A reality check on "strong extracurriculars"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s not a disadvantage at all and these are kids from the last couple of cycles. Their videos reading their files are all
over YouTube. They have the lowest athletic rating, and they all say it didn’t count towards their final rating.

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

This is absolutely wrong. In Harvard's own words:

Non-academic skills are scarce:

Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating”

Non-academic skills explain admissions decisions better than academic skills:

“Another way to see the importance of non-academic dimensions relative to academic dimensions of excellence is to examine how important each element is in explaining which applicants are admitted…. In Prof. Arcidiacono’s expanded sample, the Pseudo RSquared of a model that includes only the academic rating as a control variable is 0.09, while the Pseudo R-Squared of models that include each of the three non-academic ratings as the sole control variables are 0.20 (personal), 0.09 (extracurricular), and 0.08 (athletic), and the Pseudo R-Squared for a model that includes all three non-academic ratings as control variables is 0.32."

The athletic rating explains virtually as much admissions variation as the extracurricular rating does.

Being multi-dimensional is important:

“Exhibit 6 shows that only 12% of admitted students are “one-dimensional stars” with a rating of 1 on one dimension but fewer than three ratings of 2 or better, while 46% are multi-dimensional applicants with three or four ratings of 2 or better, and 31% have two ratings of 2 and two ratings of 3. These statistics are yet another way to show the value that Harvard places on applicants who distinguish themselves on multiple dimensions.”

And the clincher:

Athletic rating is important:

“Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%. That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, [for domestic applicants], and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2. Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%. This contrast provides further evidence of the incremental importance of an athletic rating of 2”

This comes straight from Harvard. Now explain to us exactly why Harvard is wrong.

This seems to put this issue to rest. Believe what you want but this is the reality.

Sports is not just another extra curricular. It’s something that takes a lot of time and effort but can really buttress academic credentials, at least at Harvard.

Again…the way a 2 was described for Harvard was a kid who wasn’t being given an official sports slot (I.e, a 1) but had the potential to walk on the team.

Hence…a 2 is still a recruited athlete…that person had discussions with the coach, the coach like them enough to give them a little nod to the AOs, etc.

It’s not a random kid applying who the coach doesn’t know. No AO is just looking at an EC on an application and deciding that kid can be a walk on…that’s basically impossible.

Not true. Good enough to potentially be a walk on but not necessarily a walk on is the criteria. It is about the level of excellence.

There is zero way to determine that someone is potentially a walk on unless the coach has seen them play and knows who they are and then makes a note to the AO when they apply (and also knows they are applying because they are in contact). Even great teams have players who are also captains who have no ability to walk on a D1 team. Look...it means they have a 12% chance of acceptance (from prior data) vs. 5%...which is much less than 100% for the recruited athletes who receive a 1.

I don't think you know what it means if someone even has "walk-on" status. They aren't random applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s not a disadvantage at all and these are kids from the last couple of cycles. Their videos reading their files are all
over YouTube. They have the lowest athletic rating, and they all say it didn’t count towards their final rating.

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

This is absolutely wrong. In Harvard's own words:

Non-academic skills are scarce:

Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating”

Non-academic skills explain admissions decisions better than academic skills:

“Another way to see the importance of non-academic dimensions relative to academic dimensions of excellence is to examine how important each element is in explaining which applicants are admitted…. In Prof. Arcidiacono’s expanded sample, the Pseudo RSquared of a model that includes only the academic rating as a control variable is 0.09, while the Pseudo R-Squared of models that include each of the three non-academic ratings as the sole control variables are 0.20 (personal), 0.09 (extracurricular), and 0.08 (athletic), and the Pseudo R-Squared for a model that includes all three non-academic ratings as control variables is 0.32."

The athletic rating explains virtually as much admissions variation as the extracurricular rating does.

Being multi-dimensional is important:

“Exhibit 6 shows that only 12% of admitted students are “one-dimensional stars” with a rating of 1 on one dimension but fewer than three ratings of 2 or better, while 46% are multi-dimensional applicants with three or four ratings of 2 or better, and 31% have two ratings of 2 and two ratings of 3. These statistics are yet another way to show the value that Harvard places on applicants who distinguish themselves on multiple dimensions.”

