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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.”

I'm not PP but IMO you are way overestimating the number of smart people who are willing to put up with corporate BS (which is often inherently anti-intellectual).

[Anonymous]

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.

I think the competition for legacy is tough! Not that they are smarter, but the competition for legacy is tough.

Track and basketball are only 2 of the 20+ sports. So even if half of them are black that’s still a small percentage. Also ivy’s don’t pay unless it’s need-based And most athletes who eould qualify for financial aid are drawn to schools where kids go pro - even if they don’t expect to; they want to be around the kids and programs that do.

- dear aunt of a black student athlete who turned down offers from Yale and Dartmouth, and ended up at large public.

[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.

Who has been clear?

SAT scores track that much better than athletic participation. A LOT better.

It's because athlete alumni networks are strong. . .giving jobs to the recent graduates etc. Lots of bros making bank in Finance etc.

[Anonymous]

There's too many legacy kids out there when you look at the number of people who are alumni. I expect this problem is even more pronounced at a school like Harvard or Columbia, where so many people are legacies because of the number of graduate programs, professional schools, etc.

So to really get a hook as legacy, you probably have to be a development admit where your parents are donating heavy amounts to the school.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, anyone who thinks admissions offices treat all legacies equally is naive or clueless.

[Anonymous]

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

This is a survey. There's absolutely no accounting for dishonesty and reporting bias.

[Anonymous]

This is not "admissions info".

OP is a fake news lying liar.



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

[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 . . .

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

It happens way earlier. Most of the top lacrosse girls get them aug 1st prior to their junior year

[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.

+1
I have three kids in high school. The 2 who are just ok athletes have near perfect grades and test scores. The third child is an outstanding athlete but has the lower grades and scores of the three. Why? Because she spends about 25 hours a week on her sport. I guarantee if she didn’t do that, she’d have higher grades and scores.

[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.

+1 It's not because they did well academically in college. It's about the networking.

[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.

Photos, hometowns, and high schools of varsity athletes are made available. The large majority are white, from affluent areas, and attended either private day schools, private boarding schools, or strong publics in wealthy school districts.

[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.

+1
I have three kids in high school. The 2 who are just ok athletes have near perfect grades and test scores. The third child is an outstanding athlete but has the lower grades and scores of the three. Why? Because she spends about 25 hours a week on her sport. I guarantee if she didn’t do that, she’d have higher grades and scores.

To be fair, non-athlete kids can spend as much time or more doing their activities (or working) and still get the grades/scores. There are athletes that do their sport and get the grades/scores. There are just some wicked smart kids out there that can kinda do it all. But agreed, it's not all about the test scores, nor should it be.

[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.

+1 It's not because they did well academically in college. It's about the networking.

Plus that they've shown that they can work with teammates, handle stressful situations, and manage a heavy workload. Those are all things that employers look for, and reward. Obviously there are other ways to demonstrate those things, but a higher percentage of Ivy athletes have shown those abilities than other Ivy students.

[Anonymous]

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

It happens way earlier. Most of the top lacrosse girls get them aug 1st prior to their junior year

They may have gotten an offer from a coach to support them with admissions, but they didn't get a likely letter. A likely letter comes from admissions after the application has been submitted.

Coaches know who is likely to get through admissions, and if the scores and grades are good they may feel confident telling the student that they can get them through. But in the end it's admissions who makes the final decision.

[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.

+1
I have three kids in high school. The 2 who are just ok athletes have near perfect grades and test scores. The third child is an outstanding athlete but has the lower grades and scores of the three. Why? Because she spends about 25 hours a week on her sport. I guarantee if she didn’t do that, she’d have higher grades and scores.

+1

I'd take a dedicated recruitable college athlete ( Top 50 D1/high academic D3) with a 1300+ SAT over an unhooked applicant with ok ECs and higher test score every time.