Private Schools Value Top Athletes Most

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

My dd has two friends verbally committed to a top Ivy from her academically rigorous private. One has top grades in honors classes. The other is on the bottom third of her class.

Really? That’s amazing. The top privates in the DMV sends their top 10% to the ivies and similar. A bottom third getting in? Did they donate $$$$$?

Verbally committed means both girls are athletes. No other hooks.

Well,I wouldn't be so dismissive of " the bottom 3rd" of a HS class if it is, for example, NCS. Because an B at NCS is an A anywhere, including- probably-HYP, Stanford

And those schools know it.

Now, what you wouldn't have is Harvard taking the lower 3rd of class from Dunbar HS

NCS sends their top 10% to the ivies or similar. It’s like most good private schools nothing out of the ordinary. It is unheard of that a good private school sent someone in the bottom third to an Ivy unless you are Kushner. Curious what is the sport that would get a bottom 1/3 into an Ivy or similar school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

I’m not going to say for privacy purposes but it is an Olympic sport, not one of the more popular team spo


Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

My dd has two friends verbally committed to a top Ivy from her academically rigorous private. One has top grades in honors classes. The other is on the bottom third of her class.

Really? That’s amazing. The top privates in the DMV sends their top 10% to the ivies and similar. A bottom third getting in? Did they donate $$$$$?

Verbally committed means both girls are athletes. No other hooks.

What sport? I know several athletes that were actively recruited by Ivies: what they all had in common were that they all had great grades, 1500+ SATs and they were nationally ranked in their sport usually the top 50 in the country for individual sports like cross country and within the top 200 for lacrosse. I have never heard of someone who did not poorly academically being recruited for any sport.

Well, you have now. And I know plenty of kids who scored well below 1500 and attended an Ivy for lacrosse. Quite common among Baltimore private school recruits, most of the kids commit prior to have taken the SAT and then just care about meeting the minimum. But the athlete who was in the bottom third of the class is not a lacrosse player.

Recently, all the lacrosse players I know had 1500+ SATs, great grades too but they didn’t go to Ivies- they went to Duke and Hopkins on a full ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

My dd has two friends verbally committed to a top Ivy from her academically rigorous private. One has top grades in honors classes. The other is on the bottom third of her class.

Really? That’s amazing. The top privates in the DMV sends their top 10% to the ivies and similar. A bottom third getting in? Did they donate $$$$$?

Verbally committed means both girls are athletes. No other hooks.

Well,I wouldn't be so dismissive of " the bottom 3rd" of a HS class if it is, for example, NCS. Because an B at NCS is an A anywhere, including- probably-HYP, Stanford

And those schools know it.

Now, what you wouldn't have is Harvard taking the lower 3rd of class from Dunbar HS

NCS sends their top 10% to the ivies or similar. It’s like most good private schools nothing out of the ordinary. It is unheard of that a good private school sent someone in the bottom third to an Ivy unless you are Kushner. Curious what is the sport that would get a bottom 1/3 into an Ivy or similar school?

Mens football and basketball. Possible womens basketball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NCS sends their top 10% to the ivies or similar.

I thought it was usually higher than 10 percent at NCS (and STA too).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter if the child plays for the HS or if they are on a club team not affiliated with the HS?

you kinda want kids playing for the schools

I wish the US would adopt a European approach to scholastic sports. Schools should have nada to do with it, it just detracts from their missions. Leave the sports to clubs.

What is the European approach? I agree it needs to change.

What I just described. The schools don’t sponsor athletics. Kids can, should and do play sports, but all the leagues are run independently of schools.

This is not true, at least in the UK (which was part of the EU at least until recently). Boys are recruited for soccer and track and girls for swimming and netball and a host of other sports. I know because we knew plenty of kids who ended up at places like St Pauls for Girls and Highgate because of sports scholarships. That said, there are also privates that use the arts as a way to recruit- and there are also a surprisingly number of performing arts schools.

https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/in-europe-you-dont-play-high-school-or-college-sports-some-think-u-s-should/article_92ad84ba-a5c8-11e8-86ae-df88215ac3a1.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

“Recruited athlete”? What does that mean? My kid met the coach and then went to the school and decided to keep playing her sport, which she played at a national level and they had a spot in her position. Was she recruited? She didn’t get anything, but time with three programs in order to decide which to go with. She also spent time on her own understanding her department, major and career services of what she is interested in.

