Anonymous wrote:My child was offered merit aid at d3.

But the merit aid was related to academics, right? They didn’t specify it as athletic aid? This is how it can be done. Ivies too

Anonymous wrote:We know plenty of lacrosse kids who got significant merit aid at low D1 or D3 schools by dropping down multiple levels academically.

This made college very affordable for their family and allowed them to continue with playing lacrosse, which were their top two priorities.

The only way to have a shot at everything (lacrosse and top-tier academics) is to be full-pay. Or to be exceptional on both fronts and get into an Ivy or Duke, Stanford, Northwestern, Vandy etc. Or to play club. It is what it is.

This seems like an insane priority. I say this as a former college athlete.
I can understand why a 17 year old who hasn’t experienced much of life outside of lacrosse and high school would want this, but it blows my mind that parents would condone it.

Oberlin, Grinnell, Macalester, Kenyon, Connecticut College, Holy Cross, Bard, Dickinson, Kalamazoo, Gettysburg, Lawrence, St Lawrence, Beloit, Whitman, Willamette, Wooster, Denison

DC was a recruited D3 athlete at a T10 with some merit $ and a recruited full ride scholar at a T20. Took the latter and continue traveling to national tournaments. Happy to continue practice and compete at their own schedule instead of mandatory scheduled practice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD is at an Ivy playing her sport. She got zero financial aid. She's now a sophomore and has been a really hard road. She doesn't get much playing time and doesn't get along with her teammates very much. The students at the school are a little weird because they are so so smart and she still working on making friends. The grass is not always greener. In hindsight, I would have encouraged her skip to D1 and just go in-state as a regular applicant.

this is the problem when Ivies and other top schools relax the academic standards too much for athletes. Then if the kid doesn’t continue with the sport then they also don’t really fit in/match the level of the rest of the kids who got in on academic merit. This was my experience at one of the Ivies.

You weren't smart enough but somehow got in?

Academic standards at the Ivies are relaxed somewhat but still plenty high enough. I have to call Bull.

No, I went to Harvard, not as an athlete. Two of my freshman roommates were varsity athletes. I have other friends of friends/ roommates who were athletes. you almost never saw athletes in STEM majors. Athletes suffered from an image as “dumb jocks” who couldn’t keep up intellectually or in other extracurricular pursuits. They just kind of kept to their own cliques.

I guess that we are lucky then because my pre med kid running at Brown doesn’t feel like a “dumb jock” at all.

Without running, kid would not be at Brown. Or do you insist kid would have gotten in anyway?

It's a lottery for anyone but she hits the 75% mark testing wise and has the grades, rigor, etc. She probably had a better shot than most but even then the answer is no for most.

Which is exactly why if you have something that they value you use it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really hard to feel sorry for people when the athletic hook doesn’t work for them.

It’s not hard if you’re not an ahole because you know how much work the kid put into it.

Our kids who study hard, act in plays, win speech & debate competitions, tutor peers, and write for the paper also are kids who put a lot a lot of work in. they just don't feel as entitled to gain admission with lower academic standards!

why should students whose EC is sports gain admission with lower academic standards to play sports that don't bring any benefit to the school's other students? who watches cross-country, volleyball, squash, etc.?

at least diversity helps everyone by not having people in bubbles.

As a parent of a D1 athlete and another who was heavily involved in school ECs, there’s no comparison. The D1 athlete’s commitment was exponentially higher, and the non-athlete child would agree. The pressure she was under to perform at her sport and to peak at exactly the right time in state and national level competition was nothing like writing for the school paper.

I’m extremely proud of both of them, but the fact that the athlete’s grades lagged in comparison to the EC kid is completely justified considering the level of commitment. And it made sense to me that the athlete ended up at an Ivy with slightly lower grades and considerably lower test scores, whereas the other student with the 1500 SAT did not.

That is so wrong. So wrong. It's sad that you, a reasonably intelligent adult, would think like this.

Being one of the best athletes in your sport ever in your 100 year old HS, and one of the top 75 athletes in your sport in the country (among thousands of participants) in your graduation year AND finishing in the top 5 percent of your class at the same time is more impressive than finishing in the top 2 percent and writing for the school paper. I witnessed the determination that both took, and it just is. No one could ever convince me otherwise.

I’ve got two family members ranked nationally top ten and went to D1 then pro along with friends. They didn’t work harder than kids involved in other activities. That’s obnoxious to say. If the genetic talent for sports is there that student who plays varsity will beat out the kid who plays on varsity and a year round club sports 6 days a week. Maybe your child had to work harder than others, had the talent and made it but that’s not every athlete.

And some parents don’t understand that you can’t buy the talent no matter how many private coaches and club teams you play on. Most pro athletes were great athletes in all of the major sports. They didn’t specialize early on. Tom Brady was recruited for pro baseball after high school but he played football in high school and decided to go that route.

My 12 year old daughter is 5’8” already and has the build of a basketball player. She doesn’t have the talent though so she plays rec. Know when to step back and let your kid enjoy high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, what you're saying is that families should understand the cost picture before they begin looking at colleges they can't afford.

Yes, but also don't let your kid put so much time into sports to get good enough to get recruited. In the end, it only works out if you can pay the sticker price, you're needy enough to get substantial aid, or your kid is willing to go to lower ranked schools to get athletic $.

There are only a handful of top schools that give athletic scholarships (and they're larger schools). None of the Ivies or NESCACs do. Maybe you already knew this, but I didn't when my kid started HS and put in 20+ hours per week into their sport. Hence the cautionary tale for other parents to not make the same mistakes we did.

This is really why I spend time on DCUM. Our oldest is ninth grade, and we are trying to figure out what to do about travel sports.

High school practice runs until 5:45 pm and no bus, so we have to pick them up, and then they have club travel practice a few hours later, getting home around 9:30 pm. This doesn't seem to make any sense when sports scholarships will be almost non-existent -- if academics should come first, doesn't that mean we should scale back the club sports? The high school team seems more fun than club travel. Also way, way cheaper.

Drop the club travel team. He’s at school for about 10 hours and then more hours until 9:30 is no kind of life. Unless he’s a star basketball player or football or hockey player it won’t pay off. Save that money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD is at an Ivy playing her sport. She got zero financial aid. She's now a sophomore and has been a really hard road. She doesn't get much playing time and doesn't get along with her teammates very much. The students at the school are a little weird because they are so so smart and she still working on making friends. The grass is not always greener. In hindsight, I would have encouraged her skip to D1 and just go in-state as a regular applicant.

this is the problem when Ivies and other top schools relax the academic standards too much for athletes. Then if the kid doesn’t continue with the sport then they also don’t really fit in/match the level of the rest of the kids who got in on academic merit. This was my experience at one of the Ivies.

You weren't smart enough but somehow got in?

Academic standards at the Ivies are relaxed somewhat but still plenty high enough. I have to call Bull.

No, I went to Harvard, not as an athlete. Two of my freshman roommates were varsity athletes. I have other friends of friends/ roommates who were athletes. you almost never saw athletes in STEM majors. Athletes suffered from an image as “dumb jocks” who couldn’t keep up intellectually or in other extracurricular pursuits. They just kind of kept to their own cliques.

I guess that we are lucky then because my pre med kid running at Brown doesn’t feel like a “dumb jock” at all.

Without running, kid would not be at Brown. Or do you insist kid would have gotten in anyway?

Anonymous wrote:The unearned part for athletes is the weight the schools put on athletics over almost every other EC. Athletes don’t earn that; it’s an institutional priority. Just like prioritizing legacy. The individual legacy or athlete does nothing to warrant the outsized fist on the scale.

Why pretend this isn’t true? Just own it. Enjoy it.

WTF, you just don’t get it. They are optimizing to appeal to a school just like everyone else with their excessive EC’s. The difference is that the grading of their EC is more cut and dried than most. A harder road but more clarity regarding payoff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are not a donut hole family. I was a poor kid and now we can pay for our kids’ colleges full pay.

What I don’t understand with donut hole families. Why can’t you just pay what you would have paid for a state school and then take loans out.

Wow you are so nonchalant about thousands of dollars in debt.

