Yale athletes discuss their SAT/ACT scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, if people really want major college sports to operate like the way college club sports work, where you select a student body sports blind and the students self-organize into teams, you could have student bodies that seem to match the major sports teams in terms of admissions.

Since that is not what America wants, it is not what America gets.

So PLEASE think of D1 stadium sports alumni the same way some people think of affirmative action admits, except worse. They didn't earn the degree. They gave the kids bread and circuses and were supported far enough to not fail out. Their degrees should have asterisks and all that.

Why do you care? Elite US colleges are educating young people to be leaders in society in many different areas. They are looking for students who are outstanding in numerous areas, not only pure academics.

Test scores and GPAs don’t necessarily show how “meritorious” an applicant is. Leadership qualities, in particular, are not measured by test scores.

Again, I am puzzled as to why so many people appear to be confused about this.

This doesn't explain why athletes in NCAA sports are given preference over those in non-NCAA sports. The former are an institutional priority, while the latter is not.

Yes, and that is fine. The school has their reasons for wanting to create a class community of a particular composition, and that is their right.

I don’t understand why people have a problem with this.

I don't have a problem with it, I have a problem with people making up false rationalizations for why, such as "leadership".

It’s odd that you think that “leadership” is some sort of rationalization. It is not at all uncommon for athletes, particularly those involved in team sports, to be good leaders- they tend to go on and use those leadership qualities as adults in their jobs and also in giving back to their communities as volunteers. (And, sure, non-athletes can also be leaders, but we’re talking about athletes here. Team sports really bring out and enhance natural leadership qualities.)

Athletes are an addition to the mix of types of students at a school. No one would want a class to consist entirely of musicians or theatre kids or math whizzes or history buffs or . . . athletes. Schools want kids with a mix of interests and talents. And that’s who the admissions people work on bringing together.

Can you please explain why someone with an excellent 10k time but mediocre marathon time is so much of a better leader than someone with a mediocre 10k time and excellent marathon time that the former deserves a special admissions advantage that the latter does not get? Why are those who wrestle such better leaders than those who practice Jih Jitsu or Judo that the former deserve a special admissions advantage the latter do not get, above and beyond what the AOs would normally give them for such an activity?

If it was really about leadership, there would be no need for privileging some sports over others, and AOs could instead holistically view all sports based on the perceived leadership value they provide without needing to be biased in favor of some sports over others.

Also, the leadership argument falls apart when you consider non-recruited athletes. My DD was captain of two teams in HS though not a recruited athlete. Does that mean she has less leadership skills?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTjMrRUM2/

What do yall think?

My son was invited to Yale for an official visit with the rowing team last fall. His 2k time was just shy of recruitable and he was captain/MVP, BUT they wanted them because of his academics. He had a 1560 SAT, 4.0, 4.6 weighted with 14 APs (8 fives on the tests he had taken at the time) and was a merit scholar. The dirty secret is that the teams have an academic index (AI) and they have to maintain it. So what happens is they can let in kids with lower stats, but they have to be balanced by academic athletes. This was the case for my son, but after the visit realized that he had no interest in rowing at the D1 level (20 hour a week+ commitment and he was honestly worried about prioritizing it over academics).

Yes - they are balancing kids who have SAT's in the 1000 level. I know a few.

The recent ivy athletes from our private have 1180, 1220, 1280. Their majors are interesting to say the least. No physics or engineers among them that is for sure. They are there for the athletic skill and get balanced by not-quite-top but good enough 1480-1500 white rich boarding school kids.

You must have some serious grade inflation at your high school because those kids aren't really recruitable at most Ivy's anymore unless they are potential gold medalists.

And, how would you know their SAT scores? Calling bull on this one unless it was during Covid TO.

[Anonymous]

a lot of TO kids are in college now

if you have a kid applying now, the rules are back to before. unless you're in a big revenue generating sport, be ready to have the same stats as everyone else. what sets you apart from everyone else is the sport. that's why these kids got in, sure. but their stats are solid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there is the unicorn who is the kid with the top grades and scores who is also a star athlete.

