What’s the real deal with athletic recruiting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You never want to be the dumbest kid in the class. The view that your kid didn’t pull top scores or grades because they spent time playing their sport is wrong. The kids who did get the top grades and test scores, and were not playing sports, were doing other things - art, music, tech, whatever. They just are smarter.

That’s fine. Go to a college where your kid’s academics are at least in the middle of the pack. It is hard enough to play a sport and do okay academically in college when you are not the dumb one.

Even at an academic D3 college, the coach does not care about your kid’s grades other than they have to be good enough that the coach never hears anything about them. The coach does not give a rip if your kid has a test or a paper due. Practice is at X time, and your kid better be there. It’s not high school. You can’t call and tell the coach Billy has to study.
It is - always - sink or swim. Most kids sink.
Kids who are in over their heads academically to begin with are almost always going to sink.

Think I’m wrong? Do this. Go to the team website for the high academic school you’re thinking your kid wants to get into. Look at last years team. How many seniors are on it? Go back 4 years and look at that team. How many freshmen? If 50% survived until senior year that’s very good. Very often it’s less. Injuries can happen. Kids turning out not to be good enough can happen - a lot, and kids flunking out.

Don’t start off underwater. Playing a sport is a huge time commitment. In season it’s easily 40 hours a week plus travel. Off season it’s 20 hours.

I think you are coming to the wrong conclusion.

Harvard did a study on their student-athletes and I believe 25% of all athletes stopped playing for the Varsity team...with certain sports like XCountry and crew seeing higher quit rates.

It's not because they were failing. It's because the kids realized that there was nothing beyond Harvard in their sport...other than continuing to do it to keep in shape, but nobody was planning to go to the Olympics or otherwise pursue the sport professionally.

So, they were practicing like crazy and physically wiped most days. They weren't having the "fun" experience of most college students and just decided by sophomore or junior year that they wanted to have a traditional college experience before it was over.

Basketball and field hockey (that one seems odd) had the highest retention rates of all sports.

In high school, those sports have a secondary purpose...getting you into your desired school like Harvard. Once at Harvard, there is no other purpose. You have to love the sport and your team which many kids decide they don't at the level required from D1.

Totally agree. Lots of college athletes drop out of their sport after freshman year b/c it’s not as interesting as it was in hs. IN HS, participating in a sport gives you lots of benefits: you’re playing with friends that you’ve known your whole life; You’re a minor celebrity in your school; It gives you some freedom from your parents (my kids loved the road trips they did with their HS & Club teams); Etc.

Several of my friends with kids playing college sports have told me their kids have dropped out after freshman year. They want to use the time they would’ve been training and playing to get internships meet girls go to parties.

It’s a real wake up call for those of us who have been supporting these athletes for the last decade.

DP. I think what I find unappealing about your post and similar other ones - aside from the implication that athletes are dumb and can’t keep up at ‘elite’ schools- is that there’s this judgmental air about the value (or lack there of) of playing a sport, particularly if it’s for more than just to gain an admission edge and only then for a school the kid is ‘smart enough’ (as determined solely by their SAT and GPA, I guess) to attend. Sure, some kids will move on, and decide to focus on other things, but so what? Does that make their efforts any less important? I don’t think so. The experience of being dedicated and disciplined, working on a team, etc, was so valuable.

Although by your tone and attitude, I suspect your cohort might lean towards the parent groups who push kids towards sports primarily as a hook for college, and so yeah, it makes sense more of those kids would drop out early.

Not sure the point you are trying to make.

I was PP that commented that Harvard actually did a study and 25% of all their varsity athletes stop playing the sport...and the quit rate is 50%+ in sports like crew and lower in basketball and field hockey.

Again, this wasn't because they were struggling with their grades, but rather they were missing out on the college experience and perhaps didn't appreciate how time-intensive the sport was at a D1 program..even Harvard...and how much they were missing out on the entire experience.

There is no implication that anyone is dumb, nor were they only playing the sport to get recruited to Harvard. It's just that the secondary motivation for the sport was very powerful in addition to enjoying playing in high school.

It's different when you get to college in a sport where 98% of the student body could care less about how well the college performs in the sport (or that they even have the sport), and very few will ever attend any of the games/matches/meets.

I think we are talking about different sorts of HS athletes. The ones I am discussing are not doing it bc they’re pretty good at it and it’s fun for the social aspect (I know kids do, and that’s valid of course); they are far more serious than that and if anything they’ve already confronted social sacrifices from their level of dedication

You have to be pretty dedicated to be a D1 athlete anywhere…even Harvard. Yet 25% of all these athletes quit during college. So, clearly a number of serious athletes are in this group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You never want to be the dumbest kid in the class. The view that your kid didn’t pull top scores or grades because they spent time playing their sport is wrong. The kids who did get the top grades and test scores, and were not playing sports, were doing other things - art, music, tech, whatever. They just are smarter.

That’s fine. Go to a college where your kid’s academics are at least in the middle of the pack. It is hard enough to play a sport and do okay academically in college when you are not the dumb one.

Even at an academic D3 college, the coach does not care about your kid’s grades other than they have to be good enough that the coach never hears anything about them. The coach does not give a rip if your kid has a test or a paper due. Practice is at X time, and your kid better be there. It’s not high school. You can’t call and tell the coach Billy has to study.
It is - always - sink or swim. Most kids sink.
Kids who are in over their heads academically to begin with are almost always going to sink.

Think I’m wrong? Do this. Go to the team website for the high academic school you’re thinking your kid wants to get into. Look at last years team. How many seniors are on it? Go back 4 years and look at that team. How many freshmen? If 50% survived until senior year that’s very good. Very often it’s less. Injuries can happen. Kids turning out not to be good enough can happen - a lot, and kids flunking out.

Don’t start off underwater. Playing a sport is a huge time commitment. In season it’s easily 40 hours a week plus travel. Off season it’s 20 hours.

I think you are coming to the wrong conclusion.

Harvard did a study on their student-athletes and I believe 25% of all athletes stopped playing for the Varsity team...with certain sports like XCountry and crew seeing higher quit rates.

It's not because they were failing. It's because the kids realized that there was nothing beyond Harvard in their sport...other than continuing to do it to keep in shape, but nobody was planning to go to the Olympics or otherwise pursue the sport professionally.

So, they were practicing like crazy and physically wiped most days. They weren't having the "fun" experience of most college students and just decided by sophomore or junior year that they wanted to have a traditional college experience before it was over.

Basketball and field hockey (that one seems odd) had the highest retention rates of all sports.

In high school, those sports have a secondary purpose...getting you into your desired school like Harvard. Once at Harvard, there is no other purpose. You have to love the sport and your team which many kids decide they don't at the level required from D1.

Totally agree. Lots of college athletes drop out of their sport after freshman year b/c it’s not as interesting as it was in hs. IN HS, participating in a sport gives you lots of benefits: you’re playing with friends that you’ve known your whole life; You’re a minor celebrity in your school; It gives you some freedom from your parents (my kids loved the road trips they did with their HS & Club teams); Etc.

Several of my friends with kids playing college sports have told me their kids have dropped out after freshman year. They want to use the time they would’ve been training and playing to get internships meet girls go to parties.

It’s a real wake up call for those of us who have been supporting these athletes for the last decade.

DP. I think what I find unappealing about your post and similar other ones - aside from the implication that athletes are dumb and can’t keep up at ‘elite’ schools- is that there’s this judgmental air about the value (or lack there of) of playing a sport, particularly if it’s for more than just to gain an admission edge and only then for a school the kid is ‘smart enough’ (as determined solely by their SAT and GPA, I guess) to attend. Sure, some kids will move on, and decide to focus on other things, but so what? Does that make their efforts any less important? I don’t think so. The experience of being dedicated and disciplined, working on a team, etc, was so valuable.

Although by your tone and attitude, I suspect your cohort might lean towards the parent groups who push kids towards sports primarily as a hook for college, and so yeah, it makes sense more of those kids would drop out early.

Not sure the point you are trying to make.

I was PP that commented that Harvard actually did a study and 25% of all their varsity athletes stop playing the sport...and the quit rate is 50%+ in sports like crew and lower in basketball and field hockey.

Again, this wasn't because they were struggling with their grades, but rather they were missing out on the college experience and perhaps didn't appreciate how time-intensive the sport was at a D1 program..even Harvard...and how much they were missing out on the entire experience.

There is no implication that anyone is dumb, nor were they only playing the sport to get recruited to Harvard. It's just that the secondary motivation for the sport was very powerful in addition to enjoying playing in high school.

It's different when you get to college in a sport where 98% of the student body could care less about how well the college performs in the sport (or that they even have the sport), and very few will ever attend any of the games/matches/meets.

I think we are talking about different sorts of HS athletes. The ones I am discussing are not doing it bc they’re pretty good at it and it’s fun for the social aspect (I know kids do, and that’s valid of course); they are far more serious than that and if anything they’ve already confronted social sacrifices from their level of dedication

You have to be pretty dedicated to be a D1 athlete anywhere…even Harvard. Yet 25% of all these athletes quit during college. So, clearly a number of serious athletes are in this group.

D1 ivy tends to have lower standards than regular d1 from what I can see

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You never want to be the dumbest kid in the class. The view that your kid didn’t pull top scores or grades because they spent time playing their sport is wrong. The kids who did get the top grades and test scores, and were not playing sports, were doing other things - art, music, tech, whatever. They just are smarter.

That’s fine. Go to a college where your kid’s academics are at least in the middle of the pack. It is hard enough to play a sport and do okay academically in college when you are not the dumb one.

Even at an academic D3 college, the coach does not care about your kid’s grades other than they have to be good enough that the coach never hears anything about them. The coach does not give a rip if your kid has a test or a paper due. Practice is at X time, and your kid better be there. It’s not high school. You can’t call and tell the coach Billy has to study.
It is - always - sink or swim. Most kids sink.
Kids who are in over their heads academically to begin with are almost always going to sink.

