Athletes have such an edge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

No, it doesn't.

I’m OP. My friend’s son was admitted to Columbia and Vanderbilt. He has not even finished the common app - or any app - yet. 100% this happened. Highest math was precalc and then applied algebra. No AP classes. Sprinkling of honors.

Yeah, I don't believe you. Sorry, but this isn't believable. I am speaking as someone who used to be on an elite admissions committee.

Well, it’s true. He keeps retaking the SAT bc the Naval Academy is his first choice. The last (there were 2) congressman who interviewed him suggested he try it one last time. Who could make up all these specific details?

Someone who is crazy?

I'm sorry, but you aren't credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

This is a terrible example and here is why:

1. Student A is offered admission without any consideration about his grades, course load, gpas, or anything else.

2. Student B usually has far, far more AP courses and more difficult classes (higher level math, high level science) and student A usually has the opposite - as in most of the time.

It’s more like this:

Student A is a very good soccer player and is offered admission to multiple schools without actually applying to any of them and without consideration of his academic achievements or any other factor other than his soccer achievement. A doesn’t fit the acceptance stats at all.

Student B is a much better student than A, took much harder courses than A, took multiple ECs and did lots of service hours compared to A, and has a much higher SAT/ACT than A. B fits the typical acceptance stats perfectly. B applies to the school.

A is admitted without applying and no real consideration of anything other than soccer. B is rejected.

That’s the complaint. You make it sound like they are apples to apples - close but soccer edges one out. This is. Or what’s happening most of the time.

Except this framing is crap.

The real framing is

Kid A 1550+, 5 AP's and a 3.9 UW
Kid B 1550+, 5 AP's and a 3.9 UW, all-state level varsity athlete

Given these two, which one should admissions take?

THAT is the debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

No, it doesn't.

I’m OP. My friend’s son was admitted to Columbia and Vanderbilt. He has not even finished the common app - or any app - yet. 100% this happened. Highest math was precalc and then applied algebra. No AP classes. Sprinkling of honors.

Vandy is an SEC schools with programs that are solidly DI. Columbia is an IVY league school with programs that are marginally DI. There are not many athletes who will ever be recruited by those two particular schools

Of course this is true. OPs issue is that she doesn't know enough about sports to make her lies convincing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

This is a terrible example and here is why:

1. Student A is offered admission without any consideration about his grades, course load, gpas, or anything else.

2. Student B usually has far, far more AP courses and more difficult classes (higher level math, high level science) and student A usually has the opposite - as in most of the time.

It’s more like this:

Student A is a very good soccer player and is offered admission to multiple schools without actually applying to any of them and without consideration of his academic achievements or any other factor other than his soccer achievement. A doesn’t fit the acceptance stats at all.

Student B is a much better student than A, took much harder courses than A, took multiple ECs and did lots of service hours compared to A, and has a much higher SAT/ACT than A. B fits the typical acceptance stats perfectly. B applies to the school.

A is admitted without applying and no real consideration of anything other than soccer. B is rejected.

That’s the complaint. You make it sound like they are apples to apples - close but soccer edges one out. This is. Or what’s happening most of the time.

Except this framing is crap.

The real framing is

Kid A 1550+, 5 AP's and a 3.9 UW
Kid B 1550+, 5 AP's and a 3.9 UW, all-state level varsity athlete

Given these two, which one should admissions take?

THAT is the debate.

And this is what happens in real life, versus the imaginations of the anti-athlete posters.

[Anonymous]

I’m not lying but whatever. I don’t need to convince you. I know what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not lying but whatever. I don’t need to convince you. I know what happened.

Sigh. No, you don't. It is obviously made-up, to anyone who knows anything about admissions.

My guess is that you are a salty high schooler who got deferred this week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

This is a terrible example and here is why:

1. Student A is offered admission without any consideration about his grades, course load, gpas, or anything else.

2. Student B usually has far, far more AP courses and more difficult classes (higher level math, high level science) and student A usually has the opposite - as in most of the time.

It’s more like this:

Student A is a very good soccer player and is offered admission to multiple schools without actually applying to any of them and without consideration of his academic achievements or any other factor other than his soccer achievement. A doesn’t fit the acceptance stats at all.

Student B is a much better student than A, took much harder courses than A, took multiple ECs and did lots of service hours compared to A, and has a much higher SAT/ACT than A. B fits the typical acceptance stats perfectly. B applies to the school.

A is admitted without applying and no real consideration of anything other than soccer. B is rejected.

That’s the complaint. You make it sound like they are apples to apples - close but soccer edges one out. This is. Or what’s happening most of the time.

Except this framing is crap.

The real framing is

Kid A 1550+, 5 AP's and a 3.9 UW
Kid B 1550+, 5 AP's and a 3.9 UW, all-state level varsity athlete

Given these two, which one should admissions take?

THAT is the debate.

And this is what happens in real life, versus the imaginations of the anti-athlete posters.

