If your kid wants to go to a selective university, do not let them play sports in high school

Anonymous
OP, I have one DC who was recruited as a D1 athlete (Ivy). I am the sister of one recruited D1 athlete and another one season major league athlete. I am the daughter of an Olympian.
Know your kid. Know the competitors. Be realistic.
I have another kid who did not stand a chance in the real top tier world of sports. I have seen way too many parents pushing enthusiastic but marginal athletes who think that their kids' passion will overcome poor performance.
The athletes in my family were outstanding from the time they hit the playing field. If you are not an outlier, then enjoy the sport as recreation.
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:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


This entire thread isn't about recruited athletes...it's the unrecruited athletes.

Considering 8 million...YES MILLION...play sports, 86,700 kids is actually a tiny number of kids participating in robotics.


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.



You sound like you’re describing a show pony or judging a dog at Westminster.


No, not really


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…


You're making an assumption, a poor one. Her life was the opposite of what you described.

The thread is "do not let them play sports in high school". I pointed out that one sided view could be misguided, like much of well meaning but misguided advice. My kid did lots of things that I didn't mention in my post, but she did them because she wanted to, they weren't manufactured.

She was a member of French club but didn't have to obsess over becoming an officer to demonstrate leadership.

She had over 1,000 hours of volunteer time at a local hospital because a 4 hours shift every other week isn't really that onerous and she wants to go into medicine.

She volunteered with friends at a foodbank; because filling/emptying boxes was an easy way to complete service hours and it was kind of like hanging out.

She worked multiple different jobs, mostly summers but also during school breaks and to fill in sometimes because that is how she gets things beyond her allowance.

We/she also learned a lot during the process

We learned details about admissions because it starts after your sophomore year if you are considering D1 sports

We learned that academics are still very important for top schools

We learned that the requirements at the Ivy's is lower than the NESCAC, UAA, JHU, MIT etc., and the Patriot league is still lower.

We learned that we had to work and take the SAT early. She took her SAT after her sophomore year because JHU and MIT will literally not talk to you until you have a 1500 plus to show them.

We learned that rigor matters and that at MIT the expectation is to always take the hardest course available to you and excel at it; athlete or not. We also learned that you don't get extra credit for adding courses 7/8 to your schedule. They really would prefer that you do something else as you have crossed the academic bar.

We learned that test scores matter everywhere but everywhere is different. MIT wanted a 770M, JHU wants a 1500 composite, WashU said that her 780 wasn't interesting ("everyone comes with a high math score") but 780V would be a big plus with the admissions office.

We learned that honors courses don't carry much value (too variable) but AP courses do. And, if you take the course you need to take the test or else the grade is suspect.

But most of all we learned about what I mentioned at the beginning of my original post. Whatever you do for ECs; have impact. Passion and significance is what matters; it doesn't matter so much what the EC is, it matters what you do with it.

Someone above stated that they spoke to 3 different counselors who said not to play sports if you weren't recruitable. They either asked the question wrong or they should find new counselors. Years of dedication, moving up the ranks, leading and playing on a top team is an excellent EC and a good counselor knows how to work with that to show the impact on the player and those around them. Impact in the EC is what matters, more than the EC itself. My daughters Co-captain wasn't recruitable as a player but she is at a T30ish school today.

The MIT "Applying Sideways" blog should be read and taken to heart by everyone in this process. Find something that you love, run with it, become great at it, and demonstrate how it impacts a wider community.


You said this:

“For my kid sports was a great EC because we could judge her academic and athletic skills while in middle school.”

And that tells me all I need to know, your daughter’s entire life story notwithstanding.


I hope that you took the right point away but I fear that you didn't.

We knew that she was both athletically and academically gifted so we let her follow her passion which was volleyball knowing that she could develop to a high enough level for it to be an impactful EC. We could have forced her to do robotics because she actually did robotics (including competitions) in middle school./ She was very good at it but she wasn't into it. We let her be her.

We saw many parents do that and their kids did fine but I'm not sure that they enjoyed themselves as much as mine did.


No, I am absolutely following your point. You’re not following mine.

Whether or not she was going to be a great athlete should have been irrelevant to whether or not you “let” her play volleyball if volleyball was indeed her passion. “Impactful EC” is one of the more cringeworthy terms I have read on this board, and that’s saying a lot.


I was reading through this thread and this comment is pretty ironic because I just watched a presentation from a well known counseling group who attributed the high level of deferrals this year to applicants ECs not being clear enough about impact thus requiring further review.

Also, it the way that I read the poster’s comments about their daughter must have been different as well. I think the kid probably had fun doing what they loved and being themselves. To each their own I guess.


1. That is not an example of irony
2. Her daughter is lucky she was good at the things she enjoyed. Like I said. (Which is an example of a coincidence, by the way.)


PP
I think that you might want to read again, the comment wasn’t about the poster and their daughter but rather about the person who said that using the term impact was “cringeworthy”. Because right before reading this thread I watched a very well known counselor talk about kids being deferred because their ECs weren’t showing clear impact. The counselors words, not mine. The OP wasn’t cringeworthy, they were spot on.
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:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


Of the 300,000 AMC test takers each year, I would say there are maybe 10,000-20,000 competitive kids that put in as much effort as a recruited athlete. The quality of school that you get with USAMO is starkly different than the school that will take the average recruited athlete. Most recruited athletes aren't being recruited to Stanford and Duke. The USAMO kids go to MIT and Columbia.

The 86,700 First robotics competitors are on about 3500 teams. Each team can only nominate 2 dean's list finalists. So we are talking about 7000 kids vying for 100 spots. Of the 7000 kids maybe 500-1000 teams are putting in as much time as a recruited athlete. These kids get to go to Stanford and Carnegie Mellon.

I just became aware of a so-so athlete and student recruited to
Carnegie Mellon. No robotics or USAMO.


They are a recruited athlete...so they aren't "so-so" for Carnegie Mellon.

Once more, the discussion is about kids that just play sports, not recruited athletes.

Well, you gotta play the sport to be a recruited athlete. They don't really know if they're recruitable at their desired schools until they're recruited. The week before the offer, they're just "kids that play sports." At some of these competitive high schools with connections to recruiters, being so-so on a team is "good enough" to be recruited.



You couldn't be more incorrect here.

Ok? I've personally observed this firsthand and have a kid going through it. But I guess you know better.


If you are talking about being recruited at a top school and getting and admissions bump by it I probably do know better. Because I know what you are describing doesn’t happen at the schools people talk about on DCUM.



