite useful to a politician. And for Harvard, “politician who gets elected” is a highly desirable outcome.
If someone said that, I missed the post. The study at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/harvard-university found the inflation adjusted median income of Harvard parents was $180k. More families were from the top 5% income than the bottom 80% income. Harvard’s current population could be described as “small percentage of relatively wealthy students” making up the majority of the class.
The reasons for this relationship are varied. The lawsuit sims suggest the discussed recruited athlete hook has a largely neutral effect in SES diversity, as measured by disadvantaged %. I expect that there are large difference between specific sports. For example, sailing recruits are likely less economically and racially diverse than basketball recruits. However, affluent white families are no doubt over-represented among most other hooks like legacy, dean/director’s list, and Z-list. These 3 groups make up over 40% of White admits – not the majority, but a substantial percentage. I expect the bigger reason for lack of SES diversity than hooks is Harvard’s reputation. Affluent high achieving kids are far more likely to favor applying to Harvard and similar prestigious Ivy-type privates than less affluent kids. And less affluent high achieving kids are far more likely to favor applying to the local public than more affluent kids.
I don’t know how many dedicated spots the water polo team gets - do you? My guess is, very few, and the academic bar for them’s probably pretty high. More to the point, though, why do you think Harvard does this? Because the administration has decided that it’s part of Harvard’s mission to have a great water polo team, and has directed the admissions office to make it so? I very much doubt that. If Harvard’s allocating a spot or two to the water polo team, I think it’s because they believe that, taken all in all, it’s in Harvard’s interest to do so, rather than make those spots available to the general pool.
Why would Harvard think that? Because they believe some unquantifiable contribution that a credible, if not necessarily winning, water polo team makes to the campus climate, alumni morale and contributions outweighs the alternative of offering a small number of spots to the general pool to increase it by a fraction of one percent. Specifically, Harvard believes the mix of admissions choices it makes (including the spots offered to the water polo team) are beneficial to the Harvard enterprise, that they increase Harvard’s power, reach and resources in some way, enabling Harvard to pursue its mission more effectively (generally through more teaching and research).
Assuming that spots are actually allocated to the water polo team, maybe it’s because there’s a very generous water polo-playing alum who’s contributed millions, enough to cover the costs of the entire Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations department responsible for evaluating Hittite linguistics theses, and maybe Harvard thinks that’s a good trade-off. Or not. You and I have no idea why Harvard’s allocating spots to the water polo team (assuming they are), but, if so, I suspect it’s because they think giving some small assistance to it is overall in Harvard’s interest for some reason best known to them. Which brings me to:
First, while differences in skill matter, the 80:20 rule applies here like anywhere else - although a singing group can always be better, at some level, when almost no members of the audience can tell the difference and (as @northwesty says) the world at large isn’t keeping score, Harvard (or Yale in this case) isn’t going to bend over backwards to try to find ever-more specialized and talented singers, particularly if they want to use the spots elsewhere and there are plenty of kids admitted who are talented singers (if not virtuosic, although many are). And it’s not like those spots necessarily go to athletes in any case.
Second, of course Harvard thinks this way about other things, and makes choices to “spare expenses” all the time. In the wake of the global financial crisis, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences cut its budget by something like 20%, through a mix of hiring and salary freezes and lots of cuts, the mix of which was hotly debated. Departments have budgets, and if a scholar Harvard thinks is the best in the world at something (say Hittite linguistics) costs too much, or Harvard isn’t inclined to find a job for the scholar’s spouse, or they don’t think they can afford the staff or infrastructure that that scholar wants, they’ll make do with someone else, or they’ll decide they don’t actually need the world’s greatest expert in Hittite linguistics (particularly if some generous alum hasn’t endowed a chair for them).
There are certainly better and worse Whiffenpoof vintages - as you’re no doubt aware, in a group with just 14 members, small variations in the quality of individual singers are magnified. I might even have asked a Whiffenpoof or two about this at some point over the years.
It’s not clear that Harvard views athletics as “part of its academic mission”, just something that supports that mission. Endowed coaching positions mean that some alum donated money to pay for a coach on a permanent basis so Harvard wouldn’t have to, and could use the funds freed up thereby for some other purpose (maybe teaching, research or financial aid). Faculty advisors are available to anyone, not just athletes, and if there’s greater targeting by them of individuals who are more likely to need them (e.g., some athletes, some first-gens, etc.), that feels like a good thing. If members of singing groups need them, they should get them too.
This discussion is taking place because there’s a colossal mismatch between a whole lot of things Harvard says with respect to admissions and what it does, and it goes far beyond athletes and Harvard. When you look past the holistic handwaving, the “underlying truth” is that less than a quarter of the class is the academic creme de la creme, and the rest (including the recruited athletes), smart and talented though they may be, are all there for some mix of reasons / “institutional priorities” reflected in: favors to wealthy and influential alumni, soft racial quotas with varying admissions standards depending to a large degree on your color, spots reserved for the children of the rich and famous, arbitrary notions of appropriate geographic diversity, loosened standards for children of faculty and staff, and on and on. They don’t talk about this because, even though they believe the choices they make are in the best interests of the university, they know how corrupt it would look if exposed to the light of day.
