“Absolutely, that 17% rejection rate should raise eyebrows more than the 83% admit rate.”
My impression too. Recruited athletes get significantly pre-screened and baked into the AI formula and spreadsheets. So the admit rate should be close to 100%.
The 17% probably reflect situations where the coach is stretching a bit too much. Or perhaps where the kid had a drop off or problem that changed things from the pre-read time.
Still, it is true that the Ivies have a surprisingly large investment and commitment to athletics – in particular the allocation of their limited/precious seats to varsity players. In its own way, Harvard cares more about football than Alabama does.
I’m not at all surprised by the high admit rate for recruited athletes, but the statistics should send a loud signal to hopeful applicants that admission to the Ivies is not the pure academic meritocracy that many seem to think it is. And like calmom, I’m much more troubled by the 55% admit rate for legacies with a 1 or 2 academic rating, versus 16% for “all applicants” with the same academic rating—which translates to something well below 16% for unhooked applicants, once you remove recruited athletes and legacies from the “all applicants” category. Harvard is entitled to admit whomever they please, but let’s not kid ourselves that it’s all about academic merit. Recruited athletes and legacies have a huge leg up, and together they fill a very large percentage of the class.
We also need some additional context to interpret the 11% admit rate for Asian applicants with a 1 or 2 academic rating. No doubt some Asian applicants are recruited athletes, but looking over the rosters of Harvard’s varsity teams, I see a paucity of obvious Asian names. And no doubt by now some Asian applicants are legacies, but my guess is the legacy applicant pool is whiter than the overall applicant pool, simply because Harvard was a much whiter institution 20 to 40 years ago when the parents of most of today’s legacies attended. So the 11% admit rate for Asians might be pretty similar to the admit rate for unhooked white applicants. That’s not to say an injustice isn’t being done here. In a rather profound way, the legacy boost privileges the already privileged. As does much of Harvard’s athletic recruiting insofar as they recruit for “country club” sports, with top private prep schools in particular operating as major feeders for Harvard athletics.
It sounds like not much has changed since Shulman and Bowen wrote The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values back in 2002. Yes, the number of football slots were trimmed and the AI tweaked, but athletic prowess is still treasured more highly than anything else. Perhaps because it’s in relatively short supply.
"but looking over the rosters of Harvard’s varsity teams, I see a paucity of obvious Asian names. "
This method of determining race always makes be giggle a little because we have a very Asian sounding last name but no Asian heritage at all. People who have first contacted us via email or phone have even commented on that when they meet any of us (blond, blue eyed, pasty white skin with freckles), that they assumed from our name that we were Asian. You really can’t tell from just last names.
I’m not sure they have to bring anything above and beyond what the other applicants bring. They just need to be as qualified as the others. I know some legacy families have and will continue to donate lots of money (which is used to support students that don’t have the means to pay), but there are many legacy families that don’t fall into that bucket.
I know you don’t care for collegiate sports, but many do, and there is far more to athletics than “tossing a ball around.” There are thousands of athletes that are not only excellent at their sport, but also contributors in the classroom.
Arcidiacono reviewed a larger set of data for the Plantiff including both with and without FA, which is where the quote about 1000x greater admit rate with academic rating of 4 comes from. Arcidiacono lists an overall athlete admit rate of 86.0% overall (all academic ratings) and states 1,374 / 165,353 = 0.8% are athletes in his sample. The Harvard rebuttal mentions an 88% admit rate for applicants with a 1 in athletics (recruited athlete) and no other 1’s. Arcidiacono found the following admit rates for applicants with a 4 or worse in the academic rating (bottom 17% of applicants).
“So out of approx 1700 students, there are roughly 200 recruited athletes.”
Way too many IMHO.
Harvard has 42 Division I varsity sports teams, the most of any university in the country. I would be very surprised if any undergraduate who doesn’t work in the athletic department could even name them all, much less care whether they have a winning season or not.
You can make a real argument that the whole student body benefits from fielding strong teams in football, crew, ice hockey, basketball…maybe 5 sports for each gender. I don’t think there’s any hope for this argument when it comes to sailing, skiing, water polo, field hockey, wrestling, golf, etc. Those sports teams exist for the benefit of their athletes, and you can get a great experience on a losing team, so they don’t need dedicated spots in the class saved for them.