Have worked now for 25 years and met, hired and mentored many people in my field. If I want something done on time, correctly, a d someone that responds well to feedback (ie thanks coach, will fix that up), I’d absolutely go with a smart former athlete. So many sports for so many different types of people!
Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

data from the lawsuit, analyzed here:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

The best line from the paper:

"To make this more precise, consider a white, non-ALDC applicant who has only a 1% chance of admission. If this applicant were treated as a recruited athlete, the admission probability would increase to 98%. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants. A similar calculation, but in reverse, emphasizes the advantage athletes receive. An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip."

Most kids have a round a 1% chance. That's what happens when tens of thousands of students, thousands of whom have academic records that are virtually indistinguishable, apply to one school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter if the child plays for the HS or if they are on a club team not affiliated with the HS?

you kinda want kids playing for the schools

I wish the US would adopt a European approach to scholastic sports. Schools should have nada to do with it, it just detracts from their missions. Leave the sports to clubs.

What is the European approach? I agree it needs to change.

What I just described. The schools don’t sponsor athletics. Kids can, should and do play sports, but all the leagues are run independently of schools.

The problem with this is its the selective colleges that go after athletes too. The privates are just trying to recruit the kids who can get accepted into them. Have to change sports at the college level and that ain't happening.

For good reason.
Study: College Athletes Have Better Academic, Life Outcomes

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/24/gallup-study-shows-positive-life-outcomes-college-athletes

I’m not saying don’t play sports. On the contrary, actually. It just shouldn’t be the schools sponsoring the teams. It’s the athletic kids and their parents who favor HS and colleges continuing to sponsor sports because it gives them a hook.

Do you understand how ingrained Friday night lights is in American culture? Didn't you ever pack a gym to cheer for your high school basketball team?

Maybe for large public schools. Most elite privates certainly at the middle school level (since you are talking about admissions) do not have enough students to field the teams at that level - sports are for fun, not particularly to help with admissions to high schools and our school sends kids to the top NE boarding schools. Our school discourages playing on travel teams and wants kids to play on the schools teams.

My kid goes to an all boys’ private middle school (not DMV) where sports is everyday and mandatory and the main sport they recruit for is ice hockey and even that takes second place after academics. The teachers at the school also coach sports and many of them played sports in college like football at Amherst, squash at Yale, etc not exactly Friday night lights.

Which is precisely why high schools have to be selective and recruit in order to field teams

Lol! The sports teams are mandatory and for fun. If they can play, they are in. The level of selectivity is not high at all. Also, it’s middle school and many kids get introduced to sports they have never tried before and their skill level is beginner. Athletics is not high on the admissions criteria except for hockey.

My kid is one of the top players in the area in a valued sport and got waitlisted at a big 3z

How was their academics? Grades and test scores?

One B all the rest A’s on reprogram card first two quarters. Level 4 AAP and 86th percentile on ISEE.

No college gives an F about your ISEE or SSAT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

I’m not going to say for privacy purposes but it is an Olympic sport, not one of the more popular team spo


Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

My dd has two friends verbally committed to a top Ivy from her academically rigorous private. One has top grades in honors classes. The other is on the bottom third of her class.

Really? That’s amazing. The top privates in the DMV sends their top 10% to the ivies and similar. A bottom third getting in? Did they donate $$$$$?

Verbally committed means both girls are athletes. No other hooks.

What sport? I know several athletes that were actively recruited by Ivies: what they all had in common were that they all had great grades, 1500+ SATs and they were nationally ranked in their sport usually the top 50 in the country for individual sports like cross country and within the top 200 for lacrosse. I have never heard of someone who did not poorly academically being recruited for any sport.

Well, you have now. And I know plenty of kids who scored well below 1500 and attended an Ivy for lacrosse. Quite common among Baltimore private school recruits, most of the kids commit prior to have taken the SAT and then just care about meeting the minimum. But the athlete who was in the bottom third of the class is not a lacrosse player.

Recently, all the lacrosse players I know had 1500+ SATs, great grades too but they didn’t go to Ivies- they went to Duke and Hopkins on a full ride.

Lot of dumb lacrosse players at Hopkins back in the 90s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCS sends their top 10% to the ivies or similar.

I thought it was usually higher than 10 percent at NCS (and STA too).