Think I’m wrong? Do this. Go to the team website for the high academic school you’re thinking your kid wants to get into. Look at last years team. How many seniors are on it? Go back 4 years and look at that team. How many freshmen? If 50% survived until senior year that’s very good. Very often it’s less. Injuries can happen. Kids turning out not to be good enough can happen - a lot, and kids flunking out.

Don’t start off underwater. Playing a sport is a huge time commitment. In season it’s easily 40 hours a week plus travel. Off season it’s 20 hours.

I think you are coming to the wrong conclusion.

Harvard did a study on their student-athletes and I believe 25% of all athletes stopped playing for the Varsity team...with certain sports like XCountry and crew seeing higher quit rates.

It's not because they were failing. It's because the kids realized that there was nothing beyond Harvard in their sport...other than continuing to do it to keep in shape, but nobody was planning to go to the Olympics or otherwise pursue the sport professionally.

So, they were practicing like crazy and physically wiped most days. They weren't having the "fun" experience of most college students and just decided by sophomore or junior year that they wanted to have a traditional college experience before it was over.

Basketball and field hockey (that one seems odd) had the highest retention rates of all sports.

In high school, those sports have a secondary purpose...getting you into your desired school like Harvard. Once at Harvard, there is no other purpose. You have to love the sport and your team which many kids decide they don't at the level required from D1.

Totally agree. Lots of college athletes drop out of their sport after freshman year b/c it’s not as interesting as it was in hs. IN HS, participating in a sport gives you lots of benefits: you’re playing with friends that you’ve known your whole life; You’re a minor celebrity in your school; It gives you some freedom from your parents (my kids loved the road trips they did with their HS & Club teams); Etc.

Several of my friends with kids playing college sports have told me their kids have dropped out after freshman year. They want to use the time they would’ve been training and playing to get internships meet girls go to parties.

It’s a real wake up call for those of us who have been supporting these athletes for the last decade.

DP. I think what I find unappealing about your post and similar other ones - aside from the implication that athletes are dumb and can’t keep up at ‘elite’ schools- is that there’s this judgmental air about the value (or lack there of) of playing a sport, particularly if it’s for more than just to gain an admission edge and only then for a school the kid is ‘smart enough’ (as determined solely by their SAT and GPA, I guess) to attend. Sure, some kids will move on, and decide to focus on other things, but so what? Does that make their efforts any less important? I don’t think so. The experience of being dedicated and disciplined, working on a team, etc, was so valuable.

Although by your tone and attitude, I suspect your cohort might lean towards the parent groups who push kids towards sports primarily as a hook for college, and so yeah, it makes sense more of those kids would drop out early.

Not sure the point you are trying to make.

I was PP that commented that Harvard actually did a study and 25% of all their varsity athletes stop playing the sport...and the quit rate is 50%+ in sports like crew and lower in basketball and field hockey.

Again, this wasn't because they were struggling with their grades, but rather they were missing out on the college experience and perhaps didn't appreciate how time-intensive the sport was at a D1 program..even Harvard...and how much they were missing out on the entire experience.

There is no implication that anyone is dumb, nor were they only playing the sport to get recruited to Harvard. It's just that the secondary motivation for the sport was very powerful in addition to enjoying playing in high school.

It's different when you get to college in a sport where 98% of the student body could care less about how well the college performs in the sport (or that they even have the sport), and very few will ever attend any of the games/matches/meets.

I think we are talking about different sorts of HS athletes. The ones I am discussing are not doing it bc they’re pretty good at it and it’s fun for the social aspect (I know kids do, and that’s valid of course); they are far more serious than that and if anything they’ve already confronted social sacrifices from their level of dedication

You have to be pretty dedicated to be a D1 athlete anywhere…even Harvard. Yet 25% of all these athletes quit during college. So, clearly a number of serious athletes are in this group.

Maybe the sports where they only did ir for the hook like rowing or xc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You never want to be the dumbest kid in the class. The view that your kid didn’t pull top scores or grades because they spent time playing their sport is wrong. The kids who did get the top grades and test scores, and were not playing sports, were doing other things - art, music, tech, whatever. They just are smarter.

That’s fine. Go to a college where your kid’s academics are at least in the middle of the pack. It is hard enough to play a sport and do okay academically in college when you are not the dumb one.

Even at an academic D3 college, the coach does not care about your kid’s grades other than they have to be good enough that the coach never hears anything about them. The coach does not give a rip if your kid has a test or a paper due. Practice is at X time, and your kid better be there. It’s not high school. You can’t call and tell the coach Billy has to study.
It is - always - sink or swim. Most kids sink.
Kids who are in over their heads academically to begin with are almost always going to sink.

Think I’m wrong? Do this. Go to the team website for the high academic school you’re thinking your kid wants to get into. Look at last years team. How many seniors are on it? Go back 4 years and look at that team. How many freshmen? If 50% survived until senior year that’s very good. Very often it’s less. Injuries can happen. Kids turning out not to be good enough can happen - a lot, and kids flunking out.

