Do not waste ED on a SLAC. Very few unhooked (non-athlete, non-FGLI, non-legacy/donor) get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you all overstate how many athletes are or aren't recruited.

let's look at Bowdoin.
850 athletes
(668 unduplicated athletes)

Bowdoin is pretty typical in that the largest sport is track and field.

249 track and field athletes.
84 football (male only)
83 lacrosse

together that's a big chunk of the total number.

how many track and field athletes do you think were actually recruited? I'd say 10 a class. Same w football. same with lacrosse

Am I way off? I know lots of kids doing track and field at these schools - more than 20. And I can think of 1 that was recruited. We're not a powerhouse HS sports school so I know our numbers are low. But most track and field kids at these schools are not recruited.

The numbers for Bowdoin are pretty easy because the NESCAC has formal and informal rules. They have 30 teams and they get two slots per team and 14 for football. These are recruits who can be below the mean (they often aren't) and get full recruiting support from the team. so 58=14 equals 72 recruits with full slotted support. Those are what is available per the NESCAC recruiting agreement. Traditionally on top of this there is an equal number of "tips" which are also effectively guarantees of admission for athletes who are above the mean student profile and this is also why people constantly point out that NESCAC athletes are typically highly qualified to attend the school. It is rare for a "tip" to not get in but they are not as strong of a guarantee as a slotted athlete. All of these spots can and are traded among teams and there are circumstances where the AO allows additional "tips". Colby is a school where this is rumored to happen given massive recruiting classes in a few sports over the past few years.

So for Bowdoin in the end, recruited athletes in a typical year are somewhere around 144 give or take one or two.

OK wow, so given that Bowdoin only accepts around 250 students during the ED/early admission season, that means more than 50% are taken by recruited athletes!

Then you have to consider other powerful ED hooks: Legacy, FGLI institutional priority, donor kids/development tags. Questbridge matches aren't ED but also make up part of the early acceptance class. That probably leaves only a small group for fully unhooked ED applicants.

I get what OP is saying now.

Legacy and donor kids are a tiny amount of applicants at LACs- it’s just not that common, since the alumni base is so small, we’re talking maybe 10 kids max, and they don’t have to apply ed. Questbridge takes off a bit from their ed fgli numbers, since they have a guaranteed amount of fgli students from that pool. I will say that this is getting more extreme as you see schools like Pomona accepting 61% of their classes requesting financial aid.

Schools like Swat are exceeding 25% first gen. Add in the 30% athletes (95% not first gen) and the numbers are overwhelming. 10 kids max in terms of legacies/big donors? Maybe (and they of course are expected to apply ED to get that edge). How about 5 more faculty brats? Geographic diversity domestic? The 10% internationals? However you slice it, there is no room at the inn ED.

Schools insisting on 40% athletes and another 25% first gen are hurting themselves in this sense: the top kids apply elsewhere (no ED boost, so might as well apply to Brown or Cornell and get an ED boost there). Whatever the top kids do, they are not around anymore in the RD round when the Williams’ of the world might admit them. They never go to Williams and the quality of the undergrads (slightly, but this is a feedback loop) declines. These schools are getting what they deserve: you can’t have that many athletes and first gen and top students. You can only have 2 of the 3….

You cant assume the FGLIs and athletes don’t have the stats. Oftentimes these athletes and FGLI kids have the same perfect stats as the regular high stats kids, so they are in fact among the “top students” you are referencing. They just happen to have something beyond stats. And that’s how they end up getting in vs a kid with just the stats.

All statistical evidence to the contrary...

I can give you that some athletes get a boost. But far fewer than you believe and it is much smaller than you believe.

Really? Per the Harvard Crimson:

"Controlling for differences between applicants, athletes are thousands of times more likely to be admitted than similar non-athletes. Recent research finds that only 11 percent of admitted athletes at Ivy League and similarly elite schools would have been accepted without athletic preference."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you all overstate how many athletes are or aren't recruited.

let's look at Bowdoin.
850 athletes
(668 unduplicated athletes)

Bowdoin is pretty typical in that the largest sport is track and field.

249 track and field athletes.
84 football (male only)
83 lacrosse

together that's a big chunk of the total number.

how many track and field athletes do you think were actually recruited? I'd say 10 a class. Same w football. same with lacrosse

Am I way off? I know lots of kids doing track and field at these schools - more than 20. And I can think of 1 that was recruited. We're not a powerhouse HS sports school so I know our numbers are low. But most track and field kids at these schools are not recruited.

The numbers for Bowdoin are pretty easy because the NESCAC has formal and informal rules. They have 30 teams and they get two slots per team and 14 for football. These are recruits who can be below the mean (they often aren't) and get full recruiting support from the team. so 58=14 equals 72 recruits with full slotted support. Those are what is available per the NESCAC recruiting agreement. Traditionally on top of this there is an equal number of "tips" which are also effectively guarantees of admission for athletes who are above the mean student profile and this is also why people constantly point out that NESCAC athletes are typically highly qualified to attend the school. It is rare for a "tip" to not get in but they are not as strong of a guarantee as a slotted athlete. All of these spots can and are traded among teams and there are circumstances where the AO allows additional "tips". Colby is a school where this is rumored to happen given massive recruiting classes in a few sports over the past few years.

So for Bowdoin in the end, recruited athletes in a typical year are somewhere around 144 give or take one or two.

OK wow, so given that Bowdoin only accepts around 250 students during the ED/early admission season, that means more than 50% are taken by recruited athletes!

Then you have to consider other powerful ED hooks: Legacy, FGLI institutional priority, donor kids/development tags. Questbridge matches aren't ED but also make up part of the early acceptance class. That probably leaves only a small group for fully unhooked ED applicants.

I get what OP is saying now.

Legacy and donor kids are a tiny amount of applicants at LACs- it’s just not that common, since the alumni base is so small, we’re talking maybe 10 kids max, and they don’t have to apply ed. Questbridge takes off a bit from their ed fgli numbers, since they have a guaranteed amount of fgli students from that pool. I will say that this is getting more extreme as you see schools like Pomona accepting 61% of their classes requesting financial aid.

Schools like Swat are exceeding 25% first gen. Add in the 30% athletes (95% not first gen) and the numbers are overwhelming. 10 kids max in terms of legacies/big donors? Maybe (and they of course are expected to apply ED to get that edge). How about 5 more faculty brats? Geographic diversity domestic? The 10% internationals? However you slice it, there is no room at the inn ED.

Schools insisting on 40% athletes and another 25% first gen are hurting themselves in this sense: the top kids apply elsewhere (no ED boost, so might as well apply to Brown or Cornell and get an ED boost there). Whatever the top kids do, they are not around anymore in the RD round when the Williams’ of the world might admit them. They never go to Williams and the quality of the undergrads (slightly, but this is a feedback loop) declines. These schools are getting what they deserve: you can’t have that many athletes and first gen and top students. You can only have 2 of the 3….

You cant assume the FGLIs and athletes don’t have the stats. Oftentimes these athletes and FGLI kids have the same perfect stats as the regular high stats kids, so they are in fact among the “top students” you are referencing. They just happen to have something beyond stats. And that’s how they end up getting in vs a kid with just the stats.

All statistical evidence to the contrary...

I can give you that some athletes get a boost. But far fewer than you believe and it is much smaller than you believe.

Really? Per the Harvard Crimson:

"Controlling for differences between applicants, athletes are thousands of times more likely to be admitted than similar non-athletes. Recent research finds that only 11 percent of admitted athletes at Ivy League and similarly elite schools would have been accepted without athletic preference."

Phew that quote from Harvard's newspaper, and this whole thread is bleak reading indeed.

I really don't understand why any non-revenue generating sports are giving such high advantages. Why do colleges need to recruit and give a leg up to top of the line discus throwers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you all overstate how many athletes are or aren't recruited.

let's look at Bowdoin.
850 athletes
(668 unduplicated athletes)

Bowdoin is pretty typical in that the largest sport is track and field.

249 track and field athletes.
84 football (male only)
83 lacrosse

together that's a big chunk of the total number.

how many track and field athletes do you think were actually recruited? I'd say 10 a class. Same w football. same with lacrosse

Am I way off? I know lots of kids doing track and field at these schools - more than 20. And I can think of 1 that was recruited. We're not a powerhouse HS sports school so I know our numbers are low. But most track and field kids at these schools are not recruited.

The numbers for Bowdoin are pretty easy because the NESCAC has formal and informal rules. They have 30 teams and they get two slots per team and 14 for football. These are recruits who can be below the mean (they often aren't) and get full recruiting support from the team. so 58=14 equals 72 recruits with full slotted support. Those are what is available per the NESCAC recruiting agreement. Traditionally on top of this there is an equal number of "tips" which are also effectively guarantees of admission for athletes who are above the mean student profile and this is also why people constantly point out that NESCAC athletes are typically highly qualified to attend the school. It is rare for a "tip" to not get in but they are not as strong of a guarantee as a slotted athlete. All of these spots can and are traded among teams and there are circumstances where the AO allows additional "tips". Colby is a school where this is rumored to happen given massive recruiting classes in a few sports over the past few years.

So for Bowdoin in the end, recruited athletes in a typical year are somewhere around 144 give or take one or two.

OK wow, so given that Bowdoin only accepts around 250 students during the ED/early admission season, that means more than 50% are taken by recruited athletes!

Then you have to consider other powerful ED hooks: Legacy, FGLI institutional priority, donor kids/development tags. Questbridge matches aren't ED but also make up part of the early acceptance class. That probably leaves only a small group for fully unhooked ED applicants.

I get what OP is saying now.

Legacy and donor kids are a tiny amount of applicants at LACs- it’s just not that common, since the alumni base is so small, we’re talking maybe 10 kids max, and they don’t have to apply ed. Questbridge takes off a bit from their ed fgli numbers, since they have a guaranteed amount of fgli students from that pool. I will say that this is getting more extreme as you see schools like Pomona accepting 61% of their classes requesting financial aid.

Schools like Swat are exceeding 25% first gen. Add in the 30% athletes (95% not first gen) and the numbers are overwhelming. 10 kids max in terms of legacies/big donors? Maybe (and they of course are expected to apply ED to get that edge). How about 5 more faculty brats? Geographic diversity domestic? The 10% internationals? However you slice it, there is no room at the inn ED.

Schools insisting on 40% athletes and another 25% first gen are hurting themselves in this sense: the top kids apply elsewhere (no ED boost, so might as well apply to Brown or Cornell and get an ED boost there). Whatever the top kids do, they are not around anymore in the RD round when the Williams’ of the world might admit them. They never go to Williams and the quality of the undergrads (slightly, but this is a feedback loop) declines. These schools are getting what they deserve: you can’t have that many athletes and first gen and top students. You can only have 2 of the 3….

You cant assume the FGLIs and athletes don’t have the stats. Oftentimes these athletes and FGLI kids have the same perfect stats as the regular high stats kids, so they are in fact among the “top students” you are referencing. They just happen to have something beyond stats. And that’s how they end up getting in vs a kid with just the stats.

All statistical evidence to the contrary...

I can give you that some athletes get a boost. But far fewer than you believe and it is much smaller than you believe.

Really? Per the Harvard Crimson:

"Controlling for differences between applicants, athletes are thousands of times more likely to be admitted than similar non-athletes. Recent research finds that only 11 percent of admitted athletes at Ivy League and similarly elite schools would have been accepted without athletic preference."

Link please?

One could never actually know that with holistic admissions because you can't redo the panel. Nobody is saying that getting a 1 for athletics isn't a huge advantage, it is. And, a bunch of NARPs doing their annual whine about athletics is about as credible as The Blaze. And it is well known that it is harder to cross the bar at a NESCAC than at an Ivy.

Great Athlete + Very good student is Ivy
Great Student + Very good athlete is NESCAC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you all overstate how many athletes are or aren't recruited.

let's look at Bowdoin.
850 athletes
(668 unduplicated athletes)

Bowdoin is pretty typical in that the largest sport is track and field.

