A reality check on "strong extracurriculars"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is elite level athlete? You are either recruitable, or not recruitable.

You can be recruitable but choosing not to play. If a girl was a starter on a nationally ranked team but chose not to play they still have a fantastic EC. If they were a captain on the team even better. They were elite at their main EC which is the bar.

Definitely not true and I say this as a parent of varsity atheletes. If your kid is not an athletic recruit, sports are among the useless ecs. May get some leadership points if kid is a varsity captain, but others pretty useless as far as admission as impact.

This. If your kid isn't going to play in college (and putting aside sports where the kid might get national exposure competing outside of school), the school DNGAF.

I disagree. DS won at a national level for a sport he didn’t pursue in college. I think doing something (and winning) at that scale absolutely matters. Why wouldn’t it? I think top colleges want winners. People who go out and accomplish big things. I don’t know if that’s why he got in, but his results were excellent and without those accomplishments I’m not sure he had the same strong narrative

The national win is what matters. And gets you the rubric points.
Not playing the sport.

It's the level of excellence, not the sport itself.....some just hate the idea that colleges value sports so much that it colors their thinking.

You are saying the same thing. Sports gets you there bc its natl recognition. Could be something else too that gets natl recognition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is elite level athlete? You are either recruitable, or not recruitable.

You can be recruitable but choosing not to play. If a girl was a starter on a nationally ranked team but chose not to play they still have a fantastic EC. If they were a captain on the team even better. They were elite at their main EC which is the bar.

Definitely not true and I say this as a parent of varsity atheletes. If your kid is not an athletic recruit, sports are among the useless ecs. May get some leadership points if kid is a varsity captain, but others pretty useless as far as admission as impact.

This. If your kid isn't going to play in college (and putting aside sports where the kid might get national exposure competing outside of school), the school DNGAF.

I disagree. DS won at a national level for a sport he didn’t pursue in college. I think doing something (and winning) at that scale absolutely matters. Why wouldn’t it? I think top colleges want winners. People who go out and accomplish big things. I don’t know if that’s why he got in, but his results were excellent and without those accomplishments I’m not sure he had the same strong narrative

The national win is what matters. And gets you the rubric points.
Not playing the sport.

It's the level of excellence, not the sport itself.....some just hate the idea that colleges value sports so much that it colors their thinking.

You are saying the same thing. Sports gets you there bc its natl recognition. Could be something else too that gets natl recognition.

Yes! But just read this thread. There is a bunch of people who say that sports useless as an EC along with a few who are correcting them and saying that it can be powerful if combined with excellence. Context matters for any EC, including sports.

[Anonymous]

but a lot of you are missing the point here. Are we only talking about elite school where you need to be elite to stand out? Or are we talking about allllll the other schools? You do not have to be nationally ranked for a sport to matter. AOs want to see how you spend your time outside of school. Depth and passion over the old well-rounded approach is what matters in any EC. Pick a few that you love, stick with them, tie them to a major and show leadership, initiative, and impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is elite level athlete? You are either recruitable, or not recruitable.

You can be recruitable but choosing not to play. If a girl was a starter on a nationally ranked team but chose not to play they still have a fantastic EC. If they were a captain on the team even better. They were elite at their main EC which is the bar.

Definitely not true and I say this as a parent of varsity atheletes. If your kid is not an athletic recruit, sports are among the useless ecs. May get some leadership points if kid is a varsity captain, but others pretty useless as far as admission as impact.

This. If your kid isn't going to play in college (and putting aside sports where the kid might get national exposure competing outside of school), the school DNGAF.

I disagree. DS won at a national level for a sport he didn’t pursue in college. I think doing something (and winning) at that scale absolutely matters. Why wouldn’t it? I think top colleges want winners. People who go out and accomplish big things. I don’t know if that’s why he got in, but his results were excellent and without those accomplishments I’m not sure he had the same strong narrative

The national win is what matters. And gets you the rubric points.
Not playing the sport.

It's the level of excellence, not the sport itself.....some just hate the idea that colleges value sports so much that it colors their thinking.

You are saying the same thing. Sports gets you there bc its natl recognition. Could be something else too that gets natl recognition.

