HS junior athletes, already committed to top schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

Stanford recruits for marching band.

And Michigan, Notre Dame, UC Berkeley, Texas, USC, UCLA to name a few.

Many More for orchestra esp SLACS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

I went to Northwestern which absolutely recruits for MB, theater, all kinds of music.

Of course, but Lax kid can be a chem major. Does music recruit have to be music major? Even "music recruit" is LOL for me. Look at the numbers. College recruit and gives admissions to sometimes a hundred plus athletes. Music is just not in the same world

A music kid could be recruited for MB, which is an extracurricular, or for the conservatory. If they go to the conservatory, then they don't have to meet academic requirements that are similar to what athletes have to meet, because they get credit for their music as an academic discipline.

The school "recruits" in the manner I spoke of about 100 music students a year for the school of music, some number for the MB (some of whom are in the school of music) and some number of musical theater majors.

now, they don't recruit 100 music majors. unless you mean that all schools in some way recruit all students via mailers ,etc. Totally not what we mean when we say "recruited athlete". Marching bands are mostly walk on, except a few high profile exceptions. Zero merit money for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

I went to Northwestern which absolutely recruits for MB, theater, all kinds of music.

Of course, but Lax kid can be a chem major. Does music recruit have to be music major? Even "music recruit" is LOL for me. Look at the numbers. College recruit and gives admissions to sometimes a hundred plus athletes. Music is just not in the same world

A music kid could be recruited for MB, which is an extracurricular, or for the conservatory. If they go to the conservatory, then they don't have to meet academic requirements that are similar to what athletes have to meet, because they get credit for their music as an academic discipline.

The school "recruits" in the manner I spoke of about 100 music students a year for the school of music, some number for the MB (some of whom are in the school of music) and some number of musical theater majors.

now, they don't recruit 100 music majors. unless you mean that all schools in some way recruit all students via mailers ,etc. Totally not what we mean when we say "recruited athlete". Marching bands are mostly walk on, except a few high profile exceptions. Zero merit money for sure.

They way they recruit athletes is you send them film, they make arrangements to see you play, and then invite you to campus ask some questions and offer you a spot.

How is that substantially different from the audition program that every musician there goes through/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know of several high school athletes that committed to Ivy League schools just last week. They’re not two weeks into junior year! I understand recruiting and all the advantages that come with it, but I’m struck at how early it’s happened. No junior year grades yet, no essays, they probably didn’t even have to take the SATs.

I student might say "I am committed", but Ivy offers their spaces through the likely letter process in the fall of Senior Year. Those kids are lying.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know of two juniors, already commited to HYP (not stating which) for sports. Yes, grades need to be kept up, but still! I agree, it’s not fair.

There are two sides to this...obviously it is good to know that as long as you hit minimum academic standards and your performance is good, you basically are admitted. However, you now effectively cut off discussions with other schools.

Your commitment is often-times based on your projectability as an athlete, so even if you are perfectly healthy, a coach may decide that you did not progress according to their plan between 11th and 12th grade and they decide to de-commit to you and go with somebody else.

Or if the coach changes or if a better player commits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know of several high school athletes that committed to Ivy League schools just last week. They’re not two weeks into junior year! I understand recruiting and all the advantages that come with it, but I’m struck at how early it’s happened. No junior year grades yet, no essays, they probably didn’t even have to take the SATs.

I student might say "I am committed", but Ivy offers their spaces through the likely letter process in the fall of Senior Year. Those kids are lying.

This.

It isn’t a lie. By an athlete saying they are committed, they had to “break up”, so to speak, with other colleges that were trying to recruit them.Those colleges will fill their spot with the next best athlete. So yes, they have committed in that they are promising to not continue the recruiting process with any other school.

That said, the schools have already requested that athlete’s transcripts several times. They have also identified their future coursework to check for rigor, and have done an academic pre read. The risk is that if they don’t maintain their grades or fail to get a certain test score, then they will lose their spot. It’s a risk on the athletes part because they turned down their other options.

My junior athlete is going through the recruiting process at the moment. It is not for the faint of heart. All summer has been speaking to multiple coaches per day, as each coach wants to speak every 1-2 weeks. Fortunately my athlete has narrowed down the list and has fewer than 10 schools of interest. Almost all have less than 10% acceptance rates. My child is hugely successful in the classroom, despite being an elite nationally ranked athlete.

Applicants are given admission boosts for far more extraneous reasons. Legacy, donor parents, attending school in a less populated state, religious/ethnic/racial boosts. Why not recognize the time (50 weeks/yr, 25 hours/week) and dedication these athletes put into their sport?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

I went to Northwestern which absolutely recruits for MB, theater, all kinds of music.

Of course, but Lax kid can be a chem major. Does music recruit have to be music major? Even "music recruit" is LOL for me. Look at the numbers. College recruit and gives admissions to sometimes a hundred plus athletes. Music is just not in the same world

A music kid could be recruited for MB, which is an extracurricular, or for the conservatory. If they go to the conservatory, then they don't have to meet academic requirements that are similar to what athletes have to meet, because they get credit for their music as an academic discipline.

The school "recruits" in the manner I spoke of about 100 music students a year for the school of music, some number for the MB (some of whom are in the school of music) and some number of musical theater majors.

now, they don't recruit 100 music majors. unless you mean that all schools in some way recruit all students via mailers ,etc. Totally not what we mean when we say "recruited athlete". Marching bands are mostly walk on, except a few high profile exceptions. Zero merit money for sure.

They way they recruit athletes is you send them film, they make arrangements to see you play, and then invite you to campus ask some questions and offer you a spot.

How is that substantially different from the audition program that every musician there goes through/

This and they have merit aid.

My neighbors son got money from marching band for 1 instruments and one from orchestra for another instrument.

Also athletic scholarships are limited, many scholarships are 10%, 20%.