Per CC in the past couple of years I have seen recruited athletes never show up to a team practice or first meet. Are they counted against team totals for the next four years? Do the coaches get a do-over?
As the parent of one serious athlete and one serious debater, I find it difficult to tell my kids that the athlete is far more likely to get into an Ivy. Thankfully, they don’t care about Ivies, but it does seem ridiculous that athletic skills would be so much more valued.
Schools consider athletes good students, maybe better students than non-athletes. It’s been that way for many years and it is one reason the Ivy league exists - it’s an athletic conference. Even recruited athletes get in over other applicant without coach’s help. They are just good students. Last year there was a star lax player at Brown who had a 3.98 gpa and was winning awards on and off the field. Rhodes scholarships used to have an athletic component.
If a school has two applicants both with 4.0/1550, why not take the one who can also bounce a basketball?
For those bothered by the high legacy acceptance, one has to put it into perspective. It is much more likely that an H Alum has done things for their kids which are out of reach for many Americans. Whether it be a fancy boarding school or a math club, the Harvard alum parent knows what it takes and what his/her Harvard peers had ( even if 30 years ago it is still relevant). Also people who did well in school often push their kids to do the same. They are a subset of a much bigger demographic.
As the parent of an academic athlete, there are so many things I don’t know. People tell us and we’ve found our way but I didn’t start my kids at 3 years old playing a sport or have them doing multiple sports etc to get them ready. On the other hand, we fully understand the college process. With 6 degrees between ( 3 IVY) we know things other parents do not.
Personally I’m not a fan of any bias in acceptance ( that includes race, legacy or anything a student has no control over). I think the emphasis on sports is extreme but at least it is based on the student doing something.
I’m shocked just how important sports are. I might even listen to the recruiters more when they talk to my kiddo.
@twoinanddone I don’t know that I agree that athletes are inherently superior students. They are treated like gods at the high school, and often get tons of perks (allowed to come in tardy, sometimes get grade inflation) that kids in equally demanding non-athletic ECs just don’t get. I have a serious athlete as a kid, so I see how much easier his life is than my other kid’s. My student athlete works hard and has many wonderful qualities, but he always seems to have some girl who will give him the quizlet she created or who wants to lend him her notes for the chemistry test. Of course it doesn’t hurt that he’s handsome as all get out.
@ccprofandmomof2 That may be true at some high schools, but certainly not at mine. Athletes can get home from competitions at 8 or 9 at night, and still have to study for the same test that others got to start studying for at 5. Sometimes the theatre kids or the debate kids can get a test moved, but never the athletes.
@wisteria100 That’s so interesting. Ours is the opposite. Debaters continually get grief for leaving early on Fridays to travel to major weekend competitions, but there is nothing but accolades for the athletes. Athletes get a bus for competitions; debaters have to organize parent carpools. Athletic teams who go to states get all expenses covered, debaters who go to states and nationals pay their own way. I don’t have a theatre kid, but what I hear from parents is that they are often at school until 11pm for weeks before a play and can never defer tests or assignments–in fact, faculty seem to assign major projects at that time every year. I guess each school culture is different!
Yeah, my daughter wasn’t a Sports Goddess in high school. She was a 5’1" kid on a mediocre team. Went to 3 different high schools, didn’t even decide to play in college until she was a high school junior (very late). We did all the work to get invitations to schools. She received a lot of interests from schools like Kenyon and Smith and Centre because she had good grades. Ivies were a step up in academics and athletes. Some D3 schools like Gettysburg and Middlebury were a match academically but not athletically but believe me, all the students they take athletically are also capable academically so we never thought a better athlete took ‘her’ spot. She really wasn’t interested in any of those schools so found one she liked more academically and fit better athletically.
We know a guy who was an absolute top recruit athletically but just a (very) average student at a top college prep high school. He never looked at the Ivies, Duke, Virginia or similar schools even though those are the top athletically.
In my time at Harvard I went to 2 Harvard Yale football games and 1 Harvard Yale ice hockey game. I had a friend who played soccer, but I never actually went to a game. My cousins played squash, but I never watched any of their games either. Nor did I know anyone who did. I had a lot of friends in music and I did go to a lot of concerts - not sure why there are no deals for musicians.
