Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

You actually don’t know much about college sports…kind of laughable you would write this diatribe.

If you were to mix D3 teams and D1 teams in a tournament setting, you would be lucky to have a D3 team win one game. There are more kids that would rather play club sports at Power 5 schools than would play D3 sports.

BTW, the fact you referenced D2 schools in your answer proves you know little. Go look at the list of D2 schools…if you have heard of 5 of them you would be lucky. Nobody turns down a D1 offer to play D2 sports. 98%+ of D3 athletes receive no interest from D1 programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

You actually don’t know much about college sports…kind of laughable you would write this diatribe.

If you were to mix D3 teams and D1 teams in a tournament setting, you would be lucky to have a D3 team win one game. There are more kids that would rather play club sports at Power 5 schools than would play D3 sports.

BTW, the fact you referenced D2 schools in your answer proves you know little. Go look at the list of D2 schools…if you have heard of 5 of them you would be lucky. Nobody turns down a D1 offer to play D2 sports. 98%+ of D3 athletes receive no interest from D1 programs.

That's right. You tell'em! John Urschel played D1 ball at Penn State before going to the NFL. And then when he couldn't cut it he quit to get his doctorate in mathmatics at MIT becuase he was too dumb to go to CalTech.

Funny to mention MIT. Know a kid that was recruited by MIT for basketball…but once Dartmouth showed interest…it was goodbye MIT. Why? “Because Dartmouth is D1”

You seem to know a lot about this kid. What were their stats? GPA... SAT... ACT... highest level of high school math.

Looking at the Dartmouth rosters now. They keep great records! Everybody from the year 2000 until now. Shouldn't be too difficult to figure out which one you are telling us about.

Since you are posting on DCUM my guess is Ryan Cornish from Sidwell Friends

Not from the DMV…so nope.

And yet you have spent several hours today... hours... posting on DCUM. :lol:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

You actually don’t know much about college sports…kind of laughable you would write this diatribe.

If you were to mix D3 teams and D1 teams in a tournament setting, you would be lucky to have a D3 team win one game. There are more kids that would rather play club sports at Power 5 schools than would play D3 sports.

BTW, the fact you referenced D2 schools in your answer proves you know little. Go look at the list of D2 schools…if you have heard of 5 of them you would be lucky. Nobody turns down a D1 offer to play D2 sports. 98%+ of D3 athletes receive no interest from D1 programs.

That's right. You tell'em! John Urschel played D1 ball at Penn State before going to the NFL. And then when he couldn't cut it he quit to get his doctorate in mathmatics at MIT becuase he was too dumb to go to CalTech.

Funny to mention MIT. Know a kid that was recruited by MIT for basketball…but once Dartmouth showed interest…it was goodbye MIT. Why? “Because Dartmouth is D1”

You seem to know a lot about this kid. What were their stats? GPA... SAT... ACT... highest level of high school math.

Looking at the Dartmouth rosters now. They keep great records! Everybody from the year 2000 until now. Shouldn't be too difficult to figure out which one you are telling us about.

Since you are posting on DCUM my guess is Ryan Cornish from Sidwell Friends

Not from the DMV…so nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

You actually don’t know much about college sports…kind of laughable you would write this diatribe.

If you were to mix D3 teams and D1 teams in a tournament setting, you would be lucky to have a D3 team win one game. There are more kids that would rather play club sports at Power 5 schools than would play D3 sports.

BTW, the fact you referenced D2 schools in your answer proves you know little. Go look at the list of D2 schools…if you have heard of 5 of them you would be lucky. Nobody turns down a D1 offer to play D2 sports. 98%+ of D3 athletes receive no interest from D1 programs.

That's right. You tell'em! John Urschel played D1 ball at Penn State before going to the NFL. And then when he couldn't cut it he quit to get his doctorate in mathmatics at MIT becuase he was too dumb to go to CalTech.

Funny to mention MIT. Know a kid that was recruited by MIT for basketball…but once Dartmouth showed interest…it was goodbye MIT. Why? “Because Dartmouth is D1”

You seem to know a lot about this kid. What were their stats? GPA... SAT... ACT... highest level of high school math.

Looking at the Dartmouth rosters now. They keep great records! Everybody from the year 2000 until now. Shouldn't be too difficult to figure out which one you are telling us about.

Since you are posting on DCUM my guess is Ryan Cornish from Sidwell Friends

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the NAIA (non-NCAA college) stats are overly important to include here.

For most NCAA sports it is far below 10% of high schoolers that make it to play in college. Basketball, for example, is 3.5% for men and 4.1% for women. Popular sports like women's volleyball and softball are also very low (3.9% and 5.6%). https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/3/2/estimated-probability-of-competing-in-college-athletics.aspx

The students interested in high academic schools rarely consider D2 either (or even most of D3 and some of D1), so getting a spot at these elite schools is considerably less likely.

Maybe the chart will help some young parents identify a few good possible activities!

Thank you for finding and posting that.
Ice Hockey for the win!

Conclusion: Playing any a sport at the NCAA level is at the top of the sport. The bar isn't low. There is a strong athletic hook. The athletes still must meet a school's academic criteria. Finding a top academic and athletic combo student is rare. The hook is deserved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

Top 10%? We think that’s the top of your sport? Do we set the bar that low for any other activity or even academically?

<sigh> You are flailing here. You don't care for athletics. You clearly know very little about the culture and business of athletics. You likely won't give up the ghost but you really should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

You actually don’t know much about college sports…kind of laughable you would write this diatribe.

If you were to mix D3 teams and D1 teams in a tournament setting, you would be lucky to have a D3 team win one game. There are more kids that would rather play club sports at Power 5 schools than would play D3 sports.

BTW, the fact you referenced D2 schools in your answer proves you know little. Go look at the list of D2 schools…if you have heard of 5 of them you would be lucky. Nobody turns down a D1 offer to play D2 sports. 98%+ of D3 athletes receive no interest from D1 programs.

That's right. You tell'em! John Urschel played D1 ball at Penn State before going to the NFL. And then when he couldn't cut it he quit to get his doctorate in mathmatics at MIT becuase he was too dumb to go to CalTech.

Funny to mention MIT. Know a kid that was recruited by MIT for basketball…but once Dartmouth showed interest…it was goodbye MIT. Why? “Because Dartmouth is D1”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

You actually don’t know much about college sports…kind of laughable you would write this diatribe.

If you were to mix D3 teams and D1 teams in a tournament setting, you would be lucky to have a D3 team win one game. There are more kids that would rather play club sports at Power 5 schools than would play D3 sports.

BTW, the fact you referenced D2 schools in your answer proves you know little. Go look at the list of D2 schools…if you have heard of 5 of them you would be lucky. Nobody turns down a D1 offer to play D2 sports. 98%+ of D3 athletes receive no interest from D1 programs.

That's right. You tell'em! John Urschel played D1 ball at Penn State before going to the NFL. And then when he couldn't cut it he quit to get his doctorate in mathmatics at MIT becuase he was too dumb to go to CalTech.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

You actually don’t know much about college sports…kind of laughable you would write this diatribe.

If you were to mix D3 teams and D1 teams in a tournament setting, you would be lucky to have a D3 team win one game. There are more kids that would rather play club sports at Power 5 schools than would play D3 sports.

BTW, the fact you referenced D2 schools in your answer proves you know little. Go look at the list of D2 schools…if you have heard of 5 of them you would be lucky. Nobody turns down a D1 offer to play D2 sports. 98%+ of D3 athletes receive no interest from D1 programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who has been through this comment on how ECs are looked at for recruited athletes at high academic schools? D3 and Ivy. Feel like DS's EC involvement suffers because of his time commitment to his sport. Sophomore now so it's not too late to get more involved in other stuff but don't know if it's needed or worth it if sports is a likely hook for him. Not like he does nothing - some involvement with youth group and a club at school but definitely not anything like some of these Ivy and high academic D3 admits seem to be doing.

