Recruited athletes don’t have lower stats!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who has been through this comment on how ECs are looked at for recruited athletes at high academic schools? D3 and Ivy. Feel like DS's EC involvement suffers because of his time commitment to his sport. Sophomore now so it's not too late to get more involved in other stuff but don't know if it's needed or worth it if sports is a likely hook for him. Not like he does nothing - some involvement with youth group and a club at school but definitely not anything like some of these Ivy and high academic D3 admits seem to be doing.

I still connect with several of the athletes who play the sport I did at my alma mater. All of them have impressive ECs beyond just athletics. Most had non-sports leadership positions and/or were on student council. All were involved in community service (for several it was at least partially tied to sports since free youth clinics and elementary school visits are things some high schools do or that your kid could probably organize). All but one I can think of have been captains on their high school teams too. You don't need to do as much but I always see additional involvement and leadership.

But to answer the PP more directly…ECs are gravy to make an easier case, but if you are a top D1 recruit (even Ivy) it doesn’t matter.

You answer this as if you actually know it to be true, which you don't. Do any kids not have any additional ECs these days. That would be a red flag that would at least need to be explained.
I was around a couple of the Stanford programs over the last decade and those coaches would be straightforward in encouraging additional activities (and that is for much higher-level athletes for the most part).

[Anonymous]

Way too many people on DCUM answer and post with apparent certainty but almost no stated support. At least cite a data source or a reason for your response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who has been through this comment on how ECs are looked at for recruited athletes at high academic schools? D3 and Ivy. Feel like DS's EC involvement suffers because of his time commitment to his sport. Sophomore now so it's not too late to get more involved in other stuff but don't know if it's needed or worth it if sports is a likely hook for him. Not like he does nothing - some involvement with youth group and a club at school but definitely not anything like some of these Ivy and high academic D3 admits seem to be doing.

I still connect with several of the athletes who play the sport I did at my alma mater. All of them have impressive ECs beyond just athletics. Most had non-sports leadership positions and/or were on student council. All were involved in community service (for several it was at least partially tied to sports since free youth clinics and elementary school visits are things some high schools do or that your kid could probably organize). All but one I can think of have been captains on their high school teams too. You don't need to do as much but I always see additional involvement and leadership.

But to answer the PP more directly…ECs are gravy to make an easier case, but if you are a top D1 recruit (even Ivy) it doesn’t matter.

You answer this as if you actually know it to be true, which you don't. Do any kids not have any additional ECs these days. That would be a red flag that would at least need to be explained.
I was around a couple of the Stanford programs over the last decade and those coaches would be straightforward in encouraging additional activities (and that is for much higher-level athletes for the most part).

Yes…kids usually have something so it is rare to literally have nothing else …but considering my kid is getting recruited in a revenue sport and the

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the one girl I know that got recruited to go to harvard had perfect grades and a perfect 1600 on her SAT. And the not-so-studious kids on my team who had mediocre grades, went to mediocre colleges too.

Good for her. She’s one in a million or more. I know a UPenn recruit with SAT under 900 and a Georgetown recruit also under 900. I also know a UPenn recruit with SAT of 1500 and she’s the highest score on the team. Our school is getting pressure to move away from athletic recruits because they are slowing down the classes.

[Anonymous]

Add on to above. They are slowing down the classes but doing great in college admissions. My DS is so bored in the class. She said the teacher could not be clearer and has dumbed down the class and some athletes still don’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Add on to above. They are slowing down the classes but doing great in college admissions. My DS is so bored in the class. She said the teacher could not be clearer and has dumbed down the class and some athletes still don’t get it.

If your DS is in class with the dumbest students on campus then maybe she too got in by the skin of her teeth.

Glass houses, my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

You actually don’t know much about college sports…kind of laughable you would write this diatribe.

If you were to mix D3 teams and D1 teams in a tournament setting, you would be lucky to have a D3 team win one game. There are more kids that would rather play club sports at Power 5 schools than would play D3 sports.

BTW, the fact you referenced D2 schools in your answer proves you know little. Go look at the list of D2 schools…if you have heard of 5 of them you would be lucky. Nobody turns down a D1 offer to play D2 sports. 98%+ of D3 athletes receive no interest from D1 programs.

Written by someone who can't imagine why an outstanding athlete might want to attend MIT, Johns Hopkins, U Chicago, Pomona or Amherst and still play their sport, even use it to help them get in, rather than attend a potentially lesser Div 1 school just so they can say they played D1 sports. D1 athletes routinely also have restrictions on what they can major in, can't do internships or study abroad, and lots of other issues that a really smart kid might find unappealing. Not all D1 sports programs are elite, and not all D3 sports programs are filled with athletes who had no interest from or in D1 schools as you suggest. Plenty of athletes make a decision to prioritize differently than you and your family might.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Add on to above. They are slowing down the classes but doing great in college admissions. My DS is so bored in the class. She said the teacher could not be clearer and has dumbed down the class and some athletes still don’t get it.

If your DS is in class with the dumbest students on campus then maybe she too got in by the skin of her teeth.

Glass houses, my friend.

This is the first time she's been in class with them. She's always been in Advanced classes. Senior year and she was forced to take this class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even IF they had lower stats I guess you've got to give them credit for so many hours of practice while maintaining their academics

100%. Hours and hours of practice that are not flexible around your schedule of exams and deliverables, and non-stop tournaments and meets… Athlete recruits have my utmost respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even IF they had lower stats I guess you've got to give them credit for so many hours of practice while maintaining their academics

100%. Hours and hours of practice that are not flexible around your schedule of exams and deliverables, and non-stop tournaments and meets… Athlete recruits have my utmost respect.

Other activities require similar time commitment. Or kids working many hours to help support their family. Guess the kid at Harvard for their country club sport did have it pretty rough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a D1 athlete at a T25. Yes, he had SAT score above the 75th percentile for that school and 4 plus gpa with 10 AP’s. Happened to be a stellar athlete to boot. Same for another kid whose stats and rigor I know on his team. It’s incredibly difficult handling academics and 40hours of sport/travel a week, so having a solid academic base/study habits/intellect is essential.

I’m calling BS on 40 hours a week

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a D1 athlete at a T25. Yes, he had SAT score above the 75th percentile for that school and 4 plus gpa with 10 AP’s. Happened to be a stellar athlete to boot. Same for another kid whose stats and rigor I know on his team. It’s incredibly difficult handling academics and 40hours of sport/travel a week, so having a solid academic base/study habits/intellect is essential.

I’m calling BS on 40 hours a week

40 hours a week on sports does seem like an exaggeration, but point taken. I guess this is why college athletes are desirable hires. Although, I think their appeal to employers in finance has more to do with the bro culture that still pervades finance, Wall St, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a D1 athlete at a T25. Yes, he had SAT score above the 75th percentile for that school and 4 plus gpa with 10 AP’s. Happened to be a stellar athlete to boot. Same for another kid whose stats and rigor I know on his team. It’s incredibly difficult handling academics and 40hours of sport/travel a week, so having a solid academic base/study habits/intellect is essential.

I’m calling BS on 40 hours a week

40 hours a week on sports does seem like an exaggeration, but point taken. I guess this is why college athletes are desirable hires. Although, I think their appeal to employers in finance has more to do with the bro culture that still pervades finance, Wall St, etc.

My DS is a baseball player at a D3. During the season, my DS absolutely has some weeks where he spends close to 40 hours a week on baseball - not actively playing and practicing but if you add up all the travel time, it is 40 hours. D1 baseball players are allowed to spend more time practicing than at the D3 level and they probably travel further than D3 teams do, so I can see baseball players spending 40 hours a week on the sport.

Games are 3 hours in length. They play one game during the week and 3 on the weekend - a doubleheader one weekend day with about 45 minutes between the doubleheader and a single game the other day. They have to report to the field two hours before the game starts. If they are at home, they have field maintenance at the conclusion of the game. I usually pick my DS up about 45 minutes after the conclusion of a home game (I go to all the home games.) So at a minimum, the time they spend in one week at the field for games is 22 hours. They practice three days a week - practices are two hours. Plus they have lifts which take an hour. Those are typically at 7:00am. So that is about 28 hours.

But they always travel at least to one away game a week - either during the week or the weekend. My DS' team only plays games that are driving distance but they will go as far as 5 hours away on a weekend and 2 hours away during the week. So you add that 28 hours plus 4 - 10 hours of travel and you are at 32 - 38 hours. When my DS goes to away games, he has a difficult time doing classwork. He gets carsick if he reads on a bus so travel time is out of the question. The team goes to breakfast and dinner together when they're traveling - there isn't much down time when they are on the road to do any work. So during the season, he can't count on having much time to study on the weekends. I can't imagine the time commitment for D1 baseball players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the one girl I know that got recruited to go to harvard had perfect grades and a perfect 1600 on her SAT. And the not-so-studious kids on my team who had mediocre grades, went to mediocre colleges too.

Good for her. She’s one in a million or more. I know a UPenn recruit with SAT under 900 and a Georgetown recruit also under 900. I also know a UPenn recruit with SAT of 1500 and she’s the highest score on the team. Our school is getting pressure to move away from athletic recruits because they are slowing down the classes.[b]

I’ll take things that didn’t happen for $200.

Maybe some pointed headed alumni are saying this at the country club, but it’s not a movement. The fraction of recruited athletes who would truly “slow a class down” is minuscule. Yes, they may get an admissions boost over a similarly or even somewhat better academic-credentialed applicant, but that isn’t the same thing as being a drag on the class.

First, colleges administer placement tests to make sure people are placed in the right math, for example. Or they use AP scores for some subjects. So the gunner kid who took multivariate in HS will not be in freshman precalc with the “meathead” athletes. Nor remedial composition. Many, many elite colleges have such courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the one girl I know that got recruited to go to harvard had perfect grades and a perfect 1600 on her SAT. And the not-so-studious kids on my team who had mediocre grades, went to mediocre colleges too.

Good for her. She’s one in a million or more. I know a UPenn recruit with SAT under 900 and a Georgetown recruit also under 900. I also know a UPenn recruit with SAT of 1500 and she’s the highest score on the team. Our school is getting pressure to move away from athletic recruits because they are slowing down the classes.[b]

I’ll take things that didn’t happen for $200.

Maybe some pointed headed alumni are saying this at the country club, but it’s not a movement. The fraction of recruited athletes who would truly “slow a class down” is minuscule. Yes, they may get an admissions boost over a similarly or even somewhat better academic-credentialed applicant, but that isn’t the same thing as being a drag on the class.

First, colleges administer placement tests to make sure people are placed in the right math, for example. Or they use AP scores for some subjects. So the gunner kid who took multivariate in HS will not be in freshman precalc with the “meathead” athletes. Nor remedial composition. Many, many elite colleges have such courses.

+1