Don’t start off underwater. Playing a sport is a huge time commitment. In season it’s easily 40 hours a week plus travel. Off season it’s 20 hours.

I think you are coming to the wrong conclusion.

Harvard did a study on their student-athletes and I believe 25% of all athletes stopped playing for the Varsity team...with certain sports like XCountry and crew seeing higher quit rates.

It's not because they were failing. It's because the kids realized that there was nothing beyond Harvard in their sport...other than continuing to do it to keep in shape, but nobody was planning to go to the Olympics or otherwise pursue the sport professionally.

So, they were practicing like crazy and physically wiped most days. They weren't having the "fun" experience of most college students and just decided by sophomore or junior year that they wanted to have a traditional college experience before it was over.

Basketball and field hockey (that one seems odd) had the highest retention rates of all sports.

In high school, those sports have a secondary purpose...getting you into your desired school like Harvard. Once at Harvard, there is no other purpose. You have to love the sport and your team which many kids decide they don't at the level required from D1.

Totally agree. Lots of college athletes drop out of their sport after freshman year b/c it’s not as interesting as it was in hs. IN HS, participating in a sport gives you lots of benefits: you’re playing with friends that you’ve known your whole life; You’re a minor celebrity in your school; It gives you some freedom from your parents (my kids loved the road trips they did with their HS & Club teams); Etc.

Several of my friends with kids playing college sports have told me their kids have dropped out after freshman year. They want to use the time they would’ve been training and playing to get internships meet girls go to parties.

It’s a real wake up call for those of us who have been supporting these athletes for the last decade.

DP. I think what I find unappealing about your post and similar other ones - aside from the implication that athletes are dumb and can’t keep up at ‘elite’ schools- is that there’s this judgmental air about the value (or lack there of) of playing a sport, particularly if it’s for more than just to gain an admission edge and only then for a school the kid is ‘smart enough’ (as determined solely by their SAT and GPA, I guess) to attend. Sure, some kids will move on, and decide to focus on other things, but so what? Does that make their efforts any less important? I don’t think so. The experience of being dedicated and disciplined, working on a team, etc, was so valuable.

Although by your tone and attitude, I suspect your cohort might lean towards the parent groups who push kids towards sports primarily as a hook for college, and so yeah, it makes sense more of those kids would drop out early.

Not sure the point you are trying to make.

I was PP that commented that Harvard actually did a study and 25% of all their varsity athletes stop playing the sport...and the quit rate is 50%+ in sports like crew and lower in basketball and field hockey.

Again, this wasn't because they were struggling with their grades, but rather they were missing out on the college experience and perhaps didn't appreciate how time-intensive the sport was at a D1 program..even Harvard...and how much they were missing out on the entire experience.

There is no implication that anyone is dumb, nor were they only playing the sport to get recruited to Harvard. It's just that the secondary motivation for the sport was very powerful in addition to enjoying playing in high school.

It's different when you get to college in a sport where 98% of the student body could care less about how well the college performs in the sport (or that they even have the sport), and very few will ever attend any of the games/matches/meets.

I think we are talking about different sorts of HS athletes. The ones I am discussing are not doing it bc they’re pretty good at it and it’s fun for the social aspect (I know kids do, and that’s valid of course); they are far more serious than that and if anything they’ve already confronted social sacrifices from their level of dedication

You have to be pretty dedicated to be a D1 athlete anywhere…even Harvard. Yet 25% of all these athletes quit during college. So, clearly a number of serious athletes are in this group.

Maybe the sports where they only did ir for the hook like rowing or xc

It’s all sports…football is actually a little higher than 25%. Basketball and field hockey have the highest retention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You never want to be the dumbest kid in the class. The view that your kid didn’t pull top scores or grades because they spent time playing their sport is wrong. The kids who did get the top grades and test scores, and were not playing sports, were doing other things - art, music, tech, whatever. They just are smarter.

That’s fine. Go to a college where your kid’s academics are at least in the middle of the pack. It is hard enough to play a sport and do okay academically in college when you are not the dumb one.

Even at an academic D3 college, the coach does not care about your kid’s grades other than they have to be good enough that the coach never hears anything about them. The coach does not give a rip if your kid has a test or a paper due. Practice is at X time, and your kid better be there. It’s not high school. You can’t call and tell the coach Billy has to study.
It is - always - sink or swim. Most kids sink.
Kids who are in over their heads academically to begin with are almost always going to sink.

Think I’m wrong? Do this. Go to the team website for the high academic school you’re thinking your kid wants to get into. Look at last years team. How many seniors are on it? Go back 4 years and look at that team. How many freshmen? If 50% survived until senior year that’s very good. Very often it’s less. Injuries can happen. Kids turning out not to be good enough can happen - a lot, and kids flunking out.

Don’t start off underwater. Playing a sport is a huge time commitment. In season it’s easily 40 hours a week plus travel. Off season it’s 20 hours.

I think you are coming to the wrong conclusion.

Harvard did a study on their student-athletes and I believe 25% of all athletes stopped playing for the Varsity team...with certain sports like XCountry and crew seeing higher quit rates.

