Harvard accused of lax recruiting tactics

This article has been corrected. You may view this article’s correction here.

Despite allegations that Harvard University’s admissions standards for athletic recruits may be slipping, athletics officials at both Harvard and Yale say there is not yet enough evidence to speak to the allegations’ veracity.

According to a New York Times article published Sunday, this year, Harvard’s basketball program recruited players with lower academic standings than in previous years and employed aggressive recruiting tactics that may have violated National Collegiate Athletic Association rules. Since the article was printed, Harvard officials have declined to comment — saying only that the admissions decision process for the class of 2012 is still underway — and called the Times story “speculative, premature and potentially misleading.”

Yale’s Athletics Director Thomas Beckett also called the story “speculative” and maintained that the Harvard’s situation would not become clearer until the university sends out acceptance letters later this month.

“We don’t know what is the truth of all this,” Beckett said. “We have to wait until Harvard does their full examination of what’s going on and wait until the Ivy League does a full examination.”

Beckett declined to comment further until more facts are available when the admissions decisions have been released.

Yale men’s basketball head coach James Jones told the Times he thinks Harvard’s admissions office is seeing a “drastic shift in restrictions and regulations,” one that signals a changing academic climate.

“We don’t know how all this is going to come out, but we could not get involved with many of the kids that they are bringing in,” he said to the Times.

The Times article reports that this season, Harvard coach Tommy Amaker has been more willing to woo recruits who would not have met the program’s academic standards in prior years — a claim that the university’s Athletic Director Bob Scalise did not dispute.

The relaxation of academic standards, the article claims, has allowed Amaker to gather an athletically-stellar group of incoming freshmen for next year, perhaps indicating that the desire to field competitive teams in high-profile sports is trumping long-held admissions standards.

All Ivy League athletic recruits must score a minimum of 171 on the Academic Index, which measures academic prowess through GPA, standardized test scores and high-school class rank. This score translates to a student with a 3.1 grade-point average and 1560 out of a possible 2400 on the SAT, according to the Times article.

But each school in the League must maintain a certain average Academic Index score among all athletes relative to the rest of its student body. Yale, Harvard and Princeton universities therefore have higher averages than their counterparts, said Fritz Rodriguez, director of admissions and financial aid for the Yale Athletics Department.

In previous years, the article states, the Harvard basketball team could not recruit athletes with Index scores of lower than 195 in order to maintain the overall team and athletic department score. While Scalise did not specify this year’s recruits’ scores in the article, he acknowledged that they were lower than in previous years.

Jones said the Yale’s average score is around 220, so his team strives for an average Academic Index score of 208 or 209 — within one standard deviation of the all-school average.

Harvard spokesman John Longbrake characterized the idea of unqualified students being admitted to Harvard as “absolutely inaccurate.”

“Harvard’s admission criteria are — and remain — very high,” Longbrake wrote in an e-mail. “They have not been changed at all.”

In addition to the sliding academic standards, the article also described recruiting encounters between two high-school basketball players and Harvard coaches — or future coach, in one case — that may have violated the rules of the N.C.A.A., which heavily regulates the timing and frequency of any university recruiting activity.

Amy Backus, assistant athletic director of compliance at Yale, said the N.C.A.A. has specific regulations for evaluation periods for different sports. For men’s basketball, the first few weeks of July are considered an evaluation period during which coaches are allowed to observe recruits while they play in tournaments. But coaches are not allowed to make off-campus in-person contacts with recruits or their parents during this period, a type of encounter that the Times article alleges occurred several times with Harvard coaches.

Harvard Assistant Director of Athletics for Compliance Sheri Norred, who serves as the liaison between the athletics department and the admissions office, declined to comment on the issue.

If the broader claims in the Times article do turn out to be true, Harvard’s tactics could put other Ivy League athletic programs at risk, Yale athletic officials and coaches said.

“If they’re able to look at and recruit a different and wider pool than we can, then we’re going to be at a disadvantage,” Rodriguez said.

University President Richard Levin would never condone lowering the admissions standards for athletes at Yale, Rodriguez added. As a recruiter, Rodriguez said he immediately disregards any athletes with lower GPA or SAT scores than Yale’s minimum level.

Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Jeff Brenzel declined to comment.

Brian Tompkins, head coach of the men’s soccer team, said while increased scrutiny will be necessary before final assessment, the allegations do not reflect well on the Ivy League as a whole. Coaches know where the “thin ice” is, he said, and most are careful to adhere to ethical standards.

