Athletes are the real reason your kid can't get into the elite colleges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT football has been pretty stellar the past couple of years.

And so what, why not take kids who excel in the classroom and on a field or court?

OP makes an assumption that recruited athletes are somehow lesser students.

Why assume URMs are lesser students?

They usually are. Elite schools have a hard time making their quota with URMs with high stats.

There are not quotas. There are goals.

And strongest URMs have many options besides elites, that may offer more scholarships and be a better all-around community for a person of color. Think Spelman over Smith or Mt Holyoke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For a school like MIT, they do not lower the admissions standards for recruited athletes. But, if you meet their standards, and are recruited, you will be admitted.

As an example, I know someone who was recruited to elite schools. She got admitted and will be going....And, she used her skills to be admitted, but she had nearly all A's with nearly all honors and AP, and 1500+ on the SATs, and a National Merit Semifinialist. The thing is that is the average student at an elite school. And they could accept 100% 4.0 UW with 1600 SATs. The sport set her apart.

All schools can and do admit athletes with lower academic achievements. Just because you think you know one who wasn’t doesn’t mean they don’t.

Besides, your example proves the point. Plenty of kids with all As and higher SATs are rejected everyday. So if athletics was taken out of the equation and it was a straight numbers game, she’s not getting in.

You’ve changed the question to say if you pass a minimum bar you can be admitted. That is different than saying the most qualified applicants should be admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT football has been pretty stellar the past couple of years.

And so what, why not take kids who excel in the classroom and on a field or court?

OP makes an assumption that recruited athletes are somehow lesser students.

Why assume URMs are lesser students?

They usually are. Elite schools have a hard time making their quota with URMs with high stats.

Same could be said for athletes. Evidence says athletes are admitted with lesser scores.

[Anonymous]

It's kind of a lame article. So they counted how many people play sports at each school but don't really know how many are actually recruited. They don't talk about the preferred walk-on spot. They don't talk about the Ivy index or how very few students can be at the bottom of the index or what type of athlete those students have to be.

They don't talk about how must athletes are limited to certain degrees.

It kind of like they told and intern to go to the website and count how many are on each roster. The article is really meaningless.

[Anonymous]

It takes a ton of discipline and hard work to excel in athletics and academics. Why wouldn't a top school want someone like this rather than a student who only excelled in academics? As an employer, I would take the scholar/athlete over the scholar (with slightly higher stats) any day of the week because it's simply harder to be excellent at both than to be a little bit better at just academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's kind of a lame article. So they counted how many people play sports at each school but don't really know how many are actually recruited. They don't talk about the preferred walk-on spot. They don't talk about the Ivy index or how very few students can be at the bottom of the index or what type of athlete those students have to be.

They don't talk about how must athletes are limited to certain degrees.

It kind of like they told and intern to go to the website and count how many are on each roster. The article is really meaningless.

The question they sought to answer was how many admissions spots were reserved for athletes, or whether there was a bump. Most universities refused to disclose it. For the ones that did, here is what they said.

The Post asked the colleges and universities listed above for the number of admission slots they typically reserve for recruited athletes or for the number of recruited athletes offered admission during their most recent cycle. Most schools declined to provide such data, and many said they had no reserved slots for athletes.

But some disclosed numbers that shed light on the process.

Yale said about 200 students matriculate each year with support from its athletics department. That is about 13 percent of an incoming class.

Duke said coaches are able to recruit a “limited number” of students each year based on agreement between the athletic department and admissions office. Typically, about 5 percent of admission offers are made to recruited athletes. Of those who enroll, 8 to 9 percent of incoming first-year students are recruited athletes.

Johns Hopkins said an average of 152 recruited athletes enroll with each incoming class.

Brown said up to 225 admission slots are available for recruited athletes. For the 2018 entering class, 219 student-athletes were admitted and 216 enrolled. Brown said there is an “extensive review process and coordination” between athletics and admissions, starting long before any recruited student-athlete formally applies for admission. That includes a “thorough pre-application evaluation” of academic credentials of potential recruits.

