Princeton admissions info and what it shows about legacy and athletic recruits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This info is pretty fascinating if you look at the breakdown of test scores relative to legacy and athletic recruits. (And we all know that athletic recruits at Princeton mostly = privileged white people doing sports like crew, lacrosse, etc.):

https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/frosh-survey-2028/academics.html

And yet parents of athletes always seem to maintain on this site that they are just as qualified, would have been admitted anyhow etc. Delusional.

I'm pretty sure that they don't say that they would have been admitted anyway. Nobody should ever assume that. They are just as qualified because they crossed the academic bar set by admissions. Let's face it, the problem isn't with the athletes themselves but rather that athletic skill is so valued by Princeton.

We don't "all" see this as a problem. Sorry that it gives some people the opportunity to attend who may not have otherwise had it.

But you can at least acknowledge, when comparing athletes to non-athletes in the aggregate, whether in the Ivy or Div. 3 NESCAC schools like Williams, that the non-athletes are a higher group academically? Sure, maybe you think that’s OK, and I can respect that. What I can’t respect are those athlete parents who say these groups are academically equal. I mean, come on. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This info is pretty fascinating if you look at the breakdown of test scores relative to legacy and athletic recruits. (And we all know that athletic recruits at Princeton mostly = privileged white people doing sports like crew, lacrosse, etc.):

https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/frosh-survey-2028/academics.html

And yet parents of athletes always seem to maintain on this site that they are just as qualified, would have been admitted anyhow etc. Delusional.

Recruited athlete college application is its own thing. For the D1 schools the students literally sign their contracts on Nov 1st, long before they could even possibly have been compared with non athlete applicants. Even for Princeton and the other Ivies, the colleges send them "likely letters" before applications are due, then the students submit EA/REA/ED whichever early process the school has and have an over 90% admit rate. The athlete's themselves are so confident that they will be accepted many of them post in advance on social media during the summer of their senior year . . .

Say what you will about athletes, but this is not accurate. You can only get a liklely letter after you apply. They look at the application before issuing one.

DP

I know a kid that got an offer after their season junior year to UVA girls soccer. So I think it's can happen before application

Offers and likely letters are very different things. Top kids do get "offers" after their Junior year but they aren't binding at all.

Yes. The PP complaining about Likely Letters does not know the process, which if fine, but they should not be spewing off information as if they do. An offer is one thing - it's coach support for admission and while that's good it's not admission. It's only a first step, and there are several additional hurdles to jump. Next comes the pre-read with admissions over the summer. If that's a green light you then apply early. Since for Ivys this means ED or REA, they know families want assurance. So after applying and before admission, you might get a Likely Letter, if the school issues them. Obviously this assurance has more value if you apply well before the deadline, since you're putting all eggs into one basket. The Likely Letter is based on the whole admission package - app, transcripts, SATs/ACTs, recommendations, essays, etc. The "offer" junior year is just a first step and just starts the process. The admission rate for athletes is so high because it only reflects the ones that made it through the entire process. Many more drop off at some point between talks with coaches and admissions. People love to hate on athletes, but this is the process. The Likely Letter is the first official word from admissions, and it comes after a full application is submitted and reviewed.

What is the pre-read? They asked for HS transcripts as a junior. Was that the pre-read?

Summer between Junior and Senior year, they'll ask for transcripts again, along with test scores. Admissions will review. The asking for transcripts during Junior year, usually before a visit, it just for the coach to verify that you're in the admissions zone. They don't want to pay for someone to come for a visit if there is no chance of admission. Pre-reads result in either a "yes" or "no" or no word, which can be taken as a "yes." But even a pre-read is not admission. If you end up having horrible letters of recommendation, for example, a green light on a pre-read will not have mattered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to Princeton and they’ve been clear that athletes do better after college than non athletes (higher income, more successful). It’s not all about test scores.

Oh? Did athletes perform better academically at Princeton? You know they didn’t. But there is athletic team networking, meaning they get an undeserved boost even after college for jobs. You are making the opposite point that you were trying to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This info is pretty fascinating if you look at the breakdown of test scores relative to legacy and athletic recruits. (And we all know that athletic recruits at Princeton mostly = privileged white people doing sports like crew, lacrosse, etc.):

https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/frosh-survey-2028/academics.html

And yet parents of athletes always seem to maintain on this site that they are just as qualified, would have been admitted anyhow etc. Delusional.

Recruited athlete college application is its own thing. For the D1 schools the students literally sign their contracts on Nov 1st, long before they could even possibly have been compared with non athlete applicants. Even for Princeton and the other Ivies, the colleges send them "likely letters" before applications are due, then the students submit EA/REA/ED whichever early process the school has and have an over 90% admit rate. The athlete's themselves are so confident that they will be accepted many of them post in advance on social media during the summer of their senior year . . .

Say what you will about athletes, but this is not accurate. You can only get a liklely letter after you apply. They look at the application before issuing one.

DP

I know a kid that got an offer after their season junior year to UVA girls soccer. So I think it's can happen before application

Offers and likely letters are very different things. Top kids do get "offers" after their Junior year but they aren't binding at all.

Yes. The PP complaining about Likely Letters does not know the process, which if fine, but they should not be spewing off information as if they do. An offer is one thing - it's coach support for admission and while that's good it's not admission. It's only a first step, and there are several additional hurdles to jump. Next comes the pre-read with admissions over the summer. If that's a green light you then apply early. Since for Ivys this means ED or REA, they know families want assurance. So after applying and before admission, you might get a Likely Letter, if the school issues them. Obviously this assurance has more value if you apply well before the deadline, since you're putting all eggs into one basket. The Likely Letter is based on the whole admission package - app, transcripts, SATs/ACTs, recommendations, essays, etc. The "offer" junior year is just a first step and just starts the process. The admission rate for athletes is so high because it only reflects the ones that made it through the entire process. Many more drop off at some point between talks with coaches and admissions. People love to hate on athletes, but this is the process. The Likely Letter is the first official word from admissions, and it comes after a full application is submitted and reviewed.

What is the pre-read? They asked for HS transcripts as a junior. Was that the pre-read?

Summer between Junior and Senior year, they'll ask for transcripts again, along with test scores. Admissions will review. The asking for transcripts during Junior year, usually before a visit, it just for the coach to verify that you're in the admissions zone. They don't want to pay for someone to come for a visit if there is no chance of admission. Pre-reads result in either a "yes" or "no" or no word, which can be taken as a "yes." But even a pre-read is not admission. If you end up having horrible letters of recommendation, for example, a green light on a pre-read will not have mattered.

This point is a giant nothing burger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This info is pretty fascinating if you look at the breakdown of test scores relative to legacy and athletic recruits. (And we all know that athletic recruits at Princeton mostly = privileged white people doing sports like crew, lacrosse, etc.):

https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/frosh-survey-2028/academics.html

How do “we all know” that? Is it in the data? I thought black people could be good at crew and lacrosse and I would definitely expect the average track team or basketball team to include a lot of black people too.

+1. We don't all know that athletic recruits are mostly privileged white people. In fact, "we" know that many aren't.

Ivy league schools all make their athletic rosters public, including photos and high school. Look through several of these, and it's very clear that they are majority white kids who either attended private schools or attended public schools in very affluent zip codes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This info is pretty fascinating if you look at the breakdown of test scores relative to legacy and athletic recruits. (And we all know that athletic recruits at Princeton mostly = privileged white people doing sports like crew, lacrosse, etc.):

https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/frosh-survey-2028/academics.html

And yet parents of athletes always seem to maintain on this site that they are just as qualified, would have been admitted anyhow etc. Delusional.

Recruited athlete college application is its own thing. For the D1 schools the students literally sign their contracts on Nov 1st, long before they could even possibly have been compared with non athlete applicants. Even for Princeton and the other Ivies, the colleges send them "likely letters" before applications are due, then the students submit EA/REA/ED whichever early process the school has and have an over 90% admit rate. The athlete's themselves are so confident that they will be accepted many of them post in advance on social media during the summer of their senior year . . .

In order to make the process seem somewhat legit (which is a joke), I have seen Ivy League athletes post that they "have committed to go through the admissions process at" the school.

The legacy data is exactly what I expected. For all of the drama about the rich legacy kids who are underqualified and only got in because mom/dad gave a big gift, the vast majority are highly qualified. Smart people have smart kids. Smart people prioritize education for their kids. Smart people tell their kids that if they want to grow up to be like mom and dad, they have to study really, really hard like mom and dad did. As has been repeated ad nauseum, these schools get tons of super qualified applicants. So legacy might be a tie breaker among highly qualified kids. That's about it.

