I really don't understand how anyone can argue with a straight face that getting recruited for lacrosse was NOT a significant, if not the only reason, how these kids got admitted to a top school.
Facts:
1. Recruited athletes have significantly lower academic profiles compared to non-recruited applicants who matriculate at the same school.
2. Recruited Harvard athlete has an 86% acceptance rate when the overall acceptance rate was 5%. Recruited athletes were 1000 times more likely in getting admitted compared to non-athletes.
These odds were significantly better than other favored categories including donor, single legacy, double legacy, or children of Harvard faculty. The paper actually concluded that being a recruited athlete was by far the best way to get accepted by Harvard.
3. Most recruited athletes score a 3 or lower in Harvard's admissions academic score, which effectively means they have 0 chance of getting in as a regular applicant. Only 1s and 2s make it to the Admissions Committee phase for the acceptance vote.
The only argument that's been made is that lacrosse players weren't specifically looked at. Somehow lacrosse players are different compared to recruited athletes of the other 30-40 non-revenue sports teams? | 
