Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

No, it doesn't.

I’m OP. My friend’s son was admitted to Columbia and Vanderbilt. He has not even finished the common app - or any app - yet. 100% this happened. Highest math was precalc and then applied algebra. No AP classes. Sprinkling of honors.

Vandy is an SEC schools with programs that are solidly DI. Columbia is an IVY league school with programs that are marginally DI. There are not many athletes who will ever be recruited by those two particular schools

Hey OP: Your friend is lying to you.

I don’t think so - we not only discussed it, she posted it on Instagram - very publically, no?

Compare Vanderbilt athletics to Columbia athletics. One is in the richest conference in the country, maxes out allowable scholarships and fields nationally competitive teams in multiple sports. The other is Columbia

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if someone posted this already, we're now at 31 pages. There is a lot of evidence consistent with the idea of a tradeoff between academics and athletics. The idea that athletics is tipping the scales between otherwise equal candidates is bunkum. Not a value judgment on the practice, but at least let's deal in facts.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/8/2025-freshman-survey/

Admitted students from the Class of 2025 had an average SAT score of 1494 and an average ACT score of 34. These numbers varied significantly along athlete and income status. Recruited athletes had an average SAT score of 1397, whereas non-athletes averaged 1501.

Interesting that the non-athlete average is so low. I would have expected higher.

I can't get worked up about a difference of less than 100 points on the SAT. It just means the athletic kids had less prep time, which makes sense. If people here are truly freaking out about the significance of a 97 point difference in averages, they have lost all grounding in reality.

Yeah a lot of people have that response. Two points. At that level, 100 point difference is actually pretty large. Also, Harvard is in a position to scoop up all the academically talented top athletes. You can be pretty sure this a comfortable upper bound on the athlete-nonathlete gap at lower ranked schools. Comfortable. Same thing occurs with the URM SAT gap.

100 point difference is nothing, you have to look at the percentiles. 1500 is 98 percentile and 1400 is a 93 percentile. Anyone above 90 percentile has the brain power to handle T10 school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if someone posted this already, we're now at 31 pages. There is a lot of evidence consistent with the idea of a tradeoff between academics and athletics. The idea that athletics is tipping the scales between otherwise equal candidates is bunkum. Not a value judgment on the practice, but at least let's deal in facts.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/8/2025-freshman-survey/

Admitted students from the Class of 2025 had an average SAT score of 1494 and an average ACT score of 34. These numbers varied significantly along athlete and income status. Recruited athletes had an average SAT score of 1397, whereas non-athletes averaged 1501.

Interesting that the non-athlete average is so low. I would have expected higher.

I can't get worked up about a difference of less than 100 points on the SAT. It just means the athletic kids had less prep time, which makes sense. If people here are truly freaking out about the significance of a 97 point difference in averages, they have lost all grounding in reality.

Yeah a lot of people have that response. Two points. At that level, 100 point difference is actually pretty large. Also, Harvard is in a position to scoop up all the academically talented top athletes. You can be pretty sure this a comfortable upper bound on the athlete-nonathlete gap at lower ranked schools. Comfortable. Same thing occurs with the URM SAT gap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not nearly so worried about the kids with a 1400 and 4.0 who are passed over for admissions than I am about the kids who, in order to secure scholarships, spend their high school years focused on basketball or football at the expense of academics and other pursuits -- but fall short. Or are injured before they receive firm offers.

Or about the athletes who have been recruited to play basketball or football at a power five conference school, play four years, entertain fans and alumni, bring in revenue that benefits others -- and receive a substandard education because -- well, that's how it goes, isn't it.

I don't really care who gets into Harvard. there are way way more qualified applicants than spaces. I care about living in a country where all of those talented qualified individuals have opportunities to receive an excellent education and succeed in their careers.

If a kid is focusing on football or basketball as a ticket to college, there is a good chance that is their only chance. It's not middle class kids killing themselves to get a college football scholarship, it's poor kids who have no realistic alternatives.

