Recruited athletes don’t have lower stats!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

[Anonymous]

Can someone who has been through this comment on how ECs are looked at for recruited athletes at high academic schools? D3 and Ivy. Feel like DS's EC involvement suffers because of his time commitment to his sport. Sophomore now so it's not too late to get more involved in other stuff but don't know if it's needed or worth it if sports is a likely hook for him. Not like he does nothing - some involvement with youth group and a club at school but definitely not anything like some of these Ivy and high academic D3 admits seem to be doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

You're pretty close and in many cases are bringing more people together on campus than any other extracurricular activity. Some D3 rivalries like Amherst Williams are a lot of fun (I didn't attend either)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

Top 10%? We think that’s the top of your sport? Do we set the bar that low for any other activity or even academically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have US colleges ever said they are looking to admit a class with the highest possible test score and GPA stats? I wasn't aware that it was ever a goal of any selective school.

Certainly not when it comes to "diversity"...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

Top 10%? We think that’s the top of your sport? Do we set the bar that low for any other activity or even academically?

Top 10% of a large population is absolutely close to the top of any activity. Academically, top 10% of a grade book is an A. Doesn't sound like a low bar to me.

So there, I answered the question. Yes, top 10% is close to the top. What do you consider close to the top? Is it even attainable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who has been through this comment on how ECs are looked at for recruited athletes at high academic schools? D3 and Ivy. Feel like DS's EC involvement suffers because of his time commitment to his sport. Sophomore now so it's not too late to get more involved in other stuff but don't know if it's needed or worth it if sports is a likely hook for him. Not like he does nothing - some involvement with youth group and a club at school but definitely not anything like some of these Ivy and high academic D3 admits seem to be doing.

I still connect with several of the athletes who play the sport I did at my alma mater. All of them have impressive ECs beyond just athletics. Most had non-sports leadership positions and/or were on student council. All were involved in community service (for several it was at least partially tied to sports since free youth clinics and elementary school visits are things some high schools do or that your kid could probably organize). All but one I can think of have been captains on their high school teams too. You don't need to do as much but I always see additional involvement and leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have US colleges ever said they are looking to admit a class with the highest possible test score and GPA stats? I wasn't aware that it was ever a goal of any selective school.

Certainly not when it comes to "diversity"...

What does this statement mean? Would you mind spelling out publicly what you might or might not be hinting at?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

Top 10%? We think that’s the top of your sport? Do we set the bar that low for any other activity or even academically?

<sigh> You are flailing here. You don't care for athletics. You clearly know very little about the culture and business of athletics. You likely won't give up the ghost but you really should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have US colleges ever said they are looking to admit a class with the highest possible test score and GPA stats? I wasn't aware that it was ever a goal of any selective school.

Certainly not when it comes to "diversity"...

What does this statement mean? Would you mind spelling out publicly what you might or might not be hinting at?

It means they are losing steam. Don't worry, a little liquid courage and they'll be back at it all night!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have US colleges ever said they are looking to admit a class with the highest possible test score and GPA stats? I wasn't aware that it was ever a goal of any selective school.

Certainly not when it comes to "diversity"...

What does this statement mean? Would you mind spelling out publicly what you might or might not be hinting at?

You know exactly what it means. Colleges do not even pretend they want the highest test scores and gpas because they need to fill their diversity quotas.

[Anonymous]

I don't think the NAIA (non-NCAA college) stats are overly important to include here.

For most NCAA sports it is far below 10% of high schoolers that make it to play in college. Basketball, for example, is 3.5% for men and 4.1% for women. Popular sports like women's volleyball and softball are also very low (3.9% and 5.6%). https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/3/2/estimated-probability-of-competing-in-college-athletics.aspx

The students interested in high academic schools rarely consider D2 either (or even most of D3 and some of D1), so getting a spot at these elite schools is considerably less likely.

Maybe the chart will help some young parents identify a few good possible activities!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have US colleges ever said they are looking to admit a class with the highest possible test score and GPA stats? I wasn't aware that it was ever a goal of any selective school. Many schools are straightforward in saying they value athletics.
Dartmouth specifically references athletes in their admissions FAQs on applying early:
Keep in mind that the published higher percentage of applicants accepted early is somewhat misleading because it includes recruited Division 1 athletes, whose credentials have been reviewed in advance. With recruited athletes removed from the Early Decision numbers, the statistical advantage isn’t as large.
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/glossary-question/do-i-have-better-chance-being-admitted-if-i-apply-early#:~:text=Keep%20in%20mind%20that%20the,advantage%20isn%27t%20as%20large.

That wasn’t the question, either. Do they have lower stats? Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have US colleges ever said they are looking to admit a class with the highest possible test score and GPA stats? I wasn't aware that it was ever a goal of any selective school.

Certainly not when it comes to "diversity"...

What does this statement mean? Would you mind spelling out publicly what you might or might not be hinting at?

You know exactly what it means. Colleges do not even pretend they want the highest test scores and gpas because they need to fill their diversity quotas.

Quotas? Are we living in the 80s?
I think the bigger point is that the top colleges were never interested in having just kids with the highest GPAs and test scores (not in 1890, 1930, 1960, 1995, 2015, or today). Unfortunately, at different points in their histories, it has sometimes been at least partially for some not so great reasons (money, religion, race, sex, ect.).