Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

I think the only thing that’s funny is that an adult sees things in such a black and white way. How do you account for kids like mine, both Ivy athletes, one who was valedictorian and NMSF and one who graduated from college summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa? The schools may have taken them to fill a need, because they do need to fill their athletic rosters, but my kids - and many of their teammates- were most certainly academically qualified. But keep your false narrative, for whatever comfort it provides you.

Except it’s not a false narrative for revenue sports. This is all quite factual and it is what it is.

Let’s just say it in simple words…yes a recruited football, basketball or baseball player can have stats much lower than the averages at an Ivy school. Much, much lower at a Duke or Stanford that awards athletic scholarships.

My first child got accepted to Yale with an SAT of 1190 and 3.2 GPA as a 5-star recruit. The second child got accepted to Stanford with an SAT of 1270 and a 3.3 GPA as a blue chip recruit. This was about ten years ago.

Sure they did.

My kid is going through this now and, even if I believed what you say (and I don't based on the kids I know who got accepted to Harvard for athletics and other similar schools in recent times), it is simply no longer the case. The first thing out of these coaches' mouths when talking to my DC is "what are your grades" and "send me your transcripts." I know kids who have been flat out told "you won't make it through admissions so we won't be able to consider you."

At D3 I would agree that athletes do not generally have lower stats. But in addition to a boost at a selective school, it can help with merit aid. I know of a kid with a medium GPA, low course rigor, no ECs other than their sport, and TO got more merit aid at a school than another kid with high GPA+rigor+SAT+ECs but no sports hook. Supposedly not allowed but from what I read it happens, just like how the sports teams aren't supposed to practice until a certain day but many do.

Anonymous wrote:I thought the Ivys tried to maintain some sort of team gpa as well. So if one recruited athlete was at the lower end (yet above the minimum, whatever that is), other athletes will be at the higher end.

But that’s just what we heard when my DS was thinking about college sports.

They used to use the Academic Index tied to SAT scores along the lines of what you are thinking (prior to TO). A friend of mine said a kid on his son's AAU basketball team went from 0 to admitted to Yale in like a week because the Yale coach said I need a decent basketball player with an SAT of 1570+ to balance out the Academic Index and I need a kid yesterday. No idea if this is true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

I think the only thing that’s funny is that an adult sees things in such a black and white way. How do you account for kids like mine, both Ivy athletes, one who was valedictorian and NMSF and one who graduated from college summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa? The schools may have taken them to fill a need, because they do need to fill their athletic rosters, but my kids - and many of their teammates- were most certainly academically qualified. But keep your false narrative, for whatever comfort it provides you.

Exactly! As I said, some kids have it all. Not mine, but PP's do, and good for them! They should be commended.

They should be commended yes, but for every kid like that there are many-non athletes that could have been admitted and done the same thing. Just too few spots for all the qualified applicants. So just acknowledge the boost that athletes get that is unlike any other. A kid has to be a very good athlete to get this kind of boost too so why not just own it and stop pretending it's not an advantage?

I thought the Ivys tried to maintain some sort of team gpa as well. So if one recruited athlete was at the lower end (yet above the minimum, whatever that is), other athletes will be at the higher end.

But that’s just what we heard when my DS was thinking about college sports.

^I also would like to add that my nephew got accepted into the Naval Academy with an SAT score of 1200 and 3.1 GPA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

I think the only thing that’s funny is that an adult sees things in such a black and white way. How do you account for kids like mine, both Ivy athletes, one who was valedictorian and NMSF and one who graduated from college summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa? The schools may have taken them to fill a need, because they do need to fill their athletic rosters, but my kids - and many of their teammates- were most certainly academically qualified. But keep your false narrative, for whatever comfort it provides you.

Except it’s not a false narrative for revenue sports. This is all quite factual and it is what it is.

Let’s just say it in simple words…yes a recruited football, basketball or baseball player can have stats much lower than the averages at an Ivy school. Much, much lower at a Duke or Stanford that awards athletic scholarships.

My first child got accepted to Yale with an SAT of 1190 and 3.2 GPA as a 5-star recruit. The second child got accepted to Stanford with an SAT of 1270 and a 3.3 GPA as a blue chip recruit. This was about ten years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

I think the only thing that’s funny is that an adult sees things in such a black and white way. How do you account for kids like mine, both Ivy athletes, one who was valedictorian and NMSF and one who graduated from college summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa? The schools may have taken them to fill a need, because they do need to fill their athletic rosters, but my kids - and many of their teammates- were most certainly academically qualified. But keep your false narrative, for whatever comfort it provides you.

