Advice from Ivy Coach re not listing sports on college application

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was disappointed to read this article from Ivy Coach that says that if your child is not going to be a recruited athlete, your child should not include their sports on the common app. I see the argument that it's not going to help my DC to stand out from the application pool and therefore, DC needs to focus on other ECs, but to say that an activity that takes up over 15 hours a week of DC's time each week (my DC plays on two school varsity teams, but isn't good enough to be a recruited athlete) seems like bad advice to me. I've heard this from other college counselors too, but I am not going to have DC quit sports - exercise is good for physical health and mental health and has enabled my otherwise quiet DC to become friends with lots of terrific kids from DC's school.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/college-admissions/playing-sports-college-applications/

Does anyone here think that DC should actually leave two varsity sports teams off DC's college application? I have otherwise appreciated Ivy Coach's articles but now I'm really questioning their judgment and thinking it's bad advice.

Generally don't take anything seriously if the author doesn't self-identify ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know Ivy Coach, but unless it's a very tiny college, a very small percentage of the student body will be recruited athletes. And if your kid is spending 20 hrs a week on a sport, it's part of their profile as an applicant.

This. Mine does 20 hours a week all year long and has competed at nationals. Of course it's part of their profile.

[Anonymous]

Team "this is mediocre advice" at least to the extent it's presented categorically and without exception.

My hookless DS did three varsity sports all four years and was far from a recruited athlete. He did so because they were fun and he liked being part of the team. He also did other ECs of varying importance. I think DS listed his three sport ECs in the #3-#8 range of common app, which he generally ranked in order of importance. He also listed a paid-coaching job he had as a separate EC, even though it overlapped with one of his varsity sports. Granted, it's a sample size of one, but DS got into Dartmouth (the school mentioned in OP's article) RD and other selective colleges.

My thinking is that admissions officers want to know how applicants spend their free time and why. More than anything, they want authenticity. They mostly want to know "what kind of person is he and how might he fit in at our school?" DS spent a significant amount of time doing sports and it was part of his "authentic self." My concern with DS would have been that replacing such sports with more academic/spikey ECs would have unauthentic. Also, DS had a spike, which he displayed through his personal statement, awards, LORs, and a couple other ECs in his app. I don't think replacing his sport ECs with more spike-focused ECs would have done any more to establish his particular spike; whereas, I think his sport ECs added a new dimension to his application.

Also, I've listened to dozens of AOs proclaim that they do not prefer spikey applicants over well-rounded ones, or vice versa. I think this is particularly true at liberal arts focused schools like Dartmouth, which emphasize academic breadth and community as much as depth.

Finally, I personally believe that college is partly a matching process. If sports are an important part of your DC's high school experience and a particular college doesn't value that, it's probably not a good match anyway.

[Anonymous]

If this was really, really valuable advice, they wouldn't give it away for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Koppleman which is another high-priced college advisory service essentially says the same thing.

Her advice is a bit more nuanced. She thinks it is fine to play one sport AND do lots of other ECs that make for an interesting application.

However, she will tell any 3-sport, unrecruited athlete to give up two of those sports and start spending your time on other more interesting ECs if you want a top school.

I think this is exactly why we have a mental health crisis in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was disappointed to read this article from Ivy Coach that says that if your child is not going to be a recruited athlete, your child should not include their sports on the common app. I see the argument that it's not going to help my DC to stand out from the application pool and therefore, DC needs to focus on other ECs, but to say that an activity that takes up over 15 hours a week of DC's time each week (my DC plays on two school varsity teams, but isn't good enough to be a recruited athlete) seems like bad advice to me. I've heard this from other college counselors too, but I am not going to have DC quit sports - exercise is good for physical health and mental health and has enabled my otherwise quiet DC to become friends with lots of terrific kids from DC's school.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/college-admissions/playing-sports-college-applications/

Does anyone here think that DC should actually leave two varsity sports teams off DC's college application? I have otherwise appreciated Ivy Coach's articles but now I'm really questioning their judgment and thinking it's bad advice.

Abject, unmitigated idiocy. Participation in HS athletics is often the great differentiator for the exceptionally high-achieving students, and not just at the recruited athlete level. Think of the time commitment, resolve, and grit that are necessary in individual and especially team sports - we're seriously going to pretend that membership or participation in the NHS, the Key Club, SADD and a random Rubik's cube competition are the signals that AOs are looking for ... ?

Student A: 4.00 unweighted, 15 AP classes, all 5s and 1 - 2 4s, 1600 SAT and/or 36 ACT, along with 12 - 15 ECs / awards that mostly align with their college major interests and help to achieve a cohesive narrative in their essays, plus they are a four-year varsity athlete who served as captain senior year and won a state title.

Student B: 4.00 unweighted, 15 AP classes, all 5s and 1 - 2 4s, 1600 SAT and/or 36 ACT, along with 16 - 20 ECs / awards that mostly align with their college major interests and help to achieve a cohesive narrative in their essays.

Student A absolutely trounces Student B in the eyes of AOs ... arguing otherwise is just absurd at this point.

Your example is nuts...both of those kids are superstar students doing tons of ECs and both will be accepted.

I don't understand why you think Student A trounces Student B based on your sports example. Nobody cares if a HS team wins a state title...are you implying that a kid that plays a Spring sport where captains aren't even announced until like Februrary (i.e, well after applications are due) I guess is also SOL?

I'll speak to my own kid's experience this application season, who applied exceptionally far and wide as Student A ... with the exception that his unweighted GPA was 3.8 and not 4.0 ... everything else matches up. Everything. His team sport IS a spring season sport, but because he was a three-year returning varsity athlete, his role as team captain was known well ahead of time (and certainly by the point in time when his R-EA app was submitted).