I definitely know a so-so athlete that is getting a bump for their sport at a highly selective school. But they were definitely working the angles to get recruited, it didn't just fall in their lap.
If you're really good, maybe it does but not for the kid i know.
She got herself on a foreign national team for the Olympics in a country where almost nobody plays the sport (BTW, did you know squash will be an Olympic sport in 2028, yeah, neither did I).


Squash is not an easy ‘white body’ prep school spot anymore. If you aren’t legit you’re going nowhere. A lot of foreign recruits for squash.


I thnk of Squash as more of a middle eastern/asian sport to be honest. At least that most of the kids i see.
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:
Anonymous wrote:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


This entire thread isn't about recruited athletes...it's the unrecruited athletes.

Considering 8 million...YES MILLION...play sports, 86,700 kids is actually a tiny number of kids participating in robotics.


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.



You sound like you’re describing a show pony or judging a dog at Westminster.


No, not really


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…


You're making an assumption, a poor one. Her life was the opposite of what you described.

The thread is "do not let them play sports in high school". I pointed out that one sided view could be misguided, like much of well meaning but misguided advice. My kid did lots of things that I didn't mention in my post, but she did them because she wanted to, they weren't manufactured.

She was a member of French club but didn't have to obsess over becoming an officer to demonstrate leadership.

She had over 1,000 hours of volunteer time at a local hospital because a 4 hours shift every other week isn't really that onerous and she wants to go into medicine.

She volunteered with friends at a foodbank; because filling/emptying boxes was an easy way to complete service hours and it was kind of like hanging out.

She worked multiple different jobs, mostly summers but also during school breaks and to fill in sometimes because that is how she gets things beyond her allowance.

We/she also learned a lot during the process

We learned details about admissions because it starts after your sophomore year if you are considering D1 sports

We learned that academics are still very important for top schools

We learned that the requirements at the Ivy's is lower than the NESCAC, UAA, JHU, MIT etc., and the Patriot league is still lower.

We learned that we had to work and take the SAT early. She took her SAT after her sophomore year because JHU and MIT will literally not talk to you until you have a 1500 plus to show them.

We learned that rigor matters and that at MIT the expectation is to always take the hardest course available to you and excel at it; athlete or not. We also learned that you don't get extra credit for adding courses 7/8 to your schedule. They really would prefer that you do something else as you have crossed the academic bar.

We learned that test scores matter everywhere but everywhere is different. MIT wanted a 770M, JHU wants a 1500 composite, WashU said that her 780 wasn't interesting ("everyone comes with a high math score") but 780V would be a big plus with the admissions office.

We learned that honors courses don't carry much value (too variable) but AP courses do. And, if you take the course you need to take the test or else the grade is suspect.

But most of all we learned about what I mentioned at the beginning of my original post. Whatever you do for ECs; have impact. Passion and significance is what matters; it doesn't matter so much what the EC is, it matters what you do with it.

Someone above stated that they spoke to 3 different counselors who said not to play sports if you weren't recruitable. They either asked the question wrong or they should find new counselors. Years of dedication, moving up the ranks, leading and playing on a top team is an excellent EC and a good counselor knows how to work with that to show the impact on the player and those around them. Impact in the EC is what matters, more than the EC itself. My daughters Co-captain wasn't recruitable as a player but she is at a T30ish school today.

The MIT "Applying Sideways" blog should be read and taken to heart by everyone in this process. Find something that you love, run with it, become great at it, and demonstrate how it impacts a wider community.


You said this:

“For my kid sports was a great EC because we could judge her academic and athletic skills while in middle school.”

And that tells me all I need to know, your daughter’s entire life story notwithstanding.


I hope that you took the right point away but I fear that you didn't.

We knew that she was both athletically and academically gifted so we let her follow her passion which was volleyball knowing that she could develop to a high enough level for it to be an impactful EC. We could have forced her to do robotics because she actually did robotics (including competitions) in middle school./ She was very good at it but she wasn't into it. We let her be her.

We saw many parents do that and their kids did fine but I'm not sure that they enjoyed themselves as much as mine did.


No, I am absolutely following your point. You’re not following mine.

Whether or not she was going to be a great athlete should have been irrelevant to whether or not you “let” her play volleyball if volleyball was indeed her passion. “Impactful EC” is one of the more cringeworthy terms I have read on this board, and that’s saying a lot.


I was reading through this thread and this comment is pretty ironic because I just watched a presentation from a well known counseling group who attributed the high level of deferrals this year to applicants ECs not being clear enough about impact thus requiring further review.

Also, it the way that I read the poster’s comments about their daughter must have been different as well. I think the kid probably had fun doing what they loved and being themselves. To each their own I guess.


1. That is not an example of irony
2. Her daughter is lucky she was good at the things she enjoyed. Like I said. (Which is an example of a coincidence, by the way.)


PP
I think that you might want to read again, the comment wasn’t about the poster and their daughter but rather about the person who said that using the term impact was “cringeworthy”. Because right before reading this thread I watched a very well known counselor talk about kids being deferred because their ECs weren’t showing clear impact. The counselors words, not mine. The OP wasn’t cringeworthy, they were spot on.


Literally every college counselor and podcast discusses the “impact” of ECs. It is not something novel or secret. It is used by all the college coaches while simultaneously pushing every kid to join a pay to play research program to show “intellectual curiosity.” These are the 2 things said ad nauseum in 2024-2025. Oh, and also that you need a “narrative” to tell a story and tie together your impactful activities and academic interests. I just saved you $10,000.
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:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


This entire thread isn't about recruited athletes...it's the unrecruited athletes.

Considering 8 million...YES MILLION...play sports, 86,700 kids is actually a tiny number of kids participating in robotics.


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.



You sound like you’re describing a show pony or judging a dog at Westminster.


No, not really


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…


You're making an assumption, a poor one. Her life was the opposite of what you described.

The thread is "do not let them play sports in high school". I pointed out that one sided view could be misguided, like much of well meaning but misguided advice. My kid did lots of things that I didn't mention in my post, but she did them because she wanted to, they weren't manufactured.

She was a member of French club but didn't have to obsess over becoming an officer to demonstrate leadership.

She had over 1,000 hours of volunteer time at a local hospital because a 4 hours shift every other week isn't really that onerous and she wants to go into medicine.

She volunteered with friends at a foodbank; because filling/emptying boxes was an easy way to complete service hours and it was kind of like hanging out.

She worked multiple different jobs, mostly summers but also during school breaks and to fill in sometimes because that is how she gets things beyond her allowance.

