Do athletic recruits get decisions before ED?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about high academic D3's? Do coaches know in advance?

Basically, everyone knows in advance - but it can be unwise to go fully public (like posting on a high school college commitment site) because things can happen. Only at the Likely Letter stage has an admissions officer said "yes." Even then, technically something could happen. But, at that point, the "yes" is based on an actual application. So, athletes are advised to wait until decisions are released, for everyone.

Even at elite academic schools like Williams, Chicago or MIT?

As I understand things, Williams and Chicago would be a yes, MIT would be a no. MIT is known for being a bit more pure in this way - have heard the same about CalTech, although my athlete did not interact with them so I can't say for sure (they did have contact with a lot of NE schools, including MIT, as well as Chicago). Ended up at an Ivy.

MIT cares far more about sports then CalTech, but they are upfront to recruits. They will tell say 6 basketball recruits that they are supporting all 6 but in any given year, usually 4 get accepted. All 6 are strong basketball players, so they are fine with the two they lose...but it's not 100%.

CalTech famously hasn't won a conference men's basketball game in like over 10 years and usually at best only wins 1 game overall. MIT was the 2024-2025 D3 national champion for Women's Track & Field, Women's XCountry and Women's Swimming and Diving, and is competitive across all D3 sports.

Yep = I'm the PP, and this is a good explanation. Again, my child did not talk to CalTech, but they heard from peer athletes that it's like MIT. This sounds like it might be even more so. This works because MIT doesn't have ED. So those 6 theoretical basketball players can all apply other places too. I think CalTech has REA, so that is a little trickier, but people can still apply to publics early, including the full UC system. So recruited athletes at these schools are likely not applying to only one school, or if they are, they should do so fully aware that they might have to send out RD apps if they don't get in.

I guess though I distinguish the two schools in that MIT will accept a strong basketball player that only has top grades/scores and nothing else, over a worse basketball player that may also have won Math competitions or published research...while CalTech will pick a kid that has won the Math competitions and has all the accolades and by the way, kind of knows how to play basketball.

The MIT basketball coach would be fired if they had even one season where they went 1-24...while the CalTech basketball team never wins more than 1 game on average and again, hasn't won a conference game since 2011.

More like an applicant who (like other applicants) has top grades/scores, won Math competitions, published research AND IN ADDITION is a strong basketball players. MIT has an enviable pool of extremely qualified applicants larger than available slots.

Not really. Plenty of MIT athletes have little more than high grades and high test scores. They need to know you have the mental chops to do well, but the school (and definitely the coach) don’t care if your sport was your EC

This is correct.

[Anonymous]

From what I understand MIT athletic recruits can be surprised when they apply and then do not get accepted.

[Anonymous]

athletic thumb on the scale is such a big scam.

can't believe after affirmative action ruling schools kept this unfair hook for non-money making sports like squash, crew and x-country running.

how does the rest of the school benefit from having those athletes there taking up space when there are more deserving applicants who have more to offer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:athletic thumb on the scale is such a big scam.

can't believe after affirmative action ruling schools kept this unfair hook for non-money making sports like squash, crew and x-country running.

how does the rest of the school benefit from having those athletes there taking up space when there are more deserving applicants who have more to offer?

DEI for jocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our son committed to his D1 school in February of his junior year. We asked the coach if he was guaranteed admission. The one word answer was “yes.” Our son went through the motions and filled out the application. He was admitted.

Did he say yes, before he saw his transcript?

He sent them his grades. They weren’t worried. They had his PSAT as well. They had 10+ conversations on Zoom. There were no mysteries.

Yea coaches can scan grades and know if it will go through admissions.

I'd like to point out to people who think "athletes have it easier"... this student (as an example) had 10+ interviews with the coaches over Zoom (and most student do this with multiple coaches), in addition to performing in front of them, creating highlight tapes (usually), sending emails, getting rejections, traveling distances to be at tournaments the coaches attend, etc.

So it's nice to know early but it's not "easier".

Oh my goodness. Of course it’s easier. It’s an entirely different and special application process. Recruited athlete is the biggest admissions hook.

Sure, the mechanics of the application process are easier, often because an athlete is sometimes applying to only one place. So fall of senior year is easier than it is for all other students applying EA or ED. But, the year before that is not easier. There is still the building of a list. There are tons of emails, calls and official visits - the visits are especially tricky because the athlete has to miss days of school during junior year when grades matter so much. There are also disappointments/rejections along the way, they're just not all centralized in a short period the way they are for non-athletes. In terms of hours, the athletes put in a LOT of time junior year and for D3, maybe into senior year too. But sure, filling in the Common App and hitting submit is easier, and perhaps you could argue they don't have to agonize over essays, etc. as much (although my athlete still did, just for only one school). They do still have to get LOR and navigate getting their transcripts sent, etc. The process might seem easier when you're the parent of a first-semester senior. But in reality, the process is just elongated - by fall of senior year, they're at the end of a year-long process, while non-athletes are starting it.