Maybe they just saved better than you did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD is at an Ivy playing her sport. She got zero financial aid. She's now a sophomore and has been a really hard road. She doesn't get much playing time and doesn't get along with her teammates very much. The students at the school are a little weird because they are so so smart and she still working on making friends. The grass is not always greener. In hindsight, I would have encouraged her skip to D1 and just go in-state as a regular applicant.

this is the problem when Ivies and other top schools relax the academic standards too much for athletes. Then if the kid doesn’t continue with the sport then they also don’t really fit in/match the level of the rest of the kids who got in on academic merit. This was my experience at one of the Ivies.

You weren't smart enough but somehow got in?

Academic standards at the Ivies are relaxed somewhat but still plenty high enough. I have to call Bull.

No, I went to Harvard, not as an athlete. Two of my freshman roommates were varsity athletes. I have other friends of friends/ roommates who were athletes. you almost never saw athletes in STEM majors. Athletes suffered from an image as “dumb jocks” who couldn’t keep up intellectually or in other extracurricular pursuits. They just kind of kept to their own cliques.

I guess that we are lucky then because my pre med kid running at Brown doesn’t feel like a “dumb jock” at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you say that being an athlete is an 'unearned hook' - like legacy. Do you know how hard those athletes work? You might not like that it's a priority but they 'earn it'

It is nothing like high school newspaper (although I agree w the pp who noted the difference around college newspapers - that's a full time job).

I was puzzled by the whole athletic thing when I was at my HYP - and why the university cared so much. Now all these years later, I get it. The athletes are pretty darn successful and they are loyal alums. Turns out that extra 100 points on the SAT doesn't translate to success.

I hire on wall street. Always happy to have people who have done things like athletics or run a college paper - they are good team players, hard workers etc. Don't knock it.

Sure, they work hard (although most sports virtually require a certain socio-economic background). What I find more interesting is your admission that intellect isn’t that important on Wall Street.

I thought that was well known. being a glutton for long hours, irregular schedule, fitting in culturally (for front office jobs), being “clubbable” matters more than pure intellect. The smartest kids go into tech, sciences, pursue PhDs, academia. Smarts does not auto equal money or pursuing money. Actually I would
say being too smart is an impediment to success in business.

Being too smart is an impediment to success in just about anything.

The unearned part for athletes is the weight the schools put on athletics over almost every other EC. Athletes don’t earn that; it’s an institutional priority. Just like prioritizing legacy. The individual legacy or athlete does nothing to warrant the outsized fist on the scale.

Why pretend this isn’t true? Just own it. Enjoy it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you say that being an athlete is an 'unearned hook' - like legacy. Do you know how hard those athletes work? You might not like that it's a priority but they 'earn it'

It is nothing like high school newspaper (although I agree w the pp who noted the difference around college newspapers - that's a full time job).

I was puzzled by the whole athletic thing when I was at my HYP - and why the university cared so much. Now all these years later, I get it. The athletes are pretty darn successful and they are loyal alums. Turns out that extra 100 points on the SAT doesn't translate to success.

I hire on wall street. Always happy to have people who have done things like athletics or run a college paper - they are good team players, hard workers etc. Don't knock it.

Sure, they work hard (although most sports virtually require a certain socio-economic background). What I find more interesting is your admission that intellect isn’t that important on Wall Street.

I thought that was well known. being a glutton for long hours, irregular schedule, fitting in culturally (for front office jobs), being “clubbable” matters more than pure intellect. The smartest kids go into tech, sciences, pursue PhDs, academia. Smarts does not auto equal money or pursuing money. Actually I would
say being too smart is an impediment to success in business.

Anonymous wrote:How can you say that being an athlete is an 'unearned hook' - like legacy. Do you know how hard those athletes work? You might not like that it's a priority but they 'earn it'

It is nothing like high school newspaper (although I agree w the pp who noted the difference around college newspapers - that's a full time job).

I was puzzled by the whole athletic thing when I was at my HYP - and why the university cared so much. Now all these years later, I get it. The athletes are pretty darn successful and they are loyal alums. Turns out that extra 100 points on the SAT doesn't translate to success.

I hire on wall street. Always happy to have people who have done things like athletics or run a college paper - they are good team players, hard workers etc. Don't knock it.

Sure, they work hard (although most sports virtually require a certain socio-economic background). What I find more interesting is your admission that intellect isn’t that important on Wall Street.