|By Kimfuge (Kimfuge) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 07:41 am: Edit|
what was your gpa and sat scores? is there a minimum gpa required for a recruited athlete? I know that if one is placed higher on the coach's list the less one can be academically but can you guys give me like a generic number? ivy league colleges especially. thx.
|By Drusba (Drusba) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 08:40 am: Edit|
Am aware of one athlete, a top wrestler, that was recruited by Stanford. He had a 3.3 GPA and his initial ACT score was 23. They told him he needed to get his ACT up to 25 (which he later did) and then they would give him a full scholarship.
|By Ivysearch (Ivysearch) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:54 am: Edit|
I know an athlete admitted to Harvard early with a 1200, no A's in highschool, not a minority
|By Beenthereil (Beenthereil) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 02:27 pm: Edit|
Son was admitted ED to Princeton, Class of 2008.
A baseball player...Top 10 (not %) in his class of over 716...Weighted GPA of 4.789 on a 4.00 scale...ACT 35...SAT 1490-1580. Plenty of A's and A+'s. B+ in a couple of AP Classes.
Not a minority.
|By Sauronone (Sauronone) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 03:12 pm: Edit|
There's no formula. It really depends on the extent of your athletic ability.
|By Voigtrob (Voigtrob) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit|
Quite so. If you're the next Michael Jordan, you can pretty much go wherever the hedge you want, as long as you can read at at least a middle-school level. ;P
|By Fhmamii (Fhmamii) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit|
I'm a recruited athlete for Cornell and I have a 1390 SAT, 4.4 w - 4.0 uw GPA, ranked top 10%, AP courses, college courses, minority.
pretty much if they want you, you're in.
|By Fhmamii (Fhmamii) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit|
Also, I have a friend that got into Princeton ED that was recruited for tennis. She only took her SAT's once and got a 1300. She stopped taking them because Princeton told her they would take her as long as she got an 1180. Keep in mind though, that she's ranked like 8th in the nation in singles. And she's also taking all AP's and college courses, ranked 1st in our class and has a 4.5 GPA
|By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 03:57 pm: Edit|
i also know a tennis recruit who was accepted ED to Princeton. she's black, with a 1500+ SAT score i think, a mixture of A's and B's (which is very difficult to get in this school anyway), legacy (dad), active in several clubs.
another one who was recruited by princeton last year for ice hockey. she stood a great chance anyway even if she wasn't a recruit.
as for the other posts, i'm appalled that people with such low stats got admitted. but these people would ultimately suffer from inferiority complex, if not from the highly demanding workload they would have to face (not that they would care to do the work).
|By Stargazrlilychk (Stargazrlilychk) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 05:29 pm: Edit|
one of my friends went to georgetown with a 1050 for tennis. another went to GWU with a 1090. my best friend got a basketball offer from harvard with a 1290.
however, in regard to the previous posters comments,
"i'm appalled that people with such low stats got admitted. but these people would ultimately suffer from inferiority complex, if not from the highly demanding workload they would have to face (not that they would care to do the work)."
to say that athletes don't work hard is really ignorant. First of all, to play at a Division 1 level requires more work and effort than most of us non-athletes can imagine. Secondly, many athletes have to work extra hard at schoolwork to keep up.
In addition, most ivy league schools require about a 1100-1200 and decent grades to get in, unless you're like incredible. Now, im not sure if the people on this board have tainted our views of what good scores are, but down here on a place i like to call earth, a 1200 means that you're pretty smart. maybe not a genius like the other candidates applying, but still intelligent enough to work your way through.
|By Rhino (Rhino) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 05:41 pm: Edit|
Gian-Previously you have made some intelligent posts, so your latest post in which you diss the ability and (most important) the desire of athletes, reflects quite badly on you. I hope you are having a bad day and that you are both more insightful and aware than your most recent post indicates.
|By Ivysearch (Ivysearch) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 05:46 pm: Edit|
I think the Ivy coaches are allowed to take one or two athletes with really low stats, then a few with 1100-1200, and the rest need to be 1300+. These are not exact numbers but they have some sort of formula that works like this. I think the coaches are entitled to a very few definite admissions and they reserve this pull for the top recruits.
|By Joe3000t3 (Joe3000t3) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 06:32 pm: Edit|
a kid I know got recruited and accepted to Princeton ED, his SAT was 1020 and gpa was 2.4, but from a good public school, and didnt file for FinAid. He is not URM but he is nationally ranked swimmer.
|By Ivysearch (Ivysearch) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 06:37 pm: Edit|
He must have been their number 1 or 2 swimming recruit
|By Chimmortal (Chimmortal) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 06:39 pm: Edit|
I know a guy who got accepted to an Ivy to play hockey. He had 1200ish SAT I think, but that's not the best part. When asked in his interview what his favorite book was, he replied "any of the Goosebumps books".
|By Elzbieta777 (Elzbieta777) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 06:45 pm: Edit|
hey goosebumps rock!!!! don't be knocking the bumps, baby!