Since Harvard eliminated its early-action program last year, admissions decisions for the entire class of 2012 will be released at the end of March.

—Della Fok contributed reporting.


  • Barry Vasios

    That Harvard generally may not have lowered admissions standards for athletes remains to be seen. That Harvard committed a recruiting violation in the case reportrd in the NY Times is clear.The assistant coach traveled to Norfolk to play in a pickup game with a recruit in June or July 2007 , according to the recruit. Harvard announced it had hired the assistant on July 2,2007 . If those facts are true, there is a violation, unless Harvard never talked to the assistant before it hired him.

  • Anonymous

    This is not surprising at all. I'm friends with several athletes who say that Harvard, (and Princeton as well, for that matter) are considerably more flexible at bending their admissions standards to let certain athletes in. Their athletic director is committed to building a winner in every sport.

    Yale, they say, is notoriously strict mainly due to the attitude of President Levin. It certainly does not help that our own athletic director, Beckett, is more than willing to accept mediocrity--he was once quoted as saying that the goal for every Yale team was to "finish in the top half of the Ivy League."

    As much as I'm glad that our school isn't willing to compromise it's integrity for the sake of victory, it's also extremely frustrating, as both a devoted fan, and friend, to see them come up short after spending so many hours during practice, and feeling like the administration honestly couldn't care less about them.

  • Ryan B.

    Judging by how many academically unqualified athletes are here for the most random sports (those without real professional leagues - field hockey, lacrosse, etc), this findings in article do not surprise me.

  • Ryan B.

    Also, who cares how most of these teams play? All that really matters is beating Harvard in The Game. Would no one else rather have Yale give admission to kids who could take full advantage of Yale's resources and go on to write incredible novels, find cures for diseases, become lauded senators, etc (anything along the lines of doing something meaningful), rather than just winning a game of squash, rowing a lightweight crew boat, or winning a wrestling match and then becoming some mid-level Investment banker (which seems to be a big trend among most athletes I know).

    That said, there are many athletes here who excel both in the classroom and on the field - people who are qualified to be here regardless of physical ability. I do not wish to associate all athletes as being unqualified, that is far from the case. However, I would like to see the trend move towards accepting more students with stronger academic performances.

  • Anonymous

    I second ryan B.

  • Anonymous

    Your comments reflect very self serving views of what is meaningful work and what resources are worth taking advantage of. Would be a bit odd to have the world's biggest gym and a campus with no athletes, no?

    Furthermore, if you want to split hairs over admission, they say that recruited athletes get better grades than legacies once at school. Why single out athletes? What about affirmative action admits? "Recruited" Musicians? Drama admits? Yale is saying that it values these things, for one reason or another, and I think it makes for a pretty interesting campus. I can't imagine how boring a campus without athletes would be, and I'm not an athlete. If I'd wanted that I'd have gone to UChicago, MIT, or Caltech.

    And lastly, without Football and Crew, Yale would have been William and Mary. Yale is a great school and has been for a very long time, but its early days of Crew and Football were what made it the national brand name it is today. It was Sports that got Yale on the front page of the NYT. It was sports that set Yale apart from other venerable schools like Williams, Amherst, or William and Mary. In many respects, you owe the value of your degree to the oarsmen and football players.

  • Anonymous

    Dear, dear anonymous posting at 10:58pm -- tell the truth. You not a Yale student, you're actually a Harvard basketball recruit with a 170 index.

    Your "arguments" are riddled with such irrelevant statements as: "they say that recruited athletes get better grades than legacies once at school." No one has argued here for preferences for legacies. And even if it were relevant, your "argument" is mere speculation -- your use of that refuge of the speculative, "they say" without bothering to identify the "they" is evidence.
    As for your allegations of interest created by the presence of athletes, you fail to identify any quality that the athletes possess as justification for your own odd fondness for their presence. Your lack of imagination "I can't imagine, how boring …" certainly is unsatisfactory as a reason. Who cares about some individual unspecified preoccupation -- suppose I like schools whose names start with a "Y" -- "I can't imagine how boring a campus without a "Y" at the beginning of its name would be. If I'd wanted that I'd have gone to UChicago, MIT, or Caltech."
    As for you "lastly," I believe the best description is "ghastly." Your alleged necessity of sports as a differentiating factor in "the early days" (which, truth be told were not so early in Yale's history, but I wouldn't expect you to know that, being a Harvard recruit) does not imply that those sports are necessary NOW to provide the same differentiation. Or are you really making the facially absurd claim that without Football and Crew, Yale would NOW be William and Mary? Simply put, how are your musings about what happened "in the early days" relevant to the discussion at hand? Well?

