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