And the clincher:

Athletic rating is important:

“Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%. That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, [for domestic applicants], and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2. Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%. This contrast provides further evidence of the incremental importance of an athletic rating of 2”

This comes straight from Harvard. Now explain to us exactly why Harvard is wrong.

This seems to put this issue to rest. Believe what you want but this is the reality.

Sports is not just another extra curricular. It’s something that takes a lot of time and effort but can really buttress academic credentials, at least at Harvard.

Again…the way a 2 was described for Harvard was a kid who wasn’t being given an official sports slot (I.e, a 1) but had the potential to walk on the team.

Hence…a 2 is still a recruited athlete…that person had discussions with the coach, the coach like them enough to give them a little nod to the AOs, etc.

It’s not a random kid applying who the coach doesn’t know. No AO is just looking at an EC on an application and deciding that kid can be a walk on…that’s basically impossible.

Not true. Good enough to potentially be a walk on but not necessarily a walk on is the criteria. It is about the level of excellence.

There is zero way to determine that someone is potentially a walk on unless the coach has seen them play and knows who they are and then makes a note to the AO when they apply (and also knows they are applying because they are in contact). Even great teams have players who are also captains who have no ability to walk on a D1 team. Look...it means they have a 12% chance of acceptance (from prior data) vs. 5%...which is much less than 100% for the recruited athletes who receive a 1.

I don't think you know what it means if someone even has "walk-on" status. They aren't random applicants.

I have a recruited kid who had Ivy interest. Someone posted earlier on the criteria. It’s not hard to understand but you be you. You do not like the idea of athletic ability carrying as much weight in the process as it does so no amount of information is going to get you to budge from what you desperately wish to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s not a disadvantage at all and these are kids from the last couple of cycles. Their videos reading their files are all
over YouTube. They have the lowest athletic rating, and they all say it didn’t count towards their final rating.

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

This is absolutely wrong. In Harvard's own words:

Non-academic skills are scarce:

Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating”

Non-academic skills explain admissions decisions better than academic skills:

“Another way to see the importance of non-academic dimensions relative to academic dimensions of excellence is to examine how important each element is in explaining which applicants are admitted…. In Prof. Arcidiacono’s expanded sample, the Pseudo RSquared of a model that includes only the academic rating as a control variable is 0.09, while the Pseudo R-Squared of models that include each of the three non-academic ratings as the sole control variables are 0.20 (personal), 0.09 (extracurricular), and 0.08 (athletic), and the Pseudo R-Squared for a model that includes all three non-academic ratings as control variables is 0.32."

The athletic rating explains virtually as much admissions variation as the extracurricular rating does.

Being multi-dimensional is important:

“Exhibit 6 shows that only 12% of admitted students are “one-dimensional stars” with a rating of 1 on one dimension but fewer than three ratings of 2 or better, while 46% are multi-dimensional applicants with three or four ratings of 2 or better, and 31% have two ratings of 2 and two ratings of 3. These statistics are yet another way to show the value that Harvard places on applicants who distinguish themselves on multiple dimensions.”

And the clincher:

Athletic rating is important:

“Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%. That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, [for domestic applicants], and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2. Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%. This contrast provides further evidence of the incremental importance of an athletic rating of 2”

This comes straight from Harvard. Now explain to us exactly why Harvard is wrong.

This seems to put this issue to rest. Believe what you want but this is the reality.

Sports is not just another extra curricular. It’s something that takes a lot of time and effort but can really buttress academic credentials, at least at Harvard.

Again…the way a 2 was described for Harvard was a kid who wasn’t being given an official sports slot (I.e, a 1) but had the potential to walk on the team.

Hence…a 2 is still a recruited athlete…that person had discussions with the coach, the coach like them enough to give them a little nod to the AOs, etc.

It’s not a random kid applying who the coach doesn’t know. No AO is just looking at an EC on an application and deciding that kid can be a walk on…that’s basically impossible.

Not true. Good enough to potentially be a walk on but not necessarily a walk on is the criteria. It is about the level of excellence.