  • Anonymous

    Anonymous @ 1:50am FTW!

  • Anonymous

    Actually, there is some merit in #6's argument that athletics help made Yale into the brand it is today. Search the YDN archives for a piece written by Jay Gitlin on the eve of this year's Game.

  • More Analysis, Less Emotion

    I like the comment from Poster #2, Anonymous @ 2:48 PM, that he "is friends with several athletes" who tell him that Harvard and Princeton admit athletes with substandard qualifications, but that Yale "isn't willing to compromise it's (sic) integrity for the sake of victory."

    How is that even mathematically possible?

    Both Harvard and Princeton administer larger athletic programs than Yale does, requiring the admission of more recruited athletes. Harvard's SAT averages are consistently above Yale's, while Princeton's are essentially equivalent.

    Harvard and Princeton are admitting MORE athletes but reporting higher or equivalent SAT scores. That's a particular achievement at Princeton, whose overall student body is smaller.

    This isn't to condone what Amaker did. He cheated, pure and simple. But let's not simply assume that because Harvard beats us in football and Princeton beats us in everything else, they must be cheating.

    Is it possible -- just possible -- that they are winning fair and square? SAT scores and US News rankings would suggest yes.


    Dear Anonymous @ 2:23am -- thank you.

    Now, I have not made an argument either way, but if Harvard wants to get New York Times coverage about compromising academic standards for "success" in a sport few people on campus care about, I say, "have at it Cantabs." But the fact of a Yale student or graduate being unable to form a coherent argument is nothing short of appalling. Disagreement is natural, inevitable, but I believe the ability to reason, to argue and articulate those arguments clearly without muddled thinking is central to the Yale experience. A statement such as: "In many respects, you owe the value of your degree to the oarsmen and football players" would be the laughable antithesis of that Yale experience, if it were a statement coherent enough to be credited with even being a "thesis" -- which, of course, it is not.

  • Nick Gall

    "However, I would like to see the trend move towards accepting more students with stronger academic performances."

    Hah! As if "stronger academic performance" (prior to college) had anything to do with "write incredible novels, find cures for diseases, become lauded senators, etc (anything along the lines of doing something meaningful)"!

    How refreshingly jejune!

    -- Nick


    Re this tidbit: "#9 By (Anonymous) 1:32pm on March 5, 2008

    Actually, there is some merit in #6's argument that athletics help made Yale into the brand it is today. Search the YDN archives for a piece written by Jay Gitlin on the eve of this year's Game."

    So what? What does this "fact" have to do with any argument in this discussion (save for the musings of anonymous posting at 10:58pm)? Well?

  • Anonymous

    I was not trying to write a thesis paper, but since you have decided to get nasty and go ad hominem, I'll get more specific.

    Re your accusations, I am not a Harvard basketball recruit. I am 5 10" and a former swimmer. I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a basketball. I also am not an idiot. According to the acadmeic index calculator linked below, I score a 230.

    Now, re legacies and other preference admits, they are relevant to mention because Ryan B. wants to have better qualified students academically, and goes after athletes first, presumably based on a dumb jock stereotype. The study I cited is linked below, as relayed by the Crimson.

    Now, as to why I want athletes on campus. To those people who go out, this needs no explaining. To those who sit in at night on their linux computers seething over the injustices of the social scene, it's because they are lots of fun. Dur. Try not to let your resentment for the guys that get the girls and the jobs taint your arguments.

    As to William and Mary, it is an interesting question to ask why it is that Yale is Yale and William and Mary is william and mary. William and Mary is older, and the college is nearly as good there than the sciences, especially way back when. It is, after all, the school that brought us Thomas Jefferson. So what set the schools apart? It would be very hard to argue that football had nothing to do with it. Thank you to #9 for digging up that article, It states my point better than I did. I will let it do the speaking. Whether football is the root of the value of your degree is debatable. That it is a key reason why a pompous fellow such as yourself would choose Yale is not.




  • #7 is Great!!

    LOL at #7's reply - so true!

