A reality check on "strong extracurriculars"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my kids' school, only a couple of people try to get elected for school president (no idea how many students vote, probably not many) and then ... do close to nothing as far as the rest of the student body can see. It's just a title to put on the resume.

A public school President at least at ours is involved in many functions and planning. My daughter is the secretary and says in her role alone it is a few hours a week. Plus 2,000 kids elect them. You are forgetting many colleges seek kids that other kids like. It is a sign the kid is going to fit in which is hard to tell sometimes.

I don't know any high school in the area where even half the students vote. 2000 kids did not elect them. Usually, about 10% of the students fill out a ballot. We once elected a squirrel with 50 votes because it was easier to get kids to vote for a joke than actually vote for a candidate. There are 30,000 school presidents every year.

Because you know how many kids vote? You are cray. Every kid opens ballot in home room and they all vote at our school. Some may not know all candidates but each one pitches through a video. So, yes, the ones that look & sound best win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Twos are what you need to get in.

Looking at SFFA a student who had at least three twos had their chances of admissions go over 60%. One of the key arguments made for discrimination was that non-asian students consistently receive lower scores for personality and thus didn't get enough twos. You do not need to be recruited to get a two at Harvard but you need to have participated on a very high level team or at a personal high level. A two for athletics provided one of the twos necessary. Why people on this thread are continuing to fight this baffles me. It was laid out in the documents is just absurd.

[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

This is incorrect.

[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.

This is incorrect.

[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.

I think people are confusing what makes someone a 2. My kid was likely in this category for a different Ivy where the coach said they would put a little asterisk next to their name, pass that on to admissions and my kid was a strong walk-on candidate, but they were not an official recruit.

However, my kid was known to the coach and admissions would also know that.

I doubt anyone is ranked a 2 just because they list captain of a strong sports team on their application. It still falls into the "recruited athlete" bucket, and it's better than nothing.

[Anonymous]

Pause for a moment and think logically. The goal for any applicant, whether it be college, job or even romantic partnership, is to stand out and distinguish oneself from others.

When the most common and popular activity for kids throughout all schooling nationwide is participation in sports, how would that be a strong extracurricular? Sports are simply a fine but very common extracurricular.

that is, unless the college applicant will be a recruited athlete. Then and only then does the narrative change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pause for a moment and think logically. The goal for any applicant, whether it be college, job or even romantic partnership, is to stand out and distinguish oneself from others.

When the most common and popular activity for kids throughout all schooling nationwide is participation in sports, how would that be a strong extracurricular? Sports are simply a fine but very common extracurricular.

that is, unless the college applicant will be a recruited athlete. Then and only then does the narrative change.

Sports works if it’s tied in. I’ve seen this example before in several places.

A girl who was a fencer and equestrian, with natl equestrian awards (not recruited).
No fencing awards.
Focused on medieval studies/Middle Ages history.
Research on Eleanor of Aquitaine who rode her horse into battle in crusades?
1 month study at a museum in England.
Other Middle Ages /history ECs.
Good stats (not tippy top/great).
Highest math: calc AB equivalent
Admitted HYPS.

[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.

I dunno. It might be more common for regular kids, but it’s not that common among high stats kids with good ECs, as they’re busy with their (real or fake) ECs and “research”/internships set up by parents already, in addition to school work!

[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.

I dunno. It might be more common for regular kids, but it’s not that common among high stats kids with good ECs, as they’re busy with their (real or fake) ECs and “research”/internships set up by parents already, in addition to school work!

Generally speaking, I prefer a kid who worked at McDonald's 40 hours a week in the summer to 90% of the internships, programs at colleges, international volunteering trips, and the like. Most of those XCs are bogus. Working in a customer facing job requires humility, attention to detail, people skills and time management. As opposed to spending family money or calling in favors from your parents friends.

This is all assuming two kids with identical academic profiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pause for a moment and think logically. The goal for any applicant, whether it be college, job or even romantic partnership, is to stand out and distinguish oneself from others.

When the most common and popular activity for kids throughout all schooling nationwide is participation in sports, how would that be a strong extracurricular? Sports are simply a fine but very common extracurricular.

that is, unless the college applicant will be a recruited athlete. Then and only then does the narrative change.

Sports works if it’s tied in. I’ve seen this example before in several places.

A girl who was a fencer and equestrian, with natl equestrian awards (not recruited).
No fencing awards.
Focused on medieval studies/Middle Ages history.
Research on Eleanor of Aquitaine who rode her horse into battle in crusades?
1 month study at a museum in England.
Other Middle Ages /history ECs.
Good stats (not tippy top/great).
Highest math: calc AB equivalent
Admitted HYPS.

The goal is to hit at least 3 institutional priorities.

This possibly hits 3:
undersubscribed major;
full pay/donor development;
national accolades in an uncommon talent or ability or field of potential notoriety,
(plus possible walk on to team)?

And if legacy, well, then that’s golden.

[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.

I dunno. It might be more common for regular kids, but it’s not that common among high stats kids with good ECs, as they’re busy with their (real or fake) ECs and “research”/internships set up by parents already, in addition to school work!

Maybe less common for the stem kids. But it’s pretty common for the high stats biz/finance/econ kids at our school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Twos are what you need to get in.

Looking at SFFA a student who had at least three twos had their chances of admissions go over 60%. One of the key arguments made for discrimination was that non-asian students consistently receive lower scores for personality and thus didn't get enough twos. You do not need to be recruited to get a two at Harvard but you need to have participated on a very high level team or at a personal high level. A two for athletics provided one of the twos necessary. Why people on this thread are continuing to fight this baffles me. It was laid out in the documents is just absurd.

That statistic does not include athletics. Three 2s means you got a 2 in every category other than Athletics. Academic, personal and extracurricular.

If you are not recruited or Olympic level athlete, your sports don't help you get into Harvard very much. It's just a solid EC

[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.

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

This is incorrect.

It is absolutely correct.

Read exhibit 1 of the SFFA lawsuit. Report by Arcidiacono.

See section 2.4 (factors correlated with admission) page 24 and footnote 23 where the expert notes:

The relationship between the athletic rating and admissions is weak once athletes are
removed. Athletes receive a 1 on the athletic rating and, as shown in Section 2.2.3, have
very high admit rates. However, once athletes are taken out, the relationship between the
athletic rating and admissions is weak.

[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:

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.

This is incorrect.

You think the athletic score is fungible with the EC, personal or academic score? You're nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pause for a moment and think logically. The goal for any applicant, whether it be college, job or even romantic partnership, is to stand out and distinguish oneself from others.

When the most common and popular activity for kids throughout all schooling nationwide is participation in sports, how would that be a strong extracurricular? Sports are simply a fine but very common extracurricular.

that is, unless the college applicant will be a recruited athlete. Then and only then does the narrative change.

Sports works if it’s tied in. I’ve seen this example before in several places.

A girl who was a fencer and equestrian, with natl equestrian awards (not recruited).
No fencing awards.
Focused on medieval studies/Middle Ages history.
Research on Eleanor of Aquitaine who rode her horse into battle in crusades?
1 month study at a museum in England.
Other Middle Ages /history ECs.
Good stats (not tippy top/great).
Highest math: calc AB equivalent
Admitted HYPS.

I can see that but that is such a corner case.
But to be fair, all admits are sort of corner cases.