Big 3 (or thereabouts) College Results - Class of 2021

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

So if it’s a difference if a very talented athlete with a 1470 SAT and 3.9 GPA(with difficult coursework in HS), vs yet another non athlete 4.3 and 1565 SAT applicant, they want some variety of skills and personality. Doesn’t mean the athlete isn’t very bright and highly able. If you are talking a 1250 SAT and 3.1 GPA student athlete taking a spot at Harvard because of athletic ability that would be different and not fair IMO.

That’s the questions, isn’t it? We just don’t know. But this gives some insight. https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

“ The advantages for athletes are especially large, with an average admit rate for recruited athletes of 86%. This high admit rate occurs despite admitted athletes often being worse on Harvard’s ratings than the applicant pool itself. Overall, our results show that only one quarter of white ALDC admits would have been admitted if they had been treated as a typical applicant.”

[Anonymous]

Don’t ya just hate it when there is actual data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

So if it’s a difference if a very talented athlete with a 1470 SAT and 3.9 GPA(with difficult coursework in HS), vs yet another non athlete 4.3 and 1565 SAT applicant, they want some variety of skills and personality. Doesn’t mean the athlete isn’t very bright and highly able. If you are talking a 1250 SAT and 3.1 GPA student athlete taking a spot at Harvard because of athletic ability that would be different and not fair IMO.

That’s the questions, isn’t it? We just don’t know. But this gives some insight. https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

“ The advantages for athletes are especially large, with an average admit rate for recruited athletes of 86%. This high admit rate occurs despite admitted athletes often being worse on Harvard’s ratings than the applicant pool itself. Overall, our results show that only one quarter of white ALDC admits would have been admitted if they had been treated as a typical applicant.”

I'd like to see the research on the back end, that shows how well the recruited athletes achieve once in college and after college when compared to their peers (both from HS level and college level).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

So if it’s a difference if a very talented athlete with a 1470 SAT and 3.9 GPA(with difficult coursework in HS), vs yet another non athlete 4.3 and 1565 SAT applicant, they want some variety of skills and personality. Doesn’t mean the athlete isn’t very bright and highly able. If you are talking a 1250 SAT and 3.1 GPA student athlete taking a spot at Harvard because of athletic ability that would be different and not fair IMO.

That’s the questions, isn’t it? We just don’t know. But this gives some insight. https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

“ The advantages for athletes are especially large, with an average admit rate for recruited athletes of 86%. This high admit rate occurs despite admitted athletes often being worse on Harvard’s ratings than the applicant pool itself. Overall, our results show that only one quarter of white ALDC admits would have been admitted if they had been treated as a typical applicant.”

I'd like to see the research on the back end, that shows how well the recruited athletes achieve once in college and after college when compared to their peers (both from HS level and college level).

when you don't like the answer, just change the question, I see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

So if it’s a difference if a very talented athlete with a 1470 SAT and 3.9 GPA(with difficult coursework in HS), vs yet another non athlete 4.3 and 1565 SAT applicant, they want some variety of skills and personality. Doesn’t mean the athlete isn’t very bright and highly able. If you are talking a 1250 SAT and 3.1 GPA student athlete taking a spot at Harvard because of athletic ability that would be different and not fair IMO.

That’s the questions, isn’t it? We just don’t know. But this gives some insight. https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

“ The advantages for athletes are especially large, with an average admit rate for recruited athletes of 86%. This high admit rate occurs despite admitted athletes often being worse on Harvard’s ratings than the applicant pool itself. Overall, our results show that only one quarter of white ALDC admits would have been admitted if they had been treated as a typical applicant.”

I'd like to see the research on the back end, that shows how well the recruited athletes achieve once in college and after college when compared to their peers (both from HS level and college level).

when you don't like the answer, just change the question, I see.

This will of course continue until there is no data, or until the data is sufficiently noisy to lead to no clear conclusion.

It's not a mystery people. The discrepancy between admitted athlete academic quality and other is so shockingly large that the admitted athletes are worse on average than the applicant pool (for all groups except Hispanics, for whatever reason). Not worse than the other admits, but worse than the pool of people who *applied*. Easy to let that detail slip by. So yes you could in theory argue that there is some magical characteristic that the athletes have that leads to better college and post-college success, and I'm sure we can all point to anecdotes, but the numbers here are just overwhelming.

Ok I lost track. What was the original point of this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

So if it’s a difference if a very talented athlete with a 1470 SAT and 3.9 GPA(with difficult coursework in HS), vs yet another non athlete 4.3 and 1565 SAT applicant, they want some variety of skills and personality. Doesn’t mean the athlete isn’t very bright and highly able. If you are talking a 1250 SAT and 3.1 GPA student athlete taking a spot at Harvard because of athletic ability that would be different and not fair IMO.