I don’t think Harvard is trying to be a pinnacle of social influence. I think they want to be - and offer - an academically intense experience, a setting where their faculty (or research or program staff) has opportunity to focus on their own work interests, in a stimulating milieu, as well as work with students.
And the best students can aspire and accomplish, be stimulated and influence others.
That means many things. And it’s not simply academic, I agree.
Even pointing to the number of “leaders” coming from Yale doesn’t change that they’ve acknowledged “leadership” comes in many forms, including ways that might seem small to people looking for big and bold, obvious status. The college kid who’s involved with local school kids or local programs or works at in academic support is as valid as the one out there making a big name for herself or getting lucrative internships.
Is Harvard that tough to get through? Well, no. Yale? No.
…
The personal category (taking from a sister school) isn’t about personality. Plenty of viable kids show they are thoughtful (showing careful consideration. Or consideration for others.) They can be introverts. Or prefer the company of few, versus many. That’s fine.
I think you have to go back to the “show not tell” discussion. The mistake isn’t being introverted, per se. It’s being totally clammed up, barely able to engage. And making that clear, writing about shyness or stress as limiting. Etc. The kid who never engaged in collaborative hs activities or who actually writes they prefer some social isolation (and that’s a mistake in judgment.) Or kids who imply the primary value in their social interactions is how they trump over others. Or overestimate their worth. Or seem only interested in their own future careers.
The athlete, presumably, is working well on a team (or at least in a team context.) Etc.
I think it’s tricky to make general statements, like whom they favor or how they lie. As in many discussions, it would hold better to get to specifics.
As for “holistic handwaving,” I just think anyone who sees a vast number of full applications sees how few kids, whether or not top performers or you think they’re the greatest thing since sliced bread, can actually put together a fully successful application. They’re kids. They’re full of misconceptions, (fostered by a lot of web sites.)
My issue with athletic recruits continues to be those who can’t really manage H academics. That serves the U. The benefit to the kid is debatable.
Yes, but when you return to the show not tell discussion that’s exactly what is engendering the huge debate. If one were to ignore everything Harvard says and just examine the stats of who Harvard admits - looking at what they are showing not telling - one would not conclude that Harvard’s primary goal is to “be - and offer - an academically intense experience, a setting where their faculty (or research or program staff) has opportunity to focus on their own work interests, in a stimulating milieu, as well as work with students.”
Looking purely at the actual stats it would appear that academics is a secondary consideration at best and that other interests are clearly primary. While I haven’t seen anyone advocating shifting to a system that is purely based on a single academic metric or even two academic metrics, it is disingenuous to ask people to believe that academics are even a primary factor in admissions under the current system.
If an alien who knew nothing about Harvard or the holistic admissions smokescreen were to land and view the data presented in the article cited in the OP, that alien might conclude something along the lines of "this college seeks to admit the best athletes, future societal influencers and scions of the current influencers that are minimally qualified to exist in classes along the couple of hundred truly outstanding intellects admitted each year. Oh, and apparently there is social pressure to obscure this agenda that promotes the current aristocracy, so it also admits enough minorities to give the underclasses hope as well. But those underclasses clearly aren’t looking closely because the joke is on them - many of the URMs are from wealthy families, too. "
I agree with that, though I’m guessing the leaders of successful robotics, math & debate teams, and stage crews etc., have strong interpersonal skills also. I have known some successful athletes who were deeply selfish. The talented ball hog on the team does sometimes do well, and some recruited sports aren’t team-like at all (tennis? 90% of track and swimming events? Not all recruited sports require the teamwork/interpersonal skills of a volleyball setter or basketball point guard).
Not the case at Amherst, not sure it would very different at Harvard?
One thing that’s interesting to me about this is that many colleges - Harvard and Amherst and others - have a great club sport team scene that manages to not only survive but prosper with no recruitment slots with admissions. Like the singing groups and theater and newspaper, they find a critical mass of talent in the pool of students who didn’t go through the athletic recruiting process. (Not even including intramurals which are enjoyed by many students). These club and intramural sports allow students to compete even if they didn’t do travel ball since they were 5 - how many high school students are already killingit at Quidditch or Ultimate?
“Do you seriously think Harvard’s teaching and research mission is materially impaired as a consequence of the steps they take to field competitive athletic teams?”
No because Harvard’s intellectual capital and influence, if you will are driven by their grad schools, so they can basically toy with the undergrad to get the right mix of wealth, race, athletic prowess, intelligence, connections etc.
“but more future US Presidents. And Senators. And CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies.”
Those are mainly, if not exclusively, from Harvard’s grad schools (and you can include supreme court justices as well). And the grad schools do not give athletic preferences, zero.