Ivy legacy and athlete

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people here complain that legacy kids and athletic recruits have unfair advantage in admissions. It's well known legacy kids have higher acceptance rates, but aren't they usually competitive applicants?
Why don't Ivy league schools just disclose the average grade and SAT scores of legacy and other applicants and show that legacy kids have higher (or equal) stats?

Here is an interesting article about Ivy athletic recruit from NY times from a while ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/sports/before-athletic-recruiting-in-the-ivy-league-some-math.html
Athletic recruits are not the only kids who spend significant hours for sports and other extracurricular activities. Kids with state or national level music or other extracurricular activities spend similar amount of time for these activities as athletes but they generally have much better stats. Is it that hard to recruit athletes with reasonable SAT (say, above 1400) and competitive athletic level? I understand that it might be tough for football or basketball, but for other sports, don't they have enough kids who meet both these academic and athletic threshold?
I also wonder if most Ivy league athletes already have competitive SAT (>1400) and grades (>3.7-3.8?), but people assume that athletes have lower stats based on some kids that they know. What would be the academic threshold for Ivy athletic recruits that people in general wound agree that it is reasonable?

I think many people underestimate the time that team sport athletes spend training. I was a runner in high school, so I could run as much as was useful for me to do (up to about 70 miles per week) in 90 minutes per day plus a long Saturday run. Also, outside of XC season, most of my runs were on my own at a time that worked for me. Meets were a time suck, but were pretty infrequent. I also swam, which was more time consuming with two a days and long meets, but still manageable.

My kid has academic stats similar to what you mention, and was a national level player of a team sport in high school. The schedule was brutal. The high school team had summer league, fall league and a winter season. Each of these school seasons included team practices and as many as 3 weekday games per week and weekend tournaments. Team practice was not nearly as efficient as my XC practices because it involved a fair amount of standing around while the other unit ran plays or standing in line waiting to go on full court drills. The schedule for varsity players n non-game days was lifting or homework from 3:30-6:00, practice from 6:00-8:00 and individual training after practice. Kids were frequently in the gym until 10:00 PM, and sometimes they'd schedule skills work with a trainer at 6:30 AM. Regular season away games involved team meal before, a bus ride, warmups, game, changing after, a bus ride back to school and then getting home. For an 8:00pm game, this would be 4:00-11:00pm. JV kids had earlier games so ended up missing their last couple of periods several times a week for months.

Spring was offseason training for school plus club season, with out of town tournaments every other weekend. Club season and summer league overlapped, so there were a lot of games. Also, kids were expected to lift weights and be in the gym developing skills on their own. Every kid that I knew would pretty much immediately fall asleep whenever they were not moving -- in the car on the way to/from club practice, bus on the way to/from games, between games at tournaments, in the bleachers before school practice, etc.

\\

meh - show me a top flight musician or kid who does research and they spend this much time on their activity (and probably do other stuff as well). This isn't some unusual time commitment.

Wow -- so your "kid who does research" does that research from 4:00-10:00 or 11:00 4-5 days a week and most weekends during the school year AND does other stuff as well? That's outstanding! Just curious -- which extra-curriculars are available between midnight an 6:30 AM?

Sigh. It doesn’t even occur to you that once you do the basic research in the lab that you need to work for hours afterwards analyzing the data? You’re really that dense? Your kid spent lots of time on his or her sport. Good for them. But it isn’t some unique commitment and it isn’t intrinsically better or harder than the commitments other kids make to other activities or combinations of activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. It doesn’t even occur to you that once you do the basic research in the lab that you need to work for hours afterwards analyzing the data? You’re really that dense? Your kid spent lots of time on his or her sport. Good for them. But it isn’t some unique commitment and it isn’t intrinsically better or harder than the commitments other kids make to other activities or combinations of activities.

Wow - so high school students are commonly spending 25-35 hours a week during the school year doing research? Really? If I were running a lab, I certainly wouldn't let high school interns spend that kind of time. The kids I know working at NIH or doing the Kirsten internships at the National Cancer Institute certainly aren't putting in close to those hours. Which lab exactly is allowing this to happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be reasonable SAT score for Ivy athletes that public/people are okay with and stop complaining about?
Did Harvard trial reveal grades and SAT scores of their athletic recruits? I suspect that the stats are pretty high, but maybe not.
Given recent varsity blue scandal, admissions dean and coaches will likely be scrutinized and looked at closely of their athlete recruitment processes and SAT/gpa of their recruits in court.

I don't know what would please some people. A score of 1450 is at the 95th percentile. That is a great score. Someone at the 95th percentile is beyond the minimum needed to do well at any Ivy.