He had seven Top 25 schools to choose from, including both of the top publics in the country and two Top 10 privates. He obliterated every last one of his classmates who were SBA leadership for four years, actively involved in 10,000 clubs, winning Science Olympiad medals, Rubik's cube competitions, national awards, international awards, etc., but who didn't find time or energy to participate in athletics. The ones who did all of that AND athletics, and there were very few, achieved outcomes during application season just like he did - but the others, hello University of Indiana or UCSB.

Your son’s strategy - one sport and other meaningful ECs makes sense. 3 sports and no other meaningful ECs does not make sense.

Also the stuff highlighted is a joke and not meaningful.

[Anonymous]

The Coach says that, does he?
I'm not listening to him.
He only cares about admission decisions that are made concerning his sport. He doesn't speak for all admissions. He may speak the truth that it doesn't matter much -- the playing in HS but not interested in playing in college -- but it doesn't HURT your application.

[Anonymous]

If he was smarter he would not be a coach.

[Anonymous]

He has to explain to admission people why he won't take a strong student who plays..... on his team.
Then he has to explain, if he does take that student on his team, why his team sucks.

[Anonymous]

I read the post. The idea that elite schools are not looking for well-rounded applicants goes against everything I’ve observed in the admissions process this year. Our kid’s HS has kids (often multiple) going to 15-20 of the top 25 schools, and virtually all of them are well-rounded, including sports (not recruited).

I’m not sure who this advice is for—maybe private school parents looking for some sort of advantage in a hyper-competitive environment?—but at our public, at least, it doesn’t align with reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Team "this is mediocre advice" at least to the extent it's presented categorically and without exception.

My hookless DS did three varsity sports all four years and was far from a recruited athlete. He did so because they were fun and he liked being part of the team. He also did other ECs of varying importance. I think DS listed his three sport ECs in the #3-#8 range of common app, which he generally ranked in order of importance. He also listed a paid-coaching job he had as a separate EC, even though it overlapped with one of his varsity sports. Granted, it's a sample size of one, but DS got into Dartmouth (the school mentioned in OP's article) RD and other selective colleges.

.

My friend's daughter who is at Dartmouth did not do any sports. She also got into Duke and Cornell. Your son likes sports and enjoyed it and that probably reflected in his essays. He must have also been a great student. I think the point is there is no need to do a sport if the kid does not want to, just for college applications. It is better to spend time doing other things that the kid is interested in and enjoys. My son spent a lot of time playing chess when he was in high school and it did not really help him particularly in college admissions. However, he seems to be getting a lot of interviews from hedgefunds and tech firms because of his rating on his resume and has been an intern at a couple for the last two summers. Sometimes things work out differently than planned but loving something you do does seem to help. A kid should do what they enjoy doing and not do things only for college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was disappointed to read this article from Ivy Coach that says that if your child is not going to be a recruited athlete, your child should not include their sports on the common app. I see the argument that it's not going to help my DC to stand out from the application pool and therefore, DC needs to focus on other ECs, but to say that an activity that takes up over 15 hours a week of DC's time each week (my DC plays on two school varsity teams, but isn't good enough to be a recruited athlete) seems like bad advice to me. I've heard this from other college counselors too, but I am not going to have DC quit sports - exercise is good for physical health and mental health and has enabled my otherwise quiet DC to become friends with lots of terrific kids from DC's school.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/college-admissions/playing-sports-college-applications/

Does anyone here think that DC should actually leave two varsity sports teams off DC's college application? I have otherwise appreciated Ivy Coach's articles but now I'm really questioning their judgment and thinking it's bad advice.

Don’t agree at all. My DD played two Varsity sports, captain of one. Would never be recruited but a big part of high experience and lots of time. Think for yourself and use common sense.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, if the article was saying that sports are not a big draw, and if your kid is playing sports just because they think it will look good on an application, it would be better to spend that time on the thing they are presenting as their "passion". I guess I could see how that would be good advice.

But the article seems to say that if you play sports you should hide that, and leave it off the application. That doesn't make sense to me. My kid will keep playing sports, because he enjoys playing sports and does better with a routine that includes exercise. Not writing the sports in the list of EC's isn't going to make him look better in the college application process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read the post. The idea that elite schools are not looking for well-rounded applicants goes against everything I’ve observed in the admissions process this year. Our kid’s HS has kids (often multiple) going to 15-20 of the top 25 schools, and virtually all of them are well-rounded, including sports (not recruited).

I’m not sure who this advice is for—maybe private school parents looking for some sort of advantage in a hyper-competitive environment?—but at our public, at least, it doesn’t align with reality.

OP: Thank you for this comment. I've seen so many articles and books and college counselors who are trying to say that being well-rounded is bad (just like this article) and elite schools are only looking for extremely spiky candidates who have one niche interest, so I'm almost waiting for the pendulum to swing the other way at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the post. The idea that elite schools are not looking for well-rounded applicants goes against everything I’ve observed in the admissions process this year. Our kid’s HS has kids (often multiple) going to 15-20 of the top 25 schools, and virtually all of them are well-rounded, including sports (not recruited).

I’m not sure who this advice is for—maybe private school parents looking for some sort of advantage in a hyper-competitive environment?—but at our public, at least, it doesn’t align with reality.

OP: Thank you for this comment. I've seen so many articles and books and college counselors who are trying to say that being well-rounded is bad (just like this article) and elite schools are only looking for extremely spiky candidates who have one niche interest, so I'm almost waiting for the pendulum to swing the other way at this point.

The are looking for best candidates in both segments of the applicant pool.