A reality check on "strong extracurriculars"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Class President with tons of activities and initiatives move the needle?

It depends on the impact those initiatives had.

Helped make decorations for the prom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

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

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

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

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

this is like saying Harvard does not factor math Olympiad if you don't participate in math Olympiad. It's starting to sound like sports are just another ec if you're not a recruited athlete. A time intense intensive ec

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Omg the AO looking at your file decides whether the ECs are strong based on the whole file, it isn't a yes or no list made up by a guy in DCUM. It is does this kid make sense and do their ECs support that.

This. Seriously OP, who are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is elite level athlete? You are either recruitable, or not recruitable.

You can be recruitable but choosing not to play. If a girl was a starter on a nationally ranked team but chose not to play they still have a fantastic EC. If they were a captain on the team even better. They were elite at their main EC which is the bar.

That wouldn’t matter anymore than the student playing jr varsity in high school.

I know that you hate athletics as an EC but you are 100% incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

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

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

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

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

This is absolutely wrong. In Harvard's own words:

Non-academic skills are scarce:

Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating”

Non-academic skills explain admissions decisions better than academic skills:

“Another way to see the importance of non-academic dimensions relative to academic dimensions of excellence is to examine how important each element is in explaining which applicants are admitted…. In Prof. Arcidiacono’s expanded sample, the Pseudo RSquared of a model that includes only the academic rating as a control variable is 0.09, while the Pseudo R-Squared of models that include each of the three non-academic ratings as the sole control variables are 0.20 (personal), 0.09 (extracurricular), and 0.08 (athletic), and the Pseudo R-Squared for a model that includes all three non-academic ratings as control variables is 0.32."

The athletic rating explains virtually as much admissions variation as the extracurricular rating does.

Being multi-dimensional is important:

“Exhibit 6 shows that only 12% of admitted students are “one-dimensional stars” with a rating of 1 on one dimension but fewer than three ratings of 2 or better, while 46% are multi-dimensional applicants with three or four ratings of 2 or better, and 31% have two ratings of 2 and two ratings of 3. These statistics are yet another way to show the value that Harvard places on applicants who distinguish themselves on multiple dimensions.”

And the clincher:

Athletic rating is important:

“Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%. That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, [for domestic applicants], and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2. Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%. This contrast provides further evidence of the incremental importance of an athletic rating of 2”

This comes straight from Harvard. Now explain to us exactly why Harvard is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

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

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

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

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

This is absolutely wrong. In Harvard's own words:

Non-academic skills are scarce:

Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating”

Non-academic skills explain admissions decisions better than academic skills:

“Another way to see the importance of non-academic dimensions relative to academic dimensions of excellence is to examine how important each element is in explaining which applicants are admitted…. In Prof. Arcidiacono’s expanded sample, the Pseudo RSquared of a model that includes only the academic rating as a control variable is 0.09, while the Pseudo R-Squared of models that include each of the three non-academic ratings as the sole control variables are 0.20 (personal), 0.09 (extracurricular), and 0.08 (athletic), and the Pseudo R-Squared for a model that includes all three non-academic ratings as control variables is 0.32."

The athletic rating explains virtually as much admissions variation as the extracurricular rating does.

Being multi-dimensional is important:

“Exhibit 6 shows that only 12% of admitted students are “one-dimensional stars” with a rating of 1 on one dimension but fewer than three ratings of 2 or better, while 46% are multi-dimensional applicants with three or four ratings of 2 or better, and 31% have two ratings of 2 and two ratings of 3. These statistics are yet another way to show the value that Harvard places on applicants who distinguish themselves on multiple dimensions.”

And the clincher:

Athletic rating is important:

“Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%. That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, [for domestic applicants], and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2. Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%. This contrast provides further evidence of the incremental importance of an athletic rating of 2”

This comes straight from Harvard. Now explain to us exactly why Harvard is wrong.