We/she also learned a lot during the process

We learned details about admissions because it starts after your sophomore year if you are considering D1 sports

We learned that academics are still very important for top schools

We learned that the requirements at the Ivy's is lower than the NESCAC, UAA, JHU, MIT etc., and the Patriot league is still lower.

We learned that we had to work and take the SAT early. She took her SAT after her sophomore year because JHU and MIT will literally not talk to you until you have a 1500 plus to show them.

We learned that rigor matters and that at MIT the expectation is to always take the hardest course available to you and excel at it; athlete or not. We also learned that you don't get extra credit for adding courses 7/8 to your schedule. They really would prefer that you do something else as you have crossed the academic bar.

We learned that test scores matter everywhere but everywhere is different. MIT wanted a 770M, JHU wants a 1500 composite, WashU said that her 780 wasn't interesting ("everyone comes with a high math score" but 780V would be a big plus with the admissions office.

We learned that honors courses don't carry much value (too variable) but AP courses do. And, if you take the course you need to take the test or else the grade is suspect.

But most of all we learned about what I mentioned at the beginning of my original post. Whatever you do for ECs; have impact. Passion and significance is what matters; it doesn't matter so much what the EC is, it matters what you do with it.

Someone above stated that they spoke to 3 different counselors who said not to play sports if you weren't recruitable. They either asked the question wrong or they should find new counselors. Years of dedication, moving up the ranks, leading and playing on a top team is an excellent EC and a good counselor knows how to work with that to show the impact on the player and those around them. Impact in the EC is what matters, more than the EC itself. My daughters Co-captain wasn't recruitable as a player but she is at a T30ish school today.

The MIT "Applying Sideways" blog should be read and taken to heart by everyone in this process. Find something that you love, run with it, become great at it, and demonstrate how it impacts a wider community.


You said this:

“For my kid sports was a great EC because we could judge her academic and athletic skills while in middle school.”

And that tells me all I need to know, your daughter’s entire life story notwithstanding.


I hope that you took the right point away but I fear that you didn't.

We knew that she was both athletically and academically gifted so we let her follow her passion which was volleyball knowing that she could develop to a high enough level for it to be an impactful EC. We could have forced her to do robotics because she actually did robotics (including competitions) in middle school./ She was very good at it but she wasn't into it. We let her be her.

We saw many parents do that and their kids did fine but I'm not sure that they enjoyed themselves as much as mine did.


No, I am absolutely following your point. You’re not following mine.

Whether or not she was going to be a great athlete should have been irrelevant to whether or not you “let” her play volleyball if volleyball was indeed her passion. “Impactful EC” is one of the more cringeworthy terms I have read on this board, and that’s saying a lot.


Would you feel better if I had said "we didn't coerce her into refocusing passion towards activities generally considered more worthy in the eyes of parents on DCUM"?

We said to ourselves "she has something that she loves and is good at so let her run and see how far she can go". We did not try to make our kid into something that she didn't want to be which is something that too many parents on this board often do because of what they think or want to believe when just like this reality is "how they feel and what is real" are two very different things.



You’re not fooling anyone. It’s quite clear that you absolutely *would* have coerced her into doing something else if you didn’t think she was good enough at her chosen sport. You’re (more accurately your daughter is) merely *lucky* that she was good at volleyball, so that you can still play the game all of the other T20 obsessed psychopaths are playing, while also patting yourself on the back for allowing her to engage in lowly sports instead of robotics


DP here.

I am a parent, not a teen lifestyle enjoyment facilitator.
Why in the world do you assume you know how to parent a child better than her own parents do?
If my kid was spending all his time playing fortnite (but he was not a pro level player) why in the world would I tell him to follow his passion instead of telling him to hit the books?

You sound like one of these psychopath parents that think sports > all


Parents who are simply raising future college students are absolutely doing it wrong, regardless of how outwardly “successful” the outcome. Sorry to be the one to have to tell you.


You raise your kids the way you think is in their best interests, let other people raise their kids according to what they think is in their kid's best interests.
Some parents prioritize long term goals and preparing their kids for adult life over immediate gratification.

How dare you tell other parents how to raise their kids.
If you know the secrets of parenting, go write a book.


The fact that you are getting so worked up about the completely impersonal judgement of some random person on the internet indicates that at least some part of you knows it’s true…


Nobody is simply raising college applicants.
The parents that are thinking about college generally have much longer term thinking that the ones that want to be their kid's buddy.


The parents are thinking about one-upping their friends and relatives.


Nobody is putting their kids through that for bragging rights.
Why do people think it's crazy that some parents think that going to MIT (or other selective school) will improve their child's life more than spending high school playing a sport they are not good at?
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:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


This entire thread isn't about recruited athletes...it's the unrecruited athletes.

Considering 8 million...YES MILLION...play sports, 86,700 kids is actually a tiny number of kids participating in robotics.


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.



You sound like you’re describing a show pony or judging a dog at Westminster.


No, not really


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…


You're making an assumption, a poor one. Her life was the opposite of what you described.

The thread is "do not let them play sports in high school". I pointed out that one sided view could be misguided, like much of well meaning but misguided advice. My kid did lots of things that I didn't mention in my post, but she did them because she wanted to, they weren't manufactured.

She was a member of French club but didn't have to obsess over becoming an officer to demonstrate leadership.

She had over 1,000 hours of volunteer time at a local hospital because a 4 hours shift every other week isn't really that onerous and she wants to go into medicine.

She volunteered with friends at a foodbank; because filling/emptying boxes was an easy way to complete service hours and it was kind of like hanging out.

She worked multiple different jobs, mostly summers but also during school breaks and to fill in sometimes because that is how she gets things beyond her allowance.

We/she also learned a lot during the process

We learned details about admissions because it starts after your sophomore year if you are considering D1 sports

We learned that academics are still very important for top schools

We learned that the requirements at the Ivy's is lower than the NESCAC, UAA, JHU, MIT etc., and the Patriot league is still lower.

We learned that we had to work and take the SAT early. She took her SAT after her sophomore year because JHU and MIT will literally not talk to you until you have a 1500 plus to show them.

We learned that rigor matters and that at MIT the expectation is to always take the hardest course available to you and excel at it; athlete or not. We also learned that you don't get extra credit for adding courses 7/8 to your schedule. They really would prefer that you do something else as you have crossed the academic bar.

We learned that test scores matter everywhere but everywhere is different. MIT wanted a 770M, JHU wants a 1500 composite, WashU said that her 780 wasn't interesting ("everyone comes with a high math score" but 780V would be a big plus with the admissions office.

