Wesleyan--not a good player

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually simple - and this thread is a crock of excrement.

Kids looking to play a college sport will consider several schools. You put in applications at all of them. Since we are not talking big time D1 football or basketball here - kids, and parents, will have several conversations with administrators about costs, financing, scholarships (no athletic money for D3), and the specific team requirements and fit.

Schools and coaches are open about what they can and cannot do for prospective athletes. Yes - particularly with D3 and Ivies, you can get kids who decide they are going to that school whether they can make a team or not. But, all athletes keep options open for as long as possible until a final decision is made. The big thing is assessing playing time potential. Even at D3, being on a team is a big time commitment and absolutely not worth it if you are not playing (or likely to play).

Conversely, from the school’s perspective, they just want someone who will be there 4 years and contribute to the school community. Again, for D3 no scholarships are at issue, so it is more a matter of making sure kids who are coming to play a sport will stay after they quit playing (or get cut). Typically, about 50% of non- full ride athletes will quit by the start of their junior year. If they also leave the school at that point - that’s revenue lost for a D3.

This is wrong. Kids who want to play their sport at a NESCAC school get 1 ED bullet. If the coach tells the kid that the coach is using a slot for that kid, admissions does a pre-read and gives a thumbs up, and the kid applies ED and then the kid does not get in, that’s a real problem. That’s what happened at Wesleyan as related on CC. The kid could have tried to use the ED bullet at another NESCAC school they were considering but was misled by Wesleyan.

This is correct. PP at top is wrong.

In order to learn from this, it is critical to know if the coach lied and said they had a guaranteed spot or not. Did the coach mislead or did the student misunderstand? If the coach can tell you exactly where the player stands and if they do or do not give a defended spot...the player needs to move on. Ask as many questions as needed to understand the exact process.

If the coach told them to use ED2, which seems to be the case, that is extremely problematic and the coach did mislead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually simple - and this thread is a crock of excrement.

Kids looking to play a college sport will consider several schools. You put in applications at all of them. Since we are not talking big time D1 football or basketball here - kids, and parents, will have several conversations with administrators about costs, financing, scholarships (no athletic money for D3), and the specific team requirements and fit.

Schools and coaches are open about what they can and cannot do for prospective athletes. Yes - particularly with D3 and Ivies, you can get kids who decide they are going to that school whether they can make a team or not. But, all athletes keep options open for as long as possible until a final decision is made. The big thing is assessing playing time potential. Even at D3, being on a team is a big time commitment and absolutely not worth it if you are not playing (or likely to play).

Conversely, from the school’s perspective, they just want someone who will be there 4 years and contribute to the school community. Again, for D3 no scholarships are at issue, so it is more a matter of making sure kids who are coming to play a sport will stay after they quit playing (or get cut). Typically, about 50% of non- full ride athletes will quit by the start of their junior year. If they also leave the school at that point - that’s revenue lost for a D3.

This is wrong. Kids who want to play their sport at a NESCAC school get 1 ED bullet. If the coach tells the kid that the coach is using a slot for that kid, admissions does a pre-read and gives a thumbs up, and the kid applies ED and then the kid does not get in, that’s a real problem. That’s what happened at Wesleyan as related on CC. The kid could have tried to use the ED bullet at another NESCAC school they were considering but was misled by Wesleyan.

This is correct. PP at top is wrong.

In order to learn from this, it is critical to know if the coach lied and said they had a guaranteed spot or not. Did the coach mislead or did the student misunderstand? If the coach can tell you exactly where the player stands and if they do or do not give a defended spot...the player needs to move on. Ask as many questions as needed to understand the exact process.

If the coach told them to use ED2, which seems to be the case, that is extremely problematic and the coach did mislead.

What sport and what coach? If that is the case, that coach is to be avoided. That situation is nothing like others that have been described here.

If they said maybe athlete will be admitted ED2, that is not saying they will be admitted. Do not go with maybes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually simple - and this thread is a crock of excrement.

Kids looking to play a college sport will consider several schools. You put in applications at all of them. Since we are not talking big time D1 football or basketball here - kids, and parents, will have several conversations with administrators about costs, financing, scholarships (no athletic money for D3), and the specific team requirements and fit.

