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

[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.

But that’s is PP’s point, it’s a proxy for family wealth (who can afford to pay for travel sports, shuffling around to games all around the country, a parent or nanny to do daily transport).

[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.

Every student at Princeton is goal oriented, has grit and perseverance. Just not about chasing a ball.

[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.

This was well covered in Jeffrey Selingo's book Who Gets In and Why:


Early in the 20th century, elite universities like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton developed modern admissions systems to address a perceived "Jewish problem." The number of Jewish students applying and being accepted to these schools had increased significantly, leading to concerns among the predominantly WASP administrations.
To limit the number of Jewish students and promote the enrollment of more wealthy, white Protestants, these universities introduced new admissions criteria that were seen as proxies for wealth and social class. These included:
* Athletics: Prioritizing athletic ability in admissions favored wealthy, white students who had attended private preparatory schools with robust sports programs. The search for the "all-around boy" was a way to de-emphasize academic performance, which was a strength of many Jewish applicants, and instead reward participation in sports.
* Legacy Status: Granting a preference to the children of alumni ensured that the university's demographics would remain consistent over time, favoring wealthy, established families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't lump legacy in with athletic recruits. Those are very different admissions process. Legacy essentially has to have all
The basic criteria that a normal
Admit would. Athletic recruits have an entirely different process and required stats.

Totally agree and the data in this student survey shows that clearly. Despite claims in several places on this form the legacy admits have higher standardized test scores. They aren't the ones needing TO. . .

Princeton alum and the president says this every time he's asked about legacy admissions...legacy admits are better qualified academically than other admits.

[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.

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

And you are saying these "minorities" are not smart enough to be students at Princeton?

What racist garbage you are.

[Anonymous]

Look at the data again. Many of the recruited athletes are absolutely qualified academically - look how many athletes scored 34-36 on the ACT, for example.

50% for athletes versus 70% versus not. That's a pretty big difference to me?

Yes, it is definitely a big difference - but what I said is also true . . . “Many” athletes are absolutely in the same pool as non-athletes from an academic perspective (but certainly it all). However, the PP who suggested that athletes as a monolith woukd never have been admitted absent their athletic talent is absolutely wrong.

[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

And you are saying these "minorities" are not smart enough to be students at Princeton?

What racist garbage you are.

I can’t win with you ignorant, angry losers. I am saying that whoever says that all athletes are rich where yachters are ignoring the huge number of minority football players. People are choosing data to fit their desired conclusions.

I have several doctors who are former minority Ivy League athletes. Would I trust my health with someone who I think is an idiot?

This thread is further proof of dumb posters talking past each other who don’t know how to interpret data.