There is zero way to determine that someone is potentially a walk on unless the coach has seen them play and knows who they are and then makes a note to the AO when they apply (and also knows they are applying because they are in contact). Even great teams have players who are also captains who have no ability to walk on a D1 team. Look...it means they have a 12% chance of acceptance (from prior data) vs. 5%...which is much less than 100% for the recruited athletes who receive a 1.

I don't think you know what it means if someone even has "walk-on" status. They aren't random applicants.

I have a recruited kid who had Ivy interest. Someone posted earlier on the criteria. It’s not hard to understand but you be you. You do not like the idea of athletic ability carrying as much weight in the process as it does so no amount of information is going to get you to budge from what you desperately wish to be true.

We are saying the same thing. Your kid was recruited with Ivy interest...they weren't a random applicant who just listed a sports EC and received a 2.

Not sure why you are arguing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s not a disadvantage at all and these are kids from the last couple of cycles. Their videos reading their files are all
over YouTube. They have the lowest athletic rating, and they all say it didn’t count towards their final rating.

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

This is absolutely wrong. In Harvard's own words:

Non-academic skills are scarce:

Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating”

Non-academic skills explain admissions decisions better than academic skills:

“Another way to see the importance of non-academic dimensions relative to academic dimensions of excellence is to examine how important each element is in explaining which applicants are admitted…. In Prof. Arcidiacono’s expanded sample, the Pseudo RSquared of a model that includes only the academic rating as a control variable is 0.09, while the Pseudo R-Squared of models that include each of the three non-academic ratings as the sole control variables are 0.20 (personal), 0.09 (extracurricular), and 0.08 (athletic), and the Pseudo R-Squared for a model that includes all three non-academic ratings as control variables is 0.32."

The athletic rating explains virtually as much admissions variation as the extracurricular rating does.

Being multi-dimensional is important:

“Exhibit 6 shows that only 12% of admitted students are “one-dimensional stars” with a rating of 1 on one dimension but fewer than three ratings of 2 or better, while 46% are multi-dimensional applicants with three or four ratings of 2 or better, and 31% have two ratings of 2 and two ratings of 3. These statistics are yet another way to show the value that Harvard places on applicants who distinguish themselves on multiple dimensions.”

And the clincher:

Athletic rating is important:

“Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%. That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, [for domestic applicants], and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2. Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%. This contrast provides further evidence of the incremental importance of an athletic rating of 2”

This comes straight from Harvard. Now explain to us exactly why Harvard is wrong.

This seems to put this issue to rest. Believe what you want but this is the reality.

Sports is not just another extra curricular. It’s something that takes a lot of time and effort but can really buttress academic credentials, at least at Harvard.

Again…the way a 2 was described for Harvard was a kid who wasn’t being given an official sports slot (I.e, a 1) but had the potential to walk on the team.

Hence…a 2 is still a recruited athlete…that person had discussions with the coach, the coach like them enough to give them a little nod to the AOs, etc.

It’s not a random kid applying who the coach doesn’t know. No AO is just looking at an EC on an application and deciding that kid can be a walk on…that’s basically impossible.

Not true. Good enough to potentially be a walk on but not necessarily a walk on is the criteria. It is about the level of excellence.

There is zero way to determine that someone is potentially a walk on unless the coach has seen them play and knows who they are and then makes a note to the AO when they apply (and also knows they are applying because they are in contact). Even great teams have players who are also captains who have no ability to walk on a D1 team. Look...it means they have a 12% chance of acceptance (from prior data) vs. 5%...which is much less than 100% for the recruited athletes who receive a 1.

I don't think you know what it means if someone even has "walk-on" status. They aren't random applicants.

I have a recruited kid who had Ivy interest. Someone posted earlier on the criteria. It’s not hard to understand but you be you. You do not like the idea of athletic ability carrying as much weight in the process as it does so no amount of information is going to get you to budge from what you desperately wish to be true.

We are saying the same thing. Your kid was recruited with Ivy interest...they weren't a random applicant who just listed a sports EC and received a 2.

Not sure why you are arguing.

Because Harvards own words tell you that you are wrong; you just don’t want to accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s not a disadvantage at all and these are kids from the last couple of cycles. Their videos reading their files are all
over YouTube. They have the lowest athletic rating, and they all say it didn’t count towards their final rating.