And to those who say that most recruited athletes are rich white kids, here is a picture of the 2024 Princeton football team. I see a lot of minority athletes there. The basketball team is probably half minority. So yes, there are more rich white kids in yachting or golf, but as a whole, the athletics department likely mirrors the demographics of the whole university.

https://goprincetontigers.com/sports/football/roster

GTFOH.
No it is significantly whiter.

60% of the basketball team is white.
65% of the football team is white.

The school is only 40% white

And those are likely the blackest teams at Princeton. Want to guess how many black kids on the sailing team?

Also, keep in mind that the least white sport is basketball, and basketball rosters are small, especially compared to sports like hockey, which are pretty much 100% white and prep school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This info is pretty fascinating if you look at the breakdown of test scores relative to legacy and athletic recruits. (And we all know that athletic recruits at Princeton mostly = privileged white people doing sports like crew, lacrosse, etc.):

https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/frosh-survey-2028/academics.html

How do “we all know” that? Is it in the data? I thought black people could be good at crew and lacrosse and I would definitely expect the average track team or basketball team to include a lot of black people too.

+1. We don't all know that athletic recruits are mostly privileged white people. In fact, "we" know that many aren't.

Ivy league schools all make their athletic rosters public, including photos and high school. Look through several of these, and it's very clear that they are majority white kids who either attended private schools or attended public schools in very affluent zip codes.

And let’s not forget, places with real athletes like Alabama, which are somewhat more diverse, are nothing in terms of the proportion of college athletes overall: Amherst College has more athletes than the University of Alabama. At the most selective schools, athletics is affirmative action for whites — far more than is legacy.

[Anonymous]

Basketball is the most diverse sport and the most visible (possibly), but keep in mind it has the smallest recruiting allotment, pretty much.

NCAA rules mean men's basketball gets maximum 15 roster spots. Women's is also only 15 spots.

Here are some other maximums for sports that are mostly white:
Hockey, men's and women's: 26 each
Soccer, men's and women's: 28 each
Wrestling: 30
Lacrosse: 40 for men, 38 for women
Field Hockey: 27
Wrestling: 30
Crew: No maximum for men, 68 for women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Princeton and they’ve been clear that athletes do better after college than non athletes (higher income, more successful). It’s not all about test scores.

Oh? Did athletes perform better academically at Princeton? You know they didn’t. But there is athletic team networking, meaning they get an undeserved boost even after college for jobs. You are making the opposite point that you were trying to make.

Even if college athletes are intellectually lackluster in the classroom (which was my view as an unsporty college student), as an adult I find it completely plausible that they do well professionally because they are do-ers who are goal-oriented and have grit, perseverance, and a willingness to put up with corporate BS and do what they're told. As an adult in corporate life, I see how these can be useful qualities to get ahead.

[Anonymous]

(PP here. This is why in the Varsity Blues scandal, they pretended their kids rowed crew)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Princeton and they’ve been clear that athletes do better after college than non athletes (higher income, more successful). It’s not all about test scores.

Oh? Did athletes perform better academically at Princeton? You know they didn’t. But there is athletic team networking, meaning they get an undeserved boost even after college for jobs. You are making the opposite point that you were trying to make.

Even if college athletes are intellectually lackluster in the classroom (which was my view as an unsporty college student), as an adult I find it completely plausible that they do well professionally because they are do-ers who are goal-oriented and have grit, perseverance, and a willingness to put up with corporate BS and do what they're told. As an adult in corporate life, I see how these can be useful qualities to get ahead.

Fair enough. You are probably right. But though Princeton may have been different in your time, most students there and at like schools these days — athlete or not — are clones with “grit, perseverance, and a willingness to put up with corporate BS.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This info is pretty fascinating if you look at the breakdown of test scores relative to legacy and athletic recruits. (And we all know that athletic recruits at Princeton mostly = privileged white people doing sports like crew, lacrosse, etc.):

https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/frosh-survey-2028/academics.html

And yet parents of athletes always seem to maintain on this site that they are just as qualified, would have been admitted anyhow etc. Delusional.

Recruited athlete college application is its own thing. For the D1 schools the students literally sign their contracts on Nov 1st, long before they could even possibly have been compared with non athlete applicants. Even for Princeton and the other Ivies, the colleges send them "likely letters" before applications are due, then the students submit EA/REA/ED whichever early process the school has and have an over 90% admit rate. The athlete's themselves are so confident that they will be accepted many of them post in advance on social media during the summer of their senior year . . .