It's not because they were failing. It's because the kids realized that there was nothing beyond Harvard in their sport...other than continuing to do it to keep in shape, but nobody was planning to go to the Olympics or otherwise pursue the sport professionally.

So, they were practicing like crazy and physically wiped most days. They weren't having the "fun" experience of most college students and just decided by sophomore or junior year that they wanted to have a traditional college experience before it was over.

Basketball and field hockey (that one seems odd) had the highest retention rates of all sports.

In high school, those sports have a secondary purpose...getting you into your desired school like Harvard. Once at Harvard, there is no other purpose. You have to love the sport and your team which many kids decide they don't at the level required from D1.

Totally agree. Lots of college athletes drop out of their sport after freshman year b/c it’s not as interesting as it was in hs. IN HS, participating in a sport gives you lots of benefits: you’re playing with friends that you’ve known your whole life; You’re a minor celebrity in your school; It gives you some freedom from your parents (my kids loved the road trips they did with their HS & Club teams); Etc.

Several of my friends with kids playing college sports have told me their kids have dropped out after freshman year. They want to use the time they would’ve been training and playing to get internships meet girls go to parties.

It’s a real wake up call for those of us who have been supporting these athletes for the last decade.

DP. I think what I find unappealing about your post and similar other ones - aside from the implication that athletes are dumb and can’t keep up at ‘elite’ schools- is that there’s this judgmental air about the value (or lack there of) of playing a sport, particularly if it’s for more than just to gain an admission edge and only then for a school the kid is ‘smart enough’ (as determined solely by their SAT and GPA, I guess) to attend. Sure, some kids will move on, and decide to focus on other things, but so what? Does that make their efforts any less important? I don’t think so. The experience of being dedicated and disciplined, working on a team, etc, was so valuable.

Although by your tone and attitude, I suspect your cohort might lean towards the parent groups who push kids towards sports primarily as a hook for college, and so yeah, it makes sense more of those kids would drop out early.

Not sure the point you are trying to make.

I was PP that commented that Harvard actually did a study and 25% of all their varsity athletes stop playing the sport...and the quit rate is 50%+ in sports like crew and lower in basketball and field hockey.

Again, this wasn't because they were struggling with their grades, but rather they were missing out on the college experience and perhaps didn't appreciate how time-intensive the sport was at a D1 program..even Harvard...and how much they were missing out on the entire experience.

There is no implication that anyone is dumb, nor were they only playing the sport to get recruited to Harvard. It's just that the secondary motivation for the sport was very powerful in addition to enjoying playing in high school.

It's different when you get to college in a sport where 98% of the student body could care less about how well the college performs in the sport (or that they even have the sport), and very few will ever attend any of the games/matches/meets.

I think we are talking about different sorts of HS athletes. The ones I am discussing are not doing it bc they’re pretty good at it and it’s fun for the social aspect (I know kids do, and that’s valid of course); they are far more serious than that and if anything they’ve already confronted social sacrifices from their level of dedication

You have to be pretty dedicated to be a D1 athlete anywhere…even Harvard. Yet 25% of all these athletes quit during college. So, clearly a number of serious athletes are in this group.

Maybe the sports where they only did ir for the hook like rowing or xc

It’s all sports…football is actually a little higher than 25%. Basketball and field hockey have the highest retention.

At Harvard or all schools? This chain has some odd positions- I mean, can we stop pretending that serious athletes all have their hearts set on going to MIT or Harvard? Not sure these are representative of what we’re discussing

[Anonymous]

^ I realize that for the UMC socially striving coastal set on dcum these schools might be the ultimate goal for their dcs, but let’s be honest, they’re just not a huge focus for your average talented high school athlete

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ I realize that for the UMC socially striving coastal set on dcum these schools might be the ultimate goal for their dcs, but let’s be honest, they’re just not a huge focus for your average talented high school athlete

+1

I’m struggling to even follow this thread at this point. I honestly didn’t know MIT even had any serious athletic programs, but for serious athletes, who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I realize that for the UMC socially striving coastal set on dcum these schools might be the ultimate goal for their dcs, but let’s be honest, they’re just not a huge focus for your average talented high school athlete

+1

I’m struggling to even follow this thread at this point. I honestly didn’t know MIT even had any serious athletic programs, but for serious athletes, who cares?

I have no skin in on the game on MIT, but I would say this. My kid plays Ivy football, but when he was in the recruiting process, received an offer of admission support at MIT. He knew many other players that had also received offers of admission support at MIT. These were very good players, many of whom had offers of admission support at NESCAC schools like Williams, Amherst. Johns Hopkins was frequently in the mix as well. Obviously, none of these schools are playing SEC level football. But the point is if you think that there are no "serious athletes" at MIT, then you should also extend that perspective to D3 more generally (which of course you are entitled to do depending on your own definition).

