Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think people are confusing what makes someone a 2. My kid was likely in this category for a different Ivy where the coach said they would put a little asterisk next to their name, pass that on to admissions and my kid was a strong walk-on candidate, but they were not an official recruit.

However, my kid was known to the coach and admissions would also know that.

I doubt anyone is ranked a 2 just because they list captain of a strong sports team on their application. It still falls into the "recruited athlete" bucket, and it's better than nothing.

You're talking about " soft support" or "preferred walking status," right? How much does it help really? My DC is not formally recruited but the coach said he would add his soft support tag to the application. No guarantee, he reiterated.

I'm wondering whether it would be just a tie breaker or something that may pull DC over the line if competitive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is elite level athlete? You are either recruitable, or not recruitable.

You can be recruitable but choosing not to play. If a girl was a starter on a nationally ranked team but chose not to play they still have a fantastic EC. If they were a captain on the team even better. They were elite at their main EC which is the bar.

Definitely not true and I say this as a parent of varsity atheletes. If your kid is not an athletic recruit, sports are among the useless ecs. May get some leadership points if kid is a varsity captain, but others pretty useless as far as admission as impact.

This. If your kid isn't going to play in college (and putting aside sports where the kid might get national exposure competing outside of school), the school DNGAF.

I disagree. DS won at a national level for a sport he didn’t pursue in college. I think doing something (and winning) at that scale absolutely matters. Why wouldn’t it? I think top colleges want winners. People who go out and accomplish big things. I don’t know if that’s why he got in, but his results were excellent and without those accomplishments I’m not sure he had the same strong narrative

The national win is what matters. And gets you the rubric points.
Not playing the sport.

It's the level of excellence, not the sport itself.....some just hate the idea that colleges value sports so much that it colors their thinking.

You are saying the same thing. Sports gets you there bc its natl recognition. Could be something else too that gets natl recognition.

Yes! But just read this thread. There is a bunch of people who say that sports useless as an EC along with a few who are correcting them and saying that it can be powerful if combined with excellence. Context matters for any EC, including sports.

Not the way you are defining excellence. An olympian or equivalent, yes. Not some kid who made all state for basketball.

The all state basket player applying to Harvard will absolutely get the two that they need for their EC/Athletics bucket. Why are you struggling with that? The correct information is not hard to find.

Wouldn't an all state basketball player with sufficient stats be recruitable at harvard?

No, unfortunately. I state that based on experience.
If my family could go back and do it again I'd somehow - not sure how though - direct my DS to not put so many hours and years into his sport as doing so kept him from other activities and that hurt him in the college application race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think people are confusing what makes someone a 2. My kid was likely in this category for a different Ivy where the coach said they would put a little asterisk next to their name, pass that on to admissions and my kid was a strong walk-on candidate, but they were not an official recruit.

However, my kid was known to the coach and admissions would also know that.

I doubt anyone is ranked a 2 just because they list captain of a strong sports team on their application. It still falls into the "recruited athlete" bucket, and it's better than nothing.

You're talking about " soft support" or "preferred walking status," right? How much does it help really? My DC is not formally recruited but the coach said he would add his soft support tag to the application. No guarantee, he reiterated.

I'm wondering whether it would be just a tie breaker or something that may pull DC over the line if competitive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is elite level athlete? You are either recruitable, or not recruitable.

You can be recruitable but choosing not to play. If a girl was a starter on a nationally ranked team but chose not to play they still have a fantastic EC. If they were a captain on the team even better. They were elite at their main EC which is the bar.

Definitely not true and I say this as a parent of varsity atheletes. If your kid is not an athletic recruit, sports are among the useless ecs. May get some leadership points if kid is a varsity captain, but others pretty useless as far as admission as impact.

My son was a varsity captain of his basketball team but not a recruited athlete but 3 kids on his team were high D1 recruited. The varsity captain helped college admissions tremendously in addition to his strong academics.

Source for this? Where is he going? Captains of teams are ok but generally meaningless. There are many of them at every school...

lol ok whatever you say.

Not whatever I say...how many captains of sports teams are at your school alone? No multiply that out by the schools in your county, state, and the country. This is a massive number of kids. At our HS, a single team might have 5-7 senior captains PER SPORT. It is not like the captains do anything truly impactful. Maybe some team bonding, working on stuff for the end banquet, leading cheers, etc. That's about the extent of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is elite level athlete? You are either recruitable, or not recruitable.