Same for other students putting in just as much time building their list, visiting schools, spending time on their ECs, working a real job, emailing schools. They don’t get the extra help athletes get from their coaches and for many, their HS athletics dept. They don’t have to agonize over essays or LORs; it’s taken care of for them.

And it is such a hook. Like no other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about high academic D3's? Do coaches know in advance?

Basically, everyone knows in advance - but it can be unwise to go fully public (like posting on a high school college commitment site) because things can happen. Only at the Likely Letter stage has an admissions officer said "yes." Even then, technically something could happen. But, at that point, the "yes" is based on an actual application. So, athletes are advised to wait until decisions are released, for everyone.

Even at elite academic schools like Williams, Chicago or MIT?

As I understand things, Williams and Chicago would be a yes, MIT would be a no. MIT is known for being a bit more pure in this way - have heard the same about CalTech, although my athlete did not interact with them so I can't say for sure (they did have contact with a lot of NE schools, including MIT, as well as Chicago). Ended up at an Ivy.

MIT cares far more about sports then CalTech, but they are upfront to recruits. They will tell say 6 basketball recruits that they are supporting all 6 but in any given year, usually 4 get accepted. All 6 are strong basketball players, so they are fine with the two they lose...but it's not 100%.

CalTech famously hasn't won a conference men's basketball game in like over 10 years and usually at best only wins 1 game overall. MIT was the 2024-2025 D3 national champion for Women's Track & Field, Women's XCountry and Women's Swimming and Diving, and is competitive across all D3 sports.

Yep = I'm the PP, and this is a good explanation. Again, my child did not talk to CalTech, but they heard from peer athletes that it's like MIT. This sounds like it might be even more so. This works because MIT doesn't have ED. So those 6 theoretical basketball players can all apply other places too. I think CalTech has REA, so that is a little trickier, but people can still apply to publics early, including the full UC system. So recruited athletes at these schools are likely not applying to only one school, or if they are, they should do so fully aware that they might have to send out RD apps if they don't get in.

I guess though I distinguish the two schools in that MIT will accept a strong basketball player that only has top grades/scores and nothing else, over a worse basketball player that may also have won Math competitions or published research...while CalTech will pick a kid that has won the Math competitions and has all the accolades and by the way, kind of knows how to play basketball.

The MIT basketball coach would be fired if they had even one season where they went 1-24...while the CalTech basketball team never wins more than 1 game on average and again, hasn't won a conference game since 2011.

More like an applicant who (like other applicants) has top grades/scores, won Math competitions, published research AND IN ADDITION is a strong basketball players. MIT has an enviable pool of extremely qualified applicants larger than available slots.

This year Blair Magnet sent 11 students (out of 105 senior class) to MIT. They are all well qualified; don't believe anyone was recruited as an athlete.

10% go to MIT?!!!! That is impressive!

[Anonymous]

Why this need to bash athletes? It’s a hard process for everyone, regardless of when they start it, when they end it, who’s involved, what’s involved, what the hooks are, etc. It’s hard for kids who need accommodations. It’s hard for kids whose don’t have experience with the American system. It’s hard for kids who may be dealing with a serious personal issue such as a chronic illness, family dysfunction, etc. it’s hard for kids from poor families. It’s even hard for kids of the rich and famous. It’s human nature to be myopic and believe our kids are more deserving, but we don’t know who else is out there and what they bring to the table that our kid doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:athletic thumb on the scale is such a big scam.

can't believe after affirmative action ruling schools kept this unfair hook for non-money making sports like squash, crew and x-country running.

how does the rest of the school benefit from having those athletes there taking up space when there are more deserving applicants who have more to offer?

Maybe crew alumni donate 10x more than the average 1600 SAT bio major non-athlete alum? Schools have access to their own data, why do people assume don't make logical decisions for themselves??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand MIT athletic recruits can be surprised when they apply and then do not get accepted.

I've heard this too but can't understand why anyone would be surprised to be rejected from MIT. Am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand MIT athletic recruits can be surprised when they apply and then do not get accepted.

I've heard this too but can't understand why anyone would be surprised to be rejected from MIT. Am I missing something?