This seems to put this issue to rest. Believe what you want but this is the reality.

Sports is not just another extra curricular. It’s something that takes a lot of time and effort but can really buttress academic credentials, at least at Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

You're talking about " soft support" or "preferred walking status," right? How much does it help really? My DC is not formally recruited but the coach said he would add his soft support tag to the application. No guarantee, he reiterated.

I'm wondering whether it would be just a tie breaker or something that may pull DC over the line if competitive.

It might break a tie…and it’s possible in a remote chance that one of the actual recruits at say Harvard ends up going elsewhere since there is no ED keeping them and maybe you were the #1 walk on.

Main point is kids getting a 2 are still recruited. These aren’t just random applicants who were the captain of a competitive team because sometimes those kids aren’t even starters but they are great motivators and leaders. There is no way to know how strong a player a random captain may be to get a 2.

By definition, a 2 is not being recruited. Look at the criteria again.

There is zero way to say a kid is a possible walk on unless the coach has seen them, interacted with them and makes that distinction.

They aren’t recruited in the sense that they are a lock, but they aren’t a random applicant either.

Yes, DC is going through this in a niche sport. In contact with coaches. Probably won't get the slot at top schools but could qualify as a walk on, maybe. It's a whole process that begins junior year.

Can you share how the walk on process works for your sport?

DC is hitting the walk on times for D1 and recruit times for D3. Currently finishing 10th grade so I'm just beginning to learn the process.

If she is already hitting the times in 10th grade, she will be in good shape. Generally, June of her junior year she will begin the process of filling out the recruiting questionnaires on the websites, DMing the coaches from the schools she wants to go to, and start sending them emails. For T/F (which your daughter seems to be) it is a crappy and stressful process because it is very truncated.

She begins reaching out in June and will send her transcripts and test scores to do a "pre-read"; she will get engagements in July/August; interest will firm up in late August/early Sept. You will go to official visits in September/early October, and will make your choice relatively quickly after that. Expect to receive a likely letter before Thanksgiving.

She should start a spreadsheet with the emails and Instagram handles of the coaches at the schools she is interested in. She can begin sharing her information with them ASAP, but their response will be muted. They don't really respond or invest time until they know you will be eligible, which will be determined by the "pre-read" results.

It's stressful, but is worth it.

I'm the PP.. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! We'll start planning ahead, and also see how her times improve junior year. She has a couple different options she's exploring so not all eggs are in the athletic basket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

You're talking about " soft support" or "preferred walking status," right? How much does it help really? My DC is not formally recruited but the coach said he would add his soft support tag to the application. No guarantee, he reiterated.

I'm wondering whether it would be just a tie breaker or something that may pull DC over the line if competitive.

It might break a tie…and it’s possible in a remote chance that one of the actual recruits at say Harvard ends up going elsewhere since there is no ED keeping them and maybe you were the #1 walk on.

Main point is kids getting a 2 are still recruited. These aren’t just random applicants who were the captain of a competitive team because sometimes those kids aren’t even starters but they are great motivators and leaders. There is no way to know how strong a player a random captain may be to get a 2.

By definition, a 2 is not being recruited. Look at the criteria again.

There is zero way to say a kid is a possible walk on unless the coach has seen them, interacted with them and makes that distinction.

They aren’t recruited in the sense that they are a lock, but they aren’t a random applicant either.

Yes, DC is going through this in a niche sport. In contact with coaches. Probably won't get the slot at top schools but could qualify as a walk on, maybe. It's a whole process that begins junior year.

Can you share how the walk on process works for your sport?

DC is hitting the walk on times for D1 and recruit times for D3. Currently finishing 10th grade so I'm just beginning to learn the process.

If she is already hitting the times in 10th grade, she will be in good shape. Generally, June of her junior year she will begin the process of filling out the recruiting questionnaires on the websites, DMing the coaches from the schools she wants to go to, and start sending them emails. For T/F (which your daughter seems to be) it is a crappy and stressful process because it is very truncated.

