<p>“Explain the Ivy-recruited athlete I know who had a B+ average and SATs in the 600s. And NO other activities. Sure, the kid is a decent student (who could in fact have done much better if he bothered to apply himself ) and is bright enough to get along at his Ivy. But in no way does he meet the description above. People continue to make this kind of statement, but there is ample evidence to discount it.”</p>
<p>Consolation, I think when people talk about athletes now being much more competitive academically than they once were, that change is from previous C- averages to more like B++/A- averages. Admissions officers will tell you that the history of their particular U is that such a GPA (& score) works just fine for that student & for the school, & that it is much more true now that a similar solid GPA will be sustained throughout college, as well. They have a right to weigh such value, and clearly they do.</p>
<p>Just a tiny bit of qualification/modification on the above good observation, though: (“it shows a person who is into teamwork, commitment, dedication, hard work, rules, training, discipline, etc… Not that these can’t be achieved in other activities; let’s not start that again; they can be. It’s just that athletics is usually easier to recognize those accomplishments and it’s more measurable.”)</p>
<p>One of the key differences between performing artists who get admitted to HYP, and those who don’t, is in the measurable achievement area. I sometimes read on CC people whining about the “number of years” they did a particular artistic activity: what’s measurable is the level of progress over those years by virtue of higher & higher award levels in increasingly competitive, more public, & larger arenas. If that isn’t there, the arts in themselves won’t be enough of a factor to get you in without a highly well rounded profile combined with spectacular academics, most likely.</p>