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

This is absolutely wrong. In Harvard's own words:

Non-academic skills are scarce:

Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating”

Non-academic skills explain admissions decisions better than academic skills:

“Another way to see the importance of non-academic dimensions relative to academic dimensions of excellence is to examine how important each element is in explaining which applicants are admitted…. In Prof. Arcidiacono’s expanded sample, the Pseudo RSquared of a model that includes only the academic rating as a control variable is 0.09, while the Pseudo R-Squared of models that include each of the three non-academic ratings as the sole control variables are 0.20 (personal), 0.09 (extracurricular), and 0.08 (athletic), and the Pseudo R-Squared for a model that includes all three non-academic ratings as control variables is 0.32."

The athletic rating explains virtually as much admissions variation as the extracurricular rating does.

Being multi-dimensional is important:

“Exhibit 6 shows that only 12% of admitted students are “one-dimensional stars” with a rating of 1 on one dimension but fewer than three ratings of 2 or better, while 46% are multi-dimensional applicants with three or four ratings of 2 or better, and 31% have two ratings of 2 and two ratings of 3. These statistics are yet another way to show the value that Harvard places on applicants who distinguish themselves on multiple dimensions.”

And the clincher:

Athletic rating is important:

“Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%. That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, [for domestic applicants], and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2. Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%. This contrast provides further evidence of the incremental importance of an athletic rating of 2”

This comes straight from Harvard. Now explain to us exactly why Harvard is wrong.

This seems to put this issue to rest. Believe what you want but this is the reality.

Sports is not just another extra curricular. It’s something that takes a lot of time and effort but can really buttress academic credentials, at least at Harvard.

Again…the way a 2 was described for Harvard was a kid who wasn’t being given an official sports slot (I.e, a 1) but had the potential to walk on the team.

Hence…a 2 is still a recruited athlete…that person had discussions with the coach, the coach like them enough to give them a little nod to the AOs, etc.

It’s not a random kid applying who the coach doesn’t know. No AO is just looking at an EC on an application and deciding that kid can be a walk on…that’s basically impossible.

Not true. Good enough to potentially be a walk on but not necessarily a walk on is the criteria. It is about the level of excellence.

There is zero way to determine that someone is potentially a walk on unless the coach has seen them play and knows who they are and then makes a note to the AO when they apply (and also knows they are applying because they are in contact). Even great teams have players who are also captains who have no ability to walk on a D1 team. Look...it means they have a 12% chance of acceptance (from prior data) vs. 5%...which is much less than 100% for the recruited athletes who receive a 1.

I don't think you know what it means if someone even has "walk-on" status. They aren't random applicants.

I have a recruited kid who had Ivy interest. Someone posted earlier on the criteria. It’s not hard to understand but you be you. You do not like the idea of athletic ability carrying as much weight in the process as it does so no amount of information is going to get you to budge from what you desperately wish to be true.

We are saying the same thing. Your kid was recruited with Ivy interest...they weren't a random applicant who just listed a sports EC and received a 2.

Not sure why you are arguing.

Because Harvards own words tell you that you are wrong; you just don’t want to accept it.

Here are Harvard's own words...no way to assign a 2 below unless the kid is known to the coach. The athlete is not recruited because they aren't a 1...but they are not a random applicant. Again, how would an AO know a player was a standout player? How would an AO know they are strong enough to be a walk on?

Key Aspects of an Athletic Rating 2:

Athletic Level: Strong, high-level high school athlete, often a team captain or standout player, but not quite at the "1" level (which is reserved for top-tier recruits).

Distinction: Regional or state-level recognition is typical.

Ability to Contribute: They are likely to be strong enough to walk on to a Harvard team and make a contribution.

Comparison to "1": While a 1 indicates national-level achievement and guaranteed or near-guaranteed recruiting status, a 2 is for top applicants who are not necessarily recruited by coaches.

[Anonymous]

20 pages of babble for a copium babble OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s not a disadvantage at all and these are kids from the last couple of cycles. Their videos reading their files are all
over YouTube. They have the lowest athletic rating, and they all say it didn’t count towards their final rating.