We learned that honors courses don't carry much value (too variable) but AP courses do. And, if you take the course you need to take the test or else the grade is suspect.

But most of all we learned about what I mentioned at the beginning of my original post. Whatever you do for ECs; have impact. Passion and significance is what matters; it doesn't matter so much what the EC is, it matters what you do with it.

Someone above stated that they spoke to 3 different counselors who said not to play sports if you weren't recruitable. They either asked the question wrong or they should find new counselors. Years of dedication, moving up the ranks, leading and playing on a top team is an excellent EC and a good counselor knows how to work with that to show the impact on the player and those around them. Impact in the EC is what matters, more than the EC itself. My daughters Co-captain wasn't recruitable as a player but she is at a T30ish school today.

The MIT "Applying Sideways" blog should be read and taken to heart by everyone in this process. Find something that you love, run with it, become great at it, and demonstrate how it impacts a wider community.


You said this:

“For my kid sports was a great EC because we could judge her academic and athletic skills while in middle school.”

And that tells me all I need to know, your daughter’s entire life story notwithstanding.


I hope that you took the right point away but I fear that you didn't.

We knew that she was both athletically and academically gifted so we let her follow her passion which was volleyball knowing that she could develop to a high enough level for it to be an impactful EC. We could have forced her to do robotics because she actually did robotics (including competitions) in middle school./ She was very good at it but she wasn't into it. We let her be her.

We saw many parents do that and their kids did fine but I'm not sure that they enjoyed themselves as much as mine did.


No, I am absolutely following your point. You’re not following mine.

Whether or not she was going to be a great athlete should have been irrelevant to whether or not you “let” her play volleyball if volleyball was indeed her passion. “Impactful EC” is one of the more cringeworthy terms I have read on this board, and that’s saying a lot.


Would you feel better if I had said "we didn't coerce her into refocusing passion towards activities generally considered more worthy in the eyes of parents on DCUM"?

We said to ourselves "she has something that she loves and is good at so let her run and see how far she can go". We did not try to make our kid into something that she didn't want to be which is something that too many parents on this board often do because of what they think or want to believe when just like this reality is "how they feel and what is real" are two very different things.



You’re not fooling anyone. It’s quite clear that you absolutely *would* have coerced her into doing something else if you didn’t think she was good enough at her chosen sport. You’re (more accurately your daughter is) merely *lucky* that she was good at volleyball, so that you can still play the game all of the other T20 obsessed psychopaths are playing, while also patting yourself on the back for allowing her to engage in lowly sports instead of robotics


DP here.

I am a parent, not a teen lifestyle enjoyment facilitator.
Why in the world do you assume you know how to parent a child better than her own parents do?
If my kid was spending all his time playing fortnite (but he was not a pro level player) why in the world would I tell him to follow his passion instead of telling him to hit the books?

You sound like one of these psychopath parents that think sports > all


Parents who are simply raising future college students are absolutely doing it wrong, regardless of how outwardly “successful” the outcome. Sorry to be the one to have to tell you.


You raise your kids the way you think is in their best interests, let other people raise their kids according to what they think is in their kid's best interests.
Some parents prioritize long term goals and preparing their kids for adult life over immediate gratification.

How dare you tell other parents how to raise their kids.
If you know the secrets of parenting, go write a book.


The fact that you are getting so worked up about the completely impersonal judgement of some random person on the internet indicates that at least some part of you knows it’s true…


Nobody is simply raising college applicants.
The parents that are thinking about college generally have much longer term thinking that the ones that want to be their kid's buddy.


The parents are thinking about one-upping their friends and relatives.


Nobody is putting their kids through that for bragging rights.
Why do people think it's crazy that some parents think that going to MIT (or other selective school) will improve their child's life more than spending high school playing a sport they are not good at?


Maybe because a fractional percentage of people will go to MIT and 100% of people will benefit from physical activity?
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:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


Of the 300,000 AMC test takers each year, I would say there are maybe 10,000-20,000 competitive kids that put in as much effort as a recruited athlete. The quality of school that you get with USAMO is starkly different than the school that will take the average recruited athlete. Most recruited athletes aren't being recruited to Stanford and Duke. The USAMO kids go to MIT and Columbia.

The 86,700 First robotics competitors are on about 3500 teams. Each team can only nominate 2 dean's list finalists. So we are talking about 7000 kids vying for 100 spots. Of the 7000 kids maybe 500-1000 teams are putting in as much time as a recruited athlete. These kids get to go to Stanford and Carnegie Mellon.

I just became aware of a so-so athlete and student recruited to
Carnegie Mellon. No robotics or USAMO.


They are a recruited athlete...so they aren't "so-so" for Carnegie Mellon.

Once more, the discussion is about kids that just play sports, not recruited athletes.

Well, you gotta play the sport to be a recruited athlete. They don't really know if they're recruitable at their desired schools until they're recruited. The week before the offer, they're just "kids that play sports." At some of these competitive high schools with connections to recruiters, being so-so on a team is "good enough" to be recruited.



You couldn't be more incorrect here.

Ok? I've personally observed this firsthand and have a kid going through it. But I guess you know better.


If you are talking about being recruited at a top school and getting and admissions bump by it I probably do know better. Because I know what you are describing doesn’t happen at the schools people talk about on DCUM.



I definitely know a so-so athlete that is getting a bump for their sport at a highly selective school. But they were definitely working the angles to get recruited, it didn't just fall in their lap.
If you're really good, maybe it does but not for the kid i know.
She got herself on a foreign national team for the Olympics in a country where almost nobody plays the sport (BTW, did you know squash will be an Olympic sport in 2028, yeah, neither did I).


Squash is not an easy ‘white body’ prep school spot anymore. If you aren’t legit you’re going nowhere. A lot of foreign recruits for squash.


I thnk of Squash as more of a middle eastern/asian sport to be honest. At least that most of the kids i see.


It used to be a fairly easy path for prep school kids. Not anymore.
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:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


Of the 300,000 AMC test takers each year, I would say there are maybe 10,000-20,000 competitive kids that put in as much effort as a recruited athlete. The quality of school that you get with USAMO is starkly different than the school that will take the average recruited athlete. Most recruited athletes aren't being recruited to Stanford and Duke. The USAMO kids go to MIT and Columbia.

The 86,700 First robotics competitors are on about 3500 teams. Each team can only nominate 2 dean's list finalists. So we are talking about 7000 kids vying for 100 spots. Of the 7000 kids maybe 500-1000 teams are putting in as much time as a recruited athlete. These kids get to go to Stanford and Carnegie Mellon.

