If your kid wants to go to a selective university, do not let them play sports in high school
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You didn’t read the article. These aren’t people who knew each other ahead of time. It’s a resume item the forms are explicitly looking for: they want college athletes. That’s not networking, that’s a resume impact. |
Anonymous
But you notice all the examples are athletes who went to Harvard / Stanford / MIT which I kinda think has more today with it than them being athletes. |
Anonymous
You completely missed the point, which is that if you don't make finalist in math or robotics, then you are in the same boat as an unrecruited athlete - that EC did not make you "stand out". And furthermore, you missed the important point that the odds of being a math or robotics finalist are much lower than the odds of being a recruited athlete. |
Anonymous
Actually I did read the article. It’s a few anecdotes on athletes, with special emphasis on endurance athletes, that could be explained at least in part by networking effects, with zero stats on the trend, written by… a distance runner. I actually don’t doubt there’s some history of athletes going into finance, but that could be explained by reasons beyond just those cited. Networking isn’t the only other explanation either; Econ is easily the single most popular major in student athlete profiles I’ve seen. No *marathon* labs like in most STEM classes to interfere with those practices! |
Anonymous
This has been interesting to read, the ongoing debate of how valuable sports is as an EC. From the perspective of a parent of a very high academic kid who is also a recruited athlete I would like to say that it is more nuanced than the discussion makes it out to be. What I haven't seen mentioned at all is impact for any given EC. Any kid doing a typical EC whether it is sports or robotics has to have impact for it to be a useful EC. Neither the HS kid who is sort of playing a sport nor the kid just participating in robotics club, or math club, or debate has a great EC because they aren't at the top in any way, their ECs lack impact. For kids very shooting for top schools sports can be an exception EC but the key is understanding both their athletic potential and their academic potential early enough to make the connections. If you pick the top 25 or so universities and the top 15-20 SLACs you only have about 10 schools with major sports programs, the rest are IVY, NESCAC, UAA, etc. schools with very strong commitments to athletics but at a level that is approachable for mere mortals. These schools also have recruiting standards that are very high with not a huge amount of ground given in terms of academics. Some is but far less than most people believe because most of their exposure is to P4 sports. The Ivy League has their Academic Index, the NESCAC has banding and the UAA sort of follows the NESCAC. What this means is that they have recruiting rules and the general result of the rules is that most kids don't qualify academically. If you start with directionally accurate but rough math is goes: Assume a 1450 SAT is needed (its much higher for many schools) so 97th pct. 18,000 female volleyball players (assume curve of SAT) only about 540 girls cross that bar The athletic programs are strong at these schools most kids won't be nearly good enough to play so cut the above number in half now 270 girls; the funnel quickly narrowed and ruled most kids out. So out of 18,000 female volleyball players there are less than 300 potential recruits. 25 programs would need about 4+ kids per year so the odds of a NESCAC, or Ivy or UAA school is very high once you cross both bars. My Daughter was 1560 SAT, with about a dozen APs and played for a nationally ranked team, and she had many (over 10) offers. For my kid sports was a great EC because we could judge her academic and athletic skills while in middle school. She had other solid ECs and she is academically strong enough to go anywhere. We'll never know of course but I am not sure that we would have got better results if she had committed to an academically focused EC. The path for other families in the same situation could differ but my kid developed alot of life skills around mental toughness, time management, teamwork, leadership, etc. that will serve her well in life. |
Anonymous
Everyone is trying to guess which ECs have the magic pixie dust that unlocks elite college admissions. There isn’t one. And unless you’re a crazy tiger mom, just let your kid do what they enjoy. Even, god forbid, varsity sports without getting recruited. |
Anonymous
You sound like you’re describing a show pony or judging a dog at Westminster. |
Anonymous
No, not really |
Anonymous
Yes. Really. God forbid you encourage your child to have hobbies that interest them and make them happy. Nope. It’s all about appealing to those judges to get that coveted best in show so everyone will marvel at the breeding and handler… |
Anonymous
|
So here is the thing- you often don't know if you are recruitable in 8th-9th.
My kid is now in 10th and is borderline recruitable. So it will either work out or it won't. Obviously if the child isn't recruited the activity doesn't look as good. But I still feel like the sport was worthwhile bc the child loves it and learned so many time management skills and the child has perseverance which will go a long way during adulthood. |
Anonymous
That’s why they need to bring back the good old days of athletic recruiting…when you did see 8th graders receiving college offers. Just kidding, but they changed the rules because in fact you had 8th grade basketball players and girl’s soccer players getting offers. |
Anonymous
Correct. My kid was not even on a top team in 8th and was recruited as a senior. The boys are often recruited late, especially now with the changes in the NCAA. |
Anonymous
It’s a “yes, and” situation. They are being recruited out of the top schools, but what these elite firms want, out of all the potentials they have at the top schools, are the athletes. We are reliably told by DCUM anti-athlete posters that the athletes who go to Ivies, etc, are losers who can’t hack it at these schools, but apparently these elite firms disagree. |
Anonymous
Curious what you mean. I found for many sports, the academic D1s are now recruiting much earlier...they are basically on the same recruiting schedule as Power 4 D1s. That's why you see many Ivy commitments for kids starting Fall of junior year, and 80% of recruiting is done by end of junior year. I get it differs by sport and I am referring specifically for baseball. Historically, it was more like 20% of recruiting was done by end of junior year, and the summer and fall of senior year were the big times to recruit. The NCAA changes have reduced most roster sizes, which isn't bullish for late recruiting. |
Anonymous
Ken Griffin from Citadel has mentioned he likes people that are superstars in many different disciplines outside of academics. So, the world chess or bridge champion, or the Olympic power lifter (a woman who is one of his top 5 executives is a former Olympic power lifter). People that know how to compete and win under pressure. |