Yep.

I have one of those and the results are what one might expect.

Not sure what "one might expect," but I guess it would be somewhat sport-dependent. I "might" expect Duke, Stanford, Michigan, or Notre Dame, though they don't have to have the very best academics/scores if they're a better athlete.

Most of the schools that you mentioned don't require top grades, only decent grades. My daughter has former teammates at two of them.

For context my kid is extremely good (started for a team that was ranked in the top 10 in the country) but for peak athletics she would be a role player on your typical P4 team. She did very well academically 1560, 4.6, 12AP, etc. so no issues with academics as a bar.

The combination generated minor interest from a couple of the schools above (preferred walk on maybe but no money), solid interest from some Ivies, and a great deal of interest from Patriot League, UAA, and NESCAC schools which I believe is what one would expect for kids of this profile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, if people really want major college sports to operate like the way college club sports work, where you select a student body sports blind and the students self-organize into teams, you could have student bodies that seem to match the major sports teams in terms of admissions.

Since that is not what America wants, it is not what America gets.

So PLEASE think of D1 stadium sports alumni the same way some people think of affirmative action admits, except worse. They didn't earn the degree. They gave the kids bread and circuses and were supported far enough to not fail out. Their degrees should have asterisks and all that.

Why do you care? Elite US colleges are educating young people to be leaders in society in many different areas. They are looking for students who are outstanding in numerous areas, not only pure academics.

Test scores and GPAs don’t necessarily show how “meritorious” an applicant is. Leadership qualities, in particular, are not measured by test scores.

Again, I am puzzled as to why so many people appear to be confused about this.

This doesn't explain why athletes in NCAA sports are given preference over those in non-NCAA sports. The former are an institutional priority, while the latter is not.

Yes, and that is fine. The school has their reasons for wanting to create a class community of a particular composition, and that is their right.

I don’t understand why people have a problem with this.

I don't have a problem with it, I have a problem with people making up false rationalizations for why, such as "leadership".

It’s odd that you think that “leadership” is some sort of rationalization. It is not at all uncommon for athletes, particularly those involved in team sports, to be good leaders- they tend to go on and use those leadership qualities as adults in their jobs and also in giving back to their communities as volunteers. (And, sure, non-athletes can also be leaders, but we’re talking about athletes here. Team sports really bring out and enhance natural leadership qualities.)

Athletes are an addition to the mix of types of students at a school. No one would want a class to consist entirely of musicians or theatre kids or math whizzes or history buffs or . . . athletes. Schools want kids with a mix of interests and talents. And that’s who the admissions people work on bringing together.

Can you please explain why someone with an excellent 10k time but mediocre marathon time is so much of a better leader than someone with a mediocre 10k time and excellent marathon time that the former deserves a special admissions advantage that the latter does not get? Why are those who wrestle such better leaders than those who practice Jih Jitsu or Judo that the former deserve a special admissions advantage the latter do not get, above and beyond what the AOs would normally give them for such an activity?

If it was really about leadership, there would be no need for privileging some sports over others, and AOs could instead holistically view all sports based on the perceived leadership value they provide without needing to be biased in favor of some sports over others.

Also, the leadership argument falls apart when you consider non-recruited athletes. My DD was captain of two teams in HS though not a recruited athlete. Does that mean she has less leadership skills?

Quit whining. Sports are important even to Ivy League colleges. Clearly, athletic recruitment is more about the specific value a recruited athlete brings to the sports program than their general leadership abilities. The stated reasons for some policies often don't capture the full picture of what's actually driving those policies. Maybe people should be happy that Ivies don't give sports scholarships, saving that money for other financial aid. I'm sure Cornell isn't upset about giving an admissions bump to a few men's lacrosse players to win the NCAA championship against Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can always pick out the recruited athletes in the med school class. They take shortcuts and fail their OSCE first year. Somehow, they expect special treatment.

Calling bull on this one.

If that was the case college athletics wouldn't be the great advantage for Med school admissions that it is.