That’s the questions, isn’t it? We just don’t know. But this gives some insight. https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

“ The advantages for athletes are especially large, with an average admit rate for recruited athletes of 86%. This high admit rate occurs despite admitted athletes often being worse on Harvard’s ratings than the applicant pool itself. Overall, our results show that only one quarter of white ALDC admits would have been admitted if they had been treated as a typical applicant.”

because alumni (the group that matters) care more about who wins The Game than they do about some kid the don't know or know of and likely will never know or know of not getting admitted despite having better numbers than a wide receiver who can run a 4.4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

So if it’s a difference if a very talented athlete with a 1470 SAT and 3.9 GPA(with difficult coursework in HS), vs yet another non athlete 4.3 and 1565 SAT applicant, they want some variety of skills and personality. Doesn’t mean the athlete isn’t very bright and highly able. If you are talking a 1250 SAT and 3.1 GPA student athlete taking a spot at Harvard because of athletic ability that would be different and not fair IMO.

That’s the questions, isn’t it? We just don’t know. But this gives some insight. https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

“ The advantages for athletes are especially large, with an average admit rate for recruited athletes of 86%. This high admit rate occurs despite admitted athletes often being worse on Harvard’s ratings than the applicant pool itself. Overall, our results show that only one quarter of white ALDC admits would have been admitted if they had been treated as a typical applicant.”

because alumni (the group that matters) care more about who wins The Game than they do about some kid the don't know or know of and likely will never know or know of not getting admitted despite having better numbers than a wide receiver who can run a 4.4

This is Harvard, the receiver runs a 4.9.

And I'm not even saying this isn't legitimate. Rather, let's be clear-eyed on what is going on. Students who otherwise would ordinarily would have a 10% chance of being admitted because of low to middling academic ratings are instead admitted with near certainty because they are a recruited athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

So if it’s a difference if a very talented athlete with a 1470 SAT and 3.9 GPA(with difficult coursework in HS), vs yet another non athlete 4.3 and 1565 SAT applicant, they want some variety of skills and personality. Doesn’t mean the athlete isn’t very bright and highly able. If you are talking a 1250 SAT and 3.1 GPA student athlete taking a spot at Harvard because of athletic ability that would be different and not fair IMO.

That’s the questions, isn’t it? We just don’t know. But this gives some insight. https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

“ The advantages for athletes are especially large, with an average admit rate for recruited athletes of 86%. This high admit rate occurs despite admitted athletes often being worse on Harvard’s ratings than the applicant pool itself. Overall, our results show that only one quarter of white ALDC admits would have been admitted if they had been treated as a typical applicant.”

because alumni (the group that matters) care more about who wins The Game than they do about some kid the don't know or know of and likely will never know or know of not getting admitted despite having better numbers than a wide receiver who can run a 4.4

This is Harvard, the receiver runs a 4.9.

And I'm not even saying this isn't legitimate. Rather, let's be clear-eyed on what is going on. Students who otherwise would ordinarily would have a 10% chance of being admitted because of low to middling academic ratings are instead admitted with near certainty because they are a recruited athlete.

sure, but so what? One random smart kid getting in or not won't make or break Harvard and that athlete is probably still accomplished when compared to the general population. I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

So if it’s a difference if a very talented athlete with a 1470 SAT and 3.9 GPA(with difficult coursework in HS), vs yet another non athlete 4.3 and 1565 SAT applicant, they want some variety of skills and personality. Doesn’t mean the athlete isn’t very bright and highly able. If you are talking a 1250 SAT and 3.1 GPA student athlete taking a spot at Harvard because of athletic ability that would be different and not fair IMO.

That’s the questions, isn’t it? We just don’t know. But this gives some insight. https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

“ The advantages for athletes are especially large, with an average admit rate for recruited athletes of 86%. This high admit rate occurs despite admitted athletes often being worse on Harvard’s ratings than the applicant pool itself. Overall, our results show that only one quarter of white ALDC admits would have been admitted if they had been treated as a typical applicant.”

because alumni (the group that matters) care more about who wins The Game than they do about some kid the don't know or know of and likely will never know or know of not getting admitted despite having better numbers than a wide receiver who can run a 4.4

This is Harvard, the receiver runs a 4.9.

And I'm not even saying this isn't legitimate. Rather, let's be clear-eyed on what is going on. Students who otherwise would ordinarily would have a 10% chance of being admitted because of low to middling academic ratings are instead admitted with near certainty because they are a recruited athlete.

sure, but so what? One random smart kid getting in or not won't make or break Harvard and that athlete is probably still accomplished when compared to the general population. I

On the flip side, if Harvard sucked even more at football than it does now, would that make or break Harvard? If you eliminated all athletic recruiting, would the school be harmed in any meaningful way?

also, it's important to know what is going on and to be honest about it. If you're ok with athletic recruiting and all that it entails, then to be consistent, you should be ok with other advantages provided in the admissions process. What you shouldn't do is say that athletes aren't provided with an advantage because you were an athlete and you didn't get one (sure).

[Anonymous]

Reading this i can't stop thinking of people like Trump being admitted....what sport did he play?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading this i can't stop thinking of people like Trump being admitted....what sport did he play?