Bottom line is that there is not small group of talented athletes our there that also bring to bear impressive objective academic performance (for example, 1600 single sitting SAT scores). It might be an inconvenient fact for those that want to believe that the Venn overlap of athleticism and intelligence is a null set. The reality is that they are out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I realize that for the UMC socially striving coastal set on dcum these schools might be the ultimate goal for their dcs, but let’s be honest, they’re just not a huge focus for your average talented high school athlete

+1

I’m struggling to even follow this thread at this point. I honestly didn’t know MIT even had any serious athletic programs, but for serious athletes, who cares?

I have no skin in on the game on MIT, but I would say this. My kid plays Ivy football, but when he was in the recruiting process, received an offer of admission support at MIT. He knew many other players that had also received offers of admission support at MIT. These were very good players, many of whom had offers of admission support at NESCAC schools like Williams, Amherst. Johns Hopkins was frequently in the mix as well. Obviously, none of these schools are playing SEC level football. But the point is if you think that there are no "serious athletes" at MIT, then you should also extend that perspective to D3 more generally (which of course you are entitled to do depending on your own definition).

Bottom line is that there is not small group of talented athletes our there that also bring to bear impressive objective academic performance (for example, 1600 single sitting SAT scores). It might be an inconvenient fact for those that want to believe that the Venn overlap of athleticism and intelligence is a null set. The reality is that they are out there.

I suspect you are getting triggered because you don’t understand the difference between a serious athlete and a good or talented athlete. By “serious athlete” I mean kids who want to make a career out of athletics. Kids who have a realistic dream of playing their sport professionally, for example. “Serious” =/= “talented” necessarily. I’m sure there are many talented athletes that would love to keep playing while studying for their primary goal of being a doctor or an engineer.

And I and many other parents of “serious” athletes are arguing exactly the same as your last statement, but from the other perspective. Our kids who prioritize sports above anything else in life are not dumb, as some other PP insisted. We know athletes can be smart - but a serious athlete prioritizes athletics and a serious student prioritizes academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I realize that for the UMC socially striving coastal set on dcum these schools might be the ultimate goal for their dcs, but let’s be honest, they’re just not a huge focus for your average talented high school athlete

+1

I’m struggling to even follow this thread at this point. I honestly didn’t know MIT even had any serious athletic programs, but for serious athletes, who cares?

I have no skin in on the game on MIT, but I would say this. My kid plays Ivy football, but when he was in the recruiting process, received an offer of admission support at MIT. He knew many other players that had also received offers of admission support at MIT. These were very good players, many of whom had offers of admission support at NESCAC schools like Williams, Amherst. Johns Hopkins was frequently in the mix as well. Obviously, none of these schools are playing SEC level football. But the point is if you think that there are no "serious athletes" at MIT, then you should also extend that perspective to D3 more generally (which of course you are entitled to do depending on your own definition).

Bottom line is that there is not small group of talented athletes our there that also bring to bear impressive objective academic performance (for example, 1600 single sitting SAT scores). It might be an inconvenient fact for those that want to believe that the Venn overlap of athleticism and intelligence is a null set. The reality is that they are out there.

I suspect you are getting triggered because you don’t understand the difference between a serious athlete and a good or talented athlete. By “serious athlete” I mean kids who want to make a career out of athletics. Kids who have a realistic dream of playing their sport professionally, for example. “Serious” =/= “talented” necessarily. I’m sure there are many talented athletes that would love to keep playing while studying for their primary goal of being a doctor or an engineer.

And I and many other parents of “serious” athletes are arguing exactly the same as your last statement, but from the other perspective. Our kids who prioritize sports above anything else in life are not dumb, as some other PP insisted. We know athletes can be smart - but a serious athlete prioritizes athletics and a serious student prioritizes academics.

So, this is 1% of all D1 athletes, though baseball is different because there is a more extensive professional system with the minor leagues (where of course they get paid absolute peanuts).

However, I am sorry...the median SAT of professional football, baseball and basketball players (if they even took it) is low. Probably around 1100 (it's 1070 for NFL players). I would wager that less than 0.1% of all professional athletes scored a 1500+.

Now, they were probably smart to go 200% in their sport, because their academic chops weren't going to produce much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I realize that for the UMC socially striving coastal set on dcum these schools might be the ultimate goal for their dcs, but let’s be honest, they’re just not a huge focus for your average talented high school athlete

+1

I’m struggling to even follow this thread at this point. I honestly didn’t know MIT even had any serious athletic programs, but for serious athletes, who cares?

I have no skin in on the game on MIT, but I would say this. My kid plays Ivy football, but when he was in the recruiting process, received an offer of admission support at MIT. He knew many other players that had also received offers of admission support at MIT. These were very good players, many of whom had offers of admission support at NESCAC schools like Williams, Amherst. Johns Hopkins was frequently in the mix as well. Obviously, none of these schools are playing SEC level football. But the point is if you think that there are no "serious athletes" at MIT, then you should also extend that perspective to D3 more generally (which of course you are entitled to do depending on your own definition).

Bottom line is that there is not small group of talented athletes our there that also bring to bear impressive objective academic performance (for example, 1600 single sitting SAT scores). It might be an inconvenient fact for those that want to believe that the Venn overlap of athleticism and intelligence is a null set. The reality is that they are out there.