Say what you will about athletes, but this is not accurate. You can only get a liklely letter after you apply. They look at the application before issuing one.

DP

I know a kid that got an offer after their season junior year to UVA girls soccer. So I think it's can happen before application

Offers and likely letters are very different things. Top kids do get "offers" after their Junior year but they aren't binding at all.

Yes. The PP complaining about Likely Letters does not know the process, which if fine, but they should not be spewing off information as if they do. An offer is one thing - it's coach support for admission and while that's good it's not admission. It's only a first step, and there are several additional hurdles to jump. Next comes the pre-read with admissions over the summer. If that's a green light you then apply early. Since for Ivys this means ED or REA, they know families want assurance. So after applying and before admission, you might get a Likely Letter, if the school issues them. Obviously this assurance has more value if you apply well before the deadline, since you're putting all eggs into one basket. The Likely Letter is based on the whole admission package - app, transcripts, SATs/ACTs, recommendations, essays, etc. The "offer" junior year is just a first step and just starts the process. The admission rate for athletes is so high because it only reflects the ones that made it through the entire process. Many more drop off at some point between talks with coaches and admissions. People love to hate on athletes, but this is the process. The Likely Letter is the first official word from admissions, and it comes after a full application is submitted and reviewed.

What is the pre-read? They asked for HS transcripts as a junior. Was that the pre-read?

Coaches will ask for transcripts and test scores early in the process so they can guess whether a kid is a possibility. Often they can look at a kid’s information and make an educated guess as to which kids admissions is likely to approve.

The pre-read is the next step. You will submit updated transcripts and possibly test scores to admissions and admissions will tell the coach whether they will admit the athlete if the coach gives support (note there are some
schools where it works differently, my advice is specific to Ivy and NESCAC). They may also tell the coach that an athlete is in a lower band and they can choose one or two athletes in this category, but they need to be balanced with higher performing students.

The coach then looks at the players who have passed the preread and chooses which ones to support. They may have asked for 10 prereads, gotten 8 yeses, but only have 5 spots to offer, so they give an offer of supportto their first 5 choices, who then apply ED or SCEA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This info is pretty fascinating if you look at the breakdown of test scores relative to legacy and athletic recruits. (And we all know that athletic recruits at Princeton mostly = privileged white people doing sports like crew, lacrosse, etc.):

https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/frosh-survey-2028/academics.html

How do “we all know” that? Is it in the data? I thought black people could be good at crew and lacrosse and I would definitely expect the average track team or basketball team to include a lot of black people too.

+1. We don't all know that athletic recruits are mostly privileged white people. In fact, "we" know that many aren't.

Ivy league schools all make their athletic rosters public, including photos and high school. Look through several of these, and it's very clear that they are majority white kids who either attended private schools or attended public schools in very affluent zip codes.

And let’s not forget, places with real athletes like Alabama, which are somewhat more diverse, are nothing in terms of the proportion of college athletes overall: Amherst College has more athletes than the University of Alabama. At the most selective schools, athletics is affirmative action for whites — far more than is legacy.

Alabama doesn't bother with D1 teams in Crew, sailing, fencing, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Princeton and they’ve been clear that athletes do better after college than non athletes (higher income, more successful). It’s not all about test scores.

Oh? Did athletes perform better academically at Princeton? You know they didn’t. But there is athletic team networking, meaning they get an undeserved boost even after college for jobs. You are making the opposite point that you were trying to make.

Undeserved is your opinion. Lots of people get job offers that aren’t solely based on academic performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Basketball is the most diverse sport and the most visible (possibly), but keep in mind it has the smallest recruiting allotment, pretty much.

NCAA rules mean men's basketball gets maximum 15 roster spots. Women's is also only 15 spots.

Here are some other maximums for sports that are mostly white:
Hockey, men's and women's: 26 each
Soccer, men's and women's: 28 each
Wrestling: 30
Lacrosse: 40 for men, 38 for women
Field Hockey: 27
Wrestling: 30
Crew: No maximum for men, 68 for women

This is also why I have tremendous respect for anyone who plays D1 basketball anywhere. Statistically, it is by far the hardest sport to play D1 in given the tiny number of spots and massive competition. It's also why the Varsity Blues scammer kids all pretended to do things like row crew where they get 68 roster spots for a sport that costs the university money compared to the 15 for basketball.