Jump to content
portajohn

2021 Rumor Mill Tracker

Recommended Posts

i'm not sure what the debate is.

admissions thresholds are relaxed for BBall and Football at a lot of schools. that's not a secret. 

now tell me what DI institution has different academic requirements for entry for wrestlers vs. the general student body. 

or...uhh...what's the point?

you can keep citing data for fball and basketball till you're blue in the face; it doesn't, for one second, portend to Stanford reducing entry requirements for wrestlers. lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

i'm not sure what the debate is.

admissions thresholds are relaxed for BBall and Football at a lot of schools. that's not a secret. 

now tell me what DI institution has different academic requirements for entry for wrestlers vs. the general student body. 

or...uhh...what's the point?

you can keep citing data for fball and basketball till you're blue in the face; it doesn't, for one second, portend to Stanford reducing entry requirements for wrestlers. lol.

When somebody cares enough about wrestling to actually publish data, I'll forward it to you.  lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

i'm not sure what the debate is.

admissions thresholds are relaxed for BBall and Football at a lot of schools. that's not a secret. 

now tell me what DI institution has different academic requirements for entry for wrestlers vs. the general student body. 

or...uhh...what's the point?

you can keep citing data for fball and basketball till you're blue in the face; it doesn't, for one second, portend to Stanford reducing entry requirements for wrestlers. lol.

All selective universities with wrestling programs lower admission standards for wrestlers. This is true even in D3. MIT was the one exception, but their program is unfortunately no more due to so few wrestlers being able to get in. You are a recruiting guru and already know this though, so I’m wondering if I am just misinterpreting your post?

 

The degree to which standards are lowered and number of athletes Koll is allowed to recruit at these lower standards is the important question because athletes like Amuchastegui are rare. Ivy/Stanford will allow a certain number of recruits with lower scores, and it may not be enough to fill the roster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

All selective universities with wrestling programs lower admission standards for wrestlers. This is true even in D3. MIT was the one exception, but their program is unfortunately no more due to so few wrestlers being able to get in. You are a recruiting guru and already know this though, so I’m wondering if I am just misinterpreting your post?

 

The degree to which standards are lowered and number of athletes Koll is allowed to recruit at these lower standards is the important question because athletes like Amuchastegui are rare. Ivy/Stanford will allow a certain number of recruits with lower scores, and it may not be enough to fill the roster. 

Yeah I’m really surprised “the greatest mind in wrestling” seems to be doubting that admission standards are lowered for wrestlers anywhere, let alone places like Cornell and Stanford.

I figured it was common knowledge that was the case at most schools, albeit no not to the same extent as football/basketball.

Even as it pertains to Stanford, IIRC I think it was even talked about in the little mini-doc that Flo did on Real Woods, that the coaches had to basically put in a good word for him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it common knowledge that admissions standards are lowered for kids with special talents of all kinds, whether it's debate, music or simply being excellent in one academic subject (despite less than stellar grades overall)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NJDan said:

Isn't it common knowledge that admissions standards are lowered for kids with special talents of all kinds, whether it's debate, music or simply being excellent in one academic subject (despite less than stellar grades overall)? 

Knowledge, yes.  Commonly known around these parts?  Not so much.  There's a reason (or more than one) that Princeton, Cornell, and Stanford are not entirely populated with Asian 1600/4.0/5AP students, although they could.

I'd even add that the standards aren't "lowered" at all:  everyone admitted to these highly selective schools has what it takes to get it done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually - yes - i screwed that up. 

there are some 'slots' at some major academic wrestling schools. Brown, for instance. UNC.

so you're right, there is precedence. 

but Stanford. i'm interested in Stanford. can anyone point to evidence that they have 'slots'? (legit question)

Edited by Husker_Du

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, NJDan said:

Isn't it common knowledge that admissions standards are lowered for kids with special talents of all kinds, whether it's debate, music or simply being excellent in one academic subject (despite less than stellar grades overall)? 

I think the idea that there is a singular metric "standard" is just too simplistic.  I've been involved for a number of years with admission interviews for my college (Architecture) at Cornell, and the philosophy there is that they are looking to build a diverse class; think of it like recruiting a football team, rather than a wrestling team.  They want applicants with different strengths.  For Architecture, they certainly want some of those kids who are top of the class academically, but also, they want some with well developed portfolios, and some with demonstrated leadership and community involvement, and some with demonstrated initiative in areas like sustainability and green design.  The criteria are much more complex than just simple test scores, but also the criteria are variable depending on the makeup of the entire admission class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, red blades said:

I think the idea that there is a singular metric "standard" is just too simplistic.  I've been involved for a number of years with admission interviews for my college (Architorture

FIFY.