She begins reaching out in June and will send her transcripts and test scores to do a "pre-read"; she will get engagements in July/August; interest will firm up in late August/early Sept. You will go to official visits in September/early October, and will make your choice relatively quickly after that. Expect to receive a likely letter before Thanksgiving.

She should start a spreadsheet with the emails and Instagram handles of the coaches at the schools she is interested in. She can begin sharing her information with them ASAP, but their response will be muted. They don't really respond or invest time until they know you will be eligible, which will be determined by the "pre-read" results.

It's stressful, but is worth it.

I'm the PP.. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! We'll start planning ahead, and also see how her times improve junior year. She has a couple different options she's exploring so not all eggs are in the athletic basket.

The advice provided is good but a bit late. Can you give some examples of schools that she is interested in? We can then provide more specific information. If she is hoping for Ivy or Patriot League schools she should be fully engaged with the coaches now. For high academic D3 the timeline is later but some schools will start making decisions by early next year so some contact should be starting as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

You're talking about " soft support" or "preferred walking status," right? How much does it help really? My DC is not formally recruited but the coach said he would add his soft support tag to the application. No guarantee, he reiterated.

I'm wondering whether it would be just a tie breaker or something that may pull DC over the line if competitive.

It might break a tie…and it’s possible in a remote chance that one of the actual recruits at say Harvard ends up going elsewhere since there is no ED keeping them and maybe you were the #1 walk on.

Main point is kids getting a 2 are still recruited. These aren’t just random applicants who were the captain of a competitive team because sometimes those kids aren’t even starters but they are great motivators and leaders. There is no way to know how strong a player a random captain may be to get a 2.

By definition, a 2 is not being recruited. Look at the criteria again.

There is zero way to say a kid is a possible walk on unless the coach has seen them, interacted with them and makes that distinction.

They aren’t recruited in the sense that they are a lock, but they aren’t a random applicant either.

Yes, DC is going through this in a niche sport. In contact with coaches. Probably won't get the slot at top schools but could qualify as a walk on, maybe. It's a whole process that begins junior year.

Can you share how the walk on process works for your sport?

DC is hitting the walk on times for D1 and recruit times for D3. Currently finishing 10th grade so I'm just beginning to learn the process.

If she is already hitting the times in 10th grade, she will be in good shape. Generally, June of her junior year she will begin the process of filling out the recruiting questionnaires on the websites, DMing the coaches from the schools she wants to go to, and start sending them emails. For T/F (which your daughter seems to be) it is a crappy and stressful process because it is very truncated.

She begins reaching out in June and will send her transcripts and test scores to do a "pre-read"; she will get engagements in July/August; interest will firm up in late August/early Sept. You will go to official visits in September/early October, and will make your choice relatively quickly after that. Expect to receive a likely letter before Thanksgiving.

She should start a spreadsheet with the emails and Instagram handles of the coaches at the schools she is interested in. She can begin sharing her information with them ASAP, but their response will be muted. They don't really respond or invest time until they know you will be eligible, which will be determined by the "pre-read" results.

It's stressful, but is worth it.

I'm the PP.. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! We'll start planning ahead, and also see how her times improve junior year. She has a couple different options she's exploring so not all eggs are in the athletic basket.

The advice provided is good but a bit late. Can you give some examples of schools that she is interested in? We can then provide more specific information. If she is hoping for Ivy or Patriot League schools she should be fully engaged with the coaches now. For high academic D3 the timeline is later but some schools will start making decisions by early next year so some contact should be starting as well.