No. They don’t. The only schools that consistently send the top 20% to ivies or similar in this area are the magnets like TJ and Blair. STA sends the top 10% as does GDS and Sidwell.

Other schools that send the top 20% year after year are some of the NYC private like Trinity, Horace Mann, Dalton etc and the top NE boarding schools; Exeter, Andover, Lawrenceville, Deerfield, etc

[Anonymous]

There's a more recent study from the lawsuit evidence published in Journal of Labor Economics but available ungated here: http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Overall they claim: "Our model of admissions shows that roughly three-quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected if they had been treated as typical white applicants." ALDC =athlete, legacy, dean's admit list, child of faculty

Other interesting findings: "A typical applicant with only a 1% chance of admission would see his admission likelihood increase to 98% if he were a recruited athlete. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants. A similar calculation, but in reverse, emphasizes the advantage athletes receive. An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip." "The estimated coefficients on indicators for legacy, double legacy (i.e. both parents are alumni), faculty or staff child, and being on the dean’s interest list are all large, positive, and statistically significant. The odds ratio for legacy is 8.5, and is even larger for double legacies, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty. In a slightly altered model that includes athletes, the odds ratio for athletes exceeds five thousand (see Table D4)."

There is a massive admissions advantage to being a recruited athlete, and that advantage disproportionately benefits white students largely because Harvard has an extraordinary number of varsity sports, and therefore athletes, many in sports like skiiing, squash, ice hockey, water polo, crew, etc...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

I’m not going to say for privacy purposes but it is an Olympic sport, not one of the more popular team spo


Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

My dd has two friends verbally committed to a top Ivy from her academically rigorous private. One has top grades in honors classes. The other is on the bottom third of her class.

Really? That’s amazing. The top privates in the DMV sends their top 10% to the ivies and similar. A bottom third getting in? Did they donate $$$$$?

Verbally committed means both girls are athletes. No other hooks.

What sport? I know several athletes that were actively recruited by Ivies: what they all had in common were that they all had great grades, 1500+ SATs and they were nationally ranked in their sport usually the top 50 in the country for individual sports like cross country and within the top 200 for lacrosse. I have never heard of someone who did not poorly academically being recruited for any sport.

Well, you have now. And I know plenty of kids who scored well below 1500 and attended an Ivy for lacrosse. Quite common among Baltimore private school recruits, most of the kids commit prior to have taken the SAT and then just care about meeting the minimum. But the athlete who was in the bottom third of the class is not a lacrosse player.

Recently, all the lacrosse players I know had 1500+ SATs, great grades too but they didn’t go to Ivies- they went to Duke and Hopkins on a full ride.

Lot of dumb lacrosse players at Hopkins back in the 90s.

Yeah. Columbia’s football team in the 80ties did not win a football game in years. They actually had football players who graduated without one winning game. They obviously weren’t recruiting for football

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

“Recruited athlete”? What does that mean? My kid met the coach and then went to the school and decided to keep playing her sport, which she played at a national level and they had a spot in her position. Was she recruited? She didn’t get anything, but time with three programs in order to decide which to go with. She also spent time on her own understanding her department, major and career services of what she is interested in.

Have worked now for 25 years and met, hired and mentored many people in my field. If I want something done on time, correctly, a d someone that responds well to feedback (ie thanks coach, will fix that up), I’d absolutely go with a smart former athlete. So many sports for so many different types of people!
Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

data from the lawsuit, analyzed here:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

The best line from the paper:

"To make this more precise, consider a white, non-ALDC applicant who has only a 1% chance of admission. If this applicant were treated as a recruited athlete, the admission probability would increase to 98%. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants. A similar calculation, but in reverse, emphasizes the advantage athletes receive. An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip."

Most kids have a round a 1% chance. That's what happens when tens of thousands of students, thousands of whom have academic records that are virtually indistinguishable, apply to one school.

you understand the difference between 0.1 and 1%? These academic records are not 'virtually indistinguishable' - that's the fallacy. They are distinguishable, but for athletes, they don't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

“Recruited athlete”? What does that mean? My kid met the coach and then went to the school and decided to keep playing her sport, which she played at a national level and they had a spot in her position. Was she recruited? She didn’t get anything, but time with three programs in order to decide which to go with. She also spent time on her own understanding her department, major and career services of what she is interested in.