(and of course I agree with the rest of your post)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

now tell me what DI institution has different academic requirements for entry for wrestlers vs. the general student body. 

 

Great point, the general population has an incomplete understanding of how these things are viewed.  Athletics are a very big part of making life as a student enjoyable for non-athletes and alumni.  While it does appear as though schools cut their athletics applicants a break, being excellent at a sport and planning to compete in college  is viewed very positively by virtually all admissions departments.  Mastery of a sport shows initiative and in many cases a level of maturity above what the rest of the applicant pool can demonstrate.  Further, as an athlete, you are walking around as free marketing for the school. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

actually - yes - i screwed that up. 

there are some 'slots' at some major academic wrestling schools. Brown, for instance. UNC.

so you're right, there is precedence. 

but Stanford. i'm interested in Stanford. can anyone point to evidence that they have 'slots'? (legit question)

 Google “Stanford varsity blues.“

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

i'm not sure what the debate is.

admissions thresholds are relaxed for BBall and Football at a lot of schools. that's not a secret. 

now tell me what DI institution has different academic requirements for entry for wrestlers vs. the general student body. 

or...uhh...what's the point?

you can keep citing data for fball and basketball till you're blue in the face; it doesn't, for one second, portend to Stanford reducing entry requirements for wrestlers. lol.

This article explains how Ivy League schools lower their admissions standards for athletes—whether football, basketball, wrestling, or rowing. Keep in mind, football doesn’t make any money in the ivy league. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/5/30/harvard-academic-index-explanation/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Maximus Meridius said:

This article explains how Ivy League schools lower their admissions standards for athletes—whether football, basketball, wrestling, or rowing. Keep in mind, football doesn’t make any money in the ivy league. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/5/30/harvard-academic-index-explanation/

No, it really doesn't.  It shows that there are a range of students at an Ivy League school; some of them are athletes.  The fact that they have checks in place to ensure that no given team has "too low" credentials doesn't mean that those athletes are somehow below admissions standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, klehner said:

No, it really doesn't.  It shows that there are a range of students at an Ivy League school; some of them are athletes.  The fact that they have checks in place to ensure that no given team has "too low" credentials doesn't mean that those athletes are somehow below admissions standards.

I guess we read this differently.
 

Ivy League rules dictate that no athletic department is permitted to have an average AI among its student-athletes more than one standard deviation below the average for non-athlete enrollees in a given class. 
 

Every team must be within one standard deviation of the campus AI, but beyond that individual athletes are classified into four “bands” representing distance from the campus mean. Recruits range from Band 1, with AIs above the campus mean, to Band 4, with an AI score more than two standard deviations below the campus mean. Depending on the size of a recruiting class, coaches can have more or less latitude to recruit players with a greater spectrum of AI scores, using high scores to buoy a team average.

Once a coach decides on a player, there is no guarantee that the admissions office will offer a spot to the recruit. Coaches can provide verbal commitments to their recruits but ultimately must rely on relationships developed with the admissions office to secure a player’s spot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Fraud is totally different than letting actual (relatively dumb) jocks in. Both happen, but this topic is about the latter, not the former. 

Isn’t that still evidence that recruited athletes got priority though?    That wasn’t the fraud, the fraud was using those spots for people that didn’t actually play the sport.

Edit:  I can’t remember the specifics of the doc re: Stanford though.  I know they mentioned the sailing coach didn’t realize he was doing anything wrong, and IIRC there was another person from a different sport that either ended up going somewhere else or didn’t need the athlete spot or something.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Isn’t that still evidence that recruited athletes got priority though?    That wasn’t the fraud, the fraud was using those spots for people that didn’t actually play the sport.

Edit:  I can’t remember the specifics of the doc re: Stanford though.  I know they mentioned the sailing coach didn’t realize he was doing anything wrong, and IIRC there was another person from a different sport that either ended up going somewhere else or didn’t need the athlete spot or something.

I agree with you completely. If the admissions standards for athletes were not lower, the fraud could not have been committed. A student with lower test scores and grades  was able to gain admission because he was a recruited athlete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

actually - yes - i screwed that up. 

there are some 'slots' at some major academic wrestling schools. Brown, for instance. UNC.

so you're right, there is precedence. 

but Stanford. i'm interested in Stanford. can anyone point to evidence that they have 'slots'? (legit question)

The way the ivies and Stanford operate isn’t really advertised. The same thing with lower admission standards happens with the kids of big donors. Just ask around to people who have been recruited there if you are skeptical. All selective universities that field athletic teams lower the standards to some extent-it’s the degree to which this happens (the number of slots and extent to which standards are lowered) that varies. 

2 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Fraud is totally different than letting actual (relatively dumb) jocks in. Both happen, but this topic is about the latter, not the former. 

The point I think being made in that post is that the entire reason for the fraud was so the celebrities could get their kids in under the guise of being recruited athletes (and having lower admission standards associated with it). It was less expensive to bribe the coaches than legally bribe the university.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

The way the ivies and Stanford operate isn’t really advertised. The same thing with lower admission standards happens with the kids of big donors. Just ask around to people who have been recruited there if you are skeptical. All selective universities that field athletic teams lower the standards to some extent-it’s the degree to which this happens (the number of slots and extent to which standards are lowered) that varies. 

The point I think being made in that post is that the entire reason for the fraud was so the celebrities could get their kids in under the guise of being recruited athletes (and having lower admission standards associated with it). It was less expensive to bribe the coaches than legally bribe the university.

You keep saying this.  Do these schools have a minimum admission standard below which they just don't accept, and they make exceptions for athletes and donor offspring by *lowering* that standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, klehner said:

You keep saying this.  Do these schools have a minimum admission standard below which they just don't accept, and they make exceptions for athletes and donor offspring by *lowering* that standard?

Yes, this is exactly how college admissions works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Drew87 said:

Yes, this is exactly how college admissions works.

I think Klehner's point is that it's not so black and white. 

I was a recruited athlete at the three Ivy League schools to which I applied.  At one school I was told that because I was applying to a specific low admit program that they could do absolutely nothing for me as for that program the administration gave absolutely no leeway.  At another school they indicated that they had a degree of pull for 2-3 slots deemed critical to the program but that most applicants wouldn't get much more than a second review of their applications.  At the third, they basically said that because my test scores and grades were already in the top quartile of applicants that they would mention that I was interested in taking part in their program but that I wouldn't be likely to be a focus for the coaches as far as making sure I got in because they weren't that worried about me.  This was in a non-revenue sport (rowing) that is part of the Ivy identity and for which I was a 4 year 'starter' e.g. in the first 8 so not a case of me being cannon fodder.

Also, most of the athletes in our program were from either the Arts & Sciences or Engineering colleges and our team GPA crushed the overall student body GPA so it's not as if we were all weaving baskets in between practices.  

Standards may be lowered for marquee sports and for sports that are truly critical to a school's identity but I want to make clear that this is not really the case across all sports to the extent that has been described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, cu155 said:

I think Klehner's point is that it's not so black and white. 

I was a recruited athlete at the three Ivy League schools to which I applied.  At one school I was told that because I was applying to a specific low admit program that they could do absolutely nothing for me as for that program the administration gave absolutely no leeway.  At another school they indicated that they had a degree of pull for 2-3 slots deemed critical to the program but that most applicants wouldn't get much more than a second review of their applications.  At the third, they basically said that because my test scores and grades were already in the top quartile of applicants that they would mention that I was interested in taking part in their program but that I wouldn't be likely to be a focus for the coaches as far as making sure I got in because they weren't that worried about me.  This was in a non-revenue sport (rowing) that is part of the Ivy identity and for which I was a 4 year 'starter' e.g. in the first 8 so not a case of me being cannon fodder.

Also, most of the athletes in our program were from either the Arts & Sciences or Engineering colleges and our team GPA crushed the overall student body GPA so it's not as if we were all weaving baskets in between practices.  

Standards may be lowered for marquee sports and for sports that are truly critical to a school's identity but I want to make clear that this is not really the case across all sports to the extent that has been described.

Thanks for the perspective.  My point was that these schools make a calculation based on years of experience, and determine that there is a lower limit to academic credentials below which they have concluded that the holder of those low credentials would likely not survive (much less thrive) at their institution, regardless of the other achievements of said applicant.  They just *don't* accept people ("lowering their standards") below that lower limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, klehner said:

Thanks for the perspective.  My point was that these schools make a calculation based on years of experience, and determine that there is a lower limit to academic credentials below which they have concluded that the holder of those low credentials would likely not survive (much less thrive) at their institution, regardless of the other achievements of said applicant.  They just *don't* accept people ("lowering their standards") below that lower limit.

Agreed, that totally makes sense.  I think the schools have a pretty good idea of who can make it through and for whom it would be a suffer fest.  I just gave a long explanation on my experience as there are a lot of statements in this thread and others on 'the way things are' that don't really reflect the process as it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An athlete I work with was told that he needed an  1170 SAT to get admission to an Ivy and another elite school.  Kid is nationally competitive in wrestling, top 10% of his class, and has a couple other qualities desired by academic institutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...