<p>Sometimes HYP will "recruit" athletes who were not considering an east coast school. They have the academic credentials and scores, but their sports are played more prevalently on the west coast. This is not a lowering of standards, but a means of attracting talent. They receive no athletic scholarships and do not find the level of competition they would at a Div. I school in the west. However, they seek a challenging and prestigious college for reasons similar to many others.</p>
<p>"^I think you are what you are seeing because Chicago is rather lax on their admissions standards. I hate to admit it, but the calibre of students at Chicago is lower than that at many other elite schools, especially HYP."</p>
<p>Why do people say this?</p>
<p>College is a business, thought he whole recruiting thing is BS. With Duke basketball, it makes sense to recruit a crappy student-he makes the school milions. Schools like NU gain a lot from sports, b/c they actually compete at the highest level. But with a school like Harvard, they suck at almost every sport. I can understand football, basketball, etc. recruiting-it makes money. But why do they give many advantages to non revenue sports-seriously, who watches female equestrians (and no, i am not a misogynist)? Does that lead to the whole diversity/culture thing?</p>
<p>"Chicago's is lower than many elite schools?"
Come on!! I would disagree with that statement.The calibre of students at Chicago is pretty equal to the elite schools. Is that why they have the 9th ranking in the U.S. News rankings along with Dartmouth & Columbia and ahead of Brown and Cornell. I could go look up other stats like SAT scores or gpa and i'm pretty confident that the stats are about equal.</p>
<p>^Mmm...Chicago's 9th on USNWR because it is an amazing school, not because the calibre of students granted admission is the 9th highest. Of the top 20 schools, it might be one of the easiest to get into, but it is probably also one of the hardest to graduate from. I think I remember seeing somewhere that the average GPA and whatnot are lower for admitted students, but I could be wrong.</p>
<p>And Karl Marks, that's EXACTLY what I'm trying to say. Why do they still recruit in sports that are likely to make them no money?</p>
<p>It's not just athletes that are getting recruited. My friend who is a music major was "recruited" to schools by the time she was a Junior. Professors would ALWAYS call her asking how she was. To even be recruited in athletics you have to be in the area of top 8 in your state and thats for a decent Division II or III school. Its also not like you are getting accepted to the school ridiculously easily, you still GENERALLY have to be in the middle 50% stats wise. The lower level applicants tend to be fantastic athletes, likewise I have seen gifted musicians being accepted to HYP with less than stellar stats. </p>
<p>Example:
Yale Full Ride- Music Scholarship</p>
<p>2050 SAT I
720 US history 720 Chem
3.6uw 4.0w</p>
<p>It's not just athletics that does recruitment. You might think that way because athletic recruitments tend be more in the spotlight then a CS major or music major.</p>
<p>hswrestling...I see now that you've been accepted to Chicago. I'm not trying to belittle that. I'm just saying that most people who go to UofChicago do it because it provides a world class education, not because they need to feel accomplished for getting into an elite school. And Chicago's statistcs are def lower than HYP's though not lower than the other Ivies, persay. But maybe those people were chosen for whatever other reason? There definitely aren't as many recruits at Chicago as there are in the Ivies - that is for sure.</p>
<p>And as for the above post - this issue has already been labored over. Arts recruitments (which, by the way, are much less frequent than athletic recruitments) are done to improve the quality of the student body as well as the quality of the numerous departments. Athletic recruitments exist because schools desire funding and prestige that come with the recruitments. </p>
<p>Reason? As far as I can tell, from the eyes of the AdCom Officer, being good at music is a means onto itself. Even if your friend were a mediocre student and person and is good at nothing but music, her musical genius along MIGHT POSSIBLY be justification for admittance into a good music program. Being good at sports is NOT a means onto itself. If an athlete were a mediocre student and person, even if he is talented, he does not deserve admittance into an institution known for whatever academic department he chooses to enroll in. </p>
<p>Besides, Yale's music program is much better than their football program. Your friend might very well go on to play professionally and receive acclaim.