In most sports, before the athlete commits they have a positive preread and know 99% they will be accepted. At MIT we were told directly by the coach that 50% of the recruits on his list would be accepted. So it is different from nearly every other process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand MIT athletic recruits can be surprised when they apply and then do not get accepted.

I've heard this too but can't understand why anyone would be surprised to be rejected from MIT. Am I missing something?

In most sports, before the athlete commits they have a positive preread and know 99% they will be accepted. At MIT we were told directly by the coach that 50% of the recruits on his list would be accepted. So it is different from nearly every other process.

This is also what DC was told at MIT. Coach puts in 8 names and on average 4 get accepted. No idea who or why

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletic thumb on the scale is such a big scam.

can't believe after affirmative action ruling schools kept this unfair hook for non-money making sports like squash, crew and x-country running.

how does the rest of the school benefit from having those athletes there taking up space when there are more deserving applicants who have more to offer?

DEI for jocks.

Here we go again. It's just unfathomable for some people to grasp that there are athletes that ALSO have top grades and scores. It's a few exceptions that everyone harps on about. The top schools get more qualified applicants than they can accept. So they get to pick and choose. It's life. Get over it. I don't know who you are, but I'm guessing your child had/has an advantage over others, in terms of access to academic resources, money, etc. Should they not get a spot because of that advantage? It is what it is. The school doesn't necessarily benefit more from having a 4.0 UW/1600 than an athlete who is 3.9/1550. It just doesn't. Either is fine and both are qualified, but - hey - they needed a swimmer. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletic thumb on the scale is such a big scam.

can't believe after affirmative action ruling schools kept this unfair hook for non-money making sports like squash, crew and x-country running.

how does the rest of the school benefit from having those athletes there taking up space when there are more deserving applicants who have more to offer?

DEI for jocks.

Here's the thing: "more deserving applicants who have more to offer" is completely in the eye of the school. Your opinion on who is more deserving and has more to offer may be different than the school's. They get to decide. They may feel the athlete has more to offer. You may disagree. You have the right to do that. But you're not making the decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our son committed to his D1 school in February of his junior year. We asked the coach if he was guaranteed admission. The one word answer was “yes.” Our son went through the motions and filled out the application. He was admitted.

Did he say yes, before he saw his transcript?

He sent them his grades. They weren’t worried. They had his PSAT as well. They had 10+ conversations on Zoom. There were no mysteries.

Yea coaches can scan grades and know if it will go through admissions.

I'd like to point out to people who think "athletes have it easier"... this student (as an example) had 10+ interviews with the coaches over Zoom (and most student do this with multiple coaches), in addition to performing in front of them, creating highlight tapes (usually), sending emails, getting rejections, traveling distances to be at tournaments the coaches attend, etc.

So it's nice to know early but it's not "easier".

Oh my goodness. Of course it’s easier. It’s an entirely different and special application process. Recruited athlete is the biggest admissions hook.

Yes it is. The only ones not willing to admit it's easier are the recipients of this "biggest admission hook' themselves or their parents.

An advantage is an advantage. Getting an admission hook or advantage is not a hardship.

No it isn’t it’s a grueling multi year process vs filling out applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our son committed to his D1 school in February of his junior year. We asked the coach if he was guaranteed admission. The one word answer was “yes.” Our son went through the motions and filled out the application. He was admitted.

Did he say yes, before he saw his transcript?

He sent them his grades. They weren’t worried. They had his PSAT as well. They had 10+ conversations on Zoom. There were no mysteries.

Yea coaches can scan grades and know if it will go through admissions.

I'd like to point out to people who think "athletes have it easier"... this student (as an example) had 10+ interviews with the coaches over Zoom (and most student do this with multiple coaches), in addition to performing in front of them, creating highlight tapes (usually), sending emails, getting rejections, traveling distances to be at tournaments the coaches attend, etc.

So it's nice to know early but it's not "easier".

Oh my goodness. Of course it’s easier. It’s an entirely different and special application process. Recruited athlete is the biggest admissions hook.

Yes it is. The only ones not willing to admit it's easier are the recipients of this "biggest admission hook' themselves or their parents.

An advantage is an advantage. Getting an admission hook or advantage is not a hardship.

No it isn’t it’s a grueling multi year process vs filling out applications.

Yes. That's the thing people seem to be missing. I'm not saying athletes are more or less deserving, but it's a hook that they have to work for - both in terms of the sport and then the recruitment process (which is really a misnomer, because that makes it sound like they sit on the soft and wait for coaches to call them when it's very much the opposite). So it's not really comparable to a legacy, for instance.