|By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 06:50 pm: Edit|
|By Fhmamii (Fhmamii) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 07:47 pm: Edit|
Thank you Stargazrlilychk!!! It actually makes me very upset when people imply that athletes have no intelligence and just get into schools based on their athletic abilities. Being an athlete isn't just going out and playing a game for an hour, it's 30+ hours of training a week. When the rest of the kids get to go home and work on their homework, our practice doesn't even end til 6:30. I think it's beyond ignorant when people say athletes don't work hard. I have trained through blood, tears, and sweat, literally, since last spring to end up where I am right now...a state champion. I've completely torn the ligament in my thumb and got 18 stitches in my chin in the process but it was well worth it. All athletes may not be smart in the sense of getting 1500+ on their SAT's because we don't have all the time in the world to devote to academics, but know to respect us because we are putting in all we have.
|By Emyh (Emyh) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 08:06 pm: Edit|
Some kid from my school with an 1100ish SAT score got a full ride into Rice (nowhere near the top of his class at all). He plays football.
And then you have the kids who are not only on top of their game, but on top of their class.
That being said, I gotta agree Fhmamii & Stargazrlilychk. I am not an exceptional athlete, I suppose, but to seriously commit to a sport requires so much dedication, time, and energy. It's something you put your heart and soul into, and surpasses academics in a few ways on the fact (I personally think) that it requires immense drive and and an intense passion for their sport.
|By Mike2004 (Mike2004) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit|
ok - just curious. I was being recruited by Harvard to row, but I didn't think I stood a chance getting in (the top 2 kids from my school applied and were both accepted). I have a 1330, top 2% of a 600+ public school (mostly black, but i'm white), great essays and recs - tons of community service and all, lots of sports awards, captain, medals from national regattas etc... I wasn't a 'top' recruit, but I was on a list of recruits. I ended up applying to U.Penn and got in early (no recruiting). Did I stand a shot at Harvard? not that i regret it, just curious...
|By Wlrsqtr (Wlrsqtr) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 08:26 pm: Edit|
Okay, Fhmamii, most kids who get into Ivy's (based on academics not legacies, athletes etc) spend 30 hours a week on their own ECS and still need 1500+ and almost perfect GPAs. They probably don't bust their ligament much. To the op, there was an article that was posted on a thread a while back that said the minimum for an Ivy recruit is about 1200 but the school must maintain some higher average so schools may recurit a 1600 who they know will never play in order to have a kid with low SAT, GPA. There were also GPA minimums of some sort.
|By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:20 pm: Edit|
i completely understand the amount of time and effort athletes devote to sports, and i completely respect their commitment to sports.
with all due respect
i'm assuming the negative posts are directed towards me
while an applicant with a 1200 SAT score and mostly B report card is capable of doing the work at an ivy-caliber university, he/she would likely feel inferior for having relatively subpar credentials. applicants with such stats certainly do not have to feel inferior to their 1500+, straight A counterparts, but many who do feel inferior would rather not have to deal with this extra burden.
athletes chose to prioritize sports over academics and made this conscious choice knowing that their grades could suffer. there is nothing wrong with this choice especially if they have a passion for sports. but for many ivy recruits who faced difficulty balancing sports and academics in high school, they are likely to experience the same at their respective college.
I did not say that "athletes have no intelligence and just get into schools based on their athletic abilities." i said athletic recruits with low stats are likely to feel inferior to their 1500+ straight-A counterparts. someone who truthfully claims that his/her 1200 SAT reflects his/her mental ability could still classify as intelligent, just not as intelligent as someone who truthfully claims that his/her 1500 SAT reflects his/her ability.
in most cases, an applicant who got in with a 1000-1200 SAT and a B average (unless the person went to a school like andover) got in solely because of his/her athletic ability, URM, legacy status, or a combination of any three.
"All athletes may not be smart in the sense of getting 1500+ on their SAT's because we don't have all the time in the world to devote to academics, but know to respect us because we are putting in all we have."
that an athlete has a relatively low SAT score hardly justifies the lack of time he/she has for academics because the person could easily attain such a score if he/she is innately smart. i happen to know two recruited athletes who have such scores. they also manage to get a mixture of A's and B's on their report card, which is extremely hard to achieve in this school even without sports commitment.
"to say that athletes don't work hard is really ignorant." yes, the fact that i said "not that [recruited athletes] would care to do the work" is ignorant. i'm sorry. what i meant to say was that *some* of them refuse to work hard in school once they are admitted.
"First of all, to play at a Division 1 level requires more work and effort than most of us non-athletes can imagine. Secondly, many athletes have to work extra hard at schoolwork to keep up."
yet many athletes are able to balance both. like i said, they would likely have a hard time balancing academics with sports in college if they experienced the same difficulty in high school.
"In addition, most ivy league schools require about a 1100-1200 and decent grades to get in, unless you're like incredible. Now, im not sure if the people on this board have tainted our views of what good scores are, but down here on a place i like to call earth, a 1200 means that you're pretty smart."
according to what you said, ivy leagues have to lower their academic standards for athletes, unless the athlete is "like incredible." why do the ivies lower their test score requirement for athletes? can't they find enough athletes who score in the 1300's?
