BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) Boys High School Lax

When my oldest went through the recruiting process (before the rule change) as a 9th grader Duke gave us a guideline (I know longer have it) and it outlined academic cause for concern regarding recruits, I do not remember exact GPA but I remember it stated SAT below 1200 would be cause for concern. First time out (9th or 10th grade can’t remember) scored 28 on ACT … Princeton said take it again but if that is the best we can work with it. At the Ivy’s it is definitely different for every kid and it depends on the entire recruiting class. If a schools top recruit has a 33 ACT and a 98 unweighted GPA with all Honors and AP classes then some of the other recruits can get in with lower credentials. If the top couple of recruits have low 90 GPA’s and 28-29 ACT then the other recruits will have to have much better grades and test scores.

Every single situation is different.

Not true. URM or under represented minority doesn't necessarily mean the the student comes from an academic or economically disadvantaged background. Many don't.

This may help:

https://www.mka.org/uploaded/college_counseling/Publications/AI_Guidelines_Worksheet.pdf

I don't think the Ivy League's AI guidelines work anymore if schools remain test optional for regular applicants as well as recruited athletes.

Of course. I meant that the admissions process is much less rigorous for the top kids.

At this point, all they have to go on in terms of academic evaluation is the prospect's GPA. There are no SAT subject tests and standardized tests are optional. There are no AP requirements.
That's kind of a joke because looking at an applicant's HS GPA is very subjective- almost meaningless. Identical GPAs from different HS, even from students taking similar classes, are not comparable. Some HS are more rigorous in their instruction and are tough in their grading process.
Other schools are the exact opposite. A similar argument can be made about the end of year HS class rank.

This statement is wrong.

Simply not a true statement.

Most are, very few athletes represented. Very few

Stanford doesn’t have Men’s lacrosse. Reputed means maybe. You know a single recruit, therefore that is the final answer. How do you know they are being truthful? What factual evidence did you see? SAT scores? Transcripts? Please give more than a guy I know.

Universities don’t like to publicize how much preferential admissions treatment they give special populations like athletes, legacies, and under-represented minority groups.


From ESPN columnist and 4 time All-American Stanford University softball player

“Which is generally what Stanford looks for when admitting athletes. There are no official standards you have to hit to get in. No magic formula of SAT scores and GPA, although generally it's gotta be above 1150 (out of 1600) and 3.5. But it's a sliding scale. And yes, it varies by sport. A football player with a 1100 SAT and 3.4 GPA might get in while a softball player with the same scores wouldn't.”

http://m.espn.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=college_sports&id=6206094&src=desktop


From Duke Chronicle - university student newspaper editorial

“For the Class of 2007, 768 male non-athletes were admitted to Duke with an average SAT score of 1,438, while 42 recruited athletes averaged 1,172. For females, 786 non-athletes averaged 1,403, versus 37 athletes' 1,258.

That's a 266-point gap for males and a 145-point gap for females.

And in case you're interested in a team-by-team breakdown, the eight men's baseball team recruits averaged 1,206 that year, while 22 football players averaged 1,063 and the five men's basketball players came in last at 997. All 14 other recruited male athletes averaged 1,258.

Considering the national average for the 2002 SAT was 1,026, it's a safe bet that few (if any) non-athletes could even get their foot in the door with stats like the ones above.

Yet the most elite recruits (read: prospective basketball players) can be tentatively admitted before they've finished their junior year of high school; all that's needed is a PSAT score and freshman and sophomore grades.

This must have been how our beloved Sean Dockery got admitted with a 2.3 GPA and an ACT score of 15; at the time, his credentials didn't even meet NCAA minimums of a 2.5 GPA and 17 on the ACT.”

https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2006/10/fight-blue-devils-fight

From Stanford Magazine - published by Stanford Univerisity alumni association

“In the four classes entering the University from 1994 to 1997, the average freshman male athlete had logged a 3.73 high school GPA and a 1,215 SAT score, according to NCAA statistics. Female freshman athletes during the same period had a 3.87 GPA and a 1,151 SAT score. By comparison, the averages for all Division 1 schools combined were 2.97 and 997 for males and 3.29 and 1,007 for females. At Duke University, another school known for academics as well as athletics, incoming freshman male athletes had a 3.46 GPA and an SAT of 1,103, while females had a 3.51 grade-point and a 1,090 test score.“

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/how-to-build-a-dynasty

Stanford and Duke also basketball and football schools. Pretty sure majority of those lower athletic standards are going to those kids. Not the wealthy white kid from the suburbs with a house in the Hamptons.

