Recruited athletes don’t have lower stats!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol. Yeah right. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you

+100
How utterly absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. To clarify, they were referring to D3 athletes at competitive schools.

My understanding is that the top D3 schools' prereads are hard to get through. The amount of help an athlete gets varies. For NESCAC's, a coach submits paperwork and is told "if you support this kid we will accept them", and then the coach makes an offer. But to get that nod from admissions that student needs to have stats that are similar to other students that are accepted. So, basically, the coach can move the kids from "would have a chance" to "yes", but not from "no" to "yes".

At other schools like MIT or JHU, the coach can help but not quite as much, so they can tell admissions, "I'd like you took carefully at this kid", but it's not a sure thing.

And then there are schools like Caltech where athletics aren't weighed into the admissions decision at all.

For NESCACs, this translates to: We have 130 kids with roughly the same stats and 30 of them will get admitted. If there are 22 athletes in that pool with coach support, 100% of the athletes will be admitted and 92% of the other kids in that pool will be rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The jealousy that nerdy kids and parents on DCUM have towards athletes is really funny.

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jealousy that nerdy kids and parents on DCUM have towards athletes is really funny.

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

And yet, coaches and parents with actual experience are saying the opposite here. Kids are NOT getting into selective schools as athletes unless they also have the academic chops. So, you’re wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jealousy that nerdy kids and parents on DCUM have towards athletes is really funny.

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

If you’re an athlete, you must be less qualified academically? That’s bold, PP. Ever think that some kids are just good at everything? Super smart, good looking, athletic, sociable, kids do exist.

[Anonymous]

My DS did not get through a pre-read at a top ten SLAC. We weren't surprised at all. My DS was not targeting this school at all because he didn't have the rigor or grades. My DS is not a "dumb jock" but he's also not a A+ 1500 SAT student. He had an A- in high school and a 1300 SAT. The coach at this SLAC reached out to my DS after he saw him at a showcase. My DH and I talked to the coach and the first thing we asked him was "have you seen his grades?" He assured us he had pull and felt confident he could get our DS through admissions. DS sent in his transcript for the pre-read and as we expected, admissions said no. So for this particular school and sport, recruited athletes don't have lower stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DS did not get through a pre-read at a top ten SLAC. We weren't surprised at all. My DS was not targeting this school at all because he didn't have the rigor or grades. My DS is not a "dumb jock" but he's also not a A+ 1500 SAT student. He had an A- in high school and a 1300 SAT. The coach at this SLAC reached out to my DS after he saw him at a showcase. My DH and I talked to the coach and the first thing we asked him was "have you seen his grades?" He assured us he had pull and felt confident he could get our DS through admissions. DS sent in his transcript for the pre-read and as we expected, admissions said no. So for this particular school and sport, recruited athletes don't have lower stats.

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DS did not get through a pre-read at a top ten SLAC. We weren't surprised at all. My DS was not targeting this school at all because he didn't have the rigor or grades. My DS is not a "dumb jock" but he's also not a A+ 1500 SAT student. He had an A- in high school and a 1300 SAT. The coach at this SLAC reached out to my DS after he saw him at a showcase. My DH and I talked to the coach and the first thing we asked him was "have you seen his grades?" He assured us he had pull and felt confident he could get our DS through admissions. DS sent in his transcript for the pre-read and as we expected, admissions said no. So for this particular school and sport, recruited athletes don't have lower stats.

PP, would you mind sharing where your DS ended up playing (if he did)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jealousy that nerdy kids and parents on DCUM have towards athletes is really funny.

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

And yet, coaches and parents with actual experience are saying the opposite here. Kids are NOT getting into selective schools as athletes unless they also have the academic chops. So, you’re wrong.

Problem is OP didn’t qualify he meant D3 until the 2nd page of the thread.

I have a kid in active conversations with two Ivy schools for a revenue sport and the guidance is a 1350 is the minimum threshold. Not low, but 200 points lower than the 50%ile for the school.

I don’t know if squash or fencing or some other niche sport has higher thresholds (probably). Also, the actual athlete matters too…my kid is not basketball but I guarantee if a 7’5” five star recruit convinced the Princeton coach that he really wanted to go to Princeton, they would find a way to admit him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. To clarify, they were referring to D3 athletes at competitive schools.

