Not an Ivy, but we know two committed women recruits at UCLA and UCB who’ve been told they only need to maintain a 3.0gpa through junior and senior year.

Morale of the story - spend more time practicing, less time studying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll Start:
Private School
Track and Field (Field)

UW 3.9; SAT 1480 (one try); 11AP Classes (Bio/Calc/Phys/Chem, Eng (2), History (2), Stats, AA History, Geo) all 4s and 5s. Remainder were all honors classes.

Well liked by teachers, great recommendation letters.

State Champion for their event, Top Ten Nationally for their event

Admitted to non-HYP Ivy within the last 3 years (SAT was submitted at request of coach).

Is this a contest?

I don’t understand the post either. I was a 4:06 miler in the 70’s. Princeton only marginally cared about grades - which were pretty good - as well as SAT’s - which were also good - but I held zero illusions I was the ideal Ivy candidate or that running fast made me well liked or that I was anything other than lousy life skills. The operating principle remains the same. Athletics is a means for a kid to express themselves- most won’t be able to compete and make a living especially in a sport like track - and go where a school is the best fit and not as a brag for parents about the Ivy League. I had no parents in my life and chose a school that gave athletic scholarships - I thought some about Princeton later on but going to the Ivy League wasn’t all that relevant. With no parents, the issue at hand was whether I was going to attend a place which accelerated my maturity and focus, which needed a lot of bolstering at the time. My kids did go to Princeton but no athletics and no parental helicoptering. Still not sure it was the best choice in balance but they were mature and it was their choice.

Know a Cornell minority "nerdy" sport admit from a NYC private that was told to get her scores up, without much rigor/grades either. Seems scores went up enough to be accepted but I think lackluster.

Anonymous wrote:It seems that the point of this thread is to convince people on this forum that athletes have to meet similar admissions standards to non-athletes and that is just not the case. What matters is
1. your athletic ability (however the coach of your sport is defining that)
2. GPA and SAT, inversely correlated to your athletic ability (i.e. better athletic ability means lower GPA/SAT requirement).
This is it. This is the entire formula and anyone who has gone through the process knows it.

Maybe true at other places, but not at HYPS in recent years. Need both athletic prowess and academic talent to get the nod.

Ivy recruiting can get a little whacky. My kid attended a recruiting session run by the Harvard baseball coach. Kind of a gruff old guy who wasn’t afraid to be maybe too honest.

For a top recruit he wanted at least a 1350…he might go lower for a true Power 4 player who he honestly thought wanted Harvard (ie a dream recruit who is too good for Ivy play).

He mentioned that every now and then he will meet a recruit who is both a great player and a 1580 SAT super impressive candidate. In that situation he may get greedy and not select that kid as a top recruit because he is very confident the kid will get in his own…so he is getting a top player for “free”. He will use his top slots for the second best 1350 kid and the other kid gets an asterisk so admissions know the coach likes him, but the kid needs to get in on their own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 recruits for the same team at the same school will have different results based on where they fall on the recruiting scale. The #1 recruit can look quite different than the last recruit.

Obviously, revenue sport recruits in basketball and football also will look much different than a track recruit.

.

Football and basketball are also often more likely to have kids who are also hooked in other ways than the non-revenue sports. For example, also FGLI and URM.

Football is also unique in that occasionally you can get a viable multi sport recruit, like football plus track (sprints or throwing).

True…but even Ivy schools know the only sports that attract any student fan interest and continued general alumni interest are football and basketball..so they care more about winning in those sports.

Basketball actually isn’t that big at Ivies (NIL is huge for basketball) but depending on school, lacrosse and hockey are.

From a student fan perspective it’s football and basketball. Maybe at a school like Cornell the students watch hockey but not at many others. Almost no students are watching lax games or any other sports.

None of the games are that well attended these days, so it’s all relative. The Harvard Yale football game will get a crowd, but that’s about it.

Hockey and Lacrosse games are definitely attended by students because the teams are actually good, four of the Ivies made the NCAA tournament for lacrosse. Probably more popular among the private school kids who cared about these sports in high school.

Go look at footage from the Princeton Cornell championship LAX game. Almost nobody there in general and even fewer students. A whopping 2100 total fans…and that’s the championship game.

Not a shock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 recruits for the same team at the same school will have different results based on where they fall on the recruiting scale. The #1 recruit can look quite different than the last recruit.

Obviously, revenue sport recruits in basketball and football also will look much different than a track recruit.

.

Football and basketball are also often more likely to have kids who are also hooked in other ways than the non-revenue sports. For example, also FGLI and URM.

Football is also unique in that occasionally you can get a viable multi sport recruit, like football plus track (sprints or throwing).

True…but even Ivy schools know the only sports that attract any student fan interest and continued general alumni interest are football and basketball..so they care more about winning in those sports.

Basketball actually isn’t that big at Ivies (NIL is huge for basketball) but depending on school, lacrosse and hockey are.

From a student fan perspective it’s football and basketball. Maybe at a school like Cornell the students watch hockey but not at many others. Almost no students are watching lax games or any other sports.

None of the games are that well attended these days, so it’s all relative. The Harvard Yale football game will get a crowd, but that’s about it.

When Jeremy Lin was there, basketball games were packed

Anonymous wrote:While not like for like, it isn't hard to cross reference NMSF winners from each state to the varsity athletes at Ivy leagues, etc. Some states are very easy to qualify for NMSF, others more difficult.

Even so, don't be surprised if you find scant few.

Depends on the sport. Certain sports have more 'brainy' kids than others. Squash, rowing, fencing, tennis, others have very high proportion of NMF. BTW, 'NMSF winners' does not make sense, since most NMSF becomes NMF, and a small fraction of NMF are selected as winners and become National Merit Scholars. NMS can also come from corporate sponsor or university sponsor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 recruits for the same team at the same school will have different results based on where they fall on the recruiting scale. The #1 recruit can look quite different than the last recruit.

Obviously, revenue sport recruits in basketball and football also will look much different than a track recruit.

.

Football and basketball are also often more likely to have kids who are also hooked in other ways than the non-revenue sports. For example, also FGLI and URM.

Football is also unique in that occasionally you can get a viable multi sport recruit, like football plus track (sprints or throwing).

True…but even Ivy schools know the only sports that attract any student fan interest and continued general alumni interest are football and basketball..so they care more about winning in those sports.

Basketball actually isn’t that big at Ivies (NIL is huge for basketball) but depending on school, lacrosse and hockey are.

From a student fan perspective it’s football and basketball. Maybe at a school like Cornell the students watch hockey but not at many others. Almost no students are watching lax games or any other sports.

None of the games are that well attended these days, so it’s all relative. The Harvard Yale football game will get a crowd, but that’s about it.

Hockey and Lacrosse games are definitely attended by students because the teams are actually good, four of the Ivies made the NCAA tournament for lacrosse. Probably more popular among the private school kids who cared about these sports in high school.

While not like for like, it isn't hard to cross reference NMSF winners from each state to the varsity athletes at Ivy leagues, etc. Some states are very easy to qualify for NMSF, others more difficult.

Even so, don't be surprised if you find scant few.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 recruits for the same team at the same school will have different results based on where they fall on the recruiting scale. The #1 recruit can look quite different than the last recruit.

Obviously, revenue sport recruits in basketball and football also will look much different than a track recruit.

.

Football and basketball are also often more likely to have kids who are also hooked in other ways than the non-revenue sports. For example, also FGLI and URM.

Football is also unique in that occasionally you can get a viable multi sport recruit, like football plus track (sprints or throwing).

True…but even Ivy schools know the only sports that attract any student fan interest and continued general alumni interest are football and basketball..so they care more about winning in those sports.

Basketball actually isn’t that big at Ivies (NIL is huge for basketball) but depending on school, lacrosse and hockey are.

From a student fan perspective it’s football and basketball. Maybe at a school like Cornell the students watch hockey but not at many others. Almost no students are watching lax games or any other sports.

None of the games are that well attended these days, so it’s all relative. The Harvard Yale football game will get a crowd, but that’s about it.

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy, my kid answered 2 more questions on each of the SAT sections (superscore). They guessed on the two questions, based on the elimination method that our SAT tutor gave them. It took them 4 tries, but they got the 1550.

It is outrageous that a world class swimmer with a 1480 would be given preference over my kid. Hours of SAT prep and the grit required to re-take the SAT until the superscore hits 1550 (guesses, no guesses, whatever) is the same skillset as the swimmer.

"Outrageous?" lol. The difference between a 1480 and a 1550 is nothing- it means zero in the context of performing well at a school

Also, you clearly don't know what it takes to be a top athlete

I am a university professor and I like the athletes- they take direction well, manage their time well, and generally aren't whiners like a lot of kids

Anonymous wrote:I'll Start:
Private School
Track and Field (Field)

UW 3.9; SAT 1480 (one try); 11AP Classes (Bio/Calc/Phys/Chem, Eng (2), History (2), Stats, AA History, Geo) all 4s and 5s. Remainder were all honors classes.

Well liked by teachers, great recommendation letters.

State Champion for their event, Top Ten Nationally for their event

Admitted to non-HYP Ivy within the last 3 years (SAT was submitted at request of coach).

Is this a contest?

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy, my kid answered 2 more questions on each of the SAT sections (superscore). They guessed on the two questions, based on the elimination method that our SAT tutor gave them. It took them 4 tries, but they got the 1550.

It is outrageous that a world class swimmer with a 1480 would be given preference over my kid. Hours of SAT prep and the grit required to re-take the SAT until the superscore hits 1550 (guesses, no guesses, whatever) is the same skillset as the swimmer.

The world class swimmer trained 3-4 hours every day for many, many more years than your kid trained for SAT

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy, my kid answered 2 more questions on each of the SAT sections (superscore). They guessed on the two questions, based on the elimination method that our SAT tutor gave them. It took them 4 tries, but they got the 1550.

It is outrageous that a world class swimmer with a 1480 would be given preference over my kid. Hours of SAT prep and the grit required to re-take the SAT until the superscore hits 1550 (guesses, no guesses, whatever) is the same skillset as the swimmer.

Troll