I just became aware of a so-so athlete and student recruited to
Carnegie Mellon. No robotics or USAMO.


They are a recruited athlete...so they aren't "so-so" for Carnegie Mellon.

Once more, the discussion is about kids that just play sports, not recruited athletes.

Well, you gotta play the sport to be a recruited athlete. They don't really know if they're recruitable at their desired schools until they're recruited. The week before the offer, they're just "kids that play sports." At some of these competitive high schools with connections to recruiters, being so-so on a team is "good enough" to be recruited.



You couldn't be more incorrect here.

Ok? I've personally observed this firsthand and have a kid going through it. But I guess you know better.


If you are talking about being recruited at a top school and getting and admissions bump by it I probably do know better. Because I know what you are describing doesn’t happen at the schools people talk about on DCUM.



I definitely know a so-so athlete that is getting a bump for their sport at a highly selective school. But they were definitely working the angles to get recruited, it didn't just fall in their lap.
If you're really good, maybe it does but not for the kid i know.
She got herself on a foreign national team for the Olympics in a country where almost nobody plays the sport (BTW, did you know squash will be an Olympic sport in 2028, yeah, neither did I).


Squash is not an easy ‘white body’ prep school spot anymore. If you aren’t legit you’re going nowhere. A lot of foreign recruits for squash.


I thnk of Squash as more of a middle eastern/asian sport to be honest. At least that most of the kids i see.


It used to be a fairly easy path for prep school kids. Not anymore.



When Trump bans international students, those easy days will return!
Anonymous
96% of female CEOs played youth sports.
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:
Anonymous wrote:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


This entire thread isn't about recruited athletes...it's the unrecruited athletes.

Considering 8 million...YES MILLION...play sports, 86,700 kids is actually a tiny number of kids participating in robotics.


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.



You sound like you’re describing a show pony or judging a dog at Westminster.


No, not really


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…


You're making an assumption, a poor one. Her life was the opposite of what you described.

The thread is "do not let them play sports in high school". I pointed out that one sided view could be misguided, like much of well meaning but misguided advice. My kid did lots of things that I didn't mention in my post, but she did them because she wanted to, they weren't manufactured.

She was a member of French club but didn't have to obsess over becoming an officer to demonstrate leadership.

She had over 1,000 hours of volunteer time at a local hospital because a 4 hours shift every other week isn't really that onerous and she wants to go into medicine.

She volunteered with friends at a foodbank; because filling/emptying boxes was an easy way to complete service hours and it was kind of like hanging out.

She worked multiple different jobs, mostly summers but also during school breaks and to fill in sometimes because that is how she gets things beyond her allowance.

We/she also learned a lot during the process

We learned details about admissions because it starts after your sophomore year if you are considering D1 sports

We learned that academics are still very important for top schools

We learned that the requirements at the Ivy's is lower than the NESCAC, UAA, JHU, MIT etc., and the Patriot league is still lower.

We learned that we had to work and take the SAT early. She took her SAT after her sophomore year because JHU and MIT will literally not talk to you until you have a 1500 plus to show them.

We learned that rigor matters and that at MIT the expectation is to always take the hardest course available to you and excel at it; athlete or not. We also learned that you don't get extra credit for adding courses 7/8 to your schedule. They really would prefer that you do something else as you have crossed the academic bar.

We learned that test scores matter everywhere but everywhere is different. MIT wanted a 770M, JHU wants a 1500 composite, WashU said that her 780 wasn't interesting ("everyone comes with a high math score") but 780V would be a big plus with the admissions office.

We learned that honors courses don't carry much value (too variable) but AP courses do. And, if you take the course you need to take the test or else the grade is suspect.

But most of all we learned about what I mentioned at the beginning of my original post. Whatever you do for ECs; have impact. Passion and significance is what matters; it doesn't matter so much what the EC is, it matters what you do with it.

Someone above stated that they spoke to 3 different counselors who said not to play sports if you weren't recruitable. They either asked the question wrong or they should find new counselors. Years of dedication, moving up the ranks, leading and playing on a top team is an excellent EC and a good counselor knows how to work with that to show the impact on the player and those around them. Impact in the EC is what matters, more than the EC itself. My daughters Co-captain wasn't recruitable as a player but she is at a T30ish school today.

The MIT "Applying Sideways" blog should be read and taken to heart by everyone in this process. Find something that you love, run with it, become great at it, and demonstrate how it impacts a wider community.


You said this:

“For my kid sports was a great EC because we could judge her academic and athletic skills while in middle school.”

And that tells me all I need to know, your daughter’s entire life story notwithstanding.


I hope that you took the right point away but I fear that you didn't.

We knew that she was both athletically and academically gifted so we let her follow her passion which was volleyball knowing that she could develop to a high enough level for it to be an impactful EC. We could have forced her to do robotics because she actually did robotics (including competitions) in middle school./ She was very good at it but she wasn't into it. We let her be her.

We saw many parents do that and their kids did fine but I'm not sure that they enjoyed themselves as much as mine did.


No, I am absolutely following your point. You’re not following mine.

Whether or not she was going to be a great athlete should have been irrelevant to whether or not you “let” her play volleyball if volleyball was indeed her passion. “Impactful EC” is one of the more cringeworthy terms I have read on this board, and that’s saying a lot.


I was reading through this thread and this comment is pretty ironic because I just watched a presentation from a well known counseling group who attributed the high level of deferrals this year to applicants ECs not being clear enough about impact thus requiring further review.

Also, it the way that I read the poster’s comments about their daughter must have been different as well. I think the kid probably had fun doing what they loved and being themselves. To each their own I guess.


1. That is not an example of irony
2. Her daughter is lucky she was good at the things she enjoyed. Like I said. (Which is an example of a coincidence, by the way.)


PP
I think that you might want to read again, the comment wasn’t about the poster and their daughter but rather about the person who said that using the term impact was “cringeworthy”. Because right before reading this thread I watched a very well known counselor talk about kids being deferred because their ECs weren’t showing clear impact. The counselors words, not mine. The OP wasn’t cringeworthy, they were spot on.


The fact that some random college counselor ALSO said it doesn’t make it suddenly NOT cringeworthy. More than one person can say cringeworthy things. An entire worldview shared by many people (for example, forcing your kid to fit a college rather than finding a college that fits your kid) can be cringeworthy.

Again, this is not an example of irony. Although your misuse/misunderstanding of the word “irony” is, so there’s that…
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:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


This entire thread isn't about recruited athletes...it's the unrecruited athletes.

Considering 8 million...YES MILLION...play sports, 86,700 kids is actually a tiny number of kids participating in robotics.