    Listen, it's not that Yalies do not want better athletic students on campus or to support our athletic programs. While the Yale undergrads of today are notoriously uninterested in supporting our athletic counterparts (attending games other than The Game, etc.), that does not mean we would like to see any bias against athletes.

    We Do, however, respect Yale admission's committment to admitting only the best students, regardless of legacy, athletic ability, financial background, sex or race. Our athletes are here because they are supposed to be. Yale admissions waters down its requirements for no one and this is an important point of differentiation, regardless of what News Week rankings or lost games.

    PS. I have to agree that #14 is probably not a Yale student.

  • Anonymous

    Poster #10, it's poster #2.

    Regardless of whether or not this is even mathematically possible, this what my friends, from multiple, unrelated sports have mentioned to me.
    If my friends are wrong, then so be it. But I'm simply telling you what I've heard.

    In regards to your comment, that
    "But let's not simply assume that because Harvard beats us in football and Princeton beats us in everything else, they must be cheating," I am not.

    For one, the reason why Harvard beats us in football is because our coach is absolutely horrendous, and their coach is one of the top two coaches in the Ivy League right now--the other being Penn's Al Bagnoli.

    I'm not trying to say that Princeton is cheating either--heck, one of their men's hockey players just won a Rhodes Scholarship this year.

    What am I trying to say is that their admissions offices tend to be more flexible in their admittances of certain, individual athletes, with Harvard's, of the HYP, being the most flexible.

    I realize a lot of what I'm saying probably sounds sketchy because I am only backing it up with hearsay, since it was from off the record conversations, but try talking to a variety of junior and senior athletes about the subject and they'll give you the same answer I just did, and agree with my assertion that Levin doesn't care about athletics.

  • That it is a key reason why a pompous fellow such

    My worst fear realized -- you actually are a Yale student. And a sexist to boot, though I guess, perhaps, that's not surprising:
    "That it is a key reason why a pompous fellow such as yourself would choose Yale is not." I might even concede the "pompous" (a pretty big word by the way), if you would answer the question: "What makes you certain I'm a 'fellow?'" As for host of other unexamined assumptions to which you leap in your "response," in your attempts at getting "personal", well, I'm simply saddened you cannot seem to do better.

    As to your height and ex-swimmer status, good on you, though for the life of me I don't know what you expect to be done with your height. Should I concede now because you are under six feet tall? Then "Uncle" it is!

    As for the rest of your stuff -- I'm not going to credit it as argument -- you have gotten at least a bit better, but you still have not addressed any of my criticisms. And please note: mere citation of web sites qualifies neither as argument, nor reasoning. But you have made me see the error of my extravagant expectations.

    And as for the alleged ad hominem (latin , my friends, anonymous posting at 10:58pm is using latin) -- I'll apoligize for the greatest insult, saying you were from Harvard, if it makes you feel better. I concede, it was done for mere amusement's sake. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, to keep up my end of the latin usage. And if the ad hominem is what it takes to get you to think a bit, so be it.

    But I have a bit of serious advice for you, advice I give as someone who has been out of Yale a very long time and who practices in a profession that requires clear thinking and clear expression of those thoughts to others (and I hope you will have such an interesting career): get a little thicker skin, don't let little jabs get to you. Good luck when you have to actually write your thesis paper. And think Yalie, think and reason!


    Dear More Analysis, Less Emotion:
    Your thesis: "Is it possible -- just possible -- that they are winning fair and square?" might be true.
    But as to your query: "How is that even mathematically possible?" ask yourself this. Now recall everyone, the poster's chosen name "More Analysis, Less Emotion", So here's your wish, "More analysis."
    What do you suppose would happen if the distribution of the school in question's athletes' SAT scores were heavily weighted toward the top and the bottom, in other words if for each "certain athlete" identified by anonymous 2:48pm on March 4 (I'll use your convention and call this poster "2") there are a number of athletes who score above the University average SAT. Note that 2 never said that standards were bent for all Harvard and Princeton athletes just that "are considerably more flexible at bending their admissions standards to let certain athletes in." There is no reason that the SAT scores of other athletes could offset the low scores of a few, particularly when more athletes are recruited and the average score overall could be higher than Yale's. We simply don't have enough information to discount this possibility.
    An example may help illustrate this: say school Y had 2 athletes each with a 200 "Index". I use this rather than an SAT merely because some in this discussion seem so fond if using it as an indicator of non-idiocy. School H, by contrast, has 4 athletes (no one cares about P, by the way), one with a 170 (and I'm not saying tis is anyone in particular) and 3 with 230s. Then Y has an average of 200 and H has an average of 215, but H has admitted one sorry prospect, while all Y's are "solid." This phenomenon can be exacerbated by using medians which are often the statistic given for SAT scores.
    So mathematical possibility? Yes. Actuality? Not close to enough information to make a determination. Sound basis for a refutation of another's argument? NO!
    So endeth the "more analysis" lesson and I think it done with little emotion. Satisfied "More Analysis, Less Emotion?"