I suspect you are getting triggered because you don’t understand the difference between a serious athlete and a good or talented athlete. By “serious athlete” I mean kids who want to make a career out of athletics. Kids who have a realistic dream of playing their sport professionally, for example. “Serious” =/= “talented” necessarily. I’m sure there are many talented athletes that would love to keep playing while studying for their primary goal of being a doctor or an engineer.

And I and many other parents of “serious” athletes are arguing exactly the same as your last statement, but from the other perspective. Our kids who prioritize sports above anything else in life are not dumb, as some other PP insisted. We know athletes can be smart - but a serious athlete prioritizes athletics and a serious student prioritizes academics.

Got it, "serious athlete" for you means they are going to play professionally? So, by that definition, if a particular sport doesn't have a professional analogue, the participants are all "non serious"? Let me know how the NFL draft goes for your kid, I will eagerly await the results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I realize that for the UMC socially striving coastal set on dcum these schools might be the ultimate goal for their dcs, but let’s be honest, they’re just not a huge focus for your average talented high school athlete

+1

I’m struggling to even follow this thread at this point. I honestly didn’t know MIT even had any serious athletic programs, but for serious athletes, who cares?

I have no skin in on the game on MIT, but I would say this. My kid plays Ivy football, but when he was in the recruiting process, received an offer of admission support at MIT. He knew many other players that had also received offers of admission support at MIT. These were very good players, many of whom had offers of admission support at NESCAC schools like Williams, Amherst. Johns Hopkins was frequently in the mix as well. Obviously, none of these schools are playing SEC level football. But the point is if you think that there are no "serious athletes" at MIT, then you should also extend that perspective to D3 more generally (which of course you are entitled to do depending on your own definition).

Bottom line is that there is not small group of talented athletes our there that also bring to bear impressive objective academic performance (for example, 1600 single sitting SAT scores). It might be an inconvenient fact for those that want to believe that the Venn overlap of athleticism and intelligence is a null set. The reality is that they are out there.

I suspect you are getting triggered because you don’t understand the difference between a serious athlete and a good or talented athlete. By “serious athlete” I mean kids who want to make a career out of athletics. Kids who have a realistic dream of playing their sport professionally, for example. “Serious” =/= “talented” necessarily. I’m sure there are many talented athletes that would love to keep playing while studying for their primary goal of being a doctor or an engineer.

And I and many other parents of “serious” athletes are arguing exactly the same as your last statement, but from the other perspective. Our kids who prioritize sports above anything else in life are not dumb, as some other PP insisted. We know athletes can be smart - but a serious athlete prioritizes athletics and a serious student prioritizes academics.

So, this is 1% of all D1 athletes, though baseball is different because there is a more extensive professional system with the minor leagues (where of course they get paid absolute peanuts).

However, I am sorry...the median SAT of professional football, baseball and basketball players (if they even took it) is low. Probably around 1100 (it's 1070 for NFL players). I would wager that less than 0.1% of all professional athletes scored a 1500+.

Now, they were probably smart to go 200% in their sport, because their academic chops weren't going to produce much.

DP. OMG, you sound awful. Seriously.
What is wrong with you??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I realize that for the UMC socially striving coastal set on dcum these schools might be the ultimate goal for their dcs, but let’s be honest, they’re just not a huge focus for your average talented high school athlete

+1

I’m struggling to even follow this thread at this point. I honestly didn’t know MIT even had any serious athletic programs, but for serious athletes, who cares?

I have no skin in on the game on MIT, but I would say this. My kid plays Ivy football, but when he was in the recruiting process, received an offer of admission support at MIT. He knew many other players that had also received offers of admission support at MIT. These were very good players, many of whom had offers of admission support at NESCAC schools like Williams, Amherst. Johns Hopkins was frequently in the mix as well. Obviously, none of these schools are playing SEC level football. But the point is if you think that there are no "serious athletes" at MIT, then you should also extend that perspective to D3 more generally (which of course you are entitled to do depending on your own definition).

Bottom line is that there is not small group of talented athletes our there that also bring to bear impressive objective academic performance (for example, 1600 single sitting SAT scores). It might be an inconvenient fact for those that want to believe that the Venn overlap of athleticism and intelligence is a null set. The reality is that they are out there.

I suspect you are getting triggered because you don’t understand the difference between a serious athlete and a good or talented athlete. By “serious athlete” I mean kids who want to make a career out of athletics. Kids who have a realistic dream of playing their sport professionally, for example. “Serious” =/= “talented” necessarily. I’m sure there are many talented athletes that would love to keep playing while studying for their primary goal of being a doctor or an engineer.

And I and many other parents of “serious” athletes are arguing exactly the same as your last statement, but from the other perspective. Our kids who prioritize sports above anything else in life are not dumb, as some other PP insisted. We know athletes can be smart - but a serious athlete prioritizes athletics and a serious student prioritizes academics.

Got it, "serious athlete" for you means they are going to play professionally? So, by that definition, if a particular sport doesn't have a professional analogue, the participants are all "non serious"? Let me know how the NFL draft goes for your kid, I will eagerly await the results.

Pp. I think most of us can figure out what she means. Eg, a kid who is really driven and focused on their sport, wherever that may lead them. Not just a kid who is pretty good and likes to play, found it was fun socially in high school, and who wouldn’t mind doing it while studying to be an engineer or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I realize that for the UMC socially striving coastal set on dcum these schools might be the ultimate goal for their dcs, but let’s be honest, they’re just not a huge focus for your average talented high school athlete

+1

I’m struggling to even follow this thread at this point. I honestly didn’t know MIT even had any serious athletic programs, but for serious athletes, who cares?

I have no skin in on the game on MIT, but I would say this. My kid plays Ivy football, but when he was in the recruiting process, received an offer of admission support at MIT. He knew many other players that had also received offers of admission support at MIT. These were very good players, many of whom had offers of admission support at NESCAC schools like Williams, Amherst. Johns Hopkins was frequently in the mix as well. Obviously, none of these schools are playing SEC level football. But the point is if you think that there are no "serious athletes" at MIT, then you should also extend that perspective to D3 more generally (which of course you are entitled to do depending on your own definition).

Bottom line is that there is not small group of talented athletes our there that also bring to bear impressive objective academic performance (for example, 1600 single sitting SAT scores). It might be an inconvenient fact for those that want to believe that the Venn overlap of athleticism and intelligence is a null set. The reality is that they are out there.

I suspect you are getting triggered because you don’t understand the difference between a serious athlete and a good or talented athlete. By “serious athlete” I mean kids who want to make a career out of athletics. Kids who have a realistic dream of playing their sport professionally, for example. “Serious” =/= “talented” necessarily. I’m sure there are many talented athletes that would love to keep playing while studying for their primary goal of being a doctor or an engineer.

And I and many other parents of “serious” athletes are arguing exactly the same as your last statement, but from the other perspective. Our kids who prioritize sports above anything else in life are not dumb, as some other PP insisted. We know athletes can be smart - but a serious athlete prioritizes athletics and a serious student prioritizes academics.

PP I suspect this poster is triggered bc for parents like this, sports are essentially viewed by them - whether they admit it or not- as affirmative action for UMC kids, a ‘hook’ to get them into an ‘elite’ school so they can be with other ‘elites’. I find it gross and disingenuous.

I can’t tell you how many parents I have met who assume this of me and my dc when I mention sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I realize that for the UMC socially striving coastal set on dcum these schools might be the ultimate goal for their dcs, but let’s be honest, they’re just not a huge focus for your average talented high school athlete

+1

I’m struggling to even follow this thread at this point. I honestly didn’t know MIT even had any serious athletic programs, but for serious athletes, who cares?

I have no skin in on the game on MIT, but I would say this. My kid plays Ivy football, but when he was in the recruiting process, received an offer of admission support at MIT. He knew many other players that had also received offers of admission support at MIT. These were very good players, many of whom had offers of admission support at NESCAC schools like Williams, Amherst. Johns Hopkins was frequently in the mix as well. Obviously, none of these schools are playing SEC level football. But the point is if you think that there are no "serious athletes" at MIT, then you should also extend that perspective to D3 more generally (which of course you are entitled to do depending on your own definition).

Bottom line is that there is not small group of talented athletes our there that also bring to bear impressive objective academic performance (for example, 1600 single sitting SAT scores). It might be an inconvenient fact for those that want to believe that the Venn overlap of athleticism and intelligence is a null set. The reality is that they are out there.

I suspect you are getting triggered because you don’t understand the difference between a serious athlete and a good or talented athlete. By “serious athlete” I mean kids who want to make a career out of athletics. Kids who have a realistic dream of playing their sport professionally, for example. “Serious” =/= “talented” necessarily. I’m sure there are many talented athletes that would love to keep playing while studying for their primary goal of being a doctor or an engineer.

And I and many other parents of “serious” athletes are arguing exactly the same as your last statement, but from the other perspective. Our kids who prioritize sports above anything else in life are not dumb, as some other PP insisted. We know athletes can be smart - but a serious athlete prioritizes athletics and a serious student prioritizes academics.

So, this is 1% of all D1 athletes, though baseball is different because there is a more extensive professional system with the minor leagues (where of course they get paid absolute peanuts).

However, I am sorry...the median SAT of professional football, baseball and basketball players (if they even took it) is low. Probably around 1100 (it's 1070 for NFL players). I would wager that less than 0.1% of all professional athletes scored a 1500+.

Now, they were probably smart to go 200% in their sport, because their academic chops weren't going to produce much.

DP. OMG, you sound awful. Seriously.
What is wrong with you??

Nothing wrong with me. It's just weird how folks can't just admit that most professional athletes were never good students. For every John Urschel or Myron Rolle, there are 1000 sports management majors with 2.5 GPAs.

Guess what...most famous musicians and actors also weren't great students, with a large percentage never attending college.

This really isn't news.