References include for statistics for women athletes only.
And there are no revenue women’s sports like football and men’s basketball.

Are we ready still discussing this?

The reality is, recruited athletes get in with lower grades than the general population and the better athletes can get in with lower grades than the average recruits.

Leave Football and Basketball out of the discussion.

I doesn’t matter if we are talking Princeton, Stanford, Yale, Duke, Hopkins, Northwestern etc….
The Athletes get in with lower academic credentials.
Anyone who does not know this is simply ignorant.

There is no doubt that recruited athletics receive tremendous assistance in getting admitted to the schools you listed. Based on the statistics presented above, you can even argue that probably none of the enrolled student-athletes had any business applying to these schools if it wasn't for sports.

That is correct. That is also why these kids who do not belong going to these high academic schools major in basket weaving, history, and criminal justice.

Can’t leave those sports out, any school with either program is giving those athletes the admission preference. Not the lacrosse player.

And there you have it…. The typical jealous bitter response.
I’m sure the Liberal Arts major coming out of Princeton, Yale, Harvard etc… do just fine after graduation. The ones that I know have gone into investment banking, Consulting, Private Equity etc… they start out 100k plus. Unless you have a specific vocation that you are interested in, it will be your connections/alumni, your university reputation and your grades that matter.

Yeah, basket weaving... Your small minded view demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Here is a quote from a Harvard History Major:

“After five years on Wall Street working
for two of the largest investment banks in the world (Morgan Stanley &
UBS), I have found that communication skills are absolutely essential to
success in a career in finance. I would argue that one’s ability to write,
compose, and edit well is more important than one’s ability to create a
spreadsheet or perform quantitative-oriented tasks. So far in my career,
my communication skills have definitely set me apart from my peers.
Nearly all business problems I have faced were discussed, debated,
and ultimately solved either over e-mail or through more formal
correspondence (especially with clients), and it was my ability to present
well-formed arguments and logical solutions that frequently won me
praise from firm management. In this respect, the training I received
from the Harvard History Department prepared me EXTREMELY well
for my professional life. My advice to anyone who is not sure what they
can do with a Harvard History degree - Anything they want. It’s really
true!”

Choose a Major that you are passionate about, do well and get good grades and you can do whatever you want. Communication skills and leadership skills are critical in business.

The History Major or any Liberal Arts Major with excellent grades graduating from any Top 10 - 20 University will have many options, some will go on to Law School, some will go to Wall Street, some will go into Consulting some will go travel the world or play lacrosse until they figure out what they want to do.

You leave those sports out because they do not compare to Lacrosse or any other non-revenue sport. Lacrosse Players do get admissions preference but you can not compare college football or Basketball to lacrosse at ND, Michigan, Penn State, Virginia, Maryland, OSU, NorthCarolina, Syracuse, Villanova, Richmond, UMass, Delaware, Stony Brook, Army, Navy, Air Force, Princeton, Yale, Harvard or any other Ivy. College Football Programs carry 120 plus players on the roster and their budgets far exceed any lacrosse budget.

You bring up excellent points. Kids going to the tippy top schools have a lot of potential opportunities. But a legitimate concern is how these student-athletes can successfully compete in the classroom against peers who are academically stronger (admission SATs 150-300 points higher) and who don’t have to devote 40 hr/week year-round practicing a sport. Fortunately, it’s very hard to fail out or three schools. But how realistic is it for the vast majority athletes to compete academically. Professors don’t usually give the whole class As. Some group in every class has to earn the lowest grade.

You are transparent with your passive aggressive backhanded complements.

I actually have a kid committed to a top 10 school, That’s why I’m asking the question.

Maybe someone with a kid who has gone through it would be best to respond.

Once you are admitted, make sure your kid takes the same classes/major as the majority of teammates if he’s not a super strong student. They all cheat their way through. Been through it twice. Once they get out and get a job they will be trained. They learn nothing in college unless they take a tough major like engineering or pre med type majors

I guess you don't find out about a lot things until you get there.

OK because every rich white lax player is smart and studies hard.

No! But a lot of time they do have some pretty good connections with boosters who can help the admissions process as well! Sometimes it’s who you know and not what !

All recruited athletes get a tremendous boost in the Admissions office, even if football and men's basketball players get an even bigger boost.

No they don't get a tremendous boost UNLESS they are football or basketball players.

Then don't use general terms like athletes, be specific in your argument. What are the statistics for lacrosse players on a lacrosse forum? Be specific.

Where did you read studies hard? facts are the majority of lacrosse players at top academic schools are white and upper-middle class. Sorry to burst your bubble. Look at the rosters of the Top 5 programs for the last 10 years and show me the poor inner-city kids. How many do you think you will find?

Maybe the universities don't like to publicize their internal statistics which show how much they favor certain groups over other applicants to their schools? Maybe, lacrosse is still a relatively niche sport, so there isn't much publicity about lacrosse recruiting and the sport in general compared to other sports?
A direct comparison is not possible.

Duke Class of 2007, the average SAT score for male non-athletes was 1438. There were 8 recruited baseball players whose SAT score averaged 1206; that's a 232 point difference. For the 14 other male athletes (non-baseball/basketball/football- so recruited lacrosse players are among the mix), the score was 1258. So that's a 183 point difference. Yes, football and basketball players had even lower average scores, 1063 and 997, respectively.

Can we assume that recruited female athletes are generally treated similarly to men's lacrosse recruits by admissions offices because they don't participate in any NCAA revenue sports?

Duke Class of 2007, there were 37 committed female athletes (among all sports) whose SAT scores averaged 1258 vs 1403 for 768 female non-athletes. That's a 145 point difference.

From 1994-1997, the average Stanford and Duke female athlete had average GPA of 3.87 and 3.51 and SAT score of 1151 and 1103, respectively. Those numbers are significantly below the historical averages for those schools 25 years ago.

These days, you have no shot in getting accepted by these top schools if you are 100 points below their averages unless you have a really strong hook. Even if you EXCEED the averages for these schools, they are ALL considered reaches for even the very best students. And if athletics is your kid's hook and that school's coach isn't interested in recruiting you, do you really think he has a realistic chance of being accepted as a regular applicant? So yes, being a recruited athlete is a tremendous admissions boost.

Just as background
Harvard has a 3.4% acceptance rate. The average SAT for admitted students is 1520-1540. An applicant with a 1600 SAT and 4.0 GPA only has a 10% probability of getting accepted.

So anyone who gets admitted to Harvard or any top school has basically won the lottery no matter how they got in.

Too bad most of those who couldn't get in with smarts usually flunk out.

100% incorrect…..

Ya’ll buggin. Everyone know that elite athletes have a significant advantage when applying to college if the coach wants him or her bad enough. Every college coach has a certain degree of pull.

Ivy League is easy to get good grades except for Dartmouth, Cornell and Princeton. They don’t inflate grades like Harvard , Brown, Yale, Columbia and Upenn. . Athletes have no trouble getting good grades. Also they don’t take only the smartest kids anymore. They take about 25 to 40 percent with much lower grades and SAT scores. They make up for it with the rest needing almost perfect scores. Since they give out Pell Grants all admissions stats are made public and easy to find.

You may not know the school very well then.
One of the unofficial mottos for Harvard is, “only thing harder than getting in is failing out.”

From the Harvard lawsuit

Research paper by Arcidiacono examined the admission statistics for the Harvard Class 2014-2019

Overall admission rate: < 5.5%
Overall recruited athlete admission rate: 86%

Of the 4 hooks they looked at: Athlete, Legacy, Donor, and Children of faculty, being a recruited athlete was by far the strongest hook.

According to their analysis, if a hypothetical student has a 10% chance for admission at Harvard, being a legacy increases the chance to 50%,
being a donor or double legacy increases the chance to 70%, being a recruited athlete increases the chance to a "near certainty."

Their conclusion.
"This paper has focused on the substantial preferences ALDC applicants to Harvard receive. The advantages for athletes are especially large, with an average admit rate for recruited athletes of 86%.
This high admit rate occurs despite admitted athletes often being worse on Harvard’s ratings than the (entire) applicant pool itself."