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.



You sound like you’re describing a show pony or judging a dog at Westminster.


No, not really


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…


You're making an assumption, a poor one. Her life was the opposite of what you described.

The thread is "do not let them play sports in high school". I pointed out that one sided view could be misguided, like much of well meaning but misguided advice. My kid did lots of things that I didn't mention in my post, but she did them because she wanted to, they weren't manufactured.

She was a member of French club but didn't have to obsess over becoming an officer to demonstrate leadership.

She had over 1,000 hours of volunteer time at a local hospital because a 4 hours shift every other week isn't really that onerous and she wants to go into medicine.

She volunteered with friends at a foodbank; because filling/emptying boxes was an easy way to complete service hours and it was kind of like hanging out.

She worked multiple different jobs, mostly summers but also during school breaks and to fill in sometimes because that is how she gets things beyond her allowance.

We/she also learned a lot during the process

We learned details about admissions because it starts after your sophomore year if you are considering D1 sports

We learned that academics are still very important for top schools

We learned that the requirements at the Ivy's is lower than the NESCAC, UAA, JHU, MIT etc., and the Patriot league is still lower.

We learned that we had to work and take the SAT early. She took her SAT after her sophomore year because JHU and MIT will literally not talk to you until you have a 1500 plus to show them.

We learned that rigor matters and that at MIT the expectation is to always take the hardest course available to you and excel at it; athlete or not. We also learned that you don't get extra credit for adding courses 7/8 to your schedule. They really would prefer that you do something else as you have crossed the academic bar.

We learned that test scores matter everywhere but everywhere is different. MIT wanted a 770M, JHU wants a 1500 composite, WashU said that her 780 wasn't interesting ("everyone comes with a high math score" but 780V would be a big plus with the admissions office.

We learned that honors courses don't carry much value (too variable) but AP courses do. And, if you take the course you need to take the test or else the grade is suspect.

But most of all we learned about what I mentioned at the beginning of my original post. Whatever you do for ECs; have impact. Passion and significance is what matters; it doesn't matter so much what the EC is, it matters what you do with it.

Someone above stated that they spoke to 3 different counselors who said not to play sports if you weren't recruitable. They either asked the question wrong or they should find new counselors. Years of dedication, moving up the ranks, leading and playing on a top team is an excellent EC and a good counselor knows how to work with that to show the impact on the player and those around them. Impact in the EC is what matters, more than the EC itself. My daughters Co-captain wasn't recruitable as a player but she is at a T30ish school today.

The MIT "Applying Sideways" blog should be read and taken to heart by everyone in this process. Find something that you love, run with it, become great at it, and demonstrate how it impacts a wider community.


You said this:

“For my kid sports was a great EC because we could judge her academic and athletic skills while in middle school.”

And that tells me all I need to know, your daughter’s entire life story notwithstanding.


I hope that you took the right point away but I fear that you didn't.

We knew that she was both athletically and academically gifted so we let her follow her passion which was volleyball knowing that she could develop to a high enough level for it to be an impactful EC. We could have forced her to do robotics because she actually did robotics (including competitions) in middle school./ She was very good at it but she wasn't into it. We let her be her.

We saw many parents do that and their kids did fine but I'm not sure that they enjoyed themselves as much as mine did.


No, I am absolutely following your point. You’re not following mine.

Whether or not she was going to be a great athlete should have been irrelevant to whether or not you “let” her play volleyball if volleyball was indeed her passion. “Impactful EC” is one of the more cringeworthy terms I have read on this board, and that’s saying a lot.


Would you feel better if I had said "we didn't coerce her into refocusing passion towards activities generally considered more worthy in the eyes of parents on DCUM"?

We said to ourselves "she has something that she loves and is good at so let her run and see how far she can go". We did not try to make our kid into something that she didn't want to be which is something that too many parents on this board often do because of what they think or want to believe when just like this reality is "how they feel and what is real" are two very different things.



You’re not fooling anyone. It’s quite clear that you absolutely *would* have coerced her into doing something else if you didn’t think she was good enough at her chosen sport. You’re (more accurately your daughter is) merely *lucky* that she was good at volleyball, so that you can still play the game all of the other T20 obsessed psychopaths are playing, while also patting yourself on the back for allowing her to engage in lowly sports instead of robotics


DP here.

I am a parent, not a teen lifestyle enjoyment facilitator.
Why in the world do you assume you know how to parent a child better than her own parents do?
If my kid was spending all his time playing fortnite (but he was not a pro level player) why in the world would I tell him to follow his passion instead of telling him to hit the books?

You sound like one of these psychopath parents that think sports > all


Parents who are simply raising future college students are absolutely doing it wrong, regardless of how outwardly “successful” the outcome. Sorry to be the one to have to tell you.


You raise your kids the way you think is in their best interests, let other people raise their kids according to what they think is in their kid's best interests.
Some parents prioritize long term goals and preparing their kids for adult life over immediate gratification.

How dare you tell other parents how to raise their kids.
If you know the secrets of parenting, go write a book.


The fact that you are getting so worked up about the completely impersonal judgement of some random person on the internet indicates that at least some part of you knows it’s true…


Nobody is simply raising college applicants.
The parents that are thinking about college generally have much longer term thinking that the ones that want to be their kid's buddy.


The parents are thinking about one-upping their friends and relatives.


Nobody is putting their kids through that for bragging rights.
Why do people think it's crazy that some parents think that going to MIT (or other selective school) will improve their child's life more than spending high school playing a sport they are not good at?


Maybe because a fractional percentage of people will go to MIT and 100% of people will benefit from physical activity?


You don't need high school sports to have physical activity.
And even if you don't go to MIT, a better college might have a longer term benefit than getting a varsity letter in some sport you stop playing almost as soon as you leave high school.
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:
Anonymous wrote:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


Of the 300,000 AMC test takers each year, I would say there are maybe 10,000-20,000 competitive kids that put in as much effort as a recruited athlete. The quality of school that you get with USAMO is starkly different than the school that will take the average recruited athlete. Most recruited athletes aren't being recruited to Stanford and Duke. The USAMO kids go to MIT and Columbia.

The 86,700 First robotics competitors are on about 3500 teams. Each team can only nominate 2 dean's list finalists. So we are talking about 7000 kids vying for 100 spots. Of the 7000 kids maybe 500-1000 teams are putting in as much time as a recruited athlete. These kids get to go to Stanford and Carnegie Mellon.

I just became aware of a so-so athlete and student recruited to
Carnegie Mellon. No robotics or USAMO.