UC-Berkeley said it admits an average of 250 student athletes a year.

U-Va. said it “held approximately 180 slots” for admission of athletes to the entering fall class.

U-Michigan said 333 recruited athletes applied for the 2018 entering class and 312 were admitted. Of those, 297 enrolled.

UNC-Chapel Hill said it allots 200 admission slots on average each year for students with special talents — 160 for students with athletic talent, 20 for students with talent in music and 20 for students with talent in dramatic arts. A faculty Committee on Special Talent advises the admissions office on admission of students recruited through that initiative. But the number of recruited athletes can be larger than 160. An annual report on athletic admissions showed that the athletic department submitted 397 potential recruits to the admissions office for pre-screening for the 2018 entering class. Ultimately, 263 of those athletes applied, 205 were admitted and 193 enrolled. About 72 percent of the recruits who enrolled came through the special talent process.

UC-Irvine said it admitted 116 recruited athletes for fall 2018, out of 138 applicants. Seventy-seven enrolled. For this year’s incoming class, it admitted 82 recruited athletes out of 116 applicants.

Rochester said it allows up to 60 admission offers to student-athletes labeled as “priority recruits,” who have met a “solid academic standard,” with grades and test scores a bit lower than those of the average admitted student. For example, it said a priority recruit with solid credentials might have a grade-point average of roughly 3.5 and an SAT score of 1250 out of 1600. The limit of 60 has been in place since 2004. Priority recruits account for about 1 percent of all admission offers.

Georgia Tech said nearly 2 percent of admitted students for the entering class of 2018 and more than 3 percent of those who enrolled were recruited athletes.

William & Mary said its athletics department is allowed to “officially recommend, or refer, a limited number” of applicants each year. Typically, there are 80 to 90 athletic referrals in an admitted class.

UC-Davis said it offered admission to 158 recruited athletes for the fall 2018 first-year class, and 148 enrolled.

Rensselaer Polytechnic, known as RPI, said about 5 percent of its 600-plus varsity athletes are “pure walk-ons.” The rest are recruited or expressed interest in athletic programs when they applied. In a typical year, about 200 recruited or potential athletes enter RPI. Lee McElroy, associate vice president and athletic director, said he works closely with the admissions office to ensure recruits meet academic standards. “That’s the key,” he said. “We follow the admissions lead.”

Claremont McKenna said 50 to 60 athletic recruits per year receive an admissions “tip,” with a coach’s endorsement strongly influencing their admission. Another set of athletes backed by coaches, whose academic credentials are in the high range of the applicant pool, are also accepted each year. That group is typically smaller than those who benefit from the athletic tip.

Davidson said it typically offers admission to 125 to 135 recruited athletes a year. Most apply through the binding enrollment program known as “early decision.” They account for about a quarter of an incoming class.

Colgate said it reserves up to 91 admission slots for athletes who apply through early decision. Of the 824 students who entered the school in 2018, 80 recruited athletes took that path. There were an additional 22 athletic recruits in that class, for a total of 102. Teams are also filled through “walk-ons” and other students who were not given any special admission consideration for being athletes. Apart from athletics, Colgate said it also recruits for specialized programs targeting students likely to do meaningful research as undergraduates, students interested in global issues and those who have overcome remarkable challenges in their lives. Those programs accounted for 91 students in the 2018 entering class.

Richmond said it enrolls about 80 new student-athletes in a typical year, using a “rigorous process” for reviewing requests by coaches for the admission of prospective student-athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/12/varsity-athletes-admissions-enrollment-top-colleges/?utm_term=.282712c7fa13

The amazing stats that jumped out to me are that 23% of Caltech and 15% of MIT slots are reserved for recruited athletes! So much for their vaunted "pure" race-neutral meritocracy.

Thus is foolish.

