<p><a href=“Office of Institutional Research | Brown University”>Office of Institutional Research | Brown University; says that “level of applicant’s interest” is “very important” at Brown. The only other “very important” criteria are “rigor of secondary school record”, “talent/ability”, and “character/personal qualities”. Notably, other typical factors like “academic GPA”, “class rank”, “test scores”, “essay”, “extracurricular activities”, “recommendations” and the like are only “important” or “considered”.</p>
<p>LOL. At four other Ivies–Harvard, Yale, Cornell, and Dartmouth–“level of applicant’s interest” is “not considered,” according to the CDS. At two others, Penn and Princeton, it’s “considered” but doesn’t rise to the level of “important,” much less “very important.” Columbia doesn’t provide a Common Data Set.</p>
<p>I’d say the weight Brown places on “level of applicant’s interest” reveals a strong sensitivity to being used as a “safety,” which of course historically it was for many HYP applicants.</p>
<p>Way back when the current Ivy League schools were winning big in college football, the Ivy League itself did not yet exist. </p>
<p>The Ivy League, as an actual athletic conference, was established in 1954. Since that founding it has won exactly zero college football national titles.</p>
<p>" I would like to see more transparency though, simply because I believe conflating the admit stats of hooked and unhooked applicants serves no purpose but to obfuscate. How incredibly simple it would be to release data for non-athletes only, for example. It is not by accident or oversight that schools choose not to do so. It is intentional. And, of course, it is their prerogative."</p>
<p>You know the answer already. The non-athletes would be higher. But now what? What possible point is there? It doesn’t change your own odds (or your kid’s odds) any.</p>
<p>I don’t see why Ivy League schools couldn’t put together some better football and bball teams. Maybe not BCS champions, but better than they do.</p>
<p>Sure, they can’t give athletic scholarships, but with their super generous aid, many/most football players and bball players would likely have free rides based on income…since so many college players do come from lowish income homes. </p>
<p>Plus, these low income athletes would probably get MORE money than athletic scholarship kids get since the ivies could give loan-free aid all the way up to COA, which I don’t think athletic scholarships do.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m misunderstanding how need based aid works with athletes in the ivies?</p>
Some Ivy League schools do okay at basketball. Harvard made it to the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament last year and has been ranked in the top 25 at times. Princeton and Cornell have also made it to the tournament in recent years.</p>
<p>I expect that football is more challenging because there are a more limited number of elite football players who are also elite students. There are a few. A couple years ago, one of Stanford’s players was first pick in the NFL draft. While a stellar football player, he was also stellar academically, including being valedictorian of his HS class. The article at [Stanford</a> Football Recruits Corner the ‘Smart’ Market - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132503526250500.html]Stanford”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132503526250500.html) mentions ~250 recruits that are academically eligible for Stanford and “about a dozen” top recruits who were also elite students. I’d expect the few that are both elite students and among the top football recruits in the nation would favor colleges with strong football programs that will help them go as far as possible in the sport, while also balancing quality academics. Ivy league schools do not meet this description.</p>
<p>^ Need based aid in the Ivies is very generous. The reason you won’t see them fielding National Championship caliber teams (besides the fact that they play in the FCS instead of the FBS) is that they are forced to recruit from a much smaller pool of athletes.
The minimum academic standards required for Ivy athletes mean coaches can recruit less than 10% of the available Division I caliber players.</p>
<p>Yep… similar situation with my friend. Georgetown wants her as an athlete with a meager 3.3 GPA and 28 ACT. Not only does she get to attend Georgetown, but also gets scholarship money for it. Although no ivy, not too different. (Interestingly enough Brown actually turned her down because she did not have a 3.5+).</p>
<p>A good football team also needs a much larger number of good players than a good basketball team. A football team is huge compared to a basketball team.</p>
<p>I think some ivies may set the bar higher than Brown, which I guess would make sense considering some are more selective than others. The athlete recruited to Harvard at my school had 35 ACT (and solid GPA). I’m sure Brown has its fair share of similar cases, and I know obviously not every athlete Harvard recruits has a 35 ACT, but just something to think about.</p>
<p>For all the Ivies and all the top schools with huge numbers of apps- except for this athlete discussion- you can count on “lower gpa/SAT” being a hurdle. You’ve got to remember that, while it’s not all about stats, for every low stats kid, there are thousands who have achieved AND offer an interesting set of qualities.</p>
<p>Barrk, I wondered if I’d get caught for using “no-brainer.” But he chose the better team. And he was a top student at a competitive hs.</p>