First choice would be preferred walk on at an Ivy (with legacy and sibling already there). I don't know if she will hit the recruit times next year (currently finishing sophomore year and training hard but we've made clear there's no pressure to hit recruit times.) And it's unclear how preferred walk on works at Ivies (starting to look into it now). She's hitting times for Chicago, Hopkins, Williams. She would be academically qualified for all those schools, and may not even go the running route if she can gain acceptance otherwise. Will also pursue ROTC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

You're talking about " soft support" or "preferred walking status," right? How much does it help really? My DC is not formally recruited but the coach said he would add his soft support tag to the application. No guarantee, he reiterated.

I'm wondering whether it would be just a tie breaker or something that may pull DC over the line if competitive.

It might break a tie…and it’s possible in a remote chance that one of the actual recruits at say Harvard ends up going elsewhere since there is no ED keeping them and maybe you were the #1 walk on.

Main point is kids getting a 2 are still recruited. These aren’t just random applicants who were the captain of a competitive team because sometimes those kids aren’t even starters but they are great motivators and leaders. There is no way to know how strong a player a random captain may be to get a 2.

By definition, a 2 is not being recruited. Look at the criteria again.

There is zero way to say a kid is a possible walk on unless the coach has seen them, interacted with them and makes that distinction.

They aren’t recruited in the sense that they are a lock, but they aren’t a random applicant either.

Yes, DC is going through this in a niche sport. In contact with coaches. Probably won't get the slot at top schools but could qualify as a walk on, maybe. It's a whole process that begins junior year.

Can you share how the walk on process works for your sport?

DC is hitting the walk on times for D1 and recruit times for D3. Currently finishing 10th grade so I'm just beginning to learn the process.

If she is already hitting the times in 10th grade, she will be in good shape. Generally, June of her junior year she will begin the process of filling out the recruiting questionnaires on the websites, DMing the coaches from the schools she wants to go to, and start sending them emails. For T/F (which your daughter seems to be) it is a crappy and stressful process because it is very truncated.

She begins reaching out in June and will send her transcripts and test scores to do a "pre-read"; she will get engagements in July/August; interest will firm up in late August/early Sept. You will go to official visits in September/early October, and will make your choice relatively quickly after that. Expect to receive a likely letter before Thanksgiving.

She should start a spreadsheet with the emails and Instagram handles of the coaches at the schools she is interested in. She can begin sharing her information with them ASAP, but their response will be muted. They don't really respond or invest time until they know you will be eligible, which will be determined by the "pre-read" results.

It's stressful, but is worth it.

I'm the PP.. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! We'll start planning ahead, and also see how her times improve junior year. She has a couple different options she's exploring so not all eggs are in the athletic basket.

The advice provided is good but a bit late. Can you give some examples of schools that she is interested in? We can then provide more specific information. If she is hoping for Ivy or Patriot League schools she should be fully engaged with the coaches now. For high academic D3 the timeline is later but some schools will start making decisions by early next year so some contact should be starting as well.

First choice would be preferred walk on at an Ivy (with legacy and sibling already there). I don't know if she will hit the recruit times next year (currently finishing sophomore year and training hard but we've made clear there's no pressure to hit recruit times.) And it's unclear how preferred walk on works at Ivies (starting to look into it now). She's hitting times for Chicago, Hopkins, Williams. She would be academically qualified for all those schools, and may not even go the running route if she can gain acceptance otherwise. Will also pursue ROTC.

Ok, this helps. Of the D3 schools mentioned Chicago typically signs earliest in my experience. Hopefully she is in contact now. For other sports I have seen verbals as early as late fall junior year. Hopkins and the NESCACs follow the pre-read after June schedule mentioned above but they will already know who they like so it’s a formality in some ways. They will start making verbals on July 1 before junior year. You will likely need a 1500 to cross the bar at Hopkins.

Not as familiar with preferred walk in at the Ivies. For regular recruits they will apply EA in the fall and receive a LL after the full application is submitted. The offer date is solely dependent on needs and I have seen things drag on beyond the EA date at one Ivy in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

You're talking about " soft support" or "preferred walking status," right? How much does it help really? My DC is not formally recruited but the coach said he would add his soft support tag to the application. No guarantee, he reiterated.

