<p>all very intersting</p>
<p>MY athlete D is in a less common sport- she was "recruited" DIII in that the coach made a trip out of his way when he was on the west coast to visit and woo her and went out of his way to tour her around campus. She was a fit for a prminent back east LAC, and he told us he did not need to use his tips to get her in, but he could convey that it was "worth our time" to visit, which I took to mean the admissions office told him they would admit her when the time came.</p>
<p>D was also called by the program director of a USnews top 5 school, it had not been on her list, but through his calls & encouragement, she decided to apply early. From CC knowledge we kept reminding ourselves it was still a roll of the dice and she was declined come December. She did meet the CC recommended minimums for applying to top schools- top 5 rank, tough HS, toughest schedule, over 1400 on the old SAT, stellar recs, and her HS always sends a few kinds to Ivys-so they know the routine, etc. Her HS team won the statewide championship, she was MVP, and she has played her sport for the USA jr national team, so even with all that, the coach still could not tip her in; and she was "good enough" academically.</p>
<p>We were never invested emotionally in it, as we knew how low the chances were that it would happen, you just never know with athletics. The recruiter was embarassed, but D talks with that school's coach on a regular basis still, no hard feelings, I think he is annoyed with admissions;)</p>
<p>The only thing I can figure is that it was a blessing because we could not have afforded it without major aid and who knows how that would have been done, we might have been tempted to be less than smart if the package was okay, but not great.</p>
<p>May I suggest <a href="http://www.varsityedge.com%5B/url%5D">www.varsityedge.com</a></p>
<p>Somemom, it is crazy that the MVP of a state championship team, who also played for USA Jr nationals, and also met all academic requirements, still doesn't get admitted! What a crapshoot this is....</p>
<p>SS: When the current coach asked D if she ever considered transferring, her answer was, "you had your chance ;)" Thanks to CC we never had much nervousness, just put it out there as a "what the heck, give it a try" In fairness, it is not a big money sport, so apparently the coaches don't have the pull.</p>
<p>The GC at our school said he will discourage kids from applying there as she was the best candidate they had submitted in at least 25 years and whilst HYP plus other Ivys & MIT all seem to respect our top students, this other top school simply does not "see" our HS....whatever, their loss, but it would have been shattering emotionally had I not known what I learned here. Who, when the program director contacts you and your GC who sends kids to Ivys says you are the best in years is going to really think the kid won't get in? And yet, thanks to CC, no emotional break down here.</p>
<p>Sadly, the new coach at that school would have been such a great coach for my D and is still her mentor, she talks with him not infrequently and he has been great, so that is nice.</p>
<p>"Bottom line: many are called, but few are chosen. The real difference between our situation and that of non-athletes is simply that it is more complicated."</p>
<p>Bottom line is that first-class athletes who can do the work at prestige colleges are a much rarer breed than first-class students who can do the work. </p>
<p>Look - admissions at so-called prestige colleges, whether D-1 or D-3, are just not so difficult to figure out, because we know, in advance and in aggregate, what the class will look like. We have no idea whom individually they will accept, but we really, really do know what the final class will look like, and admissions offices have this down to a science.</p>
<p>Most of the students accepted will have demonstrated that they are able to do the work. We know that half the students or slightly more, in some cases many more (give or take - depends on the college) will come from families that can afford to pay the full freight - some will grouse about it, some won't even notice, and for some it is small change, but they will all pay it. A significant proportion of those (and of others) will be legacies and/or developmental admits and/or sons and daughters of movers and shakers. Then there will be the athletes - the teams have to have enough players, hopefully good ones, good enough to provide a good experience for the players, and to please the supporters. Then there has to be enough racial/ethnic and other diversity on the campus because a monochromatic experience for the full-freighters doesn't provide for a quality education. Same is true of low-income students - don't want to have too many of them (they are very expensive), but enough to provide another "flavor" to the campus. There is need for a second oboe, third trombone, two future archaelogists, someone who wants to study Virgil, enough so the small departments don't breathe down the admissions department's neck. Then there is a little bit of gamesmanship - by offering small scholarships to certain students who really don't need 'em (they could do well enough with small loans that their parents could take out), one can increase yield. </p>