Identical stats AND sports, sure. That wins. That isn’t what we are talking about.

[Anonymous]

All I know is, at my kids school, the seniors who have been accepted to top schools are also top students. I don't see lesser students being given a pass to top schools because of sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

This is a terrible example and here is why:

1. Student A is offered admission without any consideration about his grades, course load, gpas, or anything else.

2. Student B usually has far, far more AP courses and more difficult classes (higher level math, high level science) and student A usually has the opposite - as in most of the time.

It’s more like this:

Student A is a very good soccer player and is offered admission to multiple schools without actually applying to any of them and without consideration of his academic achievements or any other factor other than his soccer achievement. A doesn’t fit the acceptance stats at all.

Student B is a much better student than A, took much harder courses than A, took multiple ECs and did lots of service hours compared to A, and has a much higher SAT/ACT than A. B fits the typical acceptance stats perfectly. B applies to the school.

A is admitted without applying and no real consideration of anything other than soccer. B is rejected.

That’s the complaint. You make it sound like they are apples to apples - close but soccer edges one out. This is. Or what’s happening most of the time.

Except this framing is crap.

The real framing is

Kid A 1550+, 5 AP's and a 3.9 UW
Kid B 1550+, 5 AP's and a 3.9 UW, all-state level varsity athlete

Given these two, which one should admissions take?

THAT is the debate.

And this is what happens in real life, versus the imaginations of the anti-athlete posters.

Identical stats AND sports, sure. That wins. That isn’t what we are talking about.

But in the Ivies, that is by far the more common situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this thread is filled with a bunch of high schoolers with 4.1 GPAs who are mad they didn't get into the Ivies and their athlete classmates with 4.0s did get in. Admissions are coming out and these anti-athlete posters sound highly irrational.

That'd be one thing, but that's not really the case. Kids with 4.1 GPAs are rejected left and right while their knucklehead jock classmates with a 2.3 are offered admission without even applying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this thread is filled with a bunch of high schoolers with 4.1 GPAs who are mad they didn't get into the Ivies and their athlete classmates with 4.0s did get in. Admissions are coming out and these anti-athlete posters sound highly irrational.

That'd be one thing, but that's not really the case. Kids with 4.1 GPAs are rejected left and right while their knucklehead jock classmates with a 2.3 are offered admission without even applying.

No, that doesn't happen. Sorry you got deferred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

This situation must vary by sport, because that is not our observation of the process.

DC is going through the high academic recruiting process now, and in their sport the college coaches need to know GPA, SAT/ACT and which courses DC is taking to know whether they would have a chance of being admitted, and would be able to handle the academic rigor of the school. I have seen coaches tell an athlete that they want to recruit them, but they need to get their SAT score up ____ points, to give them an offer for a roster spot. If they don't have the academics to be admitted, the coach won't support their application with admissions. If the coach decides to support their application, the athlete may verbally commit Junior year, but that is no guarantee of admissions. If everything is in high enough on the academic side after Junior year, the coach takes the athlete's academic info to admissions for a pre-read to see if the athlete is likely to be admitted. Even then, the athlete still has to apply and be admitted to the school, which doesn't always happen. Some verbally committed athletes at high academic schools are not admitted.

I know this is a bit off topic - but had to address statements that aren't consistent with our experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I know is, at my kids school, the seniors who have been accepted to top schools are also top students. I don't see lesser students being given a pass to top schools because of sports.

+1
seeing the same thing at my kids school right now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

No, it doesn't.

I’m OP. My friend’s son was admitted to Columbia and Vanderbilt. He has not even finished the common app - or any app - yet. 100% this happened. Highest math was precalc and then applied algebra. No AP classes. Sprinkling of honors.

Vandy is an SEC schools with programs that are solidly DI. Columbia is an IVY league school with programs that are marginally DI. There are not many athletes who will ever be recruited by those two particular schools

Hey OP: Your friend is lying to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

This situation must vary by sport, because that is not our observation of the process.

DC is going through the high academic recruiting process now, and in their sport the college coaches need to know GPA, SAT/ACT and which courses DC is taking to know whether they would have a chance of being admitted, and would be able to handle the academic rigor of the school. I have seen coaches tell an athlete that they want to recruit them, but they need to get their SAT score up ____ points, to give them an offer for a roster spot. If they don't have the academics to be admitted, the coach won't support their application with admissions. If the coach decides to support their application, the athlete may verbally commit Junior year, but that is no guarantee of admissions. If everything is in high enough on the academic side after Junior year, the coach takes the athlete's academic info to admissions for a pre-read to see if the athlete is likely to be admitted. Even then, the athlete still has to apply and be admitted to the school, which doesn't always happen. Some verbally committed athletes at high academic schools are not admitted.

I know this is a bit off topic - but had to address statements that aren't consistent with our experience.

Your experience is realistic. The OP is a troll, because what OP described didn't happen. OPs stated facts show she is lying, but she does not know enough about admissions to realize the tells that she gave.