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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Offers and likely letters are very different things. Top kids do get "offers" after their Junior year but they aren't binding at all.

Yes. The PP complaining about Likely Letters does not know the process, which if fine, but they should not be spewing off information as if they do. An offer is one thing - it's coach support for admission and while that's good it's not admission. It's only a first step, and there are several additional hurdles to jump. Next comes the pre-read with admissions over the summer. If that's a green light you then apply early. Since for Ivys this means ED or REA, they know families want assurance. So after applying and before admission, you might get a Likely Letter, if the school issues them. Obviously this assurance has more value if you apply well before the deadline, since you're putting all eggs into one basket. The Likely Letter is based on the whole admission package - app, transcripts, SATs/ACTs, recommendations, essays, etc. The "offer" junior year is just a first step and just starts the process. The admission rate for athletes is so high because it only reflects the ones that made it through the entire process. Many more drop off at some point between talks with coaches and admissions. People love to hate on athletes, but this is the process. The Likely Letter is the first official word from admissions, and it comes after a full application is submitted and reviewed.

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.

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.

I'm pretty sure that they don't say that they would have been admitted anyway. Nobody should ever assume that. They are just as qualified because they crossed the academic bar set by admissions. Let's face it, the problem isn't with the athletes themselves but rather that athletic skill is so valued by Princeton.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. . .

Are we looking at the same data?

If you look at the table under SAT by Legacy status and sort it for "legacies" 72.2% of the admitted legacies claim to have a SAT over 1500 and only 4.9% have a score below 1390. If you sort the table by non legacies the percent with scores below 1390 is 12.8% and 65.5% have a score over 1500. By the way the total number of students reporting data for this survey is 539 so it may not be statistically strong and it certainly could be biased both by which students choose to report and whether they were truthful.

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

Offers and likely letters are very different things. Top kids do get "offers" after their Junior year but they aren't binding at all.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

DP

No. Just no. The recruited athletes are extremely white. Overwhelmingly white.

Here is their basketball team. One asian, 3 black and 6 white kids. https://goprincetontigers.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster

So you want to guess what their crew and lacrosse teams look like?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe athletes are practicing for their sport while others are prepping for the SAT or ACT.