Except it’s not a false narrative for revenue sports. This is all quite factual and it is what it is.

Let’s just say it in simple words…yes a recruited football, basketball or baseball player can have stats much lower than the averages at an Ivy school. Much, much lower at a Duke or Stanford that awards athletic scholarships.

Pre-reads are an advantage. The student gets early feedback and can pinpoint their ED choice. That is hugely helpful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a D1 athlete at a T25. Yes, he had SAT score above the 75th percentile for that school and 4 plus gpa with 10 AP’s. Happened to be a stellar athlete to boot. Same for another kid whose stats and rigor I know on his team. It’s incredibly difficult handling academics and 40hours of sport/travel a week, so having a solid academic base/study habits/intellect is essential.

Again, what is the sport? We all know that the "one-and-done" basketball players at Duke do not have anything near the stats of the non-athletes at Duke.

You do realize that college basketball team generally has 3 or 4 recruits per year right. Out of, what, 1500 freshman seats at Duke? But the vast majority of college athletes don’t “go pro”. And even taking what this thread says at face value (ie, that athletes on average would not get in otherwise), so what? Colleges have always taken a range of academic pedigrees and accepted students who demonstrate talents in other, not strictly academic, areas? I went to a T20 “Power 5” college. I tutored some athletes. Became friends with a couple. They didn’t come into college as prepared as most others did. But you know what, they were as a rule more than capable of doing it with some effort. They really hadn’t had to put in much effort in HS because 15-17 year olds, gasp, sometimes don’t think like adults and live in the moment, which for them was their sport they were generally a star in. Nobody was putting pressure on them to ace Latin. I personally do not begrudge the handful of recruited athletes who attend elite colleges. To me it proves you don’t have to have an impeccable resume to be able to do the work or add to the university community.

Anonymous wrote:

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

I think the only thing that’s funny is that an adult sees things in such a black and white way. How do you account for kids like mine, both Ivy athletes, one who was valedictorian and NMSF and one who graduated from college summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa? The schools may have taken them to fill a need, because they do need to fill their athletic rosters, but my kids - and many of their teammates- were most certainly academically qualified. But keep your false narrative, for whatever comfort it provides you.

You’re so desperate to convince someone. Why? Your kid benefited from the ultimate hook. It says something that you all start these threads and write these posts insisting that your kid is the exception.

Anonymous wrote:

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

I think the only thing that’s funny is that an adult sees things in such a black and white way. How do you account for kids like mine, both Ivy athletes, one who was valedictorian and NMSF and one who graduated from college summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa? The schools may have taken them to fill a need, because they do need to fill their athletic rosters, but my kids - and many of their teammates- were most certainly academically qualified. But keep your false narrative, for whatever comfort it provides you.

Here’s what you don’t get:

1. Many athletes have the minimum, lower end, of who is accepted.

2. Many students applying hve much better stats than the athlete applicant.

3. The athlete gets a boost up. Even if you take a high stats athlete and compare his application to a high stats athlete, the athlete gets a boost in admissions and an edge. A big one.

To cherry pick out an example of an athlete who is super smart and really athletic does not mean that is how most athlete applicants are. Those are the minority. And even when they are, they still got a major boost over their competitors.

This was best break-down I have seen on Ivy recruiting and stats:

https://youtu.be/vWKoG1XTLsI?si=ALrQ0LRrI9RMwoqk

Anonymous wrote:

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

I think the only thing that’s funny is that an adult sees things in such a black and white way. How do you account for kids like mine, both Ivy athletes, one who was valedictorian and NMSF and one who graduated from college summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa? The schools may have taken them to fill a need, because they do need to fill their athletic rosters, but my kids - and many of their teammates- were most certainly academically qualified. But keep your false narrative, for whatever comfort it provides you.

Exactly! As I said, some kids have it all. Not mine, but PP's do, and good for them! They should be commended.

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

I think the only thing that’s funny is that an adult sees things in such a black and white way. How do you account for kids like mine, both Ivy athletes, one who was valedictorian and NMSF and one who graduated from college summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa? The schools may have taken them to fill a need, because they do need to fill their athletic rosters, but my kids - and many of their teammates- were most certainly academically qualified. But keep your false narrative, for whatever comfort it provides you.