Ivy League Athletics

It's definitely true that athletes can have lower scores, though how much lower depends on the team. My coach also said that it was much easier to find female athletes with top academic scores than male athletes (sorry guys!), so I think that there is often more academic variance between the men. That said, plenty of legacy kids and kids from "underrepresented groups" receive preferential treatment as well. ALSO, I wouldn't say that they athletes are "several levels intellectually below," as most Ivy athletes that I know have gone on to amazing grad schools, and now have extremely successful careers. I think that Ivy athlete graduates are every bit as successful in the "real" world as their non-athlete classmates.

Certainly after getting the Ivy edcucation, they move on to having very succesful careers. But, I'm asking about simply getting into the Ivy League schools. Do some of their athletes have SAT/ACT scores below or even well below the average of their non-varstiy-athletic peers?

Paul Blart wrote:

Is it true that it's much easier to get into the Ivy League schools simply through varsity athletics? Obviously the athletes aren't dumb, but are they really several levels intelectually below the kid that got in without being an athlete? Or are all Ivy League varsity athletes just gifted with very good SAT scores and athletic ability?

Went to Harvard. Ran varsity track. Got a 1290 on SATs and was high school class valedictorian. Focused in engineering (only BS at the time on the entire campus). Graduated with a 3.02 GPA. Won conference championships twice in hurdles.

Make what you will. But I was told once by the late Paul Turner that my SATs score was among the lower end of the bell-curve. I still survived the four years there, worked my ass off to get Bs and score at conference. I probably was admitted to run for the team, but I was still considered smart enough to be able to endure the class environment.

EDIT: "lower end of the bell-curve" for Harvard admissions.

From my anecdotal experience, yes. On my xc/track team, it seemed most women had SAT scores between 1300-1400. (This was back in the 1600 days.) While these scores are great, they are not - alone - Ivy League caliber. Most of the women also had good class ranks (probably top 10%). I would say most other female athletes probably had similar scores.

I do know, however, that athletes on certain other teams (say, men's hockey) had much lower scores.

ivy athlete wrote:

From my anecdotal experience, yes. On my xc/track team, it seemed most women had SAT scores between 1300-1400. (This was back in the 1600 days.) While these scores are great, they are not - alone - Ivy League caliber. Most of the women also had good class ranks (probably top 10%). I would say most other female athletes probably had similar scores.

I do know, however, that athletes on certain other teams (say, men's hockey) had much lower scores.

Yes, the Ivys do lower their standards for athletes. Most teams have a list that they send to admissions that all but guarantee admission. You still need decent SAT scores and class rank to get on that list, but it's much easier than it is for normal students.

How much lower do you believe the standards actually are? Are there athletes with sub-30 ACT scores?

One would think there would be LOTS of hs runners sending in their times and recruitment info to the Ivy schools if all you needed were 15:30s for most of the schools (maybe not Princeton, but Yale, Dartmouth, Cornell for sure) and the admission requirements were that much lower.

Paul Blart wrote:

How much lower do you believe the standards actually are? Are there athletes with sub-30 ACT scores?

Since according to Google a score of 30 on the ACT = 13:40 on the SATs, absolutely. I know multiple athletes with SAT scores in the 1200s.

The short answer is, yes, there are athletes who get in who wouldn't have gotten in otherwise. There are certain standards -- above a certain SAT score, some top % of your graduating high school class, and you're guaranteed admission if the coach wants you and has a spot. Even if you don't make those standards, it helps to be able to run fast.

But that doesn't mean they're dumb, dumber, or intellectually below anything. It means the standards are a bit lower. There are also lower standards for people who can sing, people who can play an instrument, debate well, write well, do math well, cook well, etc. etc. etc.

If your SAT score gets you into the school you want to go to, it's good enough.

Most Ivy athletic teams will have an average SAT score lower than a sample of their non-athletic counterparts, but there are a good number of athletes that have SAT scores well above the university average.

depends on the school, and the sport.

My SAT scores were pretty low. I think 1750 w/ the writing included. 1200 w/ just the verbal and math. Luckily I had 3.9/4.0 unweighted GPA w/a few APs and lots of honors classes. My coach had to pull for me big time w/ the low SATs. It helps to apply ED to get more pull. So far I'm surviving just fine w/ all As and Bs. There is a sliiight dumb jock stigma that i'm still getting used to. I was considered very studious in HS so its funny that i'm a dumb jock now. I think the magic number is 1200 for SATs. the writing section is BS so they don't take it into consideration as much. but you can't go below 1200 on verbal and math.

Whether it be athletics, art, opera, violin, debate, etc. Everyone has their talents that set them apart from the rest. Pair that with above average intelligence and you're in. It's the same at every school. Are the basketball players at Duke as smart as their peers? Are the football players at Oklahoma State as smart as their peers? At least at the Ivy's they're still required to go to class and earn their grades the same as everyone else without "tutors" doing everything for them.

Faster you are the dumber you can be. There is a minimum dumbness to get in and no matter how fast you are, you can't get in without certain requirements. It is much harder to do well in school when you are at practice for hrs a day and traveling on weekends. I've got a 3.1 and the average athlete has a 2.8-3.2. Some kids r still pulling high 3s

I had a 1360 and around a 3.6 coming out of high school.

No one on our team had lower than a 1250 on their sat as far as I knew. And Even the 1250 was an outlier. On the old SAT, 1300 was kind of the magic number. If you had good grades, 1300 SATs, and were recruitable - that would get you in almost without fail.

Ya, my SAT/ACT scores are at 1270 range, but my 5k times are solid. Thanks for the insight.

I think BYOB posed an interesting question too. Why exactly don't more runners look into the Ivy League if they have solid 5k times? They would be getting the best education in the country...

Wake Me Up When September Ends wrote:

At least at the Ivy's they're still required to go to class and earn their grades the same as everyone else without "tutors" doing everything for them.

Um, I was an athlete at an Ivy, and this was not always the case. There were specific classes (e.g. Swahili) that had a very high percentage of athletes and were known to be very easy. Also, all varsity athletes had a free tutor service for any class. For most classes, you could not show up and still get a B. This part wasn't just exclusive for athletes though.

Paul Blart wrote:

I think BYOB posed an interesting question too. Why exactly don't more runners look into the Ivy League if they have solid 5k times? They would be getting the best education in the country...

Money perhaps? No athletic scholarships. Somewhat daunting to lower income families with talented kids. But what people don't know is how the admissions/financial aid offices typically can produce very generous financial aid packages and are willing to listen you appeal them if things seem unfair.

Funny enough, outside of the local state school I applied to, Harvard gave me the best financial aid package (compared to Notre Dame, Dartmouth, Georgia Tech, and Vanderbilt).