I still connect with several of the athletes who play the sport I did at my alma mater. All of them have impressive ECs beyond just athletics. Most had non-sports leadership positions and/or were on student council. All were involved in community service (for several it was at least partially tied to sports since free youth clinics and elementary school visits are things some high schools do or that your kid could probably organize). All but one I can think of have been captains on their high school teams too. You don't need to do as much but I always see additional involvement and leadership.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have US colleges ever said they are looking to admit a class with the highest possible test score and GPA stats? I wasn't aware that it was ever a goal of any selective school.

Certainly not when it comes to "diversity"...

What does this statement mean? Would you mind spelling out publicly what you might or might not be hinting at?

You know exactly what it means. Colleges do not even pretend they want the highest test scores and gpas because they need to fill their diversity quotas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are a hook like NO other.

Some sports parents seem to have a complex about this for some reason. It's not that the kids are unqualified, it's that they have the boost from "maybe" to "yes". When you are talking 5% admit rates this is obviously a huge help.

It is a great hook. I think the problem arises when non-athlete parents think the athletes shouldn't have been admitted at all almost exclusively referencing comparative GPA and/or test scores.
I agree some sports (think sailing and fencing) should be treated more like orchestra by admissions since they hardly draw spectators, don't raise the school's profile in a meaningful way, and have a minimal ability to bring the campus community together. Others though (think football and basketball as the big ones but also hockey, soccer, lax, and baseball at many places) bring students, alumni, and locals together in a unique way. Schools would be crazy not to try to be competitive in at least those sports. Even in the Ivy League, look at the atmosphere and attendees (and fundraising ops) for the Harvard Yale football game or Princeton Penn basketball at the Palestra. I've never seen so much pride and gear wearing from my non-athlete Princeton friends, who mostly don't even follow college sports much, as during the runs their basketball teams had this year in the NCAA tournament.

The problem is some sports parents insist recruited athletes don’t have lower stats. On the whole, they do. Why pretend they don’t when the data are clear.

Students with 99th percentile ACT and SAT scores ~and~ collegiate level athletic ability are rare and special. Schools can casually turn away miles and miles of academically superior applicants. They can do the same with miles and miles of athletes. But finding applicants with the whole packages is a challenge and they ALL have separate offices just to recruit those students.

Why pretend like your star athlete with mediocre academic ability, or your star academic with mediocre athletic ability is more unique than they actually are?

99th percentile test scores? There are at least 75,000 each year.
Top players in football, basketball, etc? There are many hundreds of thousands.

Tops in both areas? RARE RARE RARE

If you’re playing a sport at the D3 level you are almost certainly not at the top of your sport.

Tell me you know nothing about college sports without telling me you know nothing about college sports.

Across all levels, the transition from high school to college typically runs at about 10% participation rate. So that means approximately 90% of students that participated in youth and high school sports decide either they can't or won't compete collegiately. I ask you, is the top 10% the "top of your sport"?

There are tiers of athletic ability within D1, D2, D3, NAIA, and inter-collegiate club. Depending on the sport, top D3 teams can easily compete with / beat, mid and upper tier D1 programs. Not talking about an SEC power house football team against a D3 football team. But there are lacrosse players, soccer players, swimmers, tennis players, field hockey players, basketball players, etc., that turn down D1 offers to play at a D2 or D3 (or other) school because of a holistic better fit.

The athletic hook is powerful. Without a doubt. Own it. Love it. But don't discount the athlete's academic credentials either.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the NAIA (non-NCAA college) stats are overly important to include here.

For most NCAA sports it is far below 10% of high schoolers that make it to play in college. Basketball, for example, is 3.5% for men and 4.1% for women. Popular sports like women's volleyball and softball are also very low (3.9% and 5.6%). https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/3/2/estimated-probability-of-competing-in-college-athletics.aspx

The students interested in high academic schools rarely consider D2 either (or even most of D3 and some of D1), so getting a spot at these elite schools is considerably less likely.

Maybe the chart will help some young parents identify a few good possible activities!