Have worked now for 25 years and met, hired and mentored many people in my field. If I want something done on time, correctly, a d someone that responds well to feedback (ie thanks coach, will fix that up), I’d absolutely go with a smart former athlete. So many sports for so many different types of people!
Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

data from the lawsuit, analyzed here:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

The best line from the paper:

"To make this more precise, consider a white, non-ALDC applicant who has only a 1% chance of admission. If this applicant were treated as a recruited athlete, the admission probability would increase to 98%. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants. A similar calculation, but in reverse, emphasizes the advantage athletes receive. An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip."

Most kids have a round a 1% chance. That's what happens when tens of thousands of students, thousands of whom have academic records that are virtually indistinguishable, apply to one school.

you understand the difference between 0.1 and 1%? These academic records are not 'virtually indistinguishable' - that's the fallacy. They are distinguishable, but for athletes, they don't matter.

You're assuming that anyone other than the plaintiff's expert thinks there is a difference between Kid A with a 1500 and a 3.87 UW GPA and Kid B with a 1550 and a 3.95. All of those schools are very open that there is a baseline and then they fill out classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) people need to get off the idea that the athletes are lesser students

2) people need to understand the sports, and particularly football, foster broader community spirit than any other activity

3) colleges need to fill slots, that includes staffing teams. if they have the choice between the A student with 1500+ and a lineman and the same student who isn't a lineman, guess which one they are going to take?

they are lesser students more often than not so why do we need to get off that idea?

colleges do need to fill spots and in your example, it's more likely that they would take the lineman with a B+ average and 1300 SATs over the A student with 1500+ who did non-athletic activities.

“Recruited athlete”? What does that mean? My kid met the coach and then went to the school and decided to keep playing her sport, which she played at a national level and they had a spot in her position. Was she recruited? She didn’t get anything, but time with three programs in order to decide which to go with. She also spent time on her own understanding her department, major and career services of what she is interested in.

Have worked now for 25 years and met, hired and mentored many people in my field. If I want something done on time, correctly, a d someone that responds well to feedback (ie thanks coach, will fix that up), I’d absolutely go with a smart former athlete. So many sports for so many different types of people!
Depends on the school. The ivies and similar get plenty of linesman with A avg and 1500+ SATs. Unless you are Olympic caliber or nationally ranked in the top 200, sports prowess isnogoing to help much + top grades and SATs.

This is just wrong. There is actual data from admissions at Harvard and 90+% of recruited athletes have academic ratings so low that they would have been rejected if they were not recruited.

Where is the actual data from admissions? Is it from the lawsuit?

data from the lawsuit, analyzed here:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

The best line from the paper:

"To make this more precise, consider a white, non-ALDC applicant who has only a 1% chance of admission. If this applicant were treated as a recruited athlete, the admission probability would increase to 98%. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants. A similar calculation, but in reverse, emphasizes the advantage athletes receive. An athlete who has an 86% probability of admission—the average rate among athletes—would have only a 0.1% chance of admission absent the athlete tip."

Most kids have a round a 1% chance. That's what happens when tens of thousands of students, thousands of whom have academic records that are virtually indistinguishable, apply to one school.

you understand the difference between 0.1 and 1%? These academic records are not 'virtually indistinguishable' - that's the fallacy. They are distinguishable, but for athletes, they don't matter.

You're assuming that anyone other than the plaintiff's expert thinks there is a difference between Kid A with a 1500 and a 3.87 UW GPA and Kid B with a 1550 and a 3.95. All of those schools are very open that there is a baseline and then they fill out classes.

again with the fake comparisons. you make stuff up in a pathetic attempt to make the difference seem small.

the numbers, the real numbers from the lawsuit, don't lie. it's harvard's own academic ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, what some on this forum bashing their kid's HS classmates for getting in unfairly as Athletes don't realize is that many NCAA D 1 programs AND even some Ivy like Princeton are now filling their teams heavily with foreign students.

Some of these International students whether they be from Ethiopia, Kenya, Australia, Ireland have already competed in JR college in their home country and are now about 23 years old come to an Ivy league school to shore up a team.

So, no, its not just your kid who is getting shoved aside by their HS classmate who is a student- athlete. A DC HS recruit might have to compete for a spot in Ivy Admissions against a 23 year old Irish Jr National champion or Jamaican Olympic team member

This is true. Our private middle school recruits for ice hockey. Many of the recruits are from other countries…. Not kidding and this is middle school ice hockey.