Money ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading this i can't stop thinking of people like Trump being admitted....what sport did he play?

The press secretary is the best advertisement for Harvard outcomes that can be imagined. Can she spell her own name? "Trump will make many calls and have many meetings!!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

So if it’s a difference if a very talented athlete with a 1470 SAT and 3.9 GPA(with difficult coursework in HS), vs yet another non athlete 4.3 and 1565 SAT applicant, they want some variety of skills and personality. Doesn’t mean the athlete isn’t very bright and highly able. If you are talking a 1250 SAT and 3.1 GPA student athlete taking a spot at Harvard because of athletic ability that would be different and not fair IMO.

That’s the questions, isn’t it? We just don’t know. But this gives some insight. https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

“ The advantages for athletes are especially large, with an average admit rate for recruited athletes of 86%. This high admit rate occurs despite admitted athletes often being worse on Harvard’s ratings than the applicant pool itself. Overall, our results show that only one quarter of white ALDC admits would have been admitted if they had been treated as a typical applicant.”

I'd like to see the research on the back end, that shows how well the recruited athletes achieve once in college and after college when compared to their peers (both from HS level and college level).

when you don't like the answer, just change the question, I see.

This will of course continue until there is no data, or until the data is sufficiently noisy to lead to no clear conclusion.

It's not a mystery people. The discrepancy between admitted athlete academic quality and other is so shockingly large that the admitted athletes are worse on average than the applicant pool (for all groups except Hispanics, for whatever reason). Not worse than the other admits, but worse than the pool of people who *applied*. Easy to let that detail slip by. So yes you could in theory argue that there is some magical characteristic that the athletes have that leads to better college and post-college success, and I'm sure we can all point to anecdotes, but the numbers here are just overwhelming.

Ok I lost track. What was the original point of this thread?

The ED Admit share list is on this forum every year and the purpose of it is - like the bookend of the Private School Admit share list every March- to provide a place for parents to celebrate and, in some cases, get a reality check.

This year-perhaps because ED decisions were tight in the DMV- kids who did get in are being attacked as having some unfair advantage, such as highly recruited athletes.

They are being attacked by parents who are in the top 0.5 % of HHI incomes in America, who demand to know did these Admits get a 1550 on the SAT like they paid 15K to achieve with tutoring OR did these athletes only get a 1450 and therefore somehow unfairly " take" the spot they are convinced their child was entitled to.

The schools choose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

So if it’s a difference if a very talented athlete with a 1470 SAT and 3.9 GPA(with difficult coursework in HS), vs yet another non athlete 4.3 and 1565 SAT applicant, they want some variety of skills and personality. Doesn’t mean the athlete isn’t very bright and highly able. If you are talking a 1250 SAT and 3.1 GPA student athlete taking a spot at Harvard because of athletic ability that would be different and not fair IMO.

That’s the questions, isn’t it? We just don’t know. But this gives some insight. https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

“ The advantages for athletes are especially large, with an average admit rate for recruited athletes of 86%. This high admit rate occurs despite admitted athletes often being worse on Harvard’s ratings than the applicant pool itself. Overall, our results show that only one quarter of white ALDC admits would have been admitted if they had been treated as a typical applicant.”

I'd like to see the research on the back end, that shows how well the recruited athletes achieve once in college and after college when compared to their peers (both from HS level and college level).

when you don't like the answer, just change the question, I see.

This will of course continue until there is no data, or until the data is sufficiently noisy to lead to no clear conclusion.

It's not a mystery people. The discrepancy between admitted athlete academic quality and other is so shockingly large that the admitted athletes are worse on average than the applicant pool (for all groups except Hispanics, for whatever reason). Not worse than the other admits, but worse than the pool of people who *applied*. Easy to let that detail slip by. So yes you could in theory argue that there is some magical characteristic that the athletes have that leads to better college and post-college success, and I'm sure we can all point to anecdotes, but the numbers here are just overwhelming.

Ok I lost track. What was the original point of this thread?

The ED Admit share list is on this forum every year and the purpose of it is - like the bookend of the Private School Admit share list every March- to provide a place for parents to celebrate and, in some cases, get a reality check.

This year-perhaps because ED decisions were tight in the DMV- kids who did get in are being attacked as having some unfair advantage, such as highly recruited athletes.

They are being attacked by parents who are in the top 0.5 % of HHI incomes in America, who demand to know did these Admits get a 1550 on the SAT like they paid 15K to achieve with tutoring OR did these athletes only get a 1450 and therefore somehow unfairly " take" the spot they are convinced their child was entitled to.

The schools choose

Yes and they choose under qualified white athletes from the 0.5% in HHI incomes. The geographic region with the highest percentage of IVy League athletes is the area around Greenwich, CT that well known low income suburb. They’re taking someone’s spot. They can choose but be honest about what they’re choosing.

[Anonymous]

Decent Dartmouth acceptances at my kid's school.