"maybe not a genius like the other candidates applying, but still intelligent enough to work your way through."
like i said, someone with a 1200 and B average could certainly classify as intelligent, just not intelligent enough, in the eyes of ivy admissions officers, when compared to the general ivy admit pool. if these athletes experienced a hard time balancing school and sports in high school, they would likely have a hard time in college as well.
|By Dstark (Dstark) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:25 pm: Edit|
Gian, athletes may feel superior due to their physical abilities. You are putting too much stock into SAT scores.
|By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:36 pm: Edit|
this feeling of athletic superiority among recruits with relatively lower stats would likely get suppressed by the feeling of academic superiority among many non-athletic recruits. afterall, most ivy students give more emphasis on academics rather than on sports. as you know, ivies are first and foremost academic institutions.
a great many ivy kids don't even care about sports. if a recruit does brag about his/her athletic talent, he/she risks being labeled as someone who got in solely based on his/her athletic merits. this label could make the person feel all the more inferior about himself/herself. on the other hand, if the recruits keep this notion of athletic superiority amongst themselves, they would would have a hard time justifying their physical superiority because of lack of recognition.
|By Dstark (Dstark) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:58 pm: Edit|
Are people going around bragging about their high school academic records and test scores?
|By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit|
it is easier to sense whether a person is relatively more intelligent than to sense whether the person is athletically talented. there is a discernable difference, before kids even brag about their academic records, between a person who truthfully claims that his/her SAT is 1200 reflects his/her mental ability and a person who truthfully claims that his/her 1500 SAT reflects his/her mental ability. the brain of the latter simply functions differently. furthermore, academically gifted people have a distinct set of traits- unique sense of humor and a creative mind, curiosity, a highly analytical brain (relative to the norm), etc. academically gifted people are just DIFFERENT, and that they are more gifted is easily discernable if one interacts with them even on a basic level. also, athletic recruits would eventually get a sense of how smart their peers actually are even without their peers actually telling them. in fact, most recruits will have already developed a general sense of how smart their peers are even before they enter the university.
|By Dartmyth (Dartmyth) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:23 pm: Edit|
I was a recruited rower to Dartmouth this year. The way that athletic recruitment works depends on a couple of things.
1) The weight that your sport has at any given univeristy. For example, at Yale (I know this because the lightweight rowing coach is an alum of my high school) rowing holds enough weight that they are able to guarentee 8 spots so long as the recruited athletes to rowing (over all the programs-lightweight, heavyweight, and women) have an academic average that is within one standard deviation of the mean of regular applicants.
2) How good you are. For example, if you apply to a school where your sport does not have a lot of weight than your position on the coaches list will obviously determine whether or not you are accepted. I know at Dartmouth for example, the past few years have seen the top 6 rowing recruits accepted with little trouble.
Thats pretty much all i know. I know also that at schools like UPenn for rowing the coaches can take your stats to the adcom to see if you have a shot of getting in before you even apply. Which can be useful when deciding where to apply early.
anyway hope that helps.
btw --- Mike2004, you are going to row at Upenn next year? Say hello to Mike Guichon for me (I rowed with him in High school), hehe, and let him know I beat his 2k time from last year :P. My name is Mike too. anyway see ya on the water next year.
|By Sauronone (Sauronone) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:30 pm: Edit|
Recruitment also depends on your academics, but not in the way you might think. If you are good enough to be recruited for a sport, but not good enough to be first or second on the list, the higher your academic stats, the LOWER the chances of you being recruited (or the lower you are on the recruitment list). This is perfectly understandable from the coach's perspective, as he would not want to waste a relatively high slot on a student who has a decent shot at getting in without recruitment. As a result, coaches generally put the good (but not amazing) athletic recruits with excellent academic stats on the bottom of their recruiting lists, hoping the coach's vote will push the recruit over to acceptance.
|By Ivysearch (Ivysearch) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:08 pm: Edit|
I know what you are saying is true about athletes with excellent academic stats being put lower on the list. It is ironic that the better students are often not accepted and athletes with similar athletic ability and weaker students are accepted.
|By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:51 pm: Edit|
i also heard about that happening...coaches seem to think that athletic recruits who also have impressive academic stats don't need further boosting, and therefore the coaches focus their energy instead on less academically qualified athletic recruits.
|By Ivysearch (Ivysearch) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit|
I also think the coaches don't really care about having high academic achievers.........these kids are sometimes more committed to academics than athletics and may either quit the team or not improve in the sport. What I am saying is that if they can get the less academic athlete in, why waste a spot on an athlete that will be up half a night trying to get all As.
|By Beenthereil (Beenthereil) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 05:07 pm: Edit|
Interesting perspective as to what the college "experience" for an academically bright college athlete should be.
Will be interesting to see what happens with my son, both academically and athletically, at Princeton.
I do know one thing. He would be embarrassed to read this thread that schools don't require the same academic records/test scores of athletes as they do of a recruited woodwind player.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|