249 track and field athletes.
84 football (male only)
83 lacrosse

together that's a big chunk of the total number.

how many track and field athletes do you think were actually recruited? I'd say 10 a class. Same w football. same with lacrosse

Am I way off? I know lots of kids doing track and field at these schools - more than 20. And I can think of 1 that was recruited. We're not a powerhouse HS sports school so I know our numbers are low. But most track and field kids at these schools are not recruited.

The numbers for Bowdoin are pretty easy because the NESCAC has formal and informal rules. They have 30 teams and they get two slots per team and 14 for football. These are recruits who can be below the mean (they often aren't) and get full recruiting support from the team. so 58=14 equals 72 recruits with full slotted support. Those are what is available per the NESCAC recruiting agreement. Traditionally on top of this there is an equal number of "tips" which are also effectively guarantees of admission for athletes who are above the mean student profile and this is also why people constantly point out that NESCAC athletes are typically highly qualified to attend the school. It is rare for a "tip" to not get in but they are not as strong of a guarantee as a slotted athlete. All of these spots can and are traded among teams and there are circumstances where the AO allows additional "tips". Colby is a school where this is rumored to happen given massive recruiting classes in a few sports over the past few years.

So for Bowdoin in the end, recruited athletes in a typical year are somewhere around 144 give or take one or two.

OK wow, so given that Bowdoin only accepts around 250 students during the ED/early admission season, that means more than 50% are taken by recruited athletes!

Then you have to consider other powerful ED hooks: Legacy, FGLI institutional priority, donor kids/development tags. Questbridge matches aren't ED but also make up part of the early acceptance class. That probably leaves only a small group for fully unhooked ED applicants.

I get what OP is saying now.

Legacy and donor kids are a tiny amount of applicants at LACs- it’s just not that common, since the alumni base is so small, we’re talking maybe 10 kids max, and they don’t have to apply ed. Questbridge takes off a bit from their ed fgli numbers, since they have a guaranteed amount of fgli students from that pool. I will say that this is getting more extreme as you see schools like Pomona accepting 61% of their classes requesting financial aid.

Schools like Swat are exceeding 25% first gen. Add in the 30% athletes (95% not first gen) and the numbers are overwhelming. 10 kids max in terms of legacies/big donors? Maybe (and they of course are expected to apply ED to get that edge). How about 5 more faculty brats? Geographic diversity domestic? The 10% internationals? However you slice it, there is no room at the inn ED.

Schools insisting on 40% athletes and another 25% first gen are hurting themselves in this sense: the top kids apply elsewhere (no ED boost, so might as well apply to Brown or Cornell and get an ED boost there). Whatever the top kids do, they are not around anymore in the RD round when the Williams’ of the world might admit them. They never go to Williams and the quality of the undergrads (slightly, but this is a feedback loop) declines. These schools are getting what they deserve: you can’t have that many athletes and first gen and top students. You can only have 2 of the 3….

You cant assume the FGLIs and athletes don’t have the stats. Oftentimes these athletes and FGLI kids have the same perfect stats as the regular high stats kids, so they are in fact among the “top students” you are referencing. They just happen to have something beyond stats. And that’s how they end up getting in vs a kid with just the stats.

All statistical evidence to the contrary...

I can give you that some athletes get a boost. But far fewer than you believe and it is much smaller than you believe.

Really? Per the Harvard Crimson:

"Controlling for differences between applicants, athletes are thousands of times more likely to be admitted than similar non-athletes. Recent research finds that only 11 percent of admitted athletes at Ivy League and similarly elite schools would have been accepted without athletic preference."

Phew that quote from Harvard's newspaper, and this whole thread is bleak reading indeed.

I really don't understand why any non-revenue generating sports are giving such high advantages. Why do colleges need to recruit and give a leg up to top of the line discus throwers?

Institutional priorities, most college athletics originated at theses schools and have a long history. Athletes from Elite colleges also graduate at higher rates than non-athletes, earn more more than non-athletes, and give at higher percentages than non-athletes. All good reasons for athletics to be an institutional priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I can tell you is the unhooked kids I know at the most selective SLACs all got in ED. The Naviance from our HS bears out that ED seems to be the way kids usually get in.

None of these schools is easy to get into, either way. If you are saying ED isn't a huge advantage for unhooked kids, I wouldn't argue with you, but I can't agree with the "don't apply ED." Even if you're deferred to RD, you have signaled to the school it is your first choice, and that carries some value.

The point is if there is no advantage in ED, you will find other schools that have an ED advantage. Efficient.

For example, between Williams and Chicago, you would ED Chicago, if you have the chops for getting in Williams RD after deferral, Chicago ED is a shoe in.

It’s “shoo in” folks, not “shoe in.” Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you all overstate how many athletes are or aren't recruited.

let's look at Bowdoin.
850 athletes
(668 unduplicated athletes)

Bowdoin is pretty typical in that the largest sport is track and field.

249 track and field athletes.
84 football (male only)
83 lacrosse

together that's a big chunk of the total number.

how many track and field athletes do you think were actually recruited? I'd say 10 a class. Same w football. same with lacrosse

Am I way off? I know lots of kids doing track and field at these schools - more than 20. And I can think of 1 that was recruited. We're not a powerhouse HS sports school so I know our numbers are low. But most track and field kids at these schools are not recruited.

The numbers for Bowdoin are pretty easy because the NESCAC has formal and informal rules. They have 30 teams and they get two slots per team and 14 for football. These are recruits who can be below the mean (they often aren't) and get full recruiting support from the team. so 58=14 equals 72 recruits with full slotted support. Those are what is available per the NESCAC recruiting agreement. Traditionally on top of this there is an equal number of "tips" which are also effectively guarantees of admission for athletes who are above the mean student profile and this is also why people constantly point out that NESCAC athletes are typically highly qualified to attend the school. It is rare for a "tip" to not get in but they are not as strong of a guarantee as a slotted athlete. All of these spots can and are traded among teams and there are circumstances where the AO allows additional "tips". Colby is a school where this is rumored to happen given massive recruiting classes in a few sports over the past few years.

So for Bowdoin in the end, recruited athletes in a typical year are somewhere around 144 give or take one or two.

OK wow, so given that Bowdoin only accepts around 250 students during the ED/early admission season, that means more than 50% are taken by recruited athletes!

Then you have to consider other powerful ED hooks: Legacy, FGLI institutional priority, donor kids/development tags. Questbridge matches aren't ED but also make up part of the early acceptance class. That probably leaves only a small group for fully unhooked ED applicants.

I get what OP is saying now.

Legacy and donor kids are a tiny amount of applicants at LACs- it’s just not that common, since the alumni base is so small, we’re talking maybe 10 kids max, and they don’t have to apply ed. Questbridge takes off a bit from their ed fgli numbers, since they have a guaranteed amount of fgli students from that pool. I will say that this is getting more extreme as you see schools like Pomona accepting 61% of their classes requesting financial aid.

Schools like Swat are exceeding 25% first gen. Add in the 30% athletes (95% not first gen) and the numbers are overwhelming. 10 kids max in terms of legacies/big donors? Maybe (and they of course are expected to apply ED to get that edge). How about 5 more faculty brats? Geographic diversity domestic? The 10% internationals? However you slice it, there is no room at the inn ED.

Schools insisting on 40% athletes and another 25% first gen are hurting themselves in this sense: the top kids apply elsewhere (no ED boost, so might as well apply to Brown or Cornell and get an ED boost there). Whatever the top kids do, they are not around anymore in the RD round when the Williams’ of the world might admit them. They never go to Williams and the quality of the undergrads (slightly, but this is a feedback loop) declines. These schools are getting what they deserve: you can’t have that many athletes and first gen and top students. You can only have 2 of the 3….

You cant assume the FGLIs and athletes don’t have the stats. Oftentimes these athletes and FGLI kids have the same perfect stats as the regular high stats kids, so they are in fact among the “top students” you are referencing. They just happen to have something beyond stats. And that’s how they end up getting in vs a kid with just the stats.

All statistical evidence to the contrary...

I can give you that some athletes get a boost. But far fewer than you believe and it is much smaller than you believe.

Really? Per the Harvard Crimson:

"Controlling for differences between applicants, athletes are thousands of times more likely to be admitted than similar non-athletes. Recent research finds that only 11 percent of admitted athletes at Ivy League and similarly elite schools would have been accepted without athletic preference."

Link please?

One could never actually know that with holistic admissions because you can't redo the panel. Nobody is saying that getting a 1 for athletics isn't a huge advantage, it is. And, a bunch of NARPs doing their annual whine about athletics is about as credible as The Blaze. And it is well known that it is harder to cross the bar at a NESCAC than at an Ivy.

Great Athlete + Very good student is Ivy
Great Student + Very good athlete is NESCAC

I had an athlete at an Ivy and currently have one at a NESCAC and the description is spot on. The Ivy kid was a nationally recognized athlete and the NESCAC kid was hands down the intellect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you all overstate how many athletes are or aren't recruited.

let's look at Bowdoin.
850 athletes
(668 unduplicated athletes)

Bowdoin is pretty typical in that the largest sport is track and field.

249 track and field athletes.
84 football (male only)
83 lacrosse

together that's a big chunk of the total number.

how many track and field athletes do you think were actually recruited? I'd say 10 a class. Same w football. same with lacrosse

Am I way off? I know lots of kids doing track and field at these schools - more than 20. And I can think of 1 that was recruited. We're not a powerhouse HS sports school so I know our numbers are low. But most track and field kids at these schools are not recruited.

The numbers for Bowdoin are pretty easy because the NESCAC has formal and informal rules. They have 30 teams and they get two slots per team and 14 for football. These are recruits who can be below the mean (they often aren't) and get full recruiting support from the team. so 58=14 equals 72 recruits with full slotted support. Those are what is available per the NESCAC recruiting agreement. Traditionally on top of this there is an equal number of "tips" which are also effectively guarantees of admission for athletes who are above the mean student profile and this is also why people constantly point out that NESCAC athletes are typically highly qualified to attend the school. It is rare for a "tip" to not get in but they are not as strong of a guarantee as a slotted athlete. All of these spots can and are traded among teams and there are circumstances where the AO allows additional "tips". Colby is a school where this is rumored to happen given massive recruiting classes in a few sports over the past few years.

So for Bowdoin in the end, recruited athletes in a typical year are somewhere around 144 give or take one or two.

OK wow, so given that Bowdoin only accepts around 250 students during the ED/early admission season, that means more than 50% are taken by recruited athletes!

Then you have to consider other powerful ED hooks: Legacy, FGLI institutional priority, donor kids/development tags. Questbridge matches aren't ED but also make up part of the early acceptance class. That probably leaves only a small group for fully unhooked ED applicants.

I get what OP is saying now.

Legacy and donor kids are a tiny amount of applicants at LACs- it’s just not that common, since the alumni base is so small, we’re talking maybe 10 kids max, and they don’t have to apply ed. Questbridge takes off a bit from their ed fgli numbers, since they have a guaranteed amount of fgli students from that pool. I will say that this is getting more extreme as you see schools like Pomona accepting 61% of their classes requesting financial aid.

Schools like Swat are exceeding 25% first gen. Add in the 30% athletes (95% not first gen) and the numbers are overwhelming. 10 kids max in terms of legacies/big donors? Maybe (and they of course are expected to apply ED to get that edge). How about 5 more faculty brats? Geographic diversity domestic? The 10% internationals? However you slice it, there is no room at the inn ED.

Schools insisting on 40% athletes and another 25% first gen are hurting themselves in this sense: the top kids apply elsewhere (no ED boost, so might as well apply to Brown or Cornell and get an ED boost there). Whatever the top kids do, they are not around anymore in the RD round when the Williams’ of the world might admit them. They never go to Williams and the quality of the undergrads (slightly, but this is a feedback loop) declines. These schools are getting what they deserve: you can’t have that many athletes and first gen and top students. You can only have 2 of the 3….

You cant assume the FGLIs and athletes don’t have the stats. Oftentimes these athletes and FGLI kids have the same perfect stats as the regular high stats kids, so they are in fact among the “top students” you are referencing. They just happen to have something beyond stats. And that’s how they end up getting in vs a kid with just the stats.

All statistical evidence to the contrary...

I can give you that some athletes get a boost. But far fewer than you believe and it is much smaller than you believe.

Really? Per the Harvard Crimson:

"Controlling for differences between applicants, athletes are thousands of times more likely to be admitted than similar non-athletes. Recent research finds that only 11 percent of admitted athletes at Ivy League and similarly elite schools would have been accepted without athletic preference."

Link please?

One could never actually know that with holistic admissions because you can't redo the panel. Nobody is saying that getting a 1 for athletics isn't a huge advantage, it is. And, a bunch of NARPs doing their annual whine about athletics is about as credible as The Blaze. And it is well known that it is harder to cross the bar at a NESCAC than at an Ivy.

Great Athlete + Very good student is Ivy
Great Student + Very good athlete is NESCAC

I had an athlete at an Ivy and currently have one at a NESCAC and the description is spot on. The Ivy kid was a nationally recognized athlete and the NESCAC kid was hands down the intellect.

I think it's commonly known that an Ivy can dip pretty low if they want to admit a particular athlete. We were recently at a recruiting even for a test optional Ivy and they mentioned a 1250 SAT was the cutoff for submitting. The school place athletes into 5 five bands and can only admit a couple from the lowest band. They didn't say much about GPA, but I got the feeling they were equally flexible.

[Anonymous]

From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.

[Anonymous]

My understanding is that NESCAC coaches are allowed a certain number of slots per the three bands: A, B, and C. With A meeting admissions standards, B a little below, C below. But the fewest slots are in the C band, therefore limiting acceptance of unqualified kids. However, few have the perfect stats generally needed for unhooked kids to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.

Do you know what study is referenced here? The op-ed doesn't seem to name it or link it. https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/05/its-time-to-level-the-playing-field-between-athletics-and-academics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.

Do you know what study is referenced here? The op-ed doesn't seem to name it or link it. https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/05/its-time-to-level-the-playing-field-between-athletics-and-academics

I did a deep dive and answered my own question . . . it appears to be this: https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/1581/

[Anonymous]

Athletic kids applying/recruited by Ivies are also looking at Patriot League schools Holy Cross, Colgate etc. Big drop off in athletic talent to Div3 NESCAC schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.

Notice that there was no mention that any of them were not academically qualified, because they were and they met an institutional priority.

People constantly want these schools to adjust their priorities to meet their preferences. Seems a bit like affirmative action to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.

Notice that there was no mention that any of them were not academically qualified, because they were and they met an institutional priority.

People constantly want these schools to adjust their priorities to meet their preferences. Seems a bit like affirmative action to me.

But what does that mean? A PP posted a stat that only 11% of them would have been admitted without athletic preference. That suggests many are underqualified, at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that NESCAC coaches are allowed a certain number of slots per the three bands: A, B, and C. With A meeting admissions standards, B a little below, C below. But the fewest slots are in the C band, therefore limiting acceptance of unqualified kids. However, few have the perfect stats generally needed for unhooked kids to get in.

Sort of:

A band athletes have academic qualifications above the mean. B band athletes are typically in the 33% to 50% range and C band below that. The number of C band slots is limited in number to about 10% of slotted athletes so typically less than 8 in any given year. There are also limits on the number that any team can have and for many sports the number is effectively zero in most years. C band slots are typically only given to larger teams, and handed out one at a time.

Your last line is incorrect, the majority of kids are easily admittable and look like any other student. The difference for them is that they get a 95+% chance of admission rather than <10%. High talent athletes with very high stats (75% or above) are a prize for NESCAC coaches because they sometimes can get a "free pass" from admissions for those kids, basically the full recruiting support advantage without using a slot or tip which allows the coach to recruit an extra player if desired.