Ivy League Athletics

With the addition of SAT II Subject tests, do Ivy League athletes need to complete all of the admission requirements such as taking 3 SAT II tests?

Yes. All of the requirements are the same. Basically the coaches have X number of spots that they can use to get recruits. The recruits have an easier time getting in, but they still have submit all of the same stuff.

C/M Runner wrote:

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.

you got a 1290 on SAT and were your class valedictorian?

shitty ass High school

uh_no wrote:

you got a 1290 on SAT and were your class valedictorian?

shitty ass High school

720 math, 570 verbal, done in 2001. 3.77 GPA out of 4.0. Always been more of a math student. And my high school only had 4 AP classes. Yeah, high school could have been better, but they must be doing something right if they can get kids into Ivy League schools.

SAT scores are overrated. They just prove you can do well on multiple choice tests or wasted a bunch of productive time studying for it. Most classes in college have essay tests and papers, not m/c questions.

Athletes in the Ivy league graduate at the same rate as non-athletes. They spend 3+ hours a day at their sport in addition to their studies. They are to be revered.

Ran 3:52 for 1500 in HS with 1080 SATs. I had no problem gaining acceptance into several Ivy schools.

It is true, the faster you are, the dumber you can be. I'm dumb, but they talked to me anyway.

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.

Engineer wrote:

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.

This may be true, but the Ivies aren't nearly as bad about this as many other prestigious universities. Consider for a moment that Georgetown currently has an undergrad acceptance rate of 18%. Now think about some of the numbnut basketball players who have "graduated" from that school. I'm pretty sure you'd never see Allen "we talking 'bout practice" Iverson on the campus of any Ivy League school (even if they did care about basketball and field competitive teams).

What would you think the fast(5k)-to-dumb(SAT) ratio for admittance were?

For example:

sub-15 to 1000(the most minimum score required??)

15:10 to 1100

15:30/40 to 1250

15:50 to 1300

16:00 to 1350 (is recruitment even existent for 16:00??)

lol wrote:

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.

If by \"standards\" you mean some of the most quantifiable academic standards like SAT, ACT, SAT2, or maybe class standing then I agree. I don\'t agree with \"standards\" in general, because clearly \"standards\" include non-academic accomplishments, which might also be non-athletic. Admissions does the same thing for prized musicians too (although they are probably more likely to be top students than athletes), or other outstanding, high-achievers beyond high school academics. Anyone who understands the admissions process knows a key is to distinguish yourself, and athletic distinction is pretty quantifiable and in demand. Less quantifiable would be someone who demonstrates they might be a gifted artist; tough to validate, but I am sure if they come across the next Updike (Harvard), Rothko (Yale) or Doogie Houser, MD (Princeton), those guys can score 1300\'s too.

Also worth pointing out, is that SATs have been proven to be fairly weak predictors of success in both the classroom and beyond, in that once you get past a certain threshold, probably 1300\'s, the incremental increase in score is less meaningful in predicting success; you are in the box.

Paul Blart wrote:

What would you think the fast(5k)-to-dumb(SAT) ratio for admittance were?

For example:

sub-15 to 1000(the most minimum score required??)

15:10 to 1100

15:30/40 to 1250

15:50 to 1300

16:00 to 1350 (is recruitment even existent for 16:00??)

This begs the question of what caliber runner each school is looking for. Princeton and Columbia recruit arguably the best classes in the Ivies for cross and track, I would say Brown and Yale have weaker caliber recruits.

All Ivy League schools are looking for high caliber runners. The caliber of recruits depends on many factors. Two that are out of the coaches hands are:

1) Ivy League schools are SUPPOSED to offer similar aid packages to one another. This is no longer true.

2) Ivy League schools must uphold certain academic standards, yet some Ivy's can push some athletes through admissions that others cannot.

I meant some of the most quantifiable academic standards.

Dazed n Confused wrote:

High School

1140 SAT

College

3.0 at Brown

.

I got a 1540 on my SATs and definitely wouldn't have gotten into brown. I run d iii and am very happy there.

