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.
+1
I have three kids in high school. The 2 who are just ok athletes have near perfect grades and test scores. The third child is an outstanding athlete but has the lower grades and scores of the three. Why? Because she spends about 25 hours a week on her sport. I guarantee if she didn’t do that, she’d have higher grades and scores.
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
It happens way earlier. Most of the top lacrosse girls get them aug 1st prior to their junior year
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.
+1 It's not because they did well academically in college. It's about the networking.
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.
+1
I have three kids in high school. The 2 who are just ok athletes have near perfect grades and test scores. The third child is an outstanding athlete but has the lower grades and scores of the three. Why? Because she spends about 25 hours a week on her sport. I guarantee if she didn’t do that, she’d have higher grades and scores.
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.
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.
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: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
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
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: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:But though Princeton may have been different in your time, most students there and at like schools these days — athlete or not — are clones with “grit, perseverance, and a willingness to put up with corporate BS.”