1. Caltech and MIT have some of highest suicide rates in the country. In large part that’s because they could admit a class of entirely high school valedictorians, HALF of whom would then be BELOW AVERAGE. A good number of those kids then get depressed. Harvard’s percent of reserved seats, between legacies, rich-people donations, athletes, and unique-star kids (top musicians, etc) is about FIFTY percent. By design.

2. The group that gets the biggest help getting into schools like this is rich kids. Jared Kushner’s dad straight bought a spot at Harvard for his mediocre son. (Now we’re all paying the price. But that’s another story.)

3. Do you also complain about affirmative action for conservatives, in areas like law, where holding conservative views lets mediocrities get ahead because rich conservative donors fund anyone willing to shill for the donors? Conservative affirmative action is widespread- it happens at GMU Econ, Hillsdale, Liberty, etc, and in journalism (eg. Tomi Lahren, Ben Shapiro.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's kind of a lame article. So they counted how many people play sports at each school but don't really know how many are actually recruited. They don't talk about the preferred walk-on spot. They don't talk about the Ivy index or how very few students can be at the bottom of the index or what type of athlete those students have to be.

They don't talk about how must athletes are limited to certain degrees.

It kind of like they told and intern to go to the website and count how many are on each roster. The article is really meaningless.

The question they sought to answer was how many admissions spots were reserved for athletes, or whether there was a bump. Most universities refused to disclose it. For the ones that did, here is what they said.

The Post asked the colleges and universities listed above for the number of admission slots they typically reserve for recruited athletes or for the number of recruited athletes offered admission during their most recent cycle. Most schools declined to provide such data, and many said they had no reserved slots for athletes.

But some disclosed numbers that shed light on the process.

Yale said about 200 students matriculate each year with support from its athletics department. That is about 13 percent of an incoming class.

Duke said coaches are able to recruit a “limited number” of students each year based on agreement between the athletic department and admissions office. Typically, about 5 percent of admission offers are made to recruited athletes. Of those who enroll, 8 to 9 percent of incoming first-year students are recruited athletes.

Johns Hopkins said an average of 152 recruited athletes enroll with each incoming class.

Brown said up to 225 admission slots are available for recruited athletes. For the 2018 entering class, 219 student-athletes were admitted and 216 enrolled. Brown said there is an “extensive review process and coordination” between athletics and admissions, starting long before any recruited student-athlete formally applies for admission. That includes a “thorough pre-application evaluation” of academic credentials of potential recruits.

UC-Berkeley said it admits an average of 250 student athletes a year.

U-Va. said it “held approximately 180 slots” for admission of athletes to the entering fall class.

U-Michigan said 333 recruited athletes applied for the 2018 entering class and 312 were admitted. Of those, 297 enrolled.

UNC-Chapel Hill said it allots 200 admission slots on average each year for students with special talents — 160 for students with athletic talent, 20 for students with talent in music and 20 for students with talent in dramatic arts. A faculty Committee on Special Talent advises the admissions office on admission of students recruited through that initiative. But the number of recruited athletes can be larger than 160. An annual report on athletic admissions showed that the athletic department submitted 397 potential recruits to the admissions office for pre-screening for the 2018 entering class. Ultimately, 263 of those athletes applied, 205 were admitted and 193 enrolled. About 72 percent of the recruits who enrolled came through the special talent process.

UC-Irvine said it admitted 116 recruited athletes for fall 2018, out of 138 applicants. Seventy-seven enrolled. For this year’s incoming class, it admitted 82 recruited athletes out of 116 applicants.

Rochester said it allows up to 60 admission offers to student-athletes labeled as “priority recruits,” who have met a “solid academic standard,” with grades and test scores a bit lower than those of the average admitted student. For example, it said a priority recruit with solid credentials might have a grade-point average of roughly 3.5 and an SAT score of 1250 out of 1600. The limit of 60 has been in place since 2004. Priority recruits account for about 1 percent of all admission offers.

Georgia Tech said nearly 2 percent of admitted students for the entering class of 2018 and more than 3 percent of those who enrolled were recruited athletes.

William & Mary said its athletics department is allowed to “officially recommend, or refer, a limited number” of applicants each year. Typically, there are 80 to 90 athletic referrals in an admitted class.

UC-Davis said it offered admission to 158 recruited athletes for the fall 2018 first-year class, and 148 enrolled.

Rensselaer Polytechnic, known as RPI, said about 5 percent of its 600-plus varsity athletes are “pure walk-ons.” The rest are recruited or expressed interest in athletic programs when they applied. In a typical year, about 200 recruited or potential athletes enter RPI. Lee McElroy, associate vice president and athletic director, said he works closely with the admissions office to ensure recruits meet academic standards. “That’s the key,” he said. “We follow the admissions lead.”

Claremont McKenna said 50 to 60 athletic recruits per year receive an admissions “tip,” with a coach’s endorsement strongly influencing their admission. Another set of athletes backed by coaches, whose academic credentials are in the high range of the applicant pool, are also accepted each year. That group is typically smaller than those who benefit from the athletic tip.

Davidson said it typically offers admission to 125 to 135 recruited athletes a year. Most apply through the binding enrollment program known as “early decision.” They account for about a quarter of an incoming class.

Colgate said it reserves up to 91 admission slots for athletes who apply through early decision. Of the 824 students who entered the school in 2018, 80 recruited athletes took that path. There were an additional 22 athletic recruits in that class, for a total of 102. Teams are also filled through “walk-ons” and other students who were not given any special admission consideration for being athletes. Apart from athletics, Colgate said it also recruits for specialized programs targeting students likely to do meaningful research as undergraduates, students interested in global issues and those who have overcome remarkable challenges in their lives. Those programs accounted for 91 students in the 2018 entering class.

Richmond said it enrolls about 80 new student-athletes in a typical year, using a “rigorous process” for reviewing requests by coaches for the admission of prospective student-athletes.

yes... but they don't say how many are preferred walk-on's... how many had scores that would never had gotten in but athletics helped they have a certain number... and it is much lower than that one listed.

What scores do they need from an athlete, what score will they not take.

Even the lower part of the article is dim.

so interns called athletic departments and some answered the question, how many athletes do you admit a year with a recommendation of the athletic department.

This is not investigative reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/12/varsity-athletes-admissions-enrollment-top-colleges/?utm_term=.282712c7fa13

The amazing stats that jumped out to me are that 23% of Caltech and 15% of MIT slots are reserved for recruited athletes! So much for their vaunted "pure" race-neutral meritocracy.

Thus is foolish.

1. Caltech and MIT have some of highest suicide rates in the country. In large part that’s because they could admit a class of entirely high school valedictorians, HALF of whom would then be BELOW AVERAGE. A good number of those kids then get depressed. Harvard’s percent of reserved seats, between legacies, rich-people donations, athletes, and unique-star kids (top musicians, etc) is about FIFTY percent. By design.

2. The group that gets the biggest help getting into schools like this is rich kids. Jared Kushner’s dad straight bought a spot at Harvard for his mediocre son. (Now we’re all paying the price. But that’s another story.)

3. Do you also complain about affirmative action for conservatives, in areas like law, where holding conservative views lets mediocrities get ahead because rich conservative donors fund anyone willing to shill for the donors? Conservative affirmative action is widespread- it happens at GMU Econ, Hillsdale, Liberty, etc, and in journalism (eg. Tomi Lahren, Ben Shapiro.)

This is a very important point. Schools can't get rid of athletes/musicians/dancers because of the reason stated above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/12/varsity-athletes-admissions-enrollment-top-colleges/?utm_term=.282712c7fa13

The amazing stats that jumped out to me are that 23% of Caltech and 15% of MIT slots are reserved for recruited athletes! So much for their vaunted "pure" race-neutral meritocracy.

If your kid can not get in its because he or she was not better vs the 77% or 85% who got in with as a non athletes. When you are in the bottom 23% or 15% you really do not have that good of a chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It takes a ton of discipline and hard work to excel in athletics and academics. Why wouldn't a top school want someone like this rather than a student who only excelled in academics? As an employer, I would take the scholar/athlete over the scholar (with slightly higher stats) any day of the week because it's simply harder to be excellent at both than to be a little bit better at just academics.

Totally agree. Our 3 oldest children were admitted to top 10 D3 schools as recruited athletes. It's likely that our youngest will be too. Of the three oldest, I'd be willing to bet money that the two oldest would have gotten into their school without an athletic tip. #3 probably had a 50-50 chance without athletics. All 4 kids have benefited significantly from playing sports. They have excellent time management skills; even more important, they have the resilience necessary to succeed academically, professionally and personally. At my workplace I'm currently supervising four law student interns, 2 of whom were athletes in college (1 Ivy and 1 NESCAC). All are highly qualified students, but the athletes stand out for their attitude -- no whining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It takes a ton of discipline and hard work to excel in athletics and academics. Why wouldn't a top school want someone like this rather than a student who only excelled in academics? As an employer, I would take the scholar/athlete over the scholar (with slightly higher stats) any day of the week because it's simply harder to be excellent at both than to be a little bit better at just academics.

This. The few elite athletes I know have been playing their sport since elementary school for many hours per week and to the exclusion of many other activities. Don't underestimate the drive it takes. That is something that should be considered in college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT football has been pretty stellar the past couple of years.

And so what, why not take kids who excel in the classroom and on a field or court?

OP makes an assumption that recruited athletes are somehow lesser students.

Why assume URMs are lesser students?

They usually are. Elite schools have a hard time making their quota with URMs with high stats.

Same could be said for athletes. Evidence says athletes are admitted with lesser scores.

+1. But PPs are ok with athletes being admitted with lower scores because many sports are now dominated by white athletes because athletes are recruited from expensive club teams. When are you going to learn, PP. As long as you're white, it's ok to have lower scores because of course you bring something unique to the table. If you are a URM, your diversity or what you bring to the table is automatically subpar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It takes a ton of discipline and hard work to excel in athletics and academics. Why wouldn't a top school want someone like this rather than a student who only excelled in academics? As an employer, I would take the scholar/athlete over the scholar (with slightly higher stats) any day of the week because it's simply harder to be excellent at both than to be a little bit better at just academics.

Totally agree. Our 3 oldest children were admitted to top 10 D3 schools as recruited athletes. It's likely that our youngest will be too. Of the three oldest, I'd be willing to bet money that the two oldest would have gotten into their school without an athletic tip. #3 probably had a 50-50 chance without athletics. All 4 kids have benefited significantly from playing sports. They have excellent time management skills; even more important, they have the resilience necessary to succeed academically, professionally and personally. At my workplace I'm currently supervising four law student interns, 2 of whom were athletes in college (1 Ivy and 1 NESCAC). All are highly qualified students, but the athletes stand out for their attitude -- no whining.

Right, because students who excel at non Athletic activities have minuscule time management skills or resilience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It takes a ton of discipline and hard work to excel in athletics and academics. Why wouldn't a top school want someone like this rather than a student who only excelled in academics? As an employer, I would take the scholar/athlete over the scholar (with slightly higher stats) any day of the week because it's simply harder to be excellent at both than to be a little bit better at just academics.

This. The few elite athletes I know have been playing their sport since elementary school for many hours per week and to the exclusion of many other activities. Don't underestimate the drive it takes. That is something that should be considered in college admissions.

Every person who is elite at anything fits this mold. Do you think elite singers, musicians, debaters, etc just roll out of bed? Why do do value the end result (being good at a sport) more highly than anything else? What relationship does it bear to being a college student?