Reply to Do not waste ED on a SLAC. Very few unhooked (non-athlete, non-FGLI, non-legacy/donor) get in.

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Do not waste ED on a SLAC. Very few unhooked (non-athlete, non-FGLI, non-legacy/donor) get in."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.[/quote]

[b]Notice that there was no mention that any of them were not academically qualified[/b], because they were and they met an institutional priority.

People constantly want these schools to adjust their priorities to meet their preferences. Seems a bit like affirmative action to me.[/quote]

But what does that mean? A PP posted a stat that only 11% of them would have been admitted without athletic preference. That suggests many are underqualified, at best.[/quote]

You do understand that 11% or so is the typical admissions rate for Tufts. It suggests that without athletics they would be admitted like any typical applicant, not that they are underqualified at all.[/quote]

It means nearly 90% of athletes currently attending elite schools would not have been admitted. Not the same thing![/quote]

It means that their results would look the same as the general pool. Pretty basic math mom.[/quote]

An issue with grasping distinct contexts, it seems. It means 90% of admitted athletes shouldn't have been admitted because they don't meet the normally-very-high academic bar.[/quote]

It means exactly what it says which is that 89% of the athletes wouldn't have passed holistic review just like the general pool.[/quote]

Which means they shouldn't have been admitted but they were! Ffs.[/quote]

It means no such thing, the vast majority of applicant to Tufts are rejected for no other reason than a lack of space. They are perfectly qualified for admission and success from an academic POV. Same for this group. It says that if you took two pools Athletes and non-athletes and admitted from them blindly you would get the same admittance rate! Recruited athlete is the ultimate hook, we all get that but the idea that they were not academically qualified is not supported by that statement. FFS this isn't hard![/quote]

NP. It literally says they would not have been admitted. It does not say they met the bar and their athletic ability pushed them over it.[/quote]

Yes. They might have to pass a pre-read but they still would not have been admitted otherwise, according to the study. Are the pre-read metrics publicly available? No, for good reason.[/quote]

But part of the holistic review is being a recruited athlete. It doesn't mean they aren't qualified academically. [/quote]

as has been pointed out, most of these colleges say 90% of the applicants are qualified. it's the extras that push them over. some of you think lacrosse is as impressive as a regeneron winner - most of the world disagrees with you[/quote]

The leap that you take to get to your conclusion in ridiculous. No one is saying that an academically qualified lacrosse recruit should get in while a Regeneron winner shouldn't. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics