<p>
[quote]
This is not an idle question since the book makes clear that these preferences are not only large but are also growing over time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So are athletic budgets, partly as a result of more revenues bieng generated through larger and more diversified TV and media dollars, on many levels of inter collegiate sports.</p>
<p>"Which highly selective schools have significantly tightened admissions standards since since Bowen (the former president of Princeton) pleaded to "stop me before I kill again."
Stanford raised admissions standard for athletes in 2000[?] when the prior admissions dean took over[ not the current one from Yale], and it has had a signifigant impact on the athletic program, especially in football and basketball, much to the distress of many coaches. Former Basketball coach Montgomery commented on this after he left Stanford for the SF Warriors.</p>
<p>mini: You did a better job of expressing what I said in an earlier post.</p>
<p>StickerShock: I second your point that analogizes sports to violin practice. I know my S sacrificed AP Chem to violin practice and chose AP Environmental instead. He one hour + of practicing both the violin and piano each day did cut into his time. He felt he couldn't swing AP Chem & AP Cal. However, the AP Environmental turned out to be more rigorous than he expected, but more important, he has been converted into a lifelong environmentalist.</p>
<p>His college is benefitting from his dedication because he is in the orchestra and ass't. manager to another orchestra. I have no doubt his academics will also be stellar.</p>
<p>
[quote]
His college is benefitting from his dedication...
[/quote]
That's it in a nutshell. The college, and likely the surrounding community, benefit from this musician sharing his gifts. I've seen top academic standouts take it down a notch to accommodate a photograhpy obsession, complete absorption in preparing an art portfolio, or heavy involvement in musical theater productions. I can't see how passing on what they love to do so another AP science course could be crammed into their schedule would have any value whatsoever. The same goes for sports or any number of activities one might enjoy. They all add to the vibrancy of the college.</p>
<p>I think that there is a lack of appreciation here for student-athletes generally and in particular to the steps that many colleges take to incentivize Division I scholarship college coaches to recruit academically qualified students and assist their performance during their undergraduate years. For example, here is a document from the University of Wisconsin that lists many of the steps that they have taken to motivate coaches to attract, retain and develop high quality student-athletes. I believe that similar practices are widely in use for Division I scholarship-granting colleges. </p>
<p>While the absolute levels of Proposition 16 (the main academic guidelines of the NCAA for recruitment of college athletes) are set at a lower level, I would wager that a very large majority of major college scholarship athletes found at the USNWR Top 50 national universities would pass the AI barrier of the Ivy League (approximately 540 on each section of the SAT I and II and a 3.0 GPA). </p>
<p>In addition, while I differ strongly with her conclusions about the value and contributions of student-athletes on a college campus, I want to second the observation that curious14 made earlier about the performance of athletes in the workforce (# 126). Intelligence in the work world can be measured in many different ways. It has been my experience that many, many athletes with less than stellar academic numbers (GPA, SATs, etc) perform superbly in the work world and understand quickly the commitment and the work that is necessary for great professional achievement.</p>
<p>At most of the Div I schools I've looked at, the graduation rates for football players (putting aside the sports that attract more academically inclined students), and after accounting for those who turn pro, are actually higher, in some cases significantly higher, than their race/econonomic class cohorts who do not play football at the same school.</p>
<p>In other words, they "overperform".</p>
<p>When the number of available study hours is considered, student athletes are definitely overperforming and perhaps outperforming their non-athlete cohort. It's one thing to go to class, come home and study, maybe hold down a part time (under 20 hours per week) job or activity. It's another to go to class and put in the time required of big team sports- way over 20 hours a week when you consider games and travel, practices, scrimmages, workouts, meetings, etc. </p>
<p>I definitely don't want to minimize or get into a fine arts vs. football debate (I'm a musician myself), but in high school, the amount of time football took up dwarfed band or orchestra (my kids participated in both). The fact that my oldest was able to maintian a decent GPA, take APs, and play football and baseball was, to me, awe-inspiring. His grades were not good enough for an elite top university, although he managed the honors program at a public U. The fact that he learned how to make do with what little time he had, and now having "more time on his hands" than he ever did before, has helped launch him into a very successful college experience. I believe his school advisors/teachers would be shocked that he is doing as well as he is but what they didn't account for was the very small amount of time he was able to do what others had all day to accomplish.</p>
<p>My view of what athletes go through and what they do with so little time- they have my total respect.</p>
<p>My only experience with athletes at an elite college is Princeton, where my athletic-recruit niece is a student. She and most of the other girls on her team do not represent any lower standards. All these girls had very high GPA in high school (most in the 3.8+ range) and respectable SAT scores. My own niece was asked to raise her already pretty good SATs before Princeton would fly her out. The boy she dates -- also a recruited Princeton athlete -- had a 3.9 GPA at a selective high school, and very high SATs. </p>