Schools and coaches are open about what they can and cannot do for prospective athletes. Yes - particularly with D3 and Ivies, you can get kids who decide they are going to that school whether they can make a team or not. But, all athletes keep options open for as long as possible until a final decision is made. The big thing is assessing playing time potential. Even at D3, being on a team is a big time commitment and absolutely not worth it if you are not playing (or likely to play).

Conversely, from the school’s perspective, they just want someone who will be there 4 years and contribute to the school community. Again, for D3 no scholarships are at issue, so it is more a matter of making sure kids who are coming to play a sport will stay after they quit playing (or get cut). Typically, about 50% of non- full ride athletes will quit by the start of their junior year. If they also leave the school at that point - that’s revenue lost for a D3.

This is wrong. Kids who want to play their sport at a NESCAC school get 1 ED bullet. If the coach tells the kid that the coach is using a slot for that kid, admissions does a pre-read and gives a thumbs up, and the kid applies ED and then the kid does not get in, that’s a real problem. That’s what happened at Wesleyan as related on CC. The kid could have tried to use the ED bullet at another NESCAC school they were considering but was misled by Wesleyan.

This is correct. PP at top is wrong.

In order to learn from this, it is critical to know if the coach lied and said they had a guaranteed spot or not. Did the coach mislead or did the student misunderstand? If the coach can tell you exactly where the player stands and if they do or do not give a defended spot...the player needs to move on. Ask as many questions as needed to understand the exact process.

If the coach told them to use ED2, which seems to be the case, that is extremely problematic and the coach did mislead.

The "protected" recruit was rejected ED after being given approved pre- read?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

Huh? They are going to accept some flute players. The pole vaulter is competing against the other pole vaulters, the flute players against the other flute players, the math whizes against the other math whizes. Excel at your talent...your musician is not going up against the quarterback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

Huh? They are going to accept some flute players. The pole vaulter is competing against the other pole vaulters, the flute players against the other flute players, the math whizes against the other math whizes. Excel at your talent...your musician is not going up against the quarterback.

+100
this is completely accurate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

Your perception is very far from the reality. My performing artist will submit his performance resume, and complete multiple auditions. If he does well, he'll get extra support for his application from the music department. At many of the schools he's likely to look at, the selection is almost 100% based on the audition, and a top musician has a good shot at getting into a school (e.g. CMU, Northwestern) where they'd never have a chance academically if they didn't have the musical talent. In contrast, athletes still have to pass multiple academic hurdles to be admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

Your perception is very far from the reality. My performing artist will submit his performance resume, and complete multiple auditions. If he does well, he'll get extra support for his application from the music department. At many of the schools he's likely to look at, the selection is almost 100% based on the audition, and a top musician has a good shot at getting into a school (e.g. CMU, Northwestern) where they'd never have a chance academically if they didn't have the musical talent. In contrast, athletes still have to pass multiple academic hurdles to be admitted.

I believe that. My DD has been passed over by two coaches so far, despite being on their "top 5 list" because admissions couldn't say she was likely, though she is very much in line with the stats for both schools. In her case, she is being held to an even higher standard as an athletic recruit. Completely unexpected and absolutely nothing she can do about her freshman year grades now. This garbage about athletes not being qualified is so unfounded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

Your perception is very far from the reality. My performing artist will submit his performance resume, and complete multiple auditions. If he does well, he'll get extra support for his application from the music department. At many of the schools he's likely to look at, the selection is almost 100% based on the audition, and a top musician has a good shot at getting into a school (e.g. CMU, Northwestern) where they'd never have a chance academically if they didn't have the musical talent. In contrast, athletes still have to pass multiple academic hurdles to be admitted.

Why would it be a good idea to choose a school where a student might struggle academically even if they could get admitted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

Your perception is very far from the reality. My performing artist will submit his performance resume, and complete multiple auditions. If he does well, he'll get extra support for his application from the music department. At many of the schools he's likely to look at, the selection is almost 100% based on the audition, and a top musician has a good shot at getting into a school (e.g. CMU, Northwestern) where they'd never have a chance academically if they didn't have the musical talent. In contrast, athletes still have to pass multiple academic hurdles to be admitted.