I'm wondering whether it would be just a tie breaker or something that may pull DC over the line if competitive.

It might break a tie…and it’s possible in a remote chance that one of the actual recruits at say Harvard ends up going elsewhere since there is no ED keeping them and maybe you were the #1 walk on.

Main point is kids getting a 2 are still recruited. These aren’t just random applicants who were the captain of a competitive team because sometimes those kids aren’t even starters but they are great motivators and leaders. There is no way to know how strong a player a random captain may be to get a 2.

By definition, a 2 is not being recruited. Look at the criteria again.

There is zero way to say a kid is a possible walk on unless the coach has seen them, interacted with them and makes that distinction.

They aren’t recruited in the sense that they are a lock, but they aren’t a random applicant either.

Yes, DC is going through this in a niche sport. In contact with coaches. Probably won't get the slot at top schools but could qualify as a walk on, maybe. It's a whole process that begins junior year.

Can you share how the walk on process works for your sport?

DC is hitting the walk on times for D1 and recruit times for D3. Currently finishing 10th grade so I'm just beginning to learn the process.

If she is already hitting the times in 10th grade, she will be in good shape. Generally, June of her junior year she will begin the process of filling out the recruiting questionnaires on the websites, DMing the coaches from the schools she wants to go to, and start sending them emails. For T/F (which your daughter seems to be) it is a crappy and stressful process because it is very truncated.

She begins reaching out in June and will send her transcripts and test scores to do a "pre-read"; she will get engagements in July/August; interest will firm up in late August/early Sept. You will go to official visits in September/early October, and will make your choice relatively quickly after that. Expect to receive a likely letter before Thanksgiving.

She should start a spreadsheet with the emails and Instagram handles of the coaches at the schools she is interested in. She can begin sharing her information with them ASAP, but their response will be muted. They don't really respond or invest time until they know you will be eligible, which will be determined by the "pre-read" results.

It's stressful, but is worth it.

I'm the PP.. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! We'll start planning ahead, and also see how her times improve junior year. She has a couple different options she's exploring so not all eggs are in the athletic basket.

The advice provided is good but a bit late. Can you give some examples of schools that she is interested in? We can then provide more specific information. If she is hoping for Ivy or Patriot League schools she should be fully engaged with the coaches now. For high academic D3 the timeline is later but some schools will start making decisions by early next year so some contact should be starting as well.

First choice would be preferred walk on at an Ivy (with legacy and sibling already there). I don't know if she will hit the recruit times next year (currently finishing sophomore year and training hard but we've made clear there's no pressure to hit recruit times.) And it's unclear how preferred walk on works at Ivies (starting to look into it now). She's hitting times for Chicago, Hopkins, Williams. She would be academically qualified for all those schools, and may not even go the running route if she can gain acceptance otherwise. Will also pursue ROTC.

This should be a huge concern. Does she not love the sport- because that is generally not a good reason to recruit (for admissions).

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

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

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

You're talking about " soft support" or "preferred walking status," right? How much does it help really? My DC is not formally recruited but the coach said he would add his soft support tag to the application. No guarantee, he reiterated.

I'm wondering whether it would be just a tie breaker or something that may pull DC over the line if competitive.

It might break a tie…and it’s possible in a remote chance that one of the actual recruits at say Harvard ends up going elsewhere since there is no ED keeping them and maybe you were the #1 walk on.

Main point is kids getting a 2 are still recruited. These aren’t just random applicants who were the captain of a competitive team because sometimes those kids aren’t even starters but they are great motivators and leaders. There is no way to know how strong a player a random captain may be to get a 2.

By definition, a 2 is not being recruited. Look at the criteria again.

There is zero way to say a kid is a possible walk on unless the coach has seen them, interacted with them and makes that distinction.

They aren’t recruited in the sense that they are a lock, but they aren’t a random applicant either.