At most ivy league schools, a 1450 is around 25-30th percentile

And? They will still do well in their classes and earn a degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. It doesn’t even occur to you that once you do the basic research in the lab that you need to work for hours afterwards analyzing the data? You’re really that dense? Your kid spent lots of time on his or her sport. Good for them. But it isn’t some unique commitment and it isn’t intrinsically better or harder than the commitments other kids make to other activities or combinations of activities.

Wow - so high school students are commonly spending 25-35 hours a week during the school year doing research? Really? If I were running a lab, I certainly wouldn't let high school interns spend that kind of time. The kids I know working at NIH or doing the Kirsten internships at the National Cancer Institute certainly aren't putting in close to those hours. Which lab exactly is allowing this to happen?

Maybe the same lab that seems to be running your kids team

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be reasonable SAT score for Ivy athletes that public/people are okay with and stop complaining about?
Did Harvard trial reveal grades and SAT scores of their athletic recruits? I suspect that the stats are pretty high, but maybe not.
Given recent varsity blue scandal, admissions dean and coaches will likely be scrutinized and looked at closely of their athlete recruitment processes and SAT/gpa of their recruits in court.

I don't know what would please some people. A score of 1450 is at the 95th percentile. That is a great score. Someone at the 95th percentile is beyond the minimum needed to do well at any Ivy.

At most ivy league schools, a 1450 is around 25-30th percentile

And? They will still do well in their classes and earn a degree.

So could all the kids with 1560 SAT scores that got rejected. Hey if it doesn’t matter to you, it doesn’t matter to you. Just pointing out the accurate barometer here. Athletes are simply less qualified academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. It doesn’t even occur to you that once you do the basic research in the lab that you need to work for hours afterwards analyzing the data? You’re really that dense? Your kid spent lots of time on his or her sport. Good for them. But it isn’t some unique commitment and it isn’t intrinsically better or harder than the commitments other kids make to other activities or combinations of activities.

Wow - so high school students are commonly spending 25-35 hours a week during the school year doing research? Really? If I were running a lab, I certainly wouldn't let high school interns spend that kind of time. The kids I know working at NIH or doing the Kirsten internships at the National Cancer Institute certainly aren't putting in close to those hours. Which lab exactly is allowing this to happen?

You just don’t get it. Kids routinely spend 25-35 hours a week in one extracurricular (from the lab standpoint if you go teo to three hours after school and then work in the weekend at home it’s 25 hours easily - especially if I include commuting and travel time as you do for sports) or a combination of them. What makes your kid’s commitment better and more valuable? I actually respect what your kid did, you’re the one who denigrates the work that other kids put in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be reasonable SAT score for Ivy athletes that public/people are okay with and stop complaining about?
Did Harvard trial reveal grades and SAT scores of their athletic recruits? I suspect that the stats are pretty high, but maybe not.
Given recent varsity blue scandal, admissions dean and coaches will likely be scrutinized and looked at closely of their athlete recruitment processes and SAT/gpa of their recruits in court.

I don't know what would please some people. A score of 1450 is at the 95th percentile. That is a great score. Someone at the 95th percentile is beyond the minimum needed to do well at any Ivy.

At most ivy league schools, a 1450 is around 25-30th percentile

And? They will still do well in their classes and earn a degree.

So could all the kids with 1560 SAT scores that got rejected. Hey if it doesn’t matter to you, it doesn’t matter to you. Just pointing out the accurate barometer here. Athletes are simply less qualified academically.

In general, yes, they are. But when you remove football and basketball (and sometimes hockey) from the equation, they're not as "less-qualified" as people think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be reasonable SAT score for Ivy athletes that public/people are okay with and stop complaining about?
Did Harvard trial reveal grades and SAT scores of their athletic recruits? I suspect that the stats are pretty high, but maybe not.
Given recent varsity blue scandal, admissions dean and coaches will likely be scrutinized and looked at closely of their athlete recruitment processes and SAT/gpa of their recruits in court.

I don't know what would please some people. A score of 1450 is at the 95th percentile. That is a great score. Someone at the 95th percentile is beyond the minimum needed to do well at any Ivy.

At most ivy league schools, a 1450 is around 25-30th percentile

And? They will still do well in their classes and earn a degree.

So could all the kids with 1560 SAT scores that got rejected. Hey if it doesn’t matter to you, it doesn’t matter to you. Just pointing out the accurate barometer here. Athletes are simply less qualified academically.