Yale's football program, on the other hand, recruits football players who AREN'T at the top of the nation's football players, and football players who graduate from Yale very likely won't go on to contribute to the NFL or even the XFL...haha. Why is this? Because the nation's top football players go to schools like OSU, USC, and NU - not to Yale.</p>
<p>And finally, recruitments are traiditionally at the lower 20-30% of the schools. This, again, is from the Department of Education study, which states something along the lines of the only two groups that are statistically significantly weaker than the average applicant are legacies and recruits.</p>
<p>In The Price of Admission by some dude named Golden, he outlines the fact that colleges give unfair advantages to many. Bourgeois sports like Polo and Fencing and Crew and Equestrianship (or w/e the hell it's called) are typically played by wealthy students. Why do colleges like this? B/c many of these students help colleges with their title IX (referring to female athletes), and they can pay. Besides colleges love to dole out unfair advatages. Giving advantaged and overprivileged students even more advantage and privilege is what bourgeois and unfair college admissions is all about! Now I am a huge fan of sports in general-and many of the revenue sports can foster campus atmosphere, reputation, and revenue. But seriously, no one gives a **** about rowing and other stuff.</p>
<p>Oh, and I know people love to underrate midwestern schools;</p>
<p>Chicago</p>
<p>SAT Reasoning Verbal: 680 - 770
SAT Reasoning Math: 670 - 760 </p>
<p>Columbia</p>
<p>SAT Reasoning Verbal: 670 - 770
SAT Reasoning Math: 660 - 760 </p>
<p>Wow, Chicago is even slightly higher than Columbia in terms of stats, lol! And Chicgo does that even with an admit rate around 35%, while Columbia rejects over 90% for lesser results! Lower caliber, I think not! And no schools can really compare to HYP so let's not bring that up.</p>
<p>"But seriously, no one gives a **** about rowing."</p>
<p>A minority of students row, fence, sculpt, play the harp, or give a thought to those pursuits. Should the university provide opportunities and craft its curriculum solely for the majority? Where do you suggest students with minority interests or talents go to school? Obviously not the ivies.</p>
<p>"Arts recruitments (which, by the way, are much less frequent than athletic recruitments) are done to improve the quality of the student body as well as the quality of the numerous departments. Athletic recruitments exist because schools desire funding and prestige that come with the recruitments."
I don't see how arts recruits "improve" the quality of the student body while athletic recruits are a disgrace? </p>
<p>"Even if your friend were a mediocre student and person and is good at nothing but music, her musical genius along MIGHT POSSIBLY be justification for admittance into a good music program. Being good at sports is NOT a means onto itself. If an athlete were a mediocre student and person, even if he is talented, he does not deserve admittance into an institution known for whatever academic department he chooses to enroll in."
That's what you believe. Great. Obviously a lot of other people completely disagree with you, including me. In fact, I think it's the other way around- if someone is good at nothing but music, first of all I don't want to go to school with them, but second of all, I see no reason why they should be admitted while someone who is great at sports and a good student at the same time shouldn't be. </p>
<p>This is all completely YOUR opinion. If you don't like it, start your own school with only 2400 SAT 4.6 GPA pianists. Sounds like a fun time to me.</p>
<p>"But seriously, no one gives a **** about rowing."</p>
<p>"A minority of students row, fence, sculpt, play the harp, or give a thought to those pursuits. Should the university provide opportunities and craft its curriculum solely for the majority? Where do you suggest students with minority interests or talents go to school? Obviously not the ivies."</p>
<p>Maybe you should understand what this thread is about-it might help if you read it. Sure people can row, and I'm sure it is very interesting to some. People are just questioning why only rowing can seemingly get someone into the ivies, when they are so weak and questionable as an applicant overall. It;s nice they have those interests, and they can go to school wherever they choose. But they'll prbly choose schools that give them an advantage. And it has nothing to do with "crafting curriculum."</p>
<p>"This is all completely YOUR opinion. If you don't like it, start your own school with only 2400 SAT 4.6 GPA pianists. Sounds like a fun time to me."</p>
<p>Why do people repeat this dumb argument over and over. Obiously schools have the choice to admit who they want, thank you for telling us. Perhaps you should bring up some valid points instead of some useless blanket statement. The OP is questioning why athletics play a huge role in admissions, not trying to mount a revolution.</p>
<p>"People are just questioning why only rowing can seemingly get someone into the ivies, when they are so weak and questionable as an applicant overall."</p>
<p>But that's just it- they AREN'T 'so weak and questionable'. My friend for instance who is an awesome rower was rejected from an Ivy even though he had around a 2050 SAT and 3.8 GPA. If rowing was the only thing about my friend the Ivy cared about, obviously he wouldn't have been rejected.
My URM friend with the same stats however is looking at schools of the same caliber and fully expects to get accepted...</p>
<p>A couple of comments...</p>
<p>The Ivy League was formed because of football.</p>
<p>At MIT these days, they make a big deal about everyone participating in sports, and not only doing mental work all day and night. 20% of the MIT student body participates in at least 1 varsity sport! and the vast majority particpate in intramurals. I wouldn't be surprised if athletics is important to their admission criteria.</p>
<p>there are a lot of things that are unfair about the college process...but if everything was fair, colleges would be filled with shy bookworm types and no money to fundprograms.</p>
<p>Yeah that post pretty much sums it up</p>
<p>Recruited athletes at the ivies are really a very small proportion of those admitted, and, for the most part, are not taking the spot of a more academically qualified applicant. That is a great myth, but one that seems to persist on CC.</p>
<p>I know 3 people recruited at HYP with 1000 SAT, and basically C to D students. Academically qualified alright.</p>
<p>zannerina - I have to disagree. Princeton is something like 17% varsity athletes, and while not all of them are recruited, I dont think it is a "very small proportion".</p>