<p>I feel like Blake Shelton on the Voice saying haha. </p>
<p>I’ve argued forever that at HYP the legacy admits don’t differ significantly from the overall population. Now, its not scientific, but its the only data out there. And it says exactly what I’ve thought…that the legacy pool is more competitive at HYPS than the general applicant pool. The reason it doesn’t come from the admissions office is obvious. They’re not willing to divulge what they’re doing, because they get enough static from people as it is. And if you do it for legacies, you have to do it for women, minorities, athletes, and VIPs. They’re not interested in that. </p>
<p>The interpretation that a big SAT score alone is enough is one way to look at it. Its a different way of saying that of the people who score 1600s (I like using the scores that matter), and are rejected, almost none of them are legacies. But I’m directly aware of two legacies from different HYPS schools who were rejected with mid and upper 1500 scores…so it isn’t quite as easy as just logging a 1420 and you’re in. In the case of HYP, big means really big. </p>
<p>As far as Harvard having more latitude on athletes, I’m aware of a case from many years ago where they were going to admit someone that another high ivy said they couldn’t recruit based on academics (may have been apocyphal). But in general, that is not the case, and for at least certain sports, the Ivy league admissions cabal has an agreement that constrains HYP more than the other members on academic index hurdles. </p>
<p>I think the Ivy league is completely different, also maybe Stanford, sometimes Duke, sometimes Vandy, sometimes Northwestern and sometimes Notre Dame. But, the Ivy League, in particular is full of student athletes in the ideal way. They really are students. They really are athletes.</p>
<p>But, really, there are so few of these player/students it’s not relevant to other schools. Also, and I don’t mean this as a cut on the Ivy model at all, there aren’t a lot of professional revenue athletes coming out of there, either. </p>
<p>I think it’s not really as if the other schools could fill their program with these athletes, too. These guys are not the usual suspects. They are rare.</p>
<p>That’s correct. And the Ivy’s can only be as selective as they are because they are not attempting to win national championships in major sports. If that is the goal, there isn’t much overlap with elite academics. </p>
<h1>403. The point is that every school with sports, including Harvard, compromises academics to have competitive sports teams. Cutting corners at Harvard is one thing. Cutting corners with Stanford or ND football or Duke BB is another. Cutting corners at LSU is yet another.</h1>
<h1>404. The NCAA student-athlete model is in fact doomed. It simply cannot pass muster legally. The system lasted for so long primarily because it was hard to challenge. Now the legal challenges are coming in bunches and they are turning out successful (O’Bannon case; Nwestern union case). Kessler could be the knockout punch The big time schools know it and are racing to renegotiate the system before some judge does it for them.</h1>
<p>I think before it became so entirely driven by tv money to the point where these behemoth conferences have been created and coaches started making so much money, the NCAA could kind of get away with looking like a regulatory body Now it just looks like big business on the backs of kids who have no other real option. </p>
<p>Oh PLEASE Poetgrl. The number seriously endorsing unions if tiny compared with the total number. Improvements will be made and 100’s will still covet every available scholarship. All of 3 players have joined the Kessler NCAA lawsuit. </p>
<p>Barrons, Kessler is a monster here. He knows what he is doing and he doesn’t take losing cases. His co-council was involved in many investigations when he worked for the NCAA. Honestly, I think you’re pretty deluded if you think the last few court cases are meaningless. The NCAA settled the last one saying they would cover cost of attendance, which scholarships don’t cover. They lost in OBannon. They will lose in Kessler. And the Concussion suit has been certified, I believe, as class action, triple damages. </p>
<p>Not surprising that the Harvard legacies have higher SAT scores, since legacies by definition have at least one college educated parent, and are probably more likely to come from high SES families than others (and even the not-so-high-SES parents among them are more likely to nurture educational achievement than typical parents).</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus - I agree, the main point is that recruited athletics (irrespective of SES) seem to enjoy a boost that legacies do not, or else legacy SAT scores would be lower, and admit rates even higher.</p>
<p>I wonder how admit rates for non-legacy recruited athletes compare to admit rates for other non-legacies with similar academic qualifications? A bit higher, I would imagine :)</p>
<p>My hypothesis is that legacy admission is a way for schools to enroll full payors. They get a higher acceptance yield from an applicant pool that is pre-sorted for favorable SES. Without having to specifically tilt their admissions in favor of rich folks. “We’re not admitting them because they’re rich – they’re legacies!!”</p>
<p>For many alumni, the $250k they’d full pay to their alma mater far exceeds the donations they would ever make.</p>
<p>At Harvard, the legacy pool is so SES favorable that the academic credentials are basically the same as the rest of the pool. The legacy preference is very slight (basically a tie breaker). While the legacy kid will have pretty much the same academic credentials as the non-legacy kid, the need for FA is going to be much less if they give the spot to the legacy kid.</p>
<p>@northwesty - it’s a win-win situation to accept legacy students, as it makes for happy alumni. I’m sure admissions offices know how these admissions decisions affect future donations. I highly doubt the parents of rejected legacies donate as much as those whose kids end up attending their parent’s alma mater.</p>
<p>Now that had absolutely nothing to do with college athletics. My pipe dream would be to see athletic scholarships abolished, with all aid based purely on need (the Ivy model) or academic merit (for those colleges that offer merit scholarships). Then use a model similar to Ivies that requires athlete AI to be within a certain distance of the AI for the student body as a whole. Finally, require athletes to attend the same classes that other students attend, and don’t give them any additional academic assistance than the many students working 20-40 hours a week while studying full time would get (which in most cases is exactly zero).</p>
<p>As I said, it’s a pipe dream, but institute these rules and the entire corrupt system would be forced to reform itself. Of course they would find new loopholes but it would be a fundamentally different system at that point.</p>
<p>Giving the seat to a legacy often means the school is going to get $60k a year for the next four years from that seat. Versus taking a kid who is going to pay $20k per year or less. It is way more about getting tuition dollars today than maybe getting donation dollars down the road someday. Helps take the pressure off the FA budget at schools that adhere to need blind/full need policies.</p>
<p>Athletic scholarships have been around for over 100 years. They’re not going away. In fact, the trend is for them to get bigger and more valuable. The power 5 conferences are desperate to pump up the benefits provided with the scholarships (stipends, unlimited food, 4 year guarantees, increased health care, etc.) in the hope of staving off a full free market based system.</p>
<p>The courts will be trumped by politics in this case. Most do not want college sports to become a free for all. It will adapt without much real change except on injuries which is already underway… Laws trump lawyers.</p>
<p>One of the linemen, McAdoo, just filed suit. His claim is that he didn’t get the education promised as he was steered toward the AFAM major, someone wrote his papers, he was ruled academically ineligible (permanently) by the NCAA. Even he is smart enough to realize he did not get any value out of the classes. Only question now is if any of that responsibility was his.</p>
<p>I saw this on the other thread and think that the college can offer him and others a scholarship to go back to school.</p>
<p>The college gave him the chance to play football at the college level, but if he wants the education he feels was promised him, then a scholarship would give him the opportunity to pursue one. </p>