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

This is absolutely wrong. In Harvard's own words:

Non-academic skills are scarce:

Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating”

Non-academic skills explain admissions decisions better than academic skills:

“Another way to see the importance of non-academic dimensions relative to academic dimensions of excellence is to examine how important each element is in explaining which applicants are admitted…. In Prof. Arcidiacono’s expanded sample, the Pseudo RSquared of a model that includes only the academic rating as a control variable is 0.09, while the Pseudo R-Squared of models that include each of the three non-academic ratings as the sole control variables are 0.20 (personal), 0.09 (extracurricular), and 0.08 (athletic), and the Pseudo R-Squared for a model that includes all three non-academic ratings as control variables is 0.32."

The athletic rating explains virtually as much admissions variation as the extracurricular rating does.

Being multi-dimensional is important:

“Exhibit 6 shows that only 12% of admitted students are “one-dimensional stars” with a rating of 1 on one dimension but fewer than three ratings of 2 or better, while 46% are multi-dimensional applicants with three or four ratings of 2 or better, and 31% have two ratings of 2 and two ratings of 3. These statistics are yet another way to show the value that Harvard places on applicants who distinguish themselves on multiple dimensions.”

And the clincher:

Athletic rating is important:

“Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%. That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, [for domestic applicants], and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2. Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%. This contrast provides further evidence of the incremental importance of an athletic rating of 2”

This comes straight from Harvard. Now explain to us exactly why Harvard is wrong.

This seems to put this issue to rest. Believe what you want but this is the reality.

Sports is not just another extra curricular. It’s something that takes a lot of time and effort but can really buttress academic credentials, at least at Harvard.

Again…the way a 2 was described for Harvard was a kid who wasn’t being given an official sports slot (I.e, a 1) but had the potential to walk on the team.

Hence…a 2 is still a recruited athlete…that person had discussions with the coach, the coach like them enough to give them a little nod to the AOs, etc.

It’s not a random kid applying who the coach doesn’t know. No AO is just looking at an EC on an application and deciding that kid can be a walk on…that’s basically impossible.

Not true. Good enough to potentially be a walk on but not necessarily a walk on is the criteria. It is about the level of excellence.

There is zero way to determine that someone is potentially a walk on unless the coach has seen them play and knows who they are and then makes a note to the AO when they apply (and also knows they are applying because they are in contact). Even great teams have players who are also captains who have no ability to walk on a D1 team. Look...it means they have a 12% chance of acceptance (from prior data) vs. 5%...which is much less than 100% for the recruited athletes who receive a 1.

I don't think you know what it means if someone even has "walk-on" status. They aren't random applicants.

Agreed. I recently was an assistant coach at a DI school. I hate to say it but the head coaches would often give the "walk-on" talk to a good kid who had talent but who was likely never going to make the team later on. Or they might if one of our recruits became injured prior to pre-season. So like an insurance policy for the roster.

I know these are our kids but on the college level it is a business. Only the recruited athletes get our genuine attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s not a disadvantage at all and these are kids from the last couple of cycles. Their videos reading their files are all
over YouTube. They have the lowest athletic rating, and they all say it didn’t count towards their final rating.

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

This is absolutely wrong. In Harvard's own words:

Non-academic skills are scarce:

Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating”

Non-academic skills explain admissions decisions better than academic skills:

“Another way to see the importance of non-academic dimensions relative to academic dimensions of excellence is to examine how important each element is in explaining which applicants are admitted…. In Prof. Arcidiacono’s expanded sample, the Pseudo RSquared of a model that includes only the academic rating as a control variable is 0.09, while the Pseudo R-Squared of models that include each of the three non-academic ratings as the sole control variables are 0.20 (personal), 0.09 (extracurricular), and 0.08 (athletic), and the Pseudo R-Squared for a model that includes all three non-academic ratings as control variables is 0.32."

The athletic rating explains virtually as much admissions variation as the extracurricular rating does.

Being multi-dimensional is important:

“Exhibit 6 shows that only 12% of admitted students are “one-dimensional stars” with a rating of 1 on one dimension but fewer than three ratings of 2 or better, while 46% are multi-dimensional applicants with three or four ratings of 2 or better, and 31% have two ratings of 2 and two ratings of 3. These statistics are yet another way to show the value that Harvard places on applicants who distinguish themselves on multiple dimensions.”

