A reality check on "strong extracurriculars"

[Anonymous]

there are so many with serious McDonald-type jobs. It’s a meaningful EC but it’s very common. The applicant is evaluated in the context of the high school. Difficult to stand out when there are probably 20 kids who have a really serious part time job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard gives weight to athletics. My son wasn’t ever going to be a college recruit but he was captain of 2 varsity sports and they gave him a 2+ for that. If you’ve see those videos on students reviewing their Harvard files, it can tip the scales.

Yes, no one is saying it doesn't count. Just that it's viewed the same as other ECs. An impactful EC can also get you a 2+.

Impact/level is what matters. I said it before and some insecure mom melted. A 2/2+ is not easy to get based on Harvard's rubric. Random club president, random Non-profit, random community service will not get that. Team captain on a competitive team at a competitive school or starting player at a demonstrable top level is a lock for it. People can cry all they want about it but facts are friendly, they aren't out to get you even though you don't want to accept them.

A 2 on Athletics on Harvard's rubric carried virtually no weight, you needed a 1 (recruitable or olympic level).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there are so many with serious McDonald-type jobs. It’s a meaningful EC but it’s very common. The applicant is evaluated in the context of the high school. Difficult to stand out when there are probably 20 kids who have a really serious part time job.

Obviously it can’t be your main thing. But it does add up. Best if you can tie in your multiple jobs etc into narrative.

[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.

Unless you are in Wyoming or something, All State is usually recruitable.

[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.

Wouldn't an all state basketball player with sufficient stats be recruitable at harvard?

[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.

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.

More like top 100 these day.

[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.

Wouldn't an all state basketball player with sufficient stats be recruitable at harvard?

All state doesn't really mean much these days when National rankings are ubiquitous. The DMV area alone has like 6 teams that are usually ranked top 50 nationally (all private), including PVI which finished #1 last year.

I doubt an All State player from Rhode Island would even make the team at some of the DMV private schools.

People forget how small a basketball roster is and how many kids are recruited each year. For the entire Ivy league, it's like 30 kids recruited each year.

[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:

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.

I have read SFFA and the associated material pretty closely and athletic scores are NOT a substitute for the EC score unless the athletic score is a 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McDonald job is not significant. It’s good for your DC for a variety of reasons, but you’d be delusional to think it’s a big boost for college admissions.

It depends.

It's better than varisty sports captain.

If you are FGLI, it sends a bunch of signals.

A job at McD (or any real minimum wage type job) is a positive signal for any student. A Yale former AO specifically said that.

I think that's correct but it means more for a FGLI applicant

[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:

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.

I have read SFFA and the associated material pretty closely and athletic scores are NOT a substitute for the EC score unless the athletic score is a 1.

That absolutely makes sense. Also 2s are not that common for athletics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see there are a lot of first time through parents who are going to be sorely disappointed when they find out being a varsity and club athlete helps not at all if your kid is not recruited. Literally half to two thirds of our private plays a sport seriously, it is completely irrelevant for college admissions.

Not all high school sports are the same or as impressive. I would agree with that. But, kids that are top high school athletes a the varsity level demanding team sports (recruited or not) and maintain excellent academics are appealing to admissions. If you have never had your kid play at a top high school team sport and reach varsity then you have no basis of comparison of the demands on these kids and why the balance of the two makes a difference. Remember, there may be an admissions counselor that is assigned to your kid's initial review of his or her application that has the same background in high school and knows the demands it checks the box for them.

lol, I have two kids who played varsity sports at private schools in top independent sports conferences, and one was captain of two teams. Both also played sports at club level during high school. One is going to a H/Y/P and the other is at a top 30. Sports had ZERO to do with their admission. Countless friends of both kids had high stats and high level sports but no other impressive ecs, not a single one got into a T30. And this is from privates that send close to half of the class to T30s.

Btw, each of my kids has both school and private college counselors, they will all tell you varsity/club sports are a weak ec for non-recruits. Play for love of the game and exercise.

What varsity sports?

All of them.

To clarify, have never seen a non recruit with sports as primary ec admitted to a T30. My own kids played volleyball, soccer, lacrosse and track. But friends from the gamut from water polo to golf to field hockey.

Well let me introduce you to my kid. Major varsity sports was his primary. Hours a week all year round. Private Top 10 and Top 20. 3 Top 10 Publics.

Absolutely do not believe you. Unless you are urm, first gen or just low income.

You are truly unsufferable. It's true. Not low income and not first gen.

DP
Then they had something else going on. Perfect grades, perfect test scores and captain of the basketball team (not recruitable) does not get you anywhere without something else. The basketball is almost a throwaway line on the application

If its a large, competitive high school, then kids train at basketball for hundreds of hours for 10+ years to even make Varsity. That's a huge time commitment.

And if your athlete does not get good enough to be recruited, it won't really help them in college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

More like top 100 these day.

No...just looking at USNews rankings, there are a good ~40 schools ranked in the Top 100 like Rutgers, University of MN, Michigan State, SUNY Stonybrook, NC State, RPI, UMass, UConn, Pitt, etc....it's an extensive list...where they don't really care if you do much of anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there are so many with serious McDonald-type jobs. It’s a meaningful EC but it’s very common. The applicant is evaluated in the context of the high school. Difficult to stand out when there are probably 20 kids who have a really serious part time job.

Obviously it can’t be your main thing. But it does add up. Best if you can tie in your multiple jobs etc into narrative.

If you are not FGLI, don't use this as the primary EC. Agree on the marginal value and the narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

More like top 100 these day.

No...just looking at USNews rankings, there are a good ~40 schools ranked in the Top 100 like Rutgers, University of MN, Michigan State, SUNY Stonybrook, NC State, RPI, UMass, UConn, Pitt, etc....it's an extensive list...where they don't really care if you do much of anything.

I stand corrected.

[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.

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.

Even you agree being CAPTAIN was irrelevant. Being an unrecruited athlete with a bunch of other excellent stuff, sure, that could help round out a kid.

Well it certainly didn't hurt. Not sure what your point is but you clearly just don't seem to like or value sports but that's neither here nor there since you're not a decision maker.

The point of this isn't to shit on sports. My kid spent a lot of time on sports. He played club and was 4 year varsity starter and captain for 2 years but he wasn't good enough to be recruited at his position at a school he would want to go to. In fact we knew he would never be recruited because his height made that almost an impossibility. But he still did it and we supported it despite the FACT that it would not really help his college application because there are other reasons to do things other than college admissions. he was learning life lessons and developing character. Also, I don't think he would spend the time more productively if he didn't have the sport, it was a large part of his identity and the grit he learned got him through a lot of adversity.

I think sports are absolutely worth doing but it will not help with your college applications unless you are recruitable.

All of this was confirmed by the SFFA trial discovery. Harvard gives athletic scores almost no consideration if you are not recruitable. All the Ivy+ do the same

+1 Sports are valuable part of your child's life but don't try to squeeze value that just isn't there.

If you need a college advantage to justify continuing with the sport then you should probably stop unless you are recruitable.

I know a ton of kids that quit musical instruments that they were very good at because it would not help them with college and took up too much time for the small benefit it offered.