<p>I think the reality is that at these uber-selective schools even the athletes are impressive academically -- and it's unfair to say they lower any standards considering the time & talent it takes for them to practice their sport -- which notabene also help to bring in millions of dollars to their schools.</p>
<p>what do you make of Hamilton academically? career prospects?</p>
<p>Athletic teams at Ivies are full of valedictorians, and those who are in the top 20% of even so-so high school classes. I know one young man who starts on two major teams (football and baseball) and has a 4.0 in hard science (Cornell), another whose SAT was below 1200 on the old scale but who still competes academically (Harvard). Others do not do well, but it is usually not from lack of trying. Princeton notoriously takes chances on its athletes; soemtimes it doesn't work out. </p>
<p>Ivies do not "special admit" like Duke or Georgetown, Stanford is not bound by AI as are Ivies, Notre Dame--a great school--has a bunch of 400's/400's/400's on many of its teams (begging the obvious in light of this fall...). My own view is that if you can do the work and you are a stellar athlete, you should get in to any Ivy, but they are not that lax (no pun intended). If you are less stellar, then the academics need to be higher. </p>
<p>Still, one cannot help but have admiration for anyone who can balance the rigors of Ivy NCAA D-I schedule with academics, or the academic schedule at any school that is serious about its educational requirements. It is tough and time consuming. Their admission is more justified, and their efforts far more valuable to the school, than someone who gives their time and talent to any other aspect of college life played out in a more private forum where the principal beneficiary is the person him or herself. </p>
<p>These schools have the right to shape and select the class they want. No one by virtue of even the highest achievement has a "right" or "deserves" to be admitted.</p>
<p>redcrimble,
I must say I am pretty disappointed with your very inaccurate comment above that you seem to ladle out so effortlessly, </p>
<p>“Notre Dame--a great school--has a bunch of 400's/400's/400's on many of its teams”</p>
<p>Maybe you have access to data that I do not, but the NCAA data (which the scholarship colleges provide and the Ivy colleges do not) does not support your very unfair characterization. I suspect you are targeting the football players especially with your comments and here are the facts as provided by the NCAA for ND’s students, its student-athletes generally and its football players with special attention to the African American student who play a prominent role on these teams: </p>
<p>Overall student body graduation rate = 95%
Overall Notre Dame student-athlete graduation rate = 86%
Overall Football team graduation rate = 81%</p>
<p>Overall male African American student graduation rate = 78%
Overall ND male African American student-athlete graduation rate = 76%
Football male African American student-athlete graduation rate = 73%</p>
<p>From these numbers I think you can conclude that ND’s student-athletes and the African Americans who are prominent on their football roster don’t graduate at quite the same rate as the rest of the student body, but to classify them and the other student athletes as academic midgets who score 400-400-400 on the SAT is a pretty heavy insult. And as you note, the time demands on these student athletes are exceptional and dwarf what most normal students experience in their extra-curricular activities. Frankly, if anything, these student athletes and their colleges should be applauded, rather than derided, for their success in the classroom and at the highest levels of college athletics. </p>
<p>In this and other threads that I have read and participated in recently, there is an incredible lack of respect shown toward the student-athletes who attend Division I scholarship colleges. In some cases, this criticism might have some validity (see some of the publics), but the top privates of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt and, yes, Notre Dame, recruit student-athletes who compete at the highest levels and in the most challenging conferences on the Division I stage and who also compete and perform comparatively well in the classroom.</p>
<p>I apologize; I did not mean to denigrate Notre Dame athletics, and certainly not any group. I thought I was clear, and quite supportive of all such athletes in my comments. My comments are accurate. There are many, many athletes at Notre Dame whose SAT's are in the 800's total on the old scale, and not just football players. I have this knowledge directly, and of course you do not refute it. I was not criticizing this, just pointing out the fact. I am honestly very sorry that you take it personally, but it is the truth.</p>
<p>As I would hope most know, the NCAA requires a total of 820 on the two part SAT, and many athletes at many schools barely meet that standard and some very well known and good publics (Michigan, Texas and others) have literally hundreds of athletes who have struggled to reach that standard. At the other excellent private schools you cite, very few student-athletes are in that range, but Notre Dame could not compete at its level, particularly in football, if it did not admit students with scores in the 400's on one or more of the parts of the SAT. It is a major problem as the university's standards have improved overall in the course of the past twenty years. This season, of course, we are all seeing the gridiron difficulties this has caused as the separation from the rest of the student body becomes yet more challenging for the university. None of the other schools you cite is able to reach Notre Dame's football goals. Duke and Georgetown make similar (but usually not as large) concessions for basketball players in their admissions, but this involves a very much smaller group of students, obviously, based on the necessary size of the rosters. For all Notre Dame supporters, this is a major and deeply considered issue.</p>
<p>One vote against the "athletic advantage", at least to the extent it is practiced at the "elites".<br>
One argument I have is that sports just do not play the campus uniting role they do at other schools (with exceptions like the Harvard-Yale game, or Hopkins with LAX).
I do appreciate the time commitment to practice the sport, and the more rare ability to excel at the same time.
