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.

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.

But how many varsity captains have an UW 4.0 and a 1500+ SAT?

At our private, where a third of the kids have SATs over 1500, a good amount just at our school. And we play nearly all sports in the very competitive MIAA-A conference.

Anonymous wrote:Does Class President with tons of activities and initiatives move the needle?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s not a disadvantage at all and these are kids from the last couple of cycles. Their videos reading their files are all
over YouTube. They have the lowest athletic rating, and they all say it didn’t count towards their final rating.

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

You are right, Harvard just does not factor athletics if kid does not play sports. It does not have any impact on admissions. Dont play a sport if you have other things to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s not a disadvantage at all and these are kids from the last couple of cycles. Their videos reading their files are all
over YouTube. They have the lowest athletic rating, and they all say it didn’t count towards their final rating.

Np. My kid is at Harvard. Viewed admissions file. Had a 4 for athletic rating. 1s and 2s for the other categories ( academic, EC and personal). Athletics had zero impact for overall rating in this case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It might break a tie…and it’s possible in a remote chance that one of the actual recruits at say Harvard ends up going elsewhere since there is no ED keeping them and maybe you were the #1 walk on.

Main point is kids getting a 2 are still recruited. These aren’t just random applicants who were the captain of a competitive team because sometimes those kids aren’t even starters but they are great motivators and leaders. There is no way to know how strong a player a random captain may be to get a 2.

By definition, a 2 is not being recruited. Look at the criteria again.

There is zero way to say a kid is a possible walk on unless the coach has seen them, interacted with them and makes that distinction.

They aren’t recruited in the sense that they are a lock, but they aren’t a random applicant either.

Yes, DC is going through this in a niche sport. In contact with coaches. Probably won't get the slot at top schools but could qualify as a walk on, maybe. It's a whole process that begins junior year.

Can you share how the walk on process works for your sport?

DC is hitting the walk on times for D1 and recruit times for D3. Currently finishing 10th grade so I'm just beginning to learn the process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence that Harvard still uses the rubric being quoted here. It comes from the Harvard admissions lawsuit, and the most recent admissions data from that lawsuit is from 2015, or more than a decade ago. Might as well have been a decade ago given how much admissions has changed since then.

There are many kids who are rated a 4 in athletics (or whatever the lowest rating is) and they get into Harvard. These are kids who don't have any sports listed in their application.

But it was a disadvantage, obviously. Again, this metric is over a decade old and predates the reversal of affirmative action. We are speaking historically.

It’s not a disadvantage at all and these are kids from the last couple of cycles. Their videos reading their files are all
over YouTube. They have the lowest athletic rating, and they all say it didn’t count towards their final rating.

Anonymous wrote:Strong ECs means:
1. school president
2. first chair in audition orchestra/band
3. elite-level athlete
4. multi-year (3+) community service commitment at the same organization
5. multiple awards won at top tournaments/conferences: speech and debater/Model UNer
6. steady job of any kind (McDonald's and the like=bonus)

Strong ECs does NOT mean:
1. president of many clubs
2. started a non-profit
3. did research with a professor
4. participated in any or all of the "strong ECs" above but not with demonstrated commitment (i.e. many years) and/or significant recognition (i.e. varsity athlete but not top individual stats, on student council but not president)

This list is not comprehensive but there is a great deal of misinformation here about what "strong ECs" means.

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.

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:

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...

Accepted to a Top 10 and Top 20.

Not because he was captain of a team.

I know a kid just like this who was captain of the team, graduated in top 10 of his class, and had very high SAT. It was a total package not just one thing. Certainly the sports helped round out that package.

Even you agree being CAPTAIN was irrelevant. Being an unrecruited athlete with a bunch of other excellent stuff, sure, that could help round out a kid.

Well it certainly didn't hurt. Not sure what your point is but you clearly just don't seem to like or value sports but that's neither here nor there since you're not a decision maker.

The point of this isn't to shit on sports. My kid spent a lot of time on sports. He played club and was 4 year varsity starter and captain for 2 years but he wasn't good enough to be recruited at his position at a school he would want to go to. In fact we knew he would never be recruited because his height made that almost an impossibility. But he still did it and we supported it despite the FACT that it would not really help his college application because there are other reasons to do things other than college admissions. he was learning life lessons and developing character. Also, I don't think he would spend the time more productively if he didn't have the sport, it was a large part of his identity and the grit he learned got him through a lot of adversity.

I think sports are absolutely worth doing but it will not help with your college applications unless you are recruitable.

All of this was confirmed by the SFFA trial discovery. Harvard gives athletic scores almost no consideration if you are not recruitable. All the Ivy+ do the same

This is incorrect.

It is absolutely correct.

Read exhibit 1 of the SFFA lawsuit. Report by Arcidiacono.

See section 2.4 (factors correlated with admission) page 24 and footnote 23 where the expert notes:

The relationship between the athletic rating and admissions is weak once athletes are
removed. Athletes receive a 1 on the athletic rating and, as shown in Section 2.2.3, have
very high admit rates. However, once athletes are taken out, the relationship between the
athletic rating and admissions is weak.

This seems to put this issue to rest. Believe what you want but this is the reality. At least it was with Harvard over a period of several years.

Sports is just another extra curricular, one that takes a lot of time and effort and doesn't really buttress academic credentials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It might break a tie…and it’s possible in a remote chance that one of the actual recruits at say Harvard ends up going elsewhere since there is no ED keeping them and maybe you were the #1 walk on.

Main point is kids getting a 2 are still recruited. These aren’t just random applicants who were the captain of a competitive team because sometimes those kids aren’t even starters but they are great motivators and leaders. There is no way to know how strong a player a random captain may be to get a 2.

By definition, a 2 is not being recruited. Look at the criteria again.

There is zero way to say a kid is a possible walk on unless the coach has seen them, interacted with them and makes that distinction.

They aren’t recruited in the sense that they are a lock, but they aren’t a random applicant either.

Yes, DC is going through this in a niche sport. In contact with coaches. Probably won't get the slot at top schools but could qualify as a walk on, maybe. It's a whole process that begins junior year.

Can you share how the walk on process works for your sport?

DC is hitting the walk on times for D1 and recruit times for D3. Currently finishing 10th grade so I'm just beginning to learn the process.

If she is already hitting the times in 10th grade, she will be in good shape. Generally, June of her junior year she will begin the process of filling out the recruiting questionnaires on the websites, DMing the coaches from the schools she wants to go to, and start sending them emails. For T/F (which your daughter seems to be) it is a crappy and stressful process because it is very truncated.

She begins reaching out in June and will send her transcripts and test scores to do a "pre-read"; she will get engagements in July/August; interest will firm up in late August/early Sept. You will go to official visits in September/early October, and will make your choice relatively quickly after that. Expect to receive a likely letter before Thanksgiving.

She should start a spreadsheet with the emails and Instagram handles of the coaches at the schools she is interested in. She can begin sharing her information with them ASAP, but their response will be muted. They don't really respond or invest time until they know you will be eligible, which will be determined by the "pre-read" results.

It's stressful, but is worth it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It might break a tie…and it’s possible in a remote chance that one of the actual recruits at say Harvard ends up going elsewhere since there is no ED keeping them and maybe you were the #1 walk on.

Main point is kids getting a 2 are still recruited. These aren’t just random applicants who were the captain of a competitive team because sometimes those kids aren’t even starters but they are great motivators and leaders. There is no way to know how strong a player a random captain may be to get a 2.

By definition, a 2 is not being recruited. Look at the criteria again.

There is zero way to say a kid is a possible walk on unless the coach has seen them, interacted with them and makes that distinction.

They aren’t recruited in the sense that they are a lock, but they aren’t a random applicant either.

Yes, DC is going through this in a niche sport. In contact with coaches. Probably won't get the slot at top schools but could qualify as a walk on, maybe. It's a whole process that begins junior year.

Can you share how the walk on process works for your sport?

DC is hitting the walk on times for D1 and recruit times for D3. Currently finishing 10th grade so I'm just beginning to learn the process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It might break a tie…and it’s possible in a remote chance that one of the actual recruits at say Harvard ends up going elsewhere since there is no ED keeping them and maybe you were the #1 walk on.

Main point is kids getting a 2 are still recruited. These aren’t just random applicants who were the captain of a competitive team because sometimes those kids aren’t even starters but they are great motivators and leaders. There is no way to know how strong a player a random captain may be to get a 2.

By definition, a 2 is not being recruited. Look at the criteria again.

There is zero way to say a kid is a possible walk on unless the coach has seen them, interacted with them and makes that distinction.

They aren’t recruited in the sense that they are a lock, but they aren’t a random applicant either.

Yes, DC is going through this in a niche sport. In contact with coaches. Probably won't get the slot at top schools but could qualify as a walk on, maybe. It's a whole process that begins junior year.