Yes, DC is going through this in a niche sport. In contact with coaches. Probably won't get the slot at top schools but could qualify as a walk on, maybe. It's a whole process that begins junior year.

Can you share how the walk on process works for your sport?

DC is hitting the walk on times for D1 and recruit times for D3. Currently finishing 10th grade so I'm just beginning to learn the process.

If she is already hitting the times in 10th grade, she will be in good shape. Generally, June of her junior year she will begin the process of filling out the recruiting questionnaires on the websites, DMing the coaches from the schools she wants to go to, and start sending them emails. For T/F (which your daughter seems to be) it is a crappy and stressful process because it is very truncated.

She begins reaching out in June and will send her transcripts and test scores to do a "pre-read"; she will get engagements in July/August; interest will firm up in late August/early Sept. You will go to official visits in September/early October, and will make your choice relatively quickly after that. Expect to receive a likely letter before Thanksgiving.

She should start a spreadsheet with the emails and Instagram handles of the coaches at the schools she is interested in. She can begin sharing her information with them ASAP, but their response will be muted. They don't really respond or invest time until they know you will be eligible, which will be determined by the "pre-read" results.

It's stressful, but is worth it.

I'm the PP.. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question! We'll start planning ahead, and also see how her times improve junior year. She has a couple different options she's exploring so not all eggs are in the athletic basket.

The advice provided is good but a bit late. Can you give some examples of schools that she is interested in? We can then provide more specific information. If she is hoping for Ivy or Patriot League schools she should be fully engaged with the coaches now. For high academic D3 the timeline is later but some schools will start making decisions by early next year so some contact should be starting as well.

First choice would be preferred walk on at an Ivy (with legacy and sibling already there). I don't know if she will hit the recruit times next year (currently finishing sophomore year and training hard but we've made clear there's no pressure to hit recruit times.) And it's unclear how preferred walk on works at Ivies (starting to look into it now). She's hitting times for Chicago, Hopkins, Williams. She would be academically qualified for all those schools, and may not even go the running route if she can gain acceptance otherwise. Will also pursue ROTC.

This should be a huge concern. Does she not love the sport- because that is generally not a good reason to recruit (for admissions).

She loves the sport, but being an athlete in college is something that needs serious consideration. Plus there is the ROTC aspect - not sure if she wants to compete as an athlete + ROTC - both significant commitments. Most importantly, she wants academic fit over the school, and she's not hitting D1 times (at least not yet as a sophomore).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does academic decathlon move the needle at all? My kid was asked to join it for next year (he is a rising junior) but I worry it will be a lot of work

He should do it because he wants to. If he has other stuff he wants to focus on, then he should pass it up.

+1. This is the advice I always give my kids. They are both teens, 9th and senior, so we just went though the application process.

Never do or don’t do something just for college. Do it because you want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

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

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

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

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

This is absolutely wrong. In Harvard's own words:

Non-academic skills are scarce:

Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating”

Non-academic skills explain admissions decisions better than academic skills:

“Another way to see the importance of non-academic dimensions relative to academic dimensions of excellence is to examine how important each element is in explaining which applicants are admitted…. In Prof. Arcidiacono’s expanded sample, the Pseudo RSquared of a model that includes only the academic rating as a control variable is 0.09, while the Pseudo R-Squared of models that include each of the three non-academic ratings as the sole control variables are 0.20 (personal), 0.09 (extracurricular), and 0.08 (athletic), and the Pseudo R-Squared for a model that includes all three non-academic ratings as control variables is 0.32."

The athletic rating explains virtually as much admissions variation as the extracurricular rating does.

Being multi-dimensional is important:

“Exhibit 6 shows that only 12% of admitted students are “one-dimensional stars” with a rating of 1 on one dimension but fewer than three ratings of 2 or better, while 46% are multi-dimensional applicants with three or four ratings of 2 or better, and 31% have two ratings of 2 and two ratings of 3. These statistics are yet another way to show the value that Harvard places on applicants who distinguish themselves on multiple dimensions.”