But the gap in brain-power just tends to be huge.
My daughter's roommate is a val blah blah blah, but is supremely not curious and going for extra help in math the second week of school, despite her "financial engineering major".
It's the lack of curiosity that bothers me. That and the leg up the girls in upper-income demographics get in obscure "white girl" sports. I read all about this in "The Price of Admissions". My daughter's experience confirms this.
No competitiveness here. They are in different academic areas. But it is disappointing to reach a certain level in terms of school and be unable to engage a roommate in interesting conversation.</p>
<p>danas:</p>
<p>If the roommate was a val, she must have excelled at academics (as distinct from sports). So I don't understand the bit about her not being curious.</p>
<p>My D has a friend who could not be admitted to the LAC recruiting him as he could not get the 820 minimum :(</p>
<p>Not all top high school students are curious intellectuals. The admissions process doesn't guarantee that only such students will be admitted. If she was a val - it seems to me that is just as likely to have been the deciding factor as her sport. Our val got into all the schools he applied to, including both H and Y. (And he doesn't do sports at all.)</p>
<p>Schools at this level take one out of 5 or 6 Vals.
No chance of getting in without her sport.</p>
<p>redcrimble,
Thanks for your reply and I appreciate your insights. I concede that I don’t have the detail for ND other than the NCAA data and the general student data for standardized test scores. Nonetheless, I remain frustrated and disappointed at posts that can be interpreted as an inaccurate denigration of student-athletes at top privates and some top publics. </p>
<p>With specific regard to ND, here are the facts that I know from the NCAA and standardized test data. </p>
<p>ND had a total of 93 athletic scholarship-receiving freshmen in its latest reported class. Of this number, 59 were men and 39 were women. While exact data is not provided, I believe that about 25 of the 59 men were in football. For the freshman class that entered six years previously, their graduation rate was 86% for all student athletes and 81% for football. </p>
<p>According to data found on Yahoo Education, ALL (100%) of ND’s students in its class for 2006-07 scored above the 500 level on the SAT Verbal and the SAT Math sections (and 88% and 94% scored over 600 on the Verbal and Math). Perhaps the gap is in the ACT calculation as the only reported data is that ALL of the students scored over 18 and 98% scored over 24 (equivalent to a 1090-1120 on the SAT). The 2% that scored between 18-24 on the ACT, if applied to the entire class of enrolling students, would be 41 students. It is possible that some of these were athletes and scored at very underwhelming levels (though still probably in excess of the 400-400 levels you describe). In any event, the numbers are very small and so hopefully you can see my desire to correct the negative stereotype of the Division I student athlete. </p>
<p>You are correct the broad NCAA standards are lenient. Here are the facts of Proposition 16: </p>
<p>High school graduates who do not meet Prop. 16's requirements are precluded from participating in intercollegiate competition and may be denied athletic scholarships. To qualify for full eligibility, student-athletes must have a 2.0 grade-point average (GPA) in 13 approved academic "core" courses and an SAT of 1010 or a combined ACT of 86. Students with lower test scores need higher core course GPAs. The minimum test score for students with a GPA of 2.5 or higher is 820 SAT/68 ACT. </p>
<p>Let me also contrast these numbers with the Academic Index of the Ivy League. The following is one example of a student who would qualify for the 171 threshold level:</p>
<p>540 SAT Math
540 SAT Verbal
1080 Total</p>
<p>540 SAT II
540 SAT II
540 SAT II</p>
<p>3.0 GPA (in a class of 300 students) </p>
<p>Now these numbers are clearly better than the broad NCAA averages (which apply to all Division I scholarship colleges), but these are hardly the types of scores that one expects out of an Ivy League student and yet that is the standard that has been established. </p>
<p>One last fact. The ACT gap between 18 and 24 reveals 2% of the students at ND who could be very weak (and perhaps unqualified) students. Are you aware that a similar gap exists at Cornell (4%-128 students) and Columbia (5%-51 students)? This gap may also exist at the other Ivy schools, but they did not report this data.</p>
<p>hawkette and doubleday: Although neither of my kids would or could ever do sports, I have tremendous respect for the students you describe who can devote significant amounts of time to sports and still succeed in academics. Paul Robeson, one of my heroes, was Val of his class at Rutgers and All American in two sports. He also acted and sang pretty well (winky face here.)</p>
<p>Of course people with this skill and discipline deserve respect.</p>
<p>doubleday: One tiny quibble. It's true that the orchestra takes very little time, but DS practiced violin 1 hour a day, piano 1 hour a day and sang, practiced his viola and worked on compositions as well. He took three lessons a weel and spent Sat's. at pre-college music program doing theory and chamber music. So music can approach athletics in time commitment.</p>
<p>My only problem with admits who have to struggle with academics of schools to demanding for them is that they are being treated as professionals and robbed of an education. Maybe this is in line with their career goals, and if they can do the work more power to them, but I think there's something cynical on the part of the schools. My concern is for the athletes. I have no objection to them getting an admissions boost.</p>