Why would it be a good idea to choose a school where a student might struggle academically even if they could get admitted?

A kid who wants a music performance degree is likely to choose their school almost exclusively based on the quality of the instruction and performance opportunities in that studio. Since the majority of their courses will be in music then they'll likely do well there if chosen, and if they need to work hard to keep up in their handful of liberal arts classes, probably chosen to be manageable (e.g. my kid's not taking Differential Calc, he's taking math for non-majors of some kind) that's what they'll do.

But the point is, that the music department at a college can often provide more help with admissions than a coach can. The difference is in the timing. A music student usually applies during the regular time line, and is thus able to compare financial aid and merit aid offers.

There are pros and cons to both systems. I know, I have one of each. But to say that athletic kids have a better set up than musicians isn't true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

Your perception is very far from the reality. My performing artist will submit his performance resume, and complete multiple auditions. If he does well, he'll get extra support for his application from the music department. At many of the schools he's likely to look at, the selection is almost 100% based on the audition, and a top musician has a good shot at getting into a school (e.g. CMU, Northwestern) where they'd never have a chance academically if they didn't have the musical talent. In contrast, athletes still have to pass multiple academic hurdles to be admitted.

I believe that. My DD has been passed over by two coaches so far, despite being on their "top 5 list" because admissions couldn't say she was likely, though she is very much in line with the stats for both schools. In her case, she is being held to an even higher standard as an athletic recruit. Completely unexpected and absolutely nothing she can do about her freshman year grades now. This garbage about athletes not being qualified is so unfounded.

But saying "top 5" is no where close to saying "I will go to the matt for your kid." And most everyone on this board understands that "being in line with the stats" is barely even table stakes as top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

Your perception is very far from the reality. My performing artist will submit his performance resume, and complete multiple auditions. If he does well, he'll get extra support for his application from the music department. At many of the schools he's likely to look at, the selection is almost 100% based on the audition, and a top musician has a good shot at getting into a school (e.g. CMU, Northwestern) where they'd never have a chance academically if they didn't have the musical talent. In contrast, athletes still have to pass multiple academic hurdles to be admitted.

Why would it be a good idea to choose a school where a student might struggle academically even if they could get admitted?

Who on earth said they would struggle? Do you really think a few points difference in GPA and standardized test scores determines who will do well and who will "struggle?" In fact, the committed musican or athlete have a lot going for them in terms of preparation as they head into college. There is a reason even the top universities aren't just filled with straight A, perfect score students. They could be, but those are not the only measurements for successful students. You see, it's not about filling classes with the very topmost academic students. It's about filling classes with interesting, engaged, diverse students who will find success on their terms. People have simply got to let go of this bizarre idea that it's a top to bottome GPA/test score ranking that determines college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

Your perception is very far from the reality. My performing artist will submit his performance resume, and complete multiple auditions. If he does well, he'll get extra support for his application from the music department. At many of the schools he's likely to look at, the selection is almost 100% based on the audition, and a top musician has a good shot at getting into a school (e.g. CMU, Northwestern) where they'd never have a chance academically if they didn't have the musical talent. In contrast, athletes still have to pass multiple academic hurdles to be admitted.

Why would it be a good idea to choose a school where a student might struggle academically even if they could get admitted?

A kid who wants a music performance degree is likely to choose their school almost exclusively based on the quality of the instruction and performance opportunities in that studio. Since the majority of their courses will be in music then they'll likely do well there if chosen, and if they need to work hard to keep up in their handful of liberal arts classes, probably chosen to be manageable (e.g. my kid's not taking Differential Calc, he's taking math for non-majors of some kind) that's what they'll do.

But the point is, that the music department at a college can often provide more help with admissions than a coach can. The difference is in the timing. A music student usually applies during the regular time line, and is thus able to compare financial aid and merit aid offers.

There are pros and cons to both systems. I know, I have one of each. But to say that athletic kids have a better set up than musicians isn't true.

