Forum Index
»
College and University Discussion
Is it necessary to play a sport to gain admission to a selective college?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Do top colleges frown on applicants who are not involved in sports at all, assuming that they are involved in other activities? Personally, I don't see why they would, but so many parents place such a high priority on sports that I'm wondering if maybe they know something I don't. |
Anonymous
| colleges want diversity of interests -- as long as your child is involved in activities he/she enjoys outside of sports your child should fare well. |
Anonymous
Far easier to get in via sports. I'm amazed at the volume of lax players at D1 to D3 going to better colleges than others who are more qualified academically and have better character. Funny thing is all these laxers aren't even really good- just part of the whole lax bro culture. |
Anonymous
| I don't get the lax thing either. If public schools were smart, they'd throw some big money into lax and make it a standard sport. Right now, the market is all prep schools, and schools like Landon can boast about Princeton acceptances, when (1) it's all lax, and (2) they wouldn't even be competitive lax players if even a small proportion of the other 95% of schools which don't have lax were to start programs. |
Anonymous
Publics have lax - but high socioeconomic publics are the only ones with huge lax to college success. Lax equipment is expensive and many of the kids and parents make others feel unwelcome. So kids that are middling track guys but would be superior laxers don't play. Others quit or don't play because : drinking, drugs, plethora of a44hole kids and parents. |
Anonymous
|
I too have heard that sports are necessary. But could it be that really excelling at some other extra-curricular, like violin, would be even better? Especially since we know from experience that it's almost impossible to juggle competitive sports with music, theater, or other extra-curriculars.
Or is the point to show you're fit, so even if you win violin competitions and play 1st violin at the Strathmore youth orchestra, you still need to do at least rec soccer or karate? With you on the a$$hole parents - it's one of the reasons we were thrilled when DC quit the travel soccer team! |
Anonymous
|
College admissions people always say that colleges need a wide variety of students to fill the sports teams, the bands, the orchestra, the theater groups, the science clubs, the newspaper, etc... Sports alone, especially for top schools where athletics are less important, are only one field that needs to be filled.
If there are 15 LAX players but the school needs a trombone player, sports arent going to be what gets you admitted. |
Anonymous
| People aren't getting -- a kid has to be good enough to be recruited for a sport in order for it to "count" for an admissions bump. Otherwise, playing a sport is just considered an activity...just like playing a violin or being an Eagle Scout or whatever. |
Anonymous
| Based on the college info sessions we've been to in the last year there is definitely no sports requirement. What they all talk about is kids with a passion. The passion can be music, art, drama, mountain climbing, school paper, sports, whatever. They key is that the kid shows true interest in the activity and has achieved something in the activity. So playing JV lacrosse probably doesn't get you anywhere. Getting photography awards, or a Cappie, or being editor of the paper, or the star of the varsity lacrosse team all do. |
Anonymous
I think they do get that. What people seem to be worried about is getting tossed out of the admissions pile, not even given consideration, if you don't show broad interests including, but not limited to, sports. Obviously no single kid is likely to be outstanding in lax, violin, and have the lead singing role in the school musical. The question is, even if you excell at finger painting and your work is at the Corcoran, do you still need to show a range of interests, including sports? I too have heard that colleges no longer look for "well-rounded" kids, instead they look for kids with a "passion". But do they totally accept that a kid has only one interest, no sports or anything else? I don't know. Probably depends on the college and its needs at the time. |
Anonymous
| That's what I've heard too -- colleges want kids with one passion, and all other interests be damned. Seems really short-sighted and stupid to me. I think well-rounded kids are more likely to be the kind of leaders we want in our society. |
Anonymous
|
It seems to me like the "passion" thing is just the latest fad, replacing the "well-rounded kid." Sort of like the new corporate management strategies we get subjected to every few years.
We've had "passion" for what, 10 years now? So we're due for a change. The thing is, our school counselors will probably be the last to know what the new thing is. Harvard will start looking for a new style of application, and other schools will follow suit. Just my speculations, FWIW. |
Anonymous
| I sure hope you're right. People solely focused on one thing tend to be pretty boring. |
Anonymous
| Top colleges can pick whomever they please. They want the kid who is best in his/her category of whatever his/her "passion" is. Sports only offer an admissions bump when the kid is good enough to be recruited. If a kid is the best violinist in his/her state or nation -- that will be a great admissions bump too. Colleges aren't looking for "well-rounded"...they're looking for "standout" spectacular students/athletes/musicians. In order to be the best at anything...kids have to practice that passion over other activities. |
Anonymous
| Any sign on the horizon re a change from "passion" to something else? Like green hair or something? DC still has a few years, so do we need to plan for something new? |