You are right, I don't care and I don't have an athletic kid. Your barometer doesn't matter because you and others who care about this do not run admissions at these schools. The school sets the barometer and doesn't see 1450 as less qualified because admissions doesn't evaluate applications that way, you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be reasonable SAT score for Ivy athletes that public/people are okay with and stop complaining about?
Did Harvard trial reveal grades and SAT scores of their athletic recruits? I suspect that the stats are pretty high, but maybe not.
Given recent varsity blue scandal, admissions dean and coaches will likely be scrutinized and looked at closely of their athlete recruitment processes and SAT/gpa of their recruits in court.

I don't know what would please some people. A score of 1450 is at the 95th percentile. That is a great score. Someone at the 95th percentile is beyond the minimum needed to do well at any Ivy.

At most ivy league schools, a 1450 is around 25-30th percentile

And? They will still do well in their classes and earn a degree.

So could all the kids with 1560 SAT scores that got rejected. Hey if it doesn’t matter to you, it doesn’t matter to you. Just pointing out the accurate barometer here. Athletes are simply less qualified academically.

You are right, I don't care and I don't have an athletic kid. Your barometer doesn't matter because you and others who care about this do not run admissions at these schools. The school sets the barometer and doesn't see 1450 as less qualified because admissions doesn't evaluate applications that way, you do.

1450 being the 25th percentile WAS set by the school. I didn’t set it there.

As for being less qualified, I think the schools think that as well because they take fewer applicants at that score and with respect to athletes they almost never take non-athletes with the same academic profile. Athletes might be minimally qualified but they are, on this standard, less qualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is almost no chance for an Ivy legacy with 4.0/1600 SATs to get rejected in early action/decision. On the other hand, they reject most of the valedictorians and half of the applicants with perfect scores. You can't say the legacy is undeserving, just that it is a lot easier for the legacy to be high achieving, regardless of whether the parents are megabucks Wall Streeters or middle-income academics.

Sorry. you're wrong - this happens a lot. Especially at HYP. I know someone who applied early this year to one of those schools with those stats and was deferred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you account for the advantages legacy admits have before they even apply?

If you don't believe, have your kid not mention where you and your spouse got undergrad degrees from. Just as an experiment. Come back and report your findings.

Nah! I know you don't have the balls.

If your kid isn't a legacy, guess what, it's your fault not anyone else's. You're the one who didn't get admitted.

How about you take some advantage you've gotten through your work, like your ability to fund your kid's SAT tutor or travel team, and voluntarily give that up and see how that works?

As I said, you have no balls. Then simply admit "legacy" is a leg up. Even to admit that you should have some balls, albeit of small size. The question is do you have any balls at all?

Legacy is a huge leg up, my kids will happily use it and, at my alma mater, have a 7x greater chance of being accepted.

Just as your kids will use whatever lesser advantages you can confer upon them.

Are you always this big of an asshole? NP here.

That's great your kid will have an advantage that they didn't earn. But, you being a braggart about it is ungracious and pretty gross. Then to disparage someone else because of it . . . . why don't you just crawl under a rock somewhere.

[Anonymous]

As usual, people are overemphasizing "stats." They are admitting people, not stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be reasonable SAT score for Ivy athletes that public/people are okay with and stop complaining about?
Did Harvard trial reveal grades and SAT scores of their athletic recruits? I suspect that the stats are pretty high, but maybe not.
Given recent varsity blue scandal, admissions dean and coaches will likely be scrutinized and looked at closely of their athlete recruitment processes and SAT/gpa of their recruits in court.

I don't know what would please some people. A score of 1450 is at the 95th percentile. That is a great score. Someone at the 95th percentile is beyond the minimum needed to do well at any Ivy.

At most ivy league schools, a 1450 is around 25-30th percentile

And? They will still do well in their classes and earn a degree.

So could all the kids with 1560 SAT scores that got rejected. Hey if it doesn’t matter to you, it doesn’t matter to you. Just pointing out the accurate barometer here. Athletes are simply less qualified academically.

You are right, I don't care and I don't have an athletic kid. Your barometer doesn't matter because you and others who care about this do not run admissions at these schools. The school sets the barometer and doesn't see 1450 as less qualified because admissions doesn't evaluate applications that way, you do.

1450 being the 25th percentile WAS set by the school. I didn’t set it there.

As for being less qualified, I think the schools think that as well because they take fewer applicants at that score and with respect to athletes they almost never take non-athletes with the same academic profile. Athletes might be minimally qualified but they are, on this standard, less qualified.

