A reality check on "strong extracurriculars"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Meant to write "might as well have been a century ago".

Incidentally, the athletic factor, when used historically, was widely seen as a means of limiting Asian admits who were less likely to have played varsity sports

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

this makes it easy for schools to detect BS applications as well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Meant to write "might as well have been a century ago".

Incidentally, the athletic factor, when used historically, was widely seen as a means of limiting Asian admits who were less likely to have played varsity sports

I thought it was originally used to keep out Jews. The Gatekeepers podcast talks about this

[Anonymous]

Gatecrashers podcast!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

[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.

The intramurals and pickup basketball games must be killer at Harvard. No wonder it is at the top of so many lists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s not a disadvantage at all and these are kids from the last couple of cycles. Their videos reading their files are all
over YouTube. They have the lowest athletic rating, and they all say it didn’t count towards their final rating.

[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:

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.

If you understood anything from the SFFA information you would realize that the athletic rating can substitute for the EC rating and thus provide one of the three 2s needed to have a solid chance at admission. It’s a verifiable fact, nothing more yet you keep fighting without anything except a dislike for athletics s an EC…..you just can’t handle the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’ll rephrase that for you. There is zero evidence that they have dropped it but I don’t like it so I am going to ignore something that I dislike and just make shit up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Meant to write "might as well have been a century ago".

Incidentally, the athletic factor, when used historically, was widely seen as a means of limiting Asian admits who were less likely to have played varsity sports

No it wasn’t…..you are making shit up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

And, why would you assume that things changed? Given that Harvard has the largest athletics program in D1 sports it is likely a bad assumption. Bit of trivia, MIT has the largest athletics program in D3 sports….that has to just kill ya.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s a disadvantage only in the sense that athlete have a second path to getting that all important third 2.

[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.

My son was a varsity captain of his basketball team but not a recruited athlete but 3 kids on his team were high D1 recruited. The varsity captain helped college admissions tremendously in addition to his strong academics.

Source for this? Where is he going? Captains of teams are ok but generally meaningless. There are many of them at every school...

Accepted to a Top 10 and Top 20.

Not because he was captain of a team.

I know a kid just like this who was captain of the team, graduated in top 10 of his class, and had very high SAT. It was a total package not just one thing. Certainly the sports helped round out that package.

+1 The time commitment and training and travel all year long that some of these varsity sports like football, basketball and lacrosse take with the student still being able to balance that with high academic achievement is something top schools definitely factor.

No, not really. The ROI on sports is in quality of life, life lessons, etc. NOT in admissions advantage.