Luckily there is some data on all this, and a great new yorker piece by malcolm gladwell:

.

a couple key quotes: "even now, recruited athletes have an acceptance rate to the Ivies at well over twice the rate of other students, despite S.A.T. scores that are on average more than a hundred points lower"

And the best passage, which is long:

"Athletes, Shulman and Bowen demonstrate, have a large and growing advantage in admission over everyone else. At the same time, they have markedly lower G.P.A.s and S.A.T. scores than their peers. Over the past twenty years, their class rankings have steadily dropped, and they tend to segregate themselves in an “athletic culture” different from the culture of the rest of the college. Shulman and Bowen think the preference given to athletes by the Ivy League is shameful.

Halfway through the book, however, Shulman and Bowen present what they call a “surprising” finding. Male athletes, despite their lower S.A.T. scores and grades, and despite the fact that many of them are members of minorities and come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than other students, turn out to earn a lot more than their peers. Apparently, athletes are far more likely to go into the high-paying financial-services sector, where they succeed because of their personality and psychological makeup... Shulman and Bowen would like to argue that the attitudes of selective colleges toward athletes are a perversion of the ideals of American élite education, but that’s because they misrepresent the actual ideals of American élite education. The Ivy League is perfectly happy to accept, among others, the kind of student who makes a lot of money after graduation. As the old saying goes, the definition of a well-rounded Yale graduate is someone who can roll all the way from New Haven to Wall Street. "

So yes recruited athletes have it easier, but from the university's perspective, they bring valuable qualities as well.

also, reading the gladwell quote more carefully: yale has an acceptance rate of like 7-8%. Recruited athletes get in at about twice that rate, despite lower scores. That's still only like 15%. 5 out of RECRUITED athletes don't get into ivy league schools. that's still more competitive than most schools in the country.

posting too much wrote:

also, reading the gladwell quote more carefully: yale has an acceptance rate of like 7-8%. Recruited athletes get in at about twice that rate, despite lower scores. That's still only like 15%. 5 out of RECRUITED athletes don't get into ivy league schools. that's still more competitive than most schools in the country.

Recruited athletes get in at about twice that rate

If they are athletes that are recruited by a coach, whom the coach has selected to be on the team, why would the acceptance rate not be 100% ??

Keep this in mind: there are 3 Ivies. The rest are just filling out the athletic schedule.

If you don't go to Harvard, Princeton, or Yale, you are better off going to somewhere with decent weather or less nerdy kids. Duke or Stanford or UVA.

And mot importantly cornell is the bigget joke of an ivy school out there

I'm surprised that the Ivy League Academic Index (I think this is what it is called) hasn't been mentioned yet. I think this standard is applied across all sports, but I know for certain it is applied to football and basketball (and I think hockey as well.)

The eight schools have been divided into three tiers. YHP are in tier I, I think Col-Dart are in tier II. Penn and Cor are in tier III .... I'm not sure if Bro is in II or III.

Each tier has a different SAT and GPA standard assigned to it. This was brought in because after about three decades of existence (the Ivy League was formed, I think, in 1950) it was apparent that YHP had an advantage in recruiting because they are the most prestigious schools in the league (the Ivies are obviously recruiting from the same set of successful student-athletes.) Yale football was so dominant for so long that it actually hurt the league .... the were striving for some degree of parity. So now, YHP can only recruit athletes within a certain range of scores/grades, and must achieve a particular average for each recruiting class. Tier II and III have lower standards. It has certainly worked; there is much more parity in those sports since the addition of this system.

Again, I'm not sure if these standards are applied across all sports or not.

I do remember a buddy of mine from HS who went to Yale; excellent student, didn't apply as an athlete. His roommate freshman year was a football player (defensive lineman ... hard to find big, smart kids) whose SAT scores were 970 (early 80's, when the SATs were somewhat more challenging than they are now.) Yes, Yale recruited down at the time .... and won the Ivy in football every year (or just about.)

Never heard of the Ivy League Academic Index. I managed to find a calculator online to "estimate" that index. If anyone wants to see now how they are "likely" to get into an Ivy League school, check out the link below:

http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/academic-index-calculator/

You need to recall your SAT (v/m) score, your top 3 SAT II scores, your class size, and class ranking. I'm apparently a 4 out of 9...