Having to go through this process early for athletes definitely puts them at a disadvantage. So much less time to bulid a strong transcript. It is a very stressful process and continues to be until that final acceptance arrives--in most cases, no differently than all the other seniors, except their process was longer and more heartbreaking, in many cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

Your perception is very far from the reality. My performing artist will submit his performance resume, and complete multiple auditions. If he does well, he'll get extra support for his application from the music department. At many of the schools he's likely to look at, the selection is almost 100% based on the audition, and a top musician has a good shot at getting into a school (e.g. CMU, Northwestern) where they'd never have a chance academically if they didn't have the musical talent. In contrast, athletes still have to pass multiple academic hurdles to be admitted.

I believe that. My DD has been passed over by two coaches so far, despite being on their "top 5 list" because admissions couldn't say she was likely, though she is very much in line with the stats for both schools. In her case, she is being held to an even higher standard as an athletic recruit. Completely unexpected and absolutely nothing she can do about her freshman year grades now. This garbage about athletes not being qualified is so unfounded.

But saying "top 5" is no where close to saying "I will go to the matt for your kid." And most everyone on this board understands that "being in line with the stats" is barely even table stakes as top schools.

I generalized. At one, she was literally the first recruit they planned to commit last August. Does that make you feel better? I will admit, the second one, she was described by the coach as "in my top tier." At the first one, even the coach was dismayed to come back to her and said they couldn't even use one of their "spots" (this was a top 20 D1) because admissions said they needed first semester junior year grades. They were shocked, my daughter was distraught. Two months later, they requested a meeting with with her to say, basically, we decided not to wait and to give the spot to someone else. Sorry. We'd love to have you, but you'll have to get in on your own. She probably will get in on her own, but hopefully she'll have other options because she does not want to play there now. As to your last point, that's my point with this whole story: everyone wants to believe that athletes get in with dismal stats. It's not true. In the case of top schools athletes seem to be held to an even higher standard during recruiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waitaminit, I thought athletes had it easy all the time and it was a cakewalk for them! At least that's what I thought from reading this forum...

Yep. The truth is that to be a recruited student-athlete at the DIII level an applicant has double the work and stress as a normal applicant. But of course folks like to attack before fully understanding the DIII process.

Please. Setting aside the student’s “athletic career,” in the worst case, the athlete applicant has submitted its application and gotten the college’s coaches to put in a good word for the application; in a best case the coach’s support definitively gets the applicant accepted. Vs the thousands of non-athlete applicants (the actors, the flute a players, etc) that get no extra support for their applications in any scenario.

Your perception is very far from the reality. My performing artist will submit his performance resume, and complete multiple auditions. If he does well, he'll get extra support for his application from the music department. At many of the schools he's likely to look at, the selection is almost 100% based on the audition, and a top musician has a good shot at getting into a school (e.g. CMU, Northwestern) where they'd never have a chance academically if they didn't have the musical talent. In contrast, athletes still have to pass multiple academic hurdles to be admitted.

I believe that. My DD has been passed over by two coaches so far, despite being on their "top 5 list" because admissions couldn't say she was likely, though she is very much in line with the stats for both schools. In her case, she is being held to an even higher standard as an athletic recruit. Completely unexpected and absolutely nothing she can do about her freshman year grades now. This garbage about athletes not being qualified is so unfounded.

But saying "top 5" is no where close to saying "I will go to the matt for your kid." And most everyone on this board understands that "being in line with the stats" is barely even table stakes as top schools.

I generalized. At one, she was literally the first recruit they planned to commit last August. Does that make you feel better? I will admit, the second one, she was described by the coach as "in my top tier." At the first one, even the coach was dismayed to come back to her and said they couldn't even use one of their "spots" (this was a top 20 D1) because admissions said they needed first semester junior year grades. They were shocked, my daughter was distraught. Two months later, they requested a meeting with with her to say, basically, we decided not to wait and to give the spot to someone else. Sorry. We'd love to have you, but you'll have to get in on your own. She probably will get in on her own, but hopefully she'll have other options because she does not want to play there now. As to your last point, that's my point with this whole story: everyone wants to believe that athletes get in with dismal stats. It's not true. In the case of top schools athletes seem to be held to an even higher standard during recruiting.

This does not sound that different from thousands and thousands of other students that get enthusiastic about a school for any number if reason and then figure out that it will not work out for them. It is a very challenging process for all: athletes, musicians and everyone else.