My understanding is that the top D3 schools' prereads are hard to get through. The amount of help an athlete gets varies. For NESCAC's, a coach submits paperwork and is told "if you support this kid we will accept them", and then the coach makes an offer. But to get that nod from admissions that student needs to have stats that are similar to other students that are accepted. So, basically, the coach can move the kids from "would have a chance" to "yes", but not from "no" to "yes".

At other schools like MIT or JHU, the coach can help but not quite as much, so they can tell admissions, "I'd like you took carefully at this kid", but it's not a sure thing.

And then there are schools like Caltech where athletics aren't weighed into the admissions decision at all.

For NESCACs, this translates to: We have 130 kids with roughly the same stats and 30 of them will get admitted. If there are 22 athletes in that pool with coach support, 100% of the athletes will be admitted and 92% of the other kids in that pool will be rejected.

You're making up the numbers. However, you are correct that NESCAC schools let athletes know whether they should apply, so the athletes who are turned away aren't part of their admissions percentages, and close to 100% of recruited athletes who apply with coach support get in. However, I'd guess that more than 92% of athletes who would like to play at a NESCAC don't get coach support, either because they aren't good enough athletes, or they don't fill a need (e.g. they might be a goalie and the team has two) or they can't pass the pre-read.

But also, no one is arguing that being recruited doesn't help kids with strong stats get accepted over other kids with similar stats, unless you're applying to Caltech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jealousy that nerdy kids and parents on DCUM have towards athletes is really funny.

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

And yet, coaches and parents with actual experience are saying the opposite here. Kids are NOT getting into selective schools as athletes unless they also have the academic chops. So, you’re wrong.

Problem is OP didn’t qualify he meant D3 until the 2nd page of the thread.

I have a kid in active conversations with two Ivy schools for a revenue sport and the guidance is a 1350 is the minimum threshold. Not low, but 200 points lower than the 50%ile for the school.

I don’t know if squash or fencing or some other niche sport has higher thresholds (probably). Also, the actual athlete matters too…my kid is not basketball but I guarantee if a 7’5” five star recruit convinced the Princeton coach that he really wanted to go to Princeton, they would find a way to admit him.

More than half of the students at Ivies are below the 50th %ile, because that's the 50th %ile of kids who choose to submit their scores. So, saying that you know some kid who has been told they have a chance of getting through a pre read below the 50th doesn't say much. Other kids below the 50th also have a chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jealousy that nerdy kids and parents on DCUM have towards athletes is really funny.

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

And yet, coaches and parents with actual experience are saying the opposite here. Kids are NOT getting into selective schools as athletes unless they also have the academic chops. So, you’re wrong.

Problem is OP didn’t qualify he meant D3 until the 2nd page of the thread.

I have a kid in active conversations with two Ivy schools for a revenue sport and the guidance is a 1350 is the minimum threshold. Not low, but 200 points lower than the 50%ile for the school.

I don’t know if squash or fencing or some other niche sport has higher thresholds (probably). Also, the actual athlete matters too…my kid is not basketball but I guarantee if a 7’5” five star recruit convinced the Princeton coach that he really wanted to go to Princeton, they would find a way to admit him.

More than half of the students at Ivies are below the 50th %ile, because that's the 50th %ile of kids who choose to submit their scores. So, saying that you know some kid who has been told they have a chance of getting through a pre read below the 50th doesn't say much. Other kids below the 50th also have a chance.

It’s my kid…not I know a kid. Ivy schools are D1 and it is far more straightforward sports recruiting compared to selective SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jealousy that nerdy kids and parents on DCUM have towards athletes is really funny.

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

If you’re an athlete, you must be less qualified academically? That’s bold, PP. Ever think that some kids are just good at everything? Super smart, good looking, athletic, sociable, kids do exist.

Keep on dreaming, Mom. Your kid is in because of a hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jealousy that nerdy kids and parents on DCUM have towards athletes is really funny.

The only thing that is funny is how desperate athlete parents are to convince us either that (a) our kids aren’t stupid or (b) if they are it’s because they spend oh so many hours in practice.

Just own it. Your kid is less qualified academically but the school took them to fill a need. But don’t harp on first gen, legacy or other hooks while you do it. Then you’re both desperate and a hypocrite.

And yet, coaches and parents with actual experience are saying the opposite here. Kids are NOT getting into selective schools as athletes unless they also have the academic chops. So, you’re wrong.

And here you are repeating your delusion until you think it’s true.

[Anonymous]

backdoor