Does that count the recruits who were cut but kept their scholarship as they were recruited over?
No recruits at Harvard receive scholarships. Everyone - athlete and non-athlete alike - receives whatever need-based aid they qualify for. Since this aid is not associated with playing a sport or being a recruit, once someone is admitted they can't lose any financial aid whether or not they play the sport. If a recruited athlete quits his sport on Day 1, he will receive the same aid for four years as if he had played for those four years.
Thank you Bison. I was aware of all of that. I also know that virtually all athletes at Harvard are on scholarship. Some were, in fact, "recruited over" since they knew they would no longer play and they had lost a spot on the team. If that was a part of their reason for attending Harvard, they might have been happier elsewhere. Ivy tuition is so high they have a huge pool to whom they can give scholarship aid...bigger than most colleges. I know they do not call scholarships given to athletes "athletic" scholarships though that is, in effect, exactly what they are. They can even give scholarships to athletes just to try them out and still have them around if they do not meet the grade. After all, attending an Ivy League college for free is a huge gift
Especially if a young man or woman not on scholarship goes out for a scholarship team at HC, completes a financial aid form that doesn't take into account that he/she plays sports; gets a generous aid package (because they are entitled to it based on their family's financial situation) AND "it counts", then it's not a level playing field.
In the situation you have described, the need-based aid would NOT count and the student-athlete would not be a counter.
To clarify. For football, recruited athletes who receive need-based aid are counters.
For an uncrecruited student who receives a financial aid package prior to enrollment, and after enrolling, becomes an unrecruited walk-on, then that student would not be a counter.
Before the scollie years, HC was reporting spending $2-3 million+ on athletically related financial for football. That value was relatively easy to determine because one could compare the football expenses of the PL (- GU) with the football expenses of GU and the IL, which report zero athletically-related fin aid for football.
I suspect a major reason why GU does not report athletically-related aid for football is Title IX. GU is <45 percent male, so it is likely every $ it spent on athletically related fin aid for football would require a matching $ for the women.
If the 83 percent are recruited athletes as opposed to good students who just happen to play a sport, is that a bigger problem for Harvard? Or is neither situation a problem?
I don't see this as a problem, and I think the two pcts are completely apples to oranges. The athletes applying to Harvard are largely ones who have been recruited and told they are "likely" to be accepted. Can't really compare that to a general pool of applicants.