HS junior athletes, already committed to top schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

Can you elaborate on this? How is your musician kid better off financially? Is he going to be the next Justin Beiber or Shawn Mendes?

Because he can compare financial aid offers which is a huge benefit.

In order to get any admissions benefit at D3 schools, my athlete kid has to sign away his right to compare offers, which is a huge problem for us.

[Anonymous]

Wow, no race-based affirmative action, but all this, which arguably benefits rich and whites who possibly couldn't get in otherwise. The sports are perfectly fine—the preferences are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

I went to Northwestern which absolutely recruits for MB, theater, all kinds of music.

[Anonymous]

If a kid has received an athletic offer from a top private, do they have to abide by SCEA rules as well? Or are they allowed to shop around for athletic offers at other top privates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

Stanford recruits for marching band.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

I went to Northwestern which absolutely recruits for MB, theater, all kinds of music.

Of course, but Lax kid can be a chem major. Does music recruit have to be music major? Even "music recruit" is LOL for me. Look at the numbers. College recruit and gives admissions to sometimes a hundred plus athletes. Music is just not in the same world

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

I went to Northwestern which absolutely recruits for MB, theater, all kinds of music.

Of course, but Lax kid can be a chem major. Does music recruit have to be music major? Even "music recruit" is LOL for me. Look at the numbers. College recruit and gives admissions to sometimes a hundred plus athletes. Music is just not in the same world

A music kid could be recruited for MB, which is an extracurricular, or for the conservatory. If they go to the conservatory, then they don't have to meet academic requirements that are similar to what athletes have to meet, because they get credit for their music as an academic discipline.

The school "recruits" in the manner I spoke of about 100 music students a year for the school of music, some number for the MB (some of whom are in the school of music) and some number of musical theater majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

I went to Northwestern which absolutely recruits for MB, theater, all kinds of music.

Of course, but Lax kid can be a chem major. Does music recruit have to be music major? Even "music recruit" is LOL for me. Look at the numbers. College recruit and gives admissions to sometimes a hundred plus athletes. Music is just not in the same world

At a P5 school like Northwestern, the athletic requirements make it really challenging or impossible for most athletes to do lab sciences, enginering or other intensive subjects. They are steered away. It's probably more realistic to get in through the school of music, and add or switch to a science or engineering major, than it is to pull off one of those majors as an athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a kid has received an athletic offer from a top private, do they have to abide by SCEA rules as well? Or are they allowed to shop around for athletic offers at other top privates?

It depends what you mean by offers.

If you consider it an offer when a coach says to a kid "I ran your numbers through admissions, and if I support your application, they will accept you. Would you like to apply ED/SCEA with my support?" Then a kid maybe able to say "Yes", and continue to talk to other coaches.

But once the kid submits the ED/SCEA paperwork, then no, the other doors are closed.

It is very hard for a kid to get a coach's support for RD spot, so if a kid's first choice is MIT, for example, which doesn't support athletes through admissions, then they have to give up the possibility of having that support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

I went to Northwestern which absolutely recruits for MB, theater, all kinds of music.

Of course, but Lax kid can be a chem major. Does music recruit have to be music major? Even "music recruit" is LOL for me. Look at the numbers. College recruit and gives admissions to sometimes a hundred plus athletes. Music is just not in the same world

At a P5 school like Northwestern, the athletic requirements make it really challenging or impossible for most athletes to do lab sciences, enginering or other intensive subjects. They are steered away. It's probably more realistic to get in through the school of music, and add or switch to a science or engineering major, than it is to pull off one of those majors as an athlete.

Depends on the school. This isn’t true across the board.

It feels like your information is quite old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that your musician has to apply as a music major. Correct? It is not as though they are being recruited for the jazz band and they can major in engineering. I guess they could apply as a music major, get accepted and then pick a new major…but that’s tricky.

The athlete is not applying to the school as a PE major or a Sports major (though maybe they would love this). They are applying for say a finance degree and they play the sport as an EC.

I don’t think folks would care much if there were the equivalent of Julliard for sports. Basically if IMG started a college.

Kids on scholarships for marching band do not have to major in music.

OK...but that was not the example used by PP. Do "top" schools recruit for the Marching Band? My niece received a stipend for the University of South Carolina marching band, but I don't consider that a top school.

I went to Northwestern which absolutely recruits for MB, theater, all kinds of music.

Of course, but Lax kid can be a chem major. Does music recruit have to be music major? Even "music recruit" is LOL for me. Look at the numbers. College recruit and gives admissions to sometimes a hundred plus athletes. Music is just not in the same world

At a P5 school like Northwestern, the athletic requirements make it really challenging or impossible for most athletes to do lab sciences, enginering or other intensive subjects. They are steered away. It's probably more realistic to get in through the school of music, and add or switch to a science or engineering major, than it is to pull off one of those majors as an athlete.

This is sort of still true at NW, personally know a freshman athletic recruit that was told no to engineering but yes to a lab science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know of several high school athletes that committed to Ivy League schools just last week. They’re not two weeks into junior year! I understand recruiting and all the advantages that come with it, but I’m struck at how early it’s happened. No junior year grades yet, no essays, they probably didn’t even have to take the SATs.

I student might say "I am committed", but Ivy offers their spaces through the likely letter process in the fall of Senior Year. Those kids are lying.

It's just a verbal commitment that is binding on neither the school nor the athlete.