<p>The complications of course are in the fact that the categories overlap, as well as the fact that the application reader occasionally wakes up with a bellyache, or reads a very good application after an absolutely awesomely superb one, and reacts accordingly. But it doesn't matter - the class looks the same year after year, and if the 2nd oboe or the triple-jumper doesn't end up attending, you can be sure the admissions department will hear it.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, the ONLY students from my highly educated town who ever get in to HYPS are athletes. And I can easily see why - there's not a lot of prestige to be gained, nor feeder school to be established, by taking anyone from my town for other reasons, there are no children of ambassadors, no millionaires, and there are precious few who can pay full-freight. So, big deal, they can pick up an excellent student - for each of those, there are 10 others as capable or more capable of helping the institution fulfill its mission.</p>
<p>My impression is that HYP all have need blind admissions, so I don't understand the last paragraph of the previous post.</p>
<p>On the "break" given athletes-this depends not only on the perceived importance of the sport, but also on the general academic level of the team. For example, at some Ivies the cross country team has as high a GPA as the school as a whole, so the schools don't need to give distance runners as much of a tip.</p>
<p>And I'm not sure what is meant by "can do the work"- if it means "graduate on time" I think less than a third of a HYP class simply meets that standard, Maybe 15% or so have really distinguished themselves academically- a group notably absent from the list in the last post- and a larger fraction projects to be reasonably good students.</p>
<p>mini, good synopsis.</p>
<p>hello hello hello hello hello hello hello</p>
<p>"My impression is that HYP all have need blind admissions, so I don't understand the last paragraph of the previous post."</p>
<p>Your understanding is wrong, and is proven in two ways: the percentage of applicants receiving no aid never varies by more than 1% from year to year, which is a virtual statistical impossibility without paid and well-trained admissions professionals knowing exactly what they are doing; and, secondly, when a school announces that they are going to enroll more lo-income students, low-and-behold, they enroll more low-income students. </p>
<p>Now whether they use this information or how they use this information in looking at individual applicants can be debated (and allows them to continue the need-blind propaganda), but, in aggregate, they know exactly what they are getting (and build their budgets accordingly.)</p>
<p>"Distinguished academic students" are a dime a dozen, unless one means they found a cure for cancer when they were 12.</p>
<p>I admit I have arrived at this discussion rather late, but I think your observation that the percentage of students who require aid is consistent within the institution (and between the institutions) is revealing. I have always thought that is why they ask for occupations of parents. Hmmm, high school teachers, wonder if they will need any aid?</p>
<p>Well, S's close friend was is a Davidson scholar, three time "Rising Composer" award winner who studied personally with Yzkak Perlman for 12 years. He was ina the top five of his graduating class and a NM semifinalist with final board scores of 2250+. I had no doubt that Princeton would accept him because as Hillel would say, if not him, who? and they did.</p>
<p>Thank goodness S is not competitive because his musical interests are the same; his profile less stellar. He did not apply to HYP; don't think he would have gotten in; don't think he would have liked it.</p>
<p>And this boy, with musical talent and superb preparation just bursting out of him wants to study.....economics! (He didn't tell P. that, and he is still studying music at present, along with economics.) He was heartbroken that S didn't accept Chicago's offer because of its stellar economics dept. S would rather be a lumberjack than an economist; it was the only course in HS he really hated.</p>
<p>But I digress. mini, I, too, think your analysis interesting and valid. However, as a family needing financial aid both kids fared much better at "need blind" institutions than at others.</p>
<p>Oh, so did mine. What's the contradiction? (once they accept you, they really want you to accept them - it makes them look bad - yield, etc. - if they don't).</p>
<p>(The Chicago economics department is so....80s. ;))</p>
<p>Dizzymom and mini,</p>
<p>I think the problem here is one of definition. In the game of life "recruited athlete" is defined as someone whose name is placed on a list that is passed to the admissions group. There are a limited number of names allowed on these lists and those on them have a very distinct advantage over everyone else in the admissions process as the book demonstrates. In the loose sense of recruited meaning someone whom a coach has expressed intereest in, I don't know that there is any evidence available on how well these students fair in the process, if they are not "on the list."</p>