Well, yes. That's exactly right -- although I would say "upper class" instead of "middle class." MIddle class students are very much among those hustling for football and basketball scholarships because they fall into the "donut hole" between what financial aid will cover and what they and their families can actually support.

But yes I am precisely concerned for students who focus on athletics at the expense of academics when they already have fewer supports and advantages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, as stated above, it happens at places Like Columbia and Vanderbilt. And this is absolutely NOT a fantasy. Wish it was.

No, it doesn't.

I’m OP. My friend’s son was admitted to Columbia and Vanderbilt. He has not even finished the common app - or any app - yet. 100% this happened. Highest math was precalc and then applied algebra. No AP classes. Sprinkling of honors.

Vandy is an SEC schools with programs that are solidly DI. Columbia is an IVY league school with programs that are marginally DI. There are not many athletes who will ever be recruited by those two particular schools

Hey OP: Your friend is lying to you.

I don’t think so - we not only discussed it, she posted it on Instagram - very publically, no?

So -- how are athletes recruited and what role do academics play?

It depends greatly on the sport and then the school.

As a high school student, athletes are required to register with the NCAA which provides a service that tracks their grades, classes and test scores so that every school interested in an athlete can have access to those things (if the athlete approves) and can weigh if and how to proceed. Kids not meeting entry requirements under NCAA rules, or conference rules, or school rules, can still be admitted -- if the school allows -- and bring their academic deficiencies up to the required standards during their freshmen year.

Yes, there are lots of kids, particularly in the football and basketball sports who will get spots in college programs that they would not otherwise get into simply because they can play well - or potentially may play well. Football and basketball are the money sports for colleges though. Once you get beyond those two sports -- it gets a lot tougher. There are exceptions of course. Some schools are noted for X sport. There are baseball schools and volleyball schools and girls basketball schools. An exceptional athlete -- figure a kid who is top 10-20 in their age in a given sport, likely will be able to find a school that will take them in even if their academics are not up to the school's regular admission standards. But -- now you are talking fingers and toes kind of numbers nationally in any given sport.

In large part -- athletes carry above average academic numbers. Why? Because for lots and lots of athletes their lives in high school outside of family evolve around (1) academics and (2) their sport. That is what they do. They do not socialize much if they intend to keep in their sport through college.

Through high school then, participation in a sport at the level to play in college means a big time commitment. There are other things that would require the same. Working 20 hours a week would be there. Some art and some music certainly would hit those kind of time commitments. But, it is those time commitments over a period of years that colleges will pay special attention too.

Once in college though things actually get tougher for athletes. One big difference is that the coach no longer is someone who is at all beholding to the athlete and/or parents. The athlete now works for the coach. It is a bridge that many, many kids cannot get across.

My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. In that time, she would tell you, she figures she spoke with her head coach, collectively, about 15 minutes -- in 4 years. The coach is not the athletes friend or parent. The coach needs to be able to make decisions to cut a player, or bench a player. And, that does not depend on how good your kid is as a player. My kid started most of her Junior year and all of her Senior year. She won the "Coaches Award" for leadership both those years. And still -- in 4 years she figures they spoke for a total of about 15 minutes. After her senior year season he has been great. Always willing to write a recommendation letter and he is a contact on her resume.

The other thing that kills college athletes is time. No fooling, playing a D1 college sport -- any sport -- is a full time job in the season, and a big part time job off-season The NCAA limits required hours (not counting travel) during and off season, but those are "required" hour limits. Volunteer hours are not limited. So while off-season practices can only be 8 hours a week -- it is not very surprising to see that everyone volunteers for weight training and fitness an additional 4 to 5 hours a week. In season the limit is 20 hours not counting travel. Time spent on film and getting to and from practices, and travel -- all not counted in that 20 hours.

And don't forget there are lots of majors that you simply cannot do as an athlete. Mostly it is because you cannot guaranty that you can attend classes due to travel. So, Art, Music and Labs are a big problem. You could take those kind of classes off-season, but they have to be offered. That's likely not an issue with freshmen/sophomore level courses, but once you get into higher levels you find that courses are only offered 1 term, a year, and if that term is during your season -- oh well. And, you can't take BioChem 410, unless you have completed BioChem 333 -- but that has labs and you could not do that in season. Guess you won't be pre-med then.

During one early recruitment visit -- my kid was asked by a coach what she was thinking of majoring in. She said possibly Fine Art to start. His comment was along the lines of "oh -- that would be a first for me." And he had been coaching there about 10 years. That caught my attention and led to the research that easily concluded; you can't do fine arts and play a sport. You can't be in a studio when you are travelling.

Anonymous wrote:

It is not wrong. A kid I know was offered a spot at Columbia, Vanderbilt and Wesleyan without applying. NO application has been filled out. He’s taken the SAT three times and his super score is not even over 1000. He’s at a small public school with As, Bs and Cs. He hasn’t filled out a single college application yet. Zero. No common app. Nothing. He has taken a sprinkling of honors classes, zero AP classes. He’s played football all four years. Zero other activities.

He may have been “offered a spot,” but he won’t attend until he fills out an application and is admitted. Especially with Ivy/Stanford/NESCAC/MIT, there are so many stories of athletes “committing “ who then are not admitted. You are just another person who sees only part of what’s going on and so are misinformed. There’s your perception and then there are facts. For example, my DCs who committed to Ivies submitted their test scores and transcripts for academic pre-reads before they committed. Then they had to complete their applications by Sept. 15/Oct. 1 to receive a “likely letter” before EdD was announced in December.

+1
So many people think they know the ways of the sport recruitment picture when they only have knowledge of part of the process.
Another example, all the kids you hear that have "verbal commitments" to play a sport in college are NOT in any way set to attend that school. If it is a DI athlete their offer is not a reality until they sign an official letter of intent. And if they are a DIII athlete, their verbal offer does not equate to college acceptance until they gain admission on their own accord via an application to the school. There is so much misinformation out there about the athletic recruitment process and then add in that a lot comes from prideful teens and, well, everyone thinks they know the deal when the reality is quite different.

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if someone posted this already, we're now at 31 pages. There is a lot of evidence consistent with the idea of a tradeoff between academics and athletics. The idea that athletics is tipping the scales between otherwise equal candidates is bunkum. Not a value judgment on the practice, but at least let's deal in facts.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/8/2025-freshman-survey/

Admitted students from the Class of 2025 had an average SAT score of 1494 and an average ACT score of 34. These numbers varied significantly along athlete and income status. Recruited athletes had an average SAT score of 1397, whereas non-athletes averaged 1501.

Interesting that the non-athlete average is so low. I would have expected higher.

I can't get worked up about a difference of less than 100 points on the SAT. It just means the athletic kids had less prep time, which makes sense. If people here are truly freaking out about the significance of a 97 point difference in averages, they have lost all grounding in reality.

Anonymous wrote:I am not nearly so worried about the kids with a 1400 and 4.0 who are passed over for admissions than I am about the kids who, in order to secure scholarships, spend their high school years focused on basketball or football at the expense of academics and other pursuits -- but fall short. Or are injured before they receive firm offers.

Or about the athletes who have been recruited to play basketball or football at a power five conference school, play four years, entertain fans and alumni, bring in revenue that benefits others -- and receive a substandard education because -- well, that's how it goes, isn't it.

I don't really care who gets into Harvard. there are way way more qualified applicants than spaces. I care about living in a country where all of those talented qualified individuals have opportunities to receive an excellent education and succeed in their careers.

If a kid is focusing on football or basketball as a ticket to college, there is a good chance that is their only chance. It's not middle class kids killing themselves to get a college football scholarship, it's poor kids who have no realistic alternatives.