Yes! But just read this thread. There is a bunch of people who say that sports useless as an EC along with a few who are correcting them and saying that it can be powerful if combined with excellence. Context matters for any EC, including sports.

Not the way you are defining excellence. An olympian or equivalent, yes. Not some kid who made all state for basketball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:but a lot of you are missing the point here. Are we only talking about elite school where you need to be elite to stand out? Or are we talking about allllll the other schools? You do not have to be nationally ranked for a sport to matter. AOs want to see how you spend your time outside of school. Depth and passion over the old well-rounded approach is what matters in any EC. Pick a few that you love, stick with them, tie them to a major and show leadership, initiative, and impact.

The conversation has been about T25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but a lot of you are missing the point here. Are we only talking about elite school where you need to be elite to stand out? Or are we talking about allllll the other schools? You do not have to be nationally ranked for a sport to matter. AOs want to see how you spend your time outside of school. Depth and passion over the old well-rounded approach is what matters in any EC. Pick a few that you love, stick with them, tie them to a major and show leadership, initiative, and impact.

The conversation has been about T25.

Not according to the OP. It was a generalized list of what is acceptable and what isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:but a lot of you are missing the point here. Are we only talking about elite school where you need to be elite to stand out? Or are we talking about allllll the other schools? You do not have to be nationally ranked for a sport to matter. AOs want to see how you spend your time outside of school. Depth and passion over the old well-rounded approach is what matters in any EC. Pick a few that you love, stick with them, tie them to a major and show leadership, initiative, and impact.

Outside of like the top 40-50 schools, ECs don’t matter at all.

They don’t care if you did jack squat outside of the school day. It’s all just test scores and grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is elite level athlete? You are either recruitable, or not recruitable.

You can be recruitable but choosing not to play. If a girl was a starter on a nationally ranked team but chose not to play they still have a fantastic EC. If they were a captain on the team even better. They were elite at their main EC which is the bar.

Definitely not true and I say this as a parent of varsity atheletes. If your kid is not an athletic recruit, sports are among the useless ecs. May get some leadership points if kid is a varsity captain, but others pretty useless as far as admission as impact.

This. If your kid isn't going to play in college (and putting aside sports where the kid might get national exposure competing outside of school), the school DNGAF.

I disagree. DS won at a national level for a sport he didn’t pursue in college. I think doing something (and winning) at that scale absolutely matters. Why wouldn’t it? I think top colleges want winners. People who go out and accomplish big things. I don’t know if that’s why he got in, but his results were excellent and without those accomplishments I’m not sure he had the same strong narrative

The national win is what matters. And gets you the rubric points.
Not playing the sport.

It's the level of excellence, not the sport itself.....some just hate the idea that colleges value sports so much that it colors their thinking.

You are saying the same thing. Sports gets you there bc its natl recognition. Could be something else too that gets natl recognition.

Yes! But just read this thread. There is a bunch of people who say that sports useless as an EC along with a few who are correcting them and saying that it can be powerful if combined with excellence. Context matters for any EC, including sports.

Not the way you are defining excellence. An olympian or equivalent, yes. Not some kid who made all state for basketball.

The all state basket player applying to Harvard will absolutely get the two that they need for their EC/Athletics bucket. Why are you struggling with that? The correct information is not hard to find.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is elite level athlete? You are either recruitable, or not recruitable.

You can be recruitable but choosing not to play. If a girl was a starter on a nationally ranked team but chose not to play they still have a fantastic EC. If they were a captain on the team even better. They were elite at their main EC which is the bar.

Definitely not true and I say this as a parent of varsity atheletes. If your kid is not an athletic recruit, sports are among the useless ecs. May get some leadership points if kid is a varsity captain, but others pretty useless as far as admission as impact.

This. If your kid isn't going to play in college (and putting aside sports where the kid might get national exposure competing outside of school), the school DNGAF.

I disagree. DS won at a national level for a sport he didn’t pursue in college. I think doing something (and winning) at that scale absolutely matters. Why wouldn’t it? I think top colleges want winners. People who go out and accomplish big things. I don’t know if that’s why he got in, but his results were excellent and without those accomplishments I’m not sure he had the same strong narrative

The national win is what matters. And gets you the rubric points.
Not playing the sport.

It's the level of excellence, not the sport itself.....some just hate the idea that colleges value sports so much that it colors their thinking.

You are saying the same thing. Sports gets you there bc its natl recognition. Could be something else too that gets natl recognition.

Yes! But just read this thread. There is a bunch of people who say that sports useless as an EC along with a few who are correcting them and saying that it can be powerful if combined with excellence. Context matters for any EC, including sports.

Not the way you are defining excellence. An olympian or equivalent, yes. Not some kid who made all state for basketball.

The all state basket player applying to Harvard will absolutely get the two that they need for their EC/Athletics bucket. Why are you struggling with that? The correct information is not hard to find.

No they won't. Harvard could care less about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Strong ECs means:
1. school president
2. first chair in audition orchestra/band
3. elite-level athlete
4. multi-year (3+) community service commitment at the same organization
5. multiple awards won at top tournaments/conferences: speech and debater/Model UNer
6. steady job of any kind (McDonald's and the like=bonus)

Strong ECs does NOT mean:
1. president of many clubs
2. started a non-profit
3. did research with a professor
4. participated in any or all of the "strong ECs" above but not with demonstrated commitment (i.e. many years) and/or significant recognition (i.e. varsity athlete but not top individual stats, on student council but not president)

This list is not comprehensive but there is a great deal of misinformation here about what "strong ECs" means.

For ivies, all of these are a dime a dozen. Not going to move the needle.

Works for T30-T50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strong ECs means:
1. school president
2. first chair in audition orchestra/band
3. elite-level athlete
4. multi-year (3+) community service commitment at the same organization
5. multiple awards won at top tournaments/conferences: speech and debater/Model UNer
6. steady job of any kind (McDonald's and the like=bonus)

Strong ECs does NOT mean:
1. president of many clubs
2. started a non-profit
3. did research with a professor
4. participated in any or all of the "strong ECs" above but not with demonstrated commitment (i.e. many years) and/or significant recognition (i.e. varsity athlete but not top individual stats, on student council but not president)

This list is not comprehensive but there is a great deal of misinformation here about what "strong ECs" means.

For ivies, all of these are a dime a dozen. Not going to move the needle.

Works for T30-T50.

What do the iviec care about - besides recruited athletics or national awards like math competitions or something like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strong ECs means:
1. school president
2. first chair in audition orchestra/band
3. elite-level athlete
4. multi-year (3+) community service commitment at the same organization
5. multiple awards won at top tournaments/conferences: speech and debater/Model UNer
6. steady job of any kind (McDonald's and the like=bonus)

Strong ECs does NOT mean:
1. president of many clubs
2. started a non-profit
3. did research with a professor
4. participated in any or all of the "strong ECs" above but not with demonstrated commitment (i.e. many years) and/or significant recognition (i.e. varsity athlete but not top individual stats, on student council but not president)

This list is not comprehensive but there is a great deal of misinformation here about what "strong ECs" means.

For ivies, all of these are a dime a dozen. Not going to move the needle.

Works for T30-T50.

What do the iviec care about - besides recruited athletics or national awards like math competitions or something like that?

They want interesting kids. In some ways, the kids are just born that way.

Of course manufactured and prepped kids slip in too. It's not a perfect process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is elite level athlete? You are either recruitable, or not recruitable.

You can be recruitable but choosing not to play. If a girl was a starter on a nationally ranked team but chose not to play they still have a fantastic EC. If they were a captain on the team even better. They were elite at their main EC which is the bar.

Definitely not true and I say this as a parent of varsity atheletes. If your kid is not an athletic recruit, sports are among the useless ecs. May get some leadership points if kid is a varsity captain, but others pretty useless as far as admission as impact.

This. If your kid isn't going to play in college (and putting aside sports where the kid might get national exposure competing outside of school), the school DNGAF.

I disagree. DS won at a national level for a sport he didn’t pursue in college. I think doing something (and winning) at that scale absolutely matters. Why wouldn’t it? I think top colleges want winners. People who go out and accomplish big things. I don’t know if that’s why he got in, but his results were excellent and without those accomplishments I’m not sure he had the same strong narrative

The national win is what matters. And gets you the rubric points.
Not playing the sport.

It's the level of excellence, not the sport itself.....some just hate the idea that colleges value sports so much that it colors their thinking.

You are saying the same thing. Sports gets you there bc its natl recognition. Could be something else too that gets natl recognition.

Yes! But just read this thread. There is a bunch of people who say that sports useless as an EC along with a few who are correcting them and saying that it can be powerful if combined with excellence. Context matters for any EC, including sports.

Not the way you are defining excellence. An olympian or equivalent, yes. Not some kid who made all state for basketball.

The all state basket player applying to Harvard will absolutely get the two that they need for their EC/Athletics bucket. Why are you struggling with that? The correct information is not hard to find.

No they won't. Harvard could care less about that.

Literally 15 seconds with a web search and an AI summary:

A 2 on the Harvard admissions athletic rubric generally represents a strong non-recruited athlete with regional or statewide distinction, or a high-level athlete capable of walking on to a varsity team. It indicates significant, but not national-level, athletic achievement, marking the student as a potential contributor to Harvard athletics.

Key Aspects of an Athletic Rating 2:

Athletic Level: Strong, high-level high school athlete, often a team captain or standout player, but not quite at the "1" level (which is reserved for top-tier recruits).

Distinction: Regional or state-level recognition is typical.

Ability to Contribute: They are likely to be strong enough to walk on to a Harvard team and make a contribution.

Comparison to "1": While a 1 indicates national-level achievement and guaranteed or near-guaranteed recruiting status, a 2 is for top applicants who are not necessarily recruited by coaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is elite level athlete? You are either recruitable, or not recruitable.

You can be recruitable but choosing not to play. If a girl was a starter on a nationally ranked team but chose not to play they still have a fantastic EC. If they were a captain on the team even better. They were elite at their main EC which is the bar.

Definitely not true and I say this as a parent of varsity atheletes. If your kid is not an athletic recruit, sports are among the useless ecs. May get some leadership points if kid is a varsity captain, but others pretty useless as far as admission as impact.

This. If your kid isn't going to play in college (and putting aside sports where the kid might get national exposure competing outside of school), the school DNGAF.

I disagree. DS won at a national level for a sport he didn’t pursue in college. I think doing something (and winning) at that scale absolutely matters. Why wouldn’t it? I think top colleges want winners. People who go out and accomplish big things. I don’t know if that’s why he got in, but his results were excellent and without those accomplishments I’m not sure he had the same strong narrative

The national win is what matters. And gets you the rubric points.
Not playing the sport.

It's the level of excellence, not the sport itself.....some just hate the idea that colleges value sports so much that it colors their thinking.

You are saying the same thing. Sports gets you there bc its natl recognition. Could be something else too that gets natl recognition.

Yes! But just read this thread. There is a bunch of people who say that sports useless as an EC along with a few who are correcting them and saying that it can be powerful if combined with excellence. Context matters for any EC, including sports.

Not the way you are defining excellence. An olympian or equivalent, yes. Not some kid who made all state for basketball.

The all state basket player applying to Harvard will absolutely get the two that they need for their EC/Athletics bucket. Why are you struggling with that? The correct information is not hard to find.

No they won't. Harvard could care less about that.

Literally 15 seconds with a web search and an AI summary:

A 2 on the Harvard admissions athletic rubric generally represents a strong non-recruited athlete with regional or statewide distinction, or a high-level athlete capable of walking on to a varsity team. It indicates significant, but not national-level, athletic achievement, marking the student as a potential contributor to Harvard athletics.

Key Aspects of an Athletic Rating 2:

Athletic Level: Strong, high-level high school athlete, often a team captain or standout player, but not quite at the "1" level (which is reserved for top-tier recruits).

Distinction: Regional or state-level recognition is typical.

Ability to Contribute: They are likely to be strong enough to walk on to a Harvard team and make a contribution.

Comparison to "1": While a 1 indicates national-level achievement and guaranteed or near-guaranteed recruiting status, a 2 is for top applicants who are not necessarily recruited by coaches.

Right, but Harvard doesn't give much weight to the "athletic ranking" unless they are recruits. What part don't you get? Cleary too much reliance on AI and none on actual reasoning.

[Anonymous]

There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.