And the clincher:

Athletic rating is important:

“Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%. That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, [for domestic applicants], and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2. Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%. This contrast provides further evidence of the incremental importance of an athletic rating of 2”

This comes straight from Harvard. Now explain to us exactly why Harvard is wrong.

This seems to put this issue to rest. Believe what you want but this is the reality.

Sports is not just another extra curricular. It’s something that takes a lot of time and effort but can really buttress academic credentials, at least at Harvard.

Again…the way a 2 was described for Harvard was a kid who wasn’t being given an official sports slot (I.e, a 1) but had the potential to walk on the team.

Hence…a 2 is still a recruited athlete…that person had discussions with the coach, the coach like them enough to give them a little nod to the AOs, etc.

It’s not a random kid applying who the coach doesn’t know. No AO is just looking at an EC on an application and deciding that kid can be a walk on…that’s basically impossible.

Not true. Good enough to potentially be a walk on but not necessarily a walk on is the criteria. It is about the level of excellence.

There is zero way to determine that someone is potentially a walk on unless the coach has seen them play and knows who they are and then makes a note to the AO when they apply (and also knows they are applying because they are in contact). Even great teams have players who are also captains who have no ability to walk on a D1 team. Look...it means they have a 12% chance of acceptance (from prior data) vs. 5%...which is much less than 100% for the recruited athletes who receive a 1.

I don't think you know what it means if someone even has "walk-on" status. They aren't random applicants.

I have a recruited kid who had Ivy interest. Someone posted earlier on the criteria. It’s not hard to understand but you be you. You do not like the idea of athletic ability carrying as much weight in the process as it does so no amount of information is going to get you to budge from what you desperately wish to be true.

We are saying the same thing. Your kid was recruited with Ivy interest...they weren't a random applicant who just listed a sports EC and received a 2.

Not sure why you are arguing.

Because Harvards own words tell you that you are wrong; you just don’t want to accept it.

Here are Harvard's own words...no way to assign a 2 below unless the kid is known to the coach. The athlete is not recruited because they aren't a 1...but they are not a random applicant. Again, how would an AO know a player was a standout player? How would an AO know they are strong enough to be a walk on?

Key Aspects of an Athletic Rating 2:

Athletic Level: Strong, high-level high school athlete, often a team captain or standout player, but not quite at the "1" level (which is reserved for top-tier recruits).

Distinction: Regional or state-level recognition is typical.

Ability to Contribute: They are likely to be strong enough to walk on to a Harvard team and make a contribution.

Comparison to "1": While a 1 indicates national-level achievement and guaranteed or near-guaranteed recruiting status, a 2 is for top applicants who are not necessarily recruited by coaches.

If an applicant is at this level athletically and doesn’t bring it out in their application they have written a very poor application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Strong ECs means:
1. school president
2. first chair in audition orchestra/band
3. elite-level athlete
4. multi-year (3+) community service commitment at the same organization
5. multiple awards won at top tournaments/conferences: speech and debater/Model UNer
6. steady job of any kind (McDonald's and the like=bonus)

Strong ECs does NOT mean:
1. president of many clubs
2. started a non-profit
3. did research with a professor
4. participated in any or all of the "strong ECs" above but not with demonstrated commitment (i.e. many years) and/or significant recognition (i.e. varsity athlete but not top individual stats, on student council but not president)

This list is not comprehensive but there is a great deal of misinformation here about what "strong ECs" means.

God, your poor child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Strong ECs means:
1. school president
2. first chair in audition orchestra/band
3. elite-level athlete
4. multi-year (3+) community service commitment at the same organization
5. multiple awards won at top tournaments/conferences: speech and debater/Model UNer
6. steady job of any kind (McDonald's and the like=bonus)

Strong ECs does NOT mean:
1. president of many clubs
2. started a non-profit
3. did research with a professor
4. participated in any or all of the "strong ECs" above but not with demonstrated commitment (i.e. many years) and/or significant recognition (i.e. varsity athlete but not top individual stats, on student council but not president)

This list is not comprehensive but there is a great deal of misinformation here about what "strong ECs" means.

The bolded one tops them all.