<p>It may be easier to identify a truly exceptional athlete at 17 than a truly exceptional scientist but we need to remember these are academic institutions not farm clubs for sports teams.</p>
<p>"In the loose sense of recruited meaning someone whom a coach has expressed intereest in, I don't know that there is any evidence available on how well these students fair in the process, if they are not "on the list."</p>
<p>Well, of course there are lists. "Interest" does not equal "recruited". At my alma mater, each coach knows exactly how many "tips" s/he is allowed. The tips are generally used on athletes that the coach believes will actually attend if accepted, and usually have stats that are high enough so that it is believed "they can do the work", but low enough that the expectation is that they would not likely be accepted without the 'tip' (why waste a tip if you know the student is likely to be accepted anyway?) </p>
<p>"It may be easier to identify a truly exceptional athlete at 17 than a truly exceptional scientist but we need to remember these are academic institutions not farm clubs for sports teams.."</p>
<p>Given the general level of academic performance of those applying, it is quite unlikely (except in those rare cases that are readily identified by the admissions officers) that the truly exceptional scientist will be identified in advance, relative to his or her peers, or one that will make that much difference (relative to his/her peers) in the next four years. The same is usually not the case for a recruited athlete. Just another reason why the athlete is a better "bet" in fulfilling a school's institutional mission.</p>
<p>As I mentioned, the young woman I mentioned, actively recruited by Cornell, Colgate and Brown, and in the case of Brown almost begged repeatedly over the phone, the young woman is a near Olympic caliber (or maybe she'll make it) track and field star. I don't think Brown would have accepted her without this qualification, but as it happens, she has a lot to contribute to their institution: she was an all-state wind player and gave many, many hours of community service. I think her athletic commitment is inspiring to others. I know it was to my D, a dancer, who never met a sport she liked.</p>
<p>Perhaps if she hadn't devoted so many hours to training her stats would have been on the high end for the school; as it was, she was accomplished enough academically to belong.</p>
<p>Even though we don't have one single sports gene in our family, I have no difficulty with this. The model of scholar-athlete is an old one in the western traidition and worth preserving. It certainly inspires my community college students: the guys can be macho, play their sports and still be smart; the women can be smart, competitive and strong. Hey, if this idea comes from Ivies, maybe this is the only area where trickle-down really works! It is a much different process in Ivies, elite LAC's than Big 10 type schools. There the model may be quite different than scholar-athlete, and being an athlete is really more like a job.</p>
<p>On a side note: D tells me that Columbia the recruited athletes don't have to play at all once they get there. D is sure that's why their teams are so bad. That's just one more thing my arty D loves about Columbia/Barnard. (The little reverse snob.)</p>
<p>The young woman I speak of at Brown had to agree to compete for at least two years.</p>
<p>The problem of recruits who drop out of sports is a significant one for coaches at highly selective nonscholarship schools. While I'm sure that they at times question prospective recruits pretty closely on this issue, this is the first I've heard of a formal commitment to compete. Frankly, I don't think that it would be enforced if the young woman decided to stop competing. Imagine the negative publicity if Brown booted her from school!</p>
<p>The central mission of all colleges and universities is academic not athletic competiton. The book "The Game of Life" makes it clear, to me at least, that many colleges and universities have lost sight of this. I know that many of you on this tread are big boosters of admissions preferences for recruited athletes. But let me ask you this: Is there any evidence that would convince even you that colleges and universites have gone too far in granting preferences to recrutied athletes? Put another way: Is there any point that even you would conclude that the admissions preferences given to recruited athletes are too large? This is not an idle question since the book makes clear that these preferences are not only large but are also growing over time.</p>
<p>My answer to this question^^^
It depends on whether the college is public or private. If a private school wants to recruit it's entire freshman class of athletes, it's their perogative. I think a public school has a little more accountability to the general public.</p>