    Erratum: the second paragraph in my response to More Analysis contains a sentence which should read: "There is no reason that the SAT scores of other athletes could not offset the low scores of a few, particularly when more athletes are recruited and the average score overall could be higher than Yale's," pardon the double negative.


    Dear #15 -- somehow I prefer the name:" #7 is Great!!" Thank you. I believe strong arguments can be made on either side of the issue, particularly as this issue involves difficult to answer questions of prediction of performance as poster "Nick Gall" has made clear with his pointed humor.
    I, in fact, do not normally post, but I know Yale students are capable of much more than some of what appears here.
    P.S. If you run into #7 say wherever it is the "guys that get the girls and the jobs" hang out now (in my day it was near the entrance to CCL which no longer exists) tell him I didn't mean to hurt any feelings (and do speak slowly if necessary…) (by the way that's just a joke #7, anonymous posting at 10:58pm)

  • Seriously…

    I have a lot of respect for athletes at Ivy League schools, primarily because they have been able to excel simultaneously in academics and athletics. At Yale, and elsewhere in the League, academics are necessarily boss. If Ivies start lowering the academic bar to recruit top athletes, prepare for divisive attitudes on campus to worsen. Away from the playing fields, athletes will be treated as a lower caste -- the stupid kids on campus.

    When Harvard comes to New Haven, they should expect the intelligence of their basketball players to be mocked before the ball even hits the court.

  • More Analysis, Less Emotion

    Dear Poster #2/#10 (Anonymous @ 2:48/8:35),

    Thanks for your politely phrased response to my original post, which had more of a snide tone. By the standard of anonymous internet message boards, your civility is to be commended. I’ll try to return the favor while addressing your point as well as that of Poster #18 (YGBSMTTKNY, all over this thread).

    Let’s address football first because it can be easily dispensed with. I agree with you that Tim Murphy is a better football coach than Jack Siedlecki. But the “banding” system in place for Ivy football assures that each program in the league has only two low-scoring admittees per class and, even then, the two players bringing up the rear have to be above a minimum AI threshold for their school. The respective AI floor at each of HYP fluctuates slightly from year to year, but suffice it to say that they are comparable.

    Turning now to all sports other than football, YGBASMTTKNY claimed in his rebuttal that there is “not close to enough information to make a determination” because similar mean SAT scores can mask sharply different distribution curves. He is correct that the arithmetic averages are not by themselves conclusive. But more detailed numbers that shed additional light on this issue can be found. For example, here are the 25-75 percentile scores as reported in this year’s US rankings.

    School. . 25% SAT. . 75% SAT

    Yale . . . 1390 . . .1580

    Harvard . . 1390 . . .1590

    Princeton . . 1370 . . .1590

    Yale and Harvard have identical 25th percentile scores. Princeton has a marginally lower number, but keep in mind that Princeton sponsors 38 varsity sports (versus 33 at Yale) with a class size materially smaller than ours. Approximately one-quarter of the entire student body at Princeton is comprised of recruited athletes.

    Of course, these 25th percentile scores are not the final word, either. But the notion that Harvard or Princeton are hiding legions of under-qualified jocks on campus will require more than anecdotal complaints from a few Yale athletes before I accept it as fact.

    Could it be true that Harvard or Princeton accept a FEW ringers? Absolutely. Indeed, if Frank Ben-Eze is admitted to Harvard in a month, that will be proof enough to me that Tommy Amaker is opening the gate to Harvard Yard wider than Frank Sullivan was ever allowed to. And in a sport with a short roster like basketball, one or two ringers can make a huge difference.

    But Harvard and especially Princeton have done better than Yale in Ivy athletics for decades, across the board in almost all sports. There simply isn’t enough room to hide all those supposedly marginal athletes below the reported number for the 25th percentile. And that’s not even leaving any room at all for lower-scoring legacies and under-represented minority groups. The math simply doesn’t add up.

