Recruited athletes don’t have lower stats!

[Anonymous]

Some top D3 schools also care a lot about sports. MIT, Williams, Chicago, and Hopkins are schools that stand out. The stats for those schools will need to be a little higher in most cases than the Ivy League's Academic Index for student athletes but not by much. Somehow a lot of people think MIT doesn't actively recruit athletes or have an established relationship between their athletic dept and admissions office.

High stats beyond certain thresholds really shouldn't matter much. Colleges are admitting people based on their projections of potential and campus community contributions too, not just what they've done over the last few years with no context. I just wish colleges cared enough about other ECs in their communities to give them some real weight in admissions as well.

[Anonymous]

It is true that several wealthy kid sports have athletes with very high #s. It is like the Princeton data on legacies actually having higher stats than non-legacies there (wealth matters).

[Anonymous]

My D3 athlete (swimmer, nesac) got options other top swimmers did not get because of his high grades, # of APs, and test scores - (over 1500). Grades matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jealousy that nerdy kids and parents on DCUM have towards athletes is really funny.

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

If you’re an athlete, you must be less qualified academically? That’s bold, PP. Ever think that some kids are just good at everything? Super smart, good looking, athletic, sociable, kids do exist.

Keep on dreaming, Mom. Your kid is in because of a hook.

Even if that is true, so what? A) it's a hook like many others; B) it's valid, and C) sports play an important role at schools, whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Anonymous]

Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

How is the sports hook different. And by the way, we're not talking about Big Ten football or even Notre Dame or Duke Lacrosse. We're talking about D3 athletes trying to get into top 25 schools. In those cases, they're SOL without the qualifying stats, as so many parents have shared in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

How is the sports hook different. And by the way, we're not talking about Big Ten football or even Notre Dame or Duke Lacrosse. We're talking about D3 athletes trying to get into top 25 schools. In those cases, they're SOL without the qualifying stats, as so many parents have shared in this thread.

With test optional and inflated grades it's hard to argue on stats. I am sure why many schools love test optional.

In terms of overall outcome (admissions) recruited athletes have the ultimate hook. All they have to do is meet some minimum range on GPA.

[Anonymous]

^^^They need test scores too for top SLAC’s and Ivy’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^They need test scores too for top SLAC’s and Ivy’s.

So I am imagining that my coworker's kid is at Dartmouth while submitting no scores?

[Anonymous]

From Harvard itself:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/8/2025-freshman-survey

Recruited athletes had an average SAT score of 1397, whereas non-athletes averaged 1501.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From Harvard itself:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/8/2025-freshman-survey

Recruited athletes had an average SAT score of 1397, whereas non-athletes averaged 1501.

Fine, but I think OP was asking about D3 colleges, not D1 heavy hitters.

[Anonymous]

Tonight's bait post brought to you by...Trolls R Us.

So tired of these posts that just chum the board and whip up a frenzy feeding.

[Anonymous]

Grades matter more at top D3 schools. There are very few slotted athletes, especially in an upcoming class of less than 500.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From Harvard itself:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/8/2025-freshman-survey

Recruited athletes had an average SAT score of 1397, whereas non-athletes averaged 1501.

Fine, but I think OP was asking about D3 colleges, not D1 heavy hitters.

Don't have a reference but I really have a hard time believing that really top athletes at schools like CMU or JHU are getting zero admissions boost. Are their stats above some minimum level? Sure. Are their stats generally as high as other non-hooked admitted students? Doubtful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From Harvard itself:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/8/2025-freshman-survey

Recruited athletes had an average SAT score of 1397, whereas non-athletes averaged 1501.

At some schools, recruited athletes are required to submit scores (no TO) which lowers the overall athlete average.