You can be recruitable but choosing not to play. If a girl was a starter on a nationally ranked team but chose not to play they still have a fantastic EC. If they were a captain on the team even better. They were elite at their main EC which is the bar.

Definitely not true and I say this as a parent of varsity atheletes. If your kid is not an athletic recruit, sports are among the useless ecs. May get some leadership points if kid is a varsity captain, but others pretty useless as far as admission as impact.

This. If your kid isn't going to play in college (and putting aside sports where the kid might get national exposure competing outside of school), the school DNGAF.

I disagree. DS won at a national level for a sport he didn’t pursue in college. I think doing something (and winning) at that scale absolutely matters. Why wouldn’t it? I think top colleges want winners. People who go out and accomplish big things. I don’t know if that’s why he got in, but his results were excellent and without those accomplishments I’m not sure he had the same strong narrative

The national win is what matters. And gets you the rubric points.
Not playing the sport.

It's the level of excellence, not the sport itself.....some just hate the idea that colleges value sports so much that it colors their thinking.

You are saying the same thing. Sports gets you there bc its natl recognition. Could be something else too that gets natl recognition.

Yes! But just read this thread. There is a bunch of people who say that sports useless as an EC along with a few who are correcting them and saying that it can be powerful if combined with excellence. Context matters for any EC, including sports.

Not the way you are defining excellence. An olympian or equivalent, yes. Not some kid who made all state for basketball.

The all state basket player applying to Harvard will absolutely get the two that they need for their EC/Athletics bucket. Why are you struggling with that? The correct information is not hard to find.

Wouldn't an all state basketball player with sufficient stats be recruitable at harvard?

Anonymous wrote:
I think people are confusing what makes someone a 2. My kid was likely in this category for a different Ivy where the coach said they would put a little asterisk next to their name, pass that on to admissions and my kid was a strong walk-on candidate, but they were not an official recruit.

However, my kid was known to the coach and admissions would also know that.

I doubt anyone is ranked a 2 just because they list captain of a strong sports team on their application. It still falls into the "recruited athlete" bucket, and it's better than nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pause for a moment and think logically. The goal for any applicant, whether it be college, job or even romantic partnership, is to stand out and distinguish oneself from others.

When the most common and popular activity for kids throughout all schooling nationwide is participation in sports, how would that be a strong extracurricular? Sports are simply a fine but very common extracurricular.

that is, unless the college applicant will be a recruited athlete. Then and only then does the narrative change.

Sports works if it’s tied in. I’ve seen this example before in several places.

A girl who was a fencer and equestrian, with natl equestrian awards (not recruited).
No fencing awards.
Focused on medieval studies/Middle Ages history.
Research on Eleanor of Aquitaine who rode her horse into battle in crusades?
1 month study at a museum in England.
Other Middle Ages /history ECs.
Good stats (not tippy top/great).
Highest math: calc AB equivalent
Admitted HYPS.

Now works at Medieval Times or RennFest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pause for a moment and think logically. The goal for any applicant, whether it be college, job or even romantic partnership, is to stand out and distinguish oneself from others.

When the most common and popular activity for kids throughout all schooling nationwide is participation in sports, how would that be a strong extracurricular? Sports are simply a fine but very common extracurricular.

that is, unless the college applicant will be a recruited athlete. Then and only then does the narrative change.

Sports works if it’s tied in. I’ve seen this example before in several places.

A girl who was a fencer and equestrian, with natl equestrian awards (not recruited).
No fencing awards.
Focused on medieval studies/Middle Ages history.
Research on Eleanor of Aquitaine who rode her horse into battle in crusades?
1 month study at a museum in England.
Other Middle Ages /history ECs.
Good stats (not tippy top/great).
Highest math: calc AB equivalent
Admitted HYPS.

In this case, I still would think the sports mattered not at all other than to signal wealth of parents. Very few kids applying to medieval studies and having some research/ volunteer experience to tie into it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I knew a girl at one of HYPS who had been a low national level competitive figure skater. Not someone you'd have heard of in the Olympics or anything but quite highly ranked. She certainly didn't make it in on academics, and she wasn't recruited. But it made for a good story and that means a lot to admissions officers.

Of course, she is a nationally competitive figure skater! I’m sure her academics were good enough. It’s pretty obvious when you hear about talented kids… the national youth poet laureate, founding an organization that went national with branches everywhere, etc Almost always these kids end up at HYPS

Still, your example doesn’t prove the point that colleges care that much more about athletics outside of recruited athletes.

Well if we're being pedantic about it, I provided a specific example of where they DID care about athletics outside of recruitment. But if you mean does this apply to little Billy who is co captain of a middling high school soccer team, which I think is what we're basically talking about, it more than likely doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I knew a girl at one of HYPS who had been a low national level competitive figure skater. Not someone you'd have heard of in the Olympics or anything but quite highly ranked. She certainly didn't make it in on academics, and she wasn't recruited. But it made for a good story and that means a lot to admissions officers.

Of course, she is a nationally competitive figure skater! I’m sure her academics were good enough. It’s pretty obvious when you hear about talented kids… the national youth poet laureate, founding an organization that went national with branches everywhere, etc Almost always these kids end up at HYPS

Still, your example doesn’t prove the point that colleges care that much more about athletics outside of recruited athletes.

Anonymous wrote:I knew a girl at one of HYPS who had been a low national level competitive figure skater. Not someone you'd have heard of in the Olympics or anything but quite highly ranked. She certainly didn't make it in on academics, and she wasn't recruited. But it made for a good story and that means a lot to admissions officers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pause for a moment and think logically. The goal for any applicant, whether it be college, job or even romantic partnership, is to stand out and distinguish oneself from others.

When the most common and popular activity for kids throughout all schooling nationwide is participation in sports, how would that be a strong extracurricular? Sports are simply a fine but very common extracurricular.

that is, unless the college applicant will be a recruited athlete. Then and only then does the narrative change.

Sports works if it’s tied in. I’ve seen this example before in several places.

A girl who was a fencer and equestrian, with natl equestrian awards (not recruited).
No fencing awards.
Focused on medieval studies/Middle Ages history.
Research on Eleanor of Aquitaine who rode her horse into battle in crusades?
1 month study at a museum in England.
Other Middle Ages /history ECs.
Good stats (not tippy top/great).
Highest math: calc AB equivalent
Admitted HYPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard gives weight to athletics. My son wasn’t ever going to be a college recruit but he was captain of 2 varsity sports and they gave him a 2+ for that. If you’ve see those videos on students reviewing their Harvard files, it can tip the scales.

Yes, no one is saying it doesn't count. Just that it's viewed the same as other ECs. An impactful EC can also get you a 2+.

Impact/level is what matters. I said it before and some insecure mom melted. A 2/2+ is not easy to get based on Harvard's rubric. Random club president, random Non-profit, random community service will not get that. Team captain on a competitive team at a competitive school or starting player at a demonstrable top level is a lock for it. People can cry all they want about it but facts are friendly, they aren't out to get you even though you don't want to accept them.

A 2 on Athletics on Harvard's rubric carried virtually no weight, you needed a 1 (recruitable or olympic level).

Twos are what you need to get in.

Looking at SFFA a student who had at least three twos had their chances of admissions go over 60%. One of the key arguments made for discrimination was that non-asian students consistently receive lower scores for personality and thus didn't get enough twos. You do not need to be recruited to get a two at Harvard but you need to have participated on a very high level team or at a personal high level. A two for athletics provided one of the twos necessary. Why people on this thread are continuing to fight this baffles me. It was laid out in the documents is just absurd.

That statistic does not include athletics. Three 2s means you got a 2 in every category other than Athletics. Academic, personal and extracurricular.

If you are not recruited or Olympic level athlete, your sports don't help you get into Harvard very much. It's just a solid EC

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pause for a moment and think logically. The goal for any applicant, whether it be college, job or even romantic partnership, is to stand out and distinguish oneself from others.

When the most common and popular activity for kids throughout all schooling nationwide is participation in sports, how would that be a strong extracurricular? Sports are simply a fine but very common extracurricular.

that is, unless the college applicant will be a recruited athlete. Then and only then does the narrative change.

Sports works if it’s tied in. I’ve seen this example before in several places.

A girl who was a fencer and equestrian, with natl equestrian awards (not recruited).
No fencing awards.
Focused on medieval studies/Middle Ages history.
Research on Eleanor of Aquitaine who rode her horse into battle in crusades?
1 month study at a museum in England.
Other Middle Ages /history ECs.
Good stats (not tippy top/great).
Highest math: calc AB equivalent
Admitted HYPS.