And the clincher:

Athletic rating is important:

“Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%. That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, [for domestic applicants], and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2. Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%. This contrast provides further evidence of the incremental importance of an athletic rating of 2”

This comes straight from Harvard. Now explain to us exactly why Harvard is wrong.

This seems to put this issue to rest. Believe what you want but this is the reality.

Sports is not just another extra curricular. It’s something that takes a lot of time and effort but can really buttress academic credentials, at least at Harvard.

Again…the way a 2 was described for Harvard was a kid who wasn’t being given an official sports slot (I.e, a 1) but had the potential to walk on the team.

Hence…a 2 is still a recruited athlete…that person had discussions with the coach, the coach like them enough to give them a little nod to the AOs, etc.

It’s not a random kid applying who the coach doesn’t know. No AO is just looking at an EC on an application and deciding that kid can be a walk on…that’s basically impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

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

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

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

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

This is absolutely wrong. In Harvard's own words:

Non-academic skills are scarce:

Applicants with a rating of 2 or better on at least three dimensions are even rarer—just 7% of the applicant pool. These data indicate that high ratings on non-academic dimensions (and particularly on multiple non-academic dimensions) distinguish applicants in the pool much more effectively than a high academic rating”

Non-academic skills explain admissions decisions better than academic skills:

“Another way to see the importance of non-academic dimensions relative to academic dimensions of excellence is to examine how important each element is in explaining which applicants are admitted…. In Prof. Arcidiacono’s expanded sample, the Pseudo RSquared of a model that includes only the academic rating as a control variable is 0.09, while the Pseudo R-Squared of models that include each of the three non-academic ratings as the sole control variables are 0.20 (personal), 0.09 (extracurricular), and 0.08 (athletic), and the Pseudo R-Squared for a model that includes all three non-academic ratings as control variables is 0.32."

The athletic rating explains virtually as much admissions variation as the extracurricular rating does.

Being multi-dimensional is important:

“Exhibit 6 shows that only 12% of admitted students are “one-dimensional stars” with a rating of 1 on one dimension but fewer than three ratings of 2 or better, while 46% are multi-dimensional applicants with three or four ratings of 2 or better, and 31% have two ratings of 2 and two ratings of 3. These statistics are yet another way to show the value that Harvard places on applicants who distinguish themselves on multiple dimensions.”

And the clincher:

Athletic rating is important:

“Harvard’s admissions data confirm the importance of the athletic rating. For example, applicants with an athletic rating of 2 have an admission rate of 12%. That is substantially higher than the overall admission rate of approximately 7%, [for domestic applicants], and is the same as the admission rate of applicants with an academic rating of 2. Further, as shown above, receiving a rating of 2 on all four profile ratings is associated with an admission rate of 68%, while receiving a rating of 2 on the three non-athletic ratings and a rating of 3 or worse on the athletic rating is associated with an admission rate of only 48%. This contrast provides further evidence of the incremental importance of an athletic rating of 2”

This comes straight from Harvard. Now explain to us exactly why Harvard is wrong.

This seems to put this issue to rest. Believe what you want but this is the reality.

Sports is not just another extra curricular. It’s something that takes a lot of time and effort but can really buttress academic credentials, at least at Harvard.

Again…the way a 2 was described for Harvard was a kid who wasn’t being given an official sports slot (I.e, a 1) but had the potential to walk on the team.

Hence…a 2 is still a recruited athlete…that person had discussions with the coach, the coach like them enough to give them a little nod to the AOs, etc.

It’s not a random kid applying who the coach doesn’t know. No AO is just looking at an EC on an application and deciding that kid can be a walk on…that’s basically impossible.

Not true. Good enough to potentially be a walk on but not necessarily a walk on is the criteria. It is about the level of excellence.