They are a recruited athlete...so they aren't "so-so" for Carnegie Mellon.

Once more, the discussion is about kids that just play sports, not recruited athletes.

Well, you gotta play the sport to be a recruited athlete. They don't really know if they're recruitable at their desired schools until they're recruited. The week before the offer, they're just "kids that play sports." At some of these competitive high schools with connections to recruiters, being so-so on a team is "good enough" to be recruited.



You couldn't be more incorrect here.

Ok? I've personally observed this firsthand and have a kid going through it. But I guess you know better.


If you are talking about being recruited at a top school and getting and admissions bump by it I probably do know better. Because I know what you are describing doesn’t happen at the schools people talk about on DCUM.



I definitely know a so-so athlete that is getting a bump for their sport at a highly selective school. But they were definitely working the angles to get recruited, it didn't just fall in their lap.
If you're really good, maybe it does but not for the kid i know.
She got herself on a foreign national team for the Olympics in a country where almost nobody plays the sport (BTW, did you know squash will be an Olympic sport in 2028, yeah, neither did I).


Squash is not an easy ‘white body’ prep school spot anymore. If you aren’t legit you’re going nowhere. A lot of foreign recruits for squash.


I thnk of Squash as more of a middle eastern/asian sport to be honest. At least that most of the kids i see.


It used to be a fairly easy path for prep school kids. Not anymore.



When Trump bans international students, those easy days will return!


Trump isn't banning international students. he's giving them H 1 B Visas. Try to keep up.
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:
Anonymous wrote:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


Of the 300,000 AMC test takers each year, I would say there are maybe 10,000-20,000 competitive kids that put in as much effort as a recruited athlete. The quality of school that you get with USAMO is starkly different than the school that will take the average recruited athlete. Most recruited athletes aren't being recruited to Stanford and Duke. The USAMO kids go to MIT and Columbia.

The 86,700 First robotics competitors are on about 3500 teams. Each team can only nominate 2 dean's list finalists. So we are talking about 7000 kids vying for 100 spots. Of the 7000 kids maybe 500-1000 teams are putting in as much time as a recruited athlete. These kids get to go to Stanford and Carnegie Mellon.

I just became aware of a so-so athlete and student recruited to
Carnegie Mellon. No robotics or USAMO.


They are a recruited athlete...so they aren't "so-so" for Carnegie Mellon.

Once more, the discussion is about kids that just play sports, not recruited athletes.

Well, you gotta play the sport to be a recruited athlete. They don't really know if they're recruitable at their desired schools until they're recruited. The week before the offer, they're just "kids that play sports." At some of these competitive high schools with connections to recruiters, being so-so on a team is "good enough" to be recruited.



You couldn't be more incorrect here.

Ok? I've personally observed this firsthand and have a kid going through it. But I guess you know better.


If you are talking about being recruited at a top school and getting and admissions bump by it I probably do know better. Because I know what you are describing doesn’t happen at the schools people talk about on DCUM.



I definitely know a so-so athlete that is getting a bump for their sport at a highly selective school. But they were definitely working the angles to get recruited, it didn't just fall in their lap.
If you're really good, maybe it does but not for the kid i know.
She got herself on a foreign national team for the Olympics in a country where almost nobody plays the sport (BTW, did you know squash will be an Olympic sport in 2028, yeah, neither did I).


Squash is not an easy ‘white body’ prep school spot anymore. If you aren’t legit you’re going nowhere. A lot of foreign recruits for squash.


I thnk of Squash as more of a middle eastern/asian sport to be honest. At least that most of the kids i see.


It used to be a fairly easy path for prep school kids. Not anymore.



When Trump bans international students, those easy days will return!


Nah, plenty of Asian and Middle Eastern kids play on the West Coast now. The prep schoolers are toast for Squash.
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:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To sum up: Participate in sports because you love to compete, love the camaraderie of teamwork, the personal challenge, the physical activity. Playing a sport is one of the best things one can do with one's time.

But do not participate in sports thinking it will help all that much for college applications, unless being recruited to play on the college level. There is really not more to it than this.


False. That’s not a summary at all.

That’s your personal option again that sports, esp team sports, take up too much time.

You’re wrong because there are scholar athletes everywhere who are attractive candidates for colleges and who don’t desire to play college sports, but club or other college ECs and focus on their majors, study abroad, internships, networking and friends.

Get over it OP. Not everyone wants to sit on their butt coding or doing hours of robotics.


Honestly the same thing can be said about robotics... and pretty much everything else

The amount of time dedication and talent it takes to turn robotics into an extracurricular activity that is noticably more impressive than varsity sports is huge.

You want to build a competitive robot for the FIRST or Vex competition? That one activity crowds out pretty much everything else.

You want to get invited to the USAMO? You are going to be spending almost all your time on it.

You want to be a regeneron semifinalist, forget about the USAMO or robotics or the football team.

The academic extracurriculars are important to have, but if you aren't pointy (winning at least at the state level), it doesn't really help that much, you might as well touch some grass.

And yet every year, IVY+ takes kids that aren't winning competitions or being recruited athletically.

If you don't get in, maybe you are actually better off elsewhere.


Np. I feel like you guys need a primer on what AO are looking for. They seem SOOO may Robotics/Vex/USAMO - it doesn't even phase them anymore. They are bored when they read those applications.


Really?

There are 223 students that qualify for USAMO in the country.
If you qualify for USAMO and you have good stats, you have a good chance at any school.

First Robotics Competition has 100 Dean's List finalists. This is significantly more impressive than varsity sports, (not as impressive as USAMO for most purposes).
Vex Robotics has 32 teams with an average of 6 players per team for about 200 students (slightly less impressive than FRC Dean's List).

USAMO especially is a big deal.
I know kids who got into MIT with almost no other EC (they were struggling to fill out that section of their application).
They had great stats 1550+ SAT and near perfect GPA but qualifying for the USAMO was their main activity.
They didn't even qualify for MOP


This makes doing robotics or math sound like an even worse idea than doing varsity sports. Your kid will put ALL his time into robotics or math and have an even worse chance of being a winner/finalist than a varsity athlete has of being recruited.

300,000 students take the AMC exam each year. Of them, 3,000 qualify for the AIME. Of them, 250 qualify for the USAMO. Thus you have a 0.0.8% chance to qualify for USAMO. Meanwhile 7% of high school varsity athletes are recruited (even higher for some sports) - basically 100x the odds of being a successful athlete than of being a successful math geek.