    You may be absolutely right that Richard Levin is not a sports fan. But complaining about opponents’ admissions policies is a time-honored Ivy tradition: “If I’m not winning, the other guy must be cheating.” I need to see it in the numbers before I believe it.

  • Ivy

    (from the YDN archives)
    "According to the 2003-2004 Yale NCAA Certification study, the average SAT score for the male students entering in 1999, 2000 and 2001 was 1440 while the average SAT score for male student-athletes entering in those years was 1350. In that same three-year period, the mean SAT of entering female students was 1430 while the mean SAT of entering female student-athletes was 1340. The study on academic integrity also reported that the lowest mean total SAT scores for teams were found in football and baseball with 1330 and women's basketball with 1290."


    Dear More Analysis, Less Emotion -- nice stuff, a lot of information of which I certainly was not aware. (I hope to God you are a Yale student or alum and not from Princeton.) This is good, a real argument. So I'll leave you with one question, one you may well have the facts for already, or a handy argument: "You note that 'in a sport with a short roster like basketball, one or two ringers can make a huge difference.' Does your mathematical possibility conclusion depend on some unstated assumption about how many athletes it takes to gain a real competitive advantage in all other sports?" In other words, have you carefully taken into account how many you really have to "hide" to gain the advantage in records shown?
    I would note also in fairness, that your argument might also be supported by the fact, if true, that there have been a number of different coaches in the arenas that H and P have done better than Y, that the it might seem less likely that the cheating would be so subtle yet systematic over different coaches and athletic directors.
    And finally (I know you are all wanting this to go on forever) I am curious about what you might think the difference between Yale and those other places might be, assuming your thesis is true. Is Yale just lousy at getting good coaches -- I would note that Lax presents a very interesting example here. Princeton's Tierney has managed to win a remarkable number of NCAA titles, beating schools with clearly lower academic standards (see, e.g. Syracuse) and schools whose central varsity sports focus is lacrosse ("Hopkins"). Does excellence/good performance beget excellence/good performance, is it easier to recruit and be picky about the academic performance of recruits or the capability of recruited coaches when you have a "winning" program? Or a combination or something else? I'd be interested (and I know everyone truly cares about my interests for all it's worth…i.e. not at all)but I'd be interested even in speculation.


    Dear Ivy. Interesting and sobering stuff. I also saw the following for whatever it is worth:
    an article from the New York Times (not my choice of paper of record, by the way) titled: "Study of Elite Colleges Finds Athletes Are Isolated From Classmates" From the article: "But the study found that the recruited athletes were admitted with significantly lower grades and College Board scores and then performed more poorly than would be expected for students with those grades and test scores." I cannot say whether the conclusion applies to the HYP schools, so I leave it to you to interpret its applicability. The study apparently included the Ivy League and "colleges like Williams, Amherst, Tufts, Wesleyan, Bryn Mawr, Smith and Wellesley."

  • alum

    What are the equivalent numbers at Harvard?

  • Yale Athlete

    I would just like to commend Yale for upholding difficult academic standards for its athletes in the face of degenerate and illegal recruiting tactics by its inferior foes at that glorified community college in Cambridge.
    I think shows why Yale is the best university in the world.

  • Alum

    Presumably Yale will have to respond. First Harvard moved to two-ply toilet paper, then Yale did the same; then Harvard admitted an Afgan, and Yale did them one better with a Taliban leader; then Harvard increased financial aid, and a few weeks later, Yale followed suit.

    Will Yale now start to recruit basketball players, too?

  • Huck Farvard!

    I guess Harvard dodged a bit of the controversy:
    "Highly Recruited Center No Longer Set to Attend Harvard"

  • Crimson Dog

    Harvard 16 roostered, only 2 Seniors. 7 verbals. 21 man rooster. Not Ivy math. There is no joy in Mudville…

  • tallyho

    Ladies and Gentlemen! Lest we forget the admission process at Yale centers around the single question, "how will this applicant impact Yale" or something to that effect. If that is the case and the applicant maintains the minimum requirements (which of course no one knows) then an accomplished athlete would most assuredly have a quality that few iron butts who camp out in the library can claim. Remember, the question is what would one give to Yale at the time of attendance, not future endeavors, regardless of how lofty those post Yale triumphs become.

  • Pingback: My Homepage