I have two friends that work in admissions at 1 Ivy and 1 top 20 school. I was told that there is a general consensus of what is the baseline for qualified and as you noted 1450 is in the 25th percentile, which probably represents the floor. Kids are not ranked by who is more or less qualified if they fall within the range of qualified applicants. This is why a 1560 SAT student can be rejected. Other factors, e.g., GPA, hooks, ECs, etc. determine if someone gets in. The 1560 can be in the same group as the 1450, both are in the "qualified" pool. Many people on this board want to argue that the 1560 is more academically qualified and should be admitted over the 1450. My point is that Ivy league admissions don't evaluate "qualified" and rank students in that way in determining admittance.

I just told my son that he is not getting into Stanford just because he scored 1550 on the SATs. It doesn't work that way. You have to have a hook (e.g., athlete, legacy) and/or do something extraordinary beyond being a highly qualified student (academics).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be reasonable SAT score for Ivy athletes that public/people are okay with and stop complaining about?
Did Harvard trial reveal grades and SAT scores of their athletic recruits? I suspect that the stats are pretty high, but maybe not.
Given recent varsity blue scandal, admissions dean and coaches will likely be scrutinized and looked at closely of their athlete recruitment processes and SAT/gpa of their recruits in court.

I don't know what would please some people. A score of 1450 is at the 95th percentile. That is a great score. Someone at the 95th percentile is beyond the minimum needed to do well at any Ivy.

At most ivy league schools, a 1450 is around 25-30th percentile

And? They will still do well in their classes and earn a degree.

So could all the kids with 1560 SAT scores that got rejected. Hey if it doesn’t matter to you, it doesn’t matter to you. Just pointing out the accurate barometer here. Athletes are simply less qualified academically.

You are right, I don't care and I don't have an athletic kid. Your barometer doesn't matter because you and others who care about this do not run admissions at these schools. The school sets the barometer and doesn't see 1450 as less qualified because admissions doesn't evaluate applications that way, you do.

1450 being the 25th percentile WAS set by the school. I didn’t set it there.

As for being less qualified, I think the schools think that as well because they take fewer applicants at that score and with respect to athletes they almost never take non-athletes with the same academic profile. Athletes might be minimally qualified but they are, on this standard, less qualified.

I have two friends that work in admissions at 1 Ivy and 1 top 20 school. I was told that there is a general consensus of what is the baseline for qualified and as you noted 1450 is in the 25th percentile, which probably represents the floor. Kids are not ranked by who is more or less qualified if they fall within the range of qualified applicants. This is why a 1560 SAT student can be rejected. Other factors, e.g., GPA, hooks, ECs, etc. determine if someone gets in. The 1560 can be in the same group as the 1450, both are in the "qualified" pool. Many people on this board want to argue that the 1560 is more academically qualified and should be admitted over the 1450. My point is that Ivy league admissions don't evaluate "qualified" and rank students in that way in determining admittance.

I just told my son that he is not getting into Stanford just because he scored 1550 on the SATs. It doesn't work that way. You have to have a hook (e.g., athlete, legacy) and/or do something extraordinary beyond being a highly qualified student (academics).

Fair enough, SAT/ACT scores are not an independent data point, however, Harvard literally ranks all applicants on a 1-5 scale on academics. It's not a binary yes/no question. On that overall academic ranking, athletes rank lower and athletes with significantly lower academic rankings are admitted at a rate many, many times higher than non-athletes. So, I don't know how you can argue that they are not on the academic side, less qualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you account for the advantages legacy admits have before they even apply?

If you don't believe, have your kid not mention where you and your spouse got undergrad degrees from. Just as an experiment. Come back and report your findings.

Nah! I know you don't have the balls.

If your kid isn't a legacy, guess what, it's your fault not anyone else's. You're the one who didn't get admitted.

How about you take some advantage you've gotten through your work, like your ability to fund your kid's SAT tutor or travel team, and voluntarily give that up and see how that works?

As I said, you have no balls. Then simply admit "legacy" is a leg up. Even to admit that you should have some balls, albeit of small size. The question is do you have any balls at all?

Legacy is a huge leg up, my kids will happily use it and, at my alma mater, have a 7x greater chance of being accepted.

Just as your kids will use whatever lesser advantages you can confer upon them.

Are you always this big of an asshole? NP here.

That's great your kid will have an advantage that they didn't earn. But, you being a braggart about it is ungracious and pretty gross. Then to disparage someone else because of it . . . . why don't you just crawl under a rock somewhere.

If the PP wants to disparage me and my kids for using it - I'm going to say exactly what legacy means. Take your sanctimonious preaching somewhere else.

Every kid has an advantage they didn't earn - how much money their parents make and how that money is used to advance and support the things they do (tutors, sports, etc.). I don't see anyone else being asked to move to a shack in middle of Appalachia just to prove that their kids can make it unaided.