86,700 high school kids competed in the 2024 First Robotics. If there are 100 Dean's List finalists then you have an 0.1% chance of being a finalist, much lower than the odds of being recruited as an athlete.

Yes if you qualify for USAMO or are a First Robotics finalist that's huge but it's like being recruited to play D1 basketball. Awesome if it happens but the odds of achieving that are extraordinarily low. For the overwhelming majority of kids, math or robotics is (to echo the criticism about sports if you don't get recruited) a poor investment of time and is "just another EC" that didn't make them stand out at all.


This entire thread isn't about recruited athletes...it's the unrecruited athletes.

Considering 8 million...YES MILLION...play sports, 86,700 kids is actually a tiny number of kids participating in robotics.


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.



You sound like you’re describing a show pony or judging a dog at Westminster.


No, not really


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…


You're making an assumption, a poor one. Her life was the opposite of what you described.

The thread is "do not let them play sports in high school". I pointed out that one sided view could be misguided, like much of well meaning but misguided advice. My kid did lots of things that I didn't mention in my post, but she did them because she wanted to, they weren't manufactured.

She was a member of French club but didn't have to obsess over becoming an officer to demonstrate leadership.

She had over 1,000 hours of volunteer time at a local hospital because a 4 hours shift every other week isn't really that onerous and she wants to go into medicine.

She volunteered with friends at a foodbank; because filling/emptying boxes was an easy way to complete service hours and it was kind of like hanging out.

She worked multiple different jobs, mostly summers but also during school breaks and to fill in sometimes because that is how she gets things beyond her allowance.

We/she also learned a lot during the process

We learned details about admissions because it starts after your sophomore year if you are considering D1 sports

We learned that academics are still very important for top schools

We learned that the requirements at the Ivy's is lower than the NESCAC, UAA, JHU, MIT etc., and the Patriot league is still lower.

We learned that we had to work and take the SAT early. She took her SAT after her sophomore year because JHU and MIT will literally not talk to you until you have a 1500 plus to show them.

We learned that rigor matters and that at MIT the expectation is to always take the hardest course available to you and excel at it; athlete or not. We also learned that you don't get extra credit for adding courses 7/8 to your schedule. They really would prefer that you do something else as you have crossed the academic bar.

We learned that test scores matter everywhere but everywhere is different. MIT wanted a 770M, JHU wants a 1500 composite, WashU said that her 780 wasn't interesting ("everyone comes with a high math score") but 780V would be a big plus with the admissions office.

We learned that honors courses don't carry much value (too variable) but AP courses do. And, if you take the course you need to take the test or else the grade is suspect.

But most of all we learned about what I mentioned at the beginning of my original post. Whatever you do for ECs; have impact. Passion and significance is what matters; it doesn't matter so much what the EC is, it matters what you do with it.

Someone above stated that they spoke to 3 different counselors who said not to play sports if you weren't recruitable. They either asked the question wrong or they should find new counselors. Years of dedication, moving up the ranks, leading and playing on a top team is an excellent EC and a good counselor knows how to work with that to show the impact on the player and those around them. Impact in the EC is what matters, more than the EC itself. My daughters Co-captain wasn't recruitable as a player but she is at a T30ish school today.

The MIT "Applying Sideways" blog should be read and taken to heart by everyone in this process. Find something that you love, run with it, become great at it, and demonstrate how it impacts a wider community.


You said this:

“For my kid sports was a great EC because we could judge her academic and athletic skills while in middle school.”

And that tells me all I need to know, your daughter’s entire life story notwithstanding.


I hope that you took the right point away but I fear that you didn't.

We knew that she was both athletically and academically gifted so we let her follow her passion which was volleyball knowing that she could develop to a high enough level for it to be an impactful EC. We could have forced her to do robotics because she actually did robotics (including competitions) in middle school./ She was very good at it but she wasn't into it. We let her be her.

We saw many parents do that and their kids did fine but I'm not sure that they enjoyed themselves as much as mine did.


No, I am absolutely following your point. You’re not following mine.

Whether or not she was going to be a great athlete should have been irrelevant to whether or not you “let” her play volleyball if volleyball was indeed her passion. “Impactful EC” is one of the more cringeworthy terms I have read on this board, and that’s saying a lot.


I was reading through this thread and this comment is pretty ironic because I just watched a presentation from a well known counseling group who attributed the high level of deferrals this year to applicants ECs not being clear enough about impact thus requiring further review.

Also, it the way that I read the poster’s comments about their daughter must have been different as well. I think the kid probably had fun doing what they loved and being themselves. To each their own I guess.


1. That is not an example of irony
2. Her daughter is lucky she was good at the things she enjoyed. Like I said. (Which is an example of a coincidence, by the way.)


PP
I think that you might want to read again, the comment wasn’t about the poster and their daughter but rather about the person who said that using the term impact was “cringeworthy”. Because right before reading this thread I watched a very well known counselor talk about kids being deferred because their ECs weren’t showing clear impact. The counselors words, not mine. The OP wasn’t cringeworthy, they were spot on.


Literally every college counselor and podcast discusses the “impact” of ECs. It is not something novel or secret. It is used by all the college coaches while simultaneously pushing every kid to join a pay to play research program to show “intellectual curiosity.” These are the 2 things said ad nauseum in 2024-2025. Oh, and also that you need a “narrative” to tell a story and tie together your impactful activities and academic interests. I just saved you $10,000.


I wish you did but alas you didn't. It isn't about the impact of ECs on your application but rather the impact that you have within your chosen EC. Find something that you are passionate about and then do it well. Talk to a good counselor and they will tell you that research is pretty much useless as an EC because HS kids cannot do real research and AOs know it. Same for the non-profit nonsense. Captain of (or even a starter on) a team which goes to the State championship is a great EC because it takes dedication and getting that far demonstrates a level of excellence. Winning your local league not so much. Winning a robotics competition at the state level (for states not the population of Wyoming) does the same thing, it shows a level of excellence and impact. Winning at your local fairgrounds not so much.

It's really pretty simple, it can be almost any EC and participation awards don't count.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:OP, I have one DC who was recruited as a D1 athlete (Ivy). I am the sister of one recruited D1 athlete and another one season major league athlete. I am the daughter of an Olympian.
Know your kid. Know the competitors. Be realistic.
I have another kid who did not stand a chance in the real top tier world of sports. I have seen way too many parents pushing enthusiastic but marginal athletes who think that their kids' passion will overcome poor performance.
The athletes in my family were outstanding from the time they hit the playing field. If you are not an outlier, then enjoy the sport as recreation.


There are plenty of examples of stars who were absolutely not stars as kids.
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: