Top schools where sports *don’t matter*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

We know a kid who is on a coach list for MIT this year. 1560 SAT, several AP exams, high GPA from a rigorous school. Kid does nothing other than the sport and school. The coach doesn’t seem to think that is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Hmmm...your first sentence makes sense, but the kids I know playing sports at a very high level are doing a lot of travel and training for many hours after school. Maybe the ECs you mention above happen mainly during the school day, so that makes sense. I don't really get Community Service honestly...nearly all the community service kids do is because a college expects it, but is not sincere and they stop doing once they get to college. If that is your thing, great...but it shouldn't mean more than any other productive use of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

We know a kid who is on a coach list for MIT this year. 1560 SAT, several AP exams, high GPA from a rigorous school. Kid does nothing other than the sport and school. The coach doesn’t seem to think that is a problem.

Kind of what I thought, but good to get some anecdotal verification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Hmmm...your first sentence makes sense, but the kids I know playing sports at a very high level are doing a lot of travel and training for many hours after school. Maybe the ECs you mention above happen mainly during the school day, so that makes sense. I don't really get Community Service honestly...nearly all the community service kids do is because a college expects it, but is not sincere and they stop doing once they get to college. If that is your thing, great...but it shouldn't mean more than any other productive use of time.

So what ECs that schools care about do recruited athletes not participate in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Hmmm...your first sentence makes sense, but the kids I know playing sports at a very high level are doing a lot of travel and training for many hours after school. Maybe the ECs you mention above happen mainly during the school day, so that makes sense. I don't really get Community Service honestly...nearly all the community service kids do is because a college expects it, but is not sincere and they stop doing once they get to college. If that is your thing, great...but it shouldn't mean more than any other productive use of time.

So what ECs that schools care about do recruited athletes not participate in?

If what the previous poster said is correct...all of them. Poster said even at MIT having high scores and grades and being a strong athlete are sufficient. I imagine getting on the coach list is not an automatic acceptance...but probably most of the kids get accepted.

[Anonymous]

If you are a good enough recruit to get a likely letter at Hopkins, Chicago, etc, your other ECs won't matter at all. Assuming you have the grades and test scores to get a "highly competitive" from the pre-read, nobody will care about robotics club or NHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Apparently none of you read the post where an athlete attended University of Chicago with average GPAs and 1200 on the SAT. You can easily google his name and watch it on youtube because that's exactly what he said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Apparently none of you read the post where an athlete attended University of Chicago with average GPAs and 1200 on the SAT. You can easily google his name and watch it on youtube because that's exactly what he said.

The kid transferred from UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Apparently none of you read the post where an athlete attended University of Chicago with average GPAs and 1200 on the SAT. You can easily google his name and watch it on youtube because that's exactly what he said.

The kid transferred from UVA.

It doesn't change the fact that his SAT is 1200, not good enough for Ivies but good for University of Chicago. What does it say about the University of Chicagol?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Apparently none of you read the post where an athlete attended University of Chicago with average GPAs and 1200 on the SAT. You can easily google his name and watch it on youtube because that's exactly what he said.

The kid transferred from UVA.

It doesn't change the fact that his SAT is 1200, not good enough for Ivies but good for University of Chicago. What does it say about the University of Chicagol?

It says that if you have decent grades at a good school, your high school transcript and SATs stop mattering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Apparently none of you read the post where an athlete attended University of Chicago with average GPAs and 1200 on the SAT. You can easily google his name and watch it on youtube because that's exactly what he said.

The kid transferred from UVA.

It doesn't change the fact that his SAT is 1200, not good enough for Ivies but good for University of Chicago. What does it say about the University of Chicagol?

It says that if you have decent grades at a good school, your high school transcript and SATs stop mattering.

Yes. Ivys take transfers with non-ivy stats. All they look at is how you did at your college. I was shocked when one girl said 1350 for SATs but she was a transfer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Apparently none of you read the post where an athlete attended University of Chicago with average GPAs and 1200 on the SAT. You can easily google his name and watch it on youtube because that's exactly what he said.

The kid transferred from UVA.

It doesn't change the fact that his SAT is 1200, not good enough for Ivies but good for University of Chicago. What does it say about the University of Chicagol?

This is also not true...there are definitely many Ivy league football players with 1200ish SAT scores...same for basketball. The Ivies are actually more serious about their sports than Chicago or MIT. They are Division I and usually the best Ivy basketball team is Top 25 and usually multiple Ivies have ranked Lacrosse teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Apparently none of you read the post where an athlete attended University of Chicago with average GPAs and 1200 on the SAT. You can easily google his name and watch it on youtube because that's exactly what he said.

The kid transferred from UVA.

It doesn't change the fact that his SAT is 1200, not good enough for Ivies but good for University of Chicago. What does it say about the University of Chicagol?

1200-1250 is good enough for Ivies (at least for incoming freshmen) if you have decent grades and are one of the coach’s 1 or 2 top recruits for a given year. We went through this process recently with one of our kids. And virtually no D1 schools care if you have any non-sports related ECs if you are a top recruit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Apparently none of you read the post where an athlete attended University of Chicago with average GPAs and 1200 on the SAT. You can easily google his name and watch it on youtube because that's exactly what he said.

The kid transferred from UVA.

It doesn't change the fact that his SAT is 1200, not good enough for Ivies but good for University of Chicago. What does it say about the University of Chicagol?

This is also not true...there are definitely many Ivy league football players with 1200ish SAT scores...same for basketball. The Ivies are actually more serious about their sports than Chicago or MIT. They are Division I and usually the best Ivy basketball team is Top 25 and usually multiple Ivies have ranked Lacrosse teams.

When is the last time an Ivy basketball has been top 25

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

Wrong. All 3 schools mentioned recruited my DC very hard as a recruited athlete.