I am not nearly so worried about the kids with a 1400 and 4.0 who are passed over for admissions than I am about the kids who, in order to secure scholarships, spend their high school years focused on basketball or football at the expense of academics and other pursuits -- but fall short. Or are injured before they receive firm offers.

Or about the athletes who have been recruited to play basketball or football at a power five conference school, play four years, entertain fans and alumni, bring in revenue that benefits others -- and receive a substandard education because -- well, that's how it goes, isn't it.

I don't really care who gets into Harvard. there are way way more qualified applicants than spaces. I care about living in a country where all of those talented qualified individuals have opportunities to receive an excellent education and succeed in their careers.

It is not wrong. A kid I know was offered a spot at Columbia, Vanderbilt and Wesleyan without applying. NO application has been filled out. He’s taken the SAT three times and his super score is not even over 1000. He’s at a small public school with As, Bs and Cs. He hasn’t filled out a single college application yet. Zero. No common app. Nothing. He has taken a sprinkling of honors classes, zero AP classes. He’s played football all four years. Zero other activities.

He may have been “offered a spot,” but he won’t attend until he fills out an application and is admitted. Especially with Ivy/Stanford/NESCAC/MIT, there are so many stories of athletes “committing “ who then are not admitted. You are just another person who sees only part of what’s going on and so are misinformed. There’s your perception and then there are facts. For example, my DCs who committed to Ivies submitted their test scores and transcripts for academic pre-reads before they committed. Then they had to complete their applications by Sept. 15/Oct. 1 to receive a “likely letter” before EdD was announced in December.

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if someone posted this already, we're now at 31 pages. There is a lot of evidence consistent with the idea of a tradeoff between academics and athletics. The idea that athletics is tipping the scales between otherwise equal candidates is bunkum. Not a value judgment on the practice, but at least let's deal in facts.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/8/2025-freshman-survey/

Admitted students from the Class of 2025 had an average SAT score of 1494 and an average ACT score of 34. These numbers varied significantly along athlete and income status. Recruited athletes had an average SAT score of 1397, whereas non-athletes averaged 1501.

We truly are an idiocracy. Smarter kids are passed over for college, and soon enough Bowser will be asking DC taxpayers to pay $1B for a new RFK stadium. YAY, FOOP-BALL!

Apologies if someone posted this already, we're now at 31 pages. There is a lot of evidence consistent with the idea of a tradeoff between academics and athletics. The idea that athletics is tipping the scales between otherwise equal candidates is bunkum. Not a value judgment on the practice, but at least let's deal in facts.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/8/2025-freshman-survey/

Admitted students from the Class of 2025 had an average SAT score of 1494 and an average ACT score of 34. These numbers varied significantly along athlete and income status. Recruited athletes had an average SAT score of 1397, whereas non-athletes averaged 1501.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the anti athlete people have no idea either how Ivy admissions or general life works. Here is what if looks like in real life: Let's say there are two kids. Student A has a 3.9, 1350 SAT, 3 APs, and is an exceptionally good soccer player to the point where she is a recruited athlete. Student B has a 4.2, 1450 SAT, member of the chess club and a few other recreational-level activities (but nothing exceptional), and 5 APs. Of the two, it is clear to anyone without a weird chip on their shoulder that student A is the more compelling candidate and will be far more likely to do interesting and exceptional things in life. Student B has not demonstrated any reason why she is exceptional. Hence the admission boost for A.

What the heck does kicking a ball have to do with doing "interesting" things in life?! Soccer players are a dime a dozen. Athletes are recruited because college teams need players so they can make money for coaches, not because there is anything uniquely interesting about them.

Also, my dog is really good at fetching a stick, so does that mean he should also get into college now? Again, how does kicking a ball have anything to do with higher learning?

Here is your award for the stupidest analogy ever: