Anonymous wrote:You are wrong in my experience about the baseball discussion. Even high-level D1 college baseball isn't going to impress many people who are not really into baseball. College baseball gets terrible ratings and a large percentage of the best players skip college baseball. I have enjoyed taking to a big tech coworker about his team's trip to Omaha in college but most talk to him and our coworker who played D3 in the same way. If anything, people are more interested in hearing from the D3 person because it was a very high academic school. Beyond some of the analytics talk in our tech setting, baseball is more like swimming or track than football or basketball from a conversation and networking perspective.

The few people who played basketball and football are the ones I think it helps with networking quite a bit (if D1 or really high academic) since so many people want to talk about it and those sports, assuming they know more given their history. MBA and JD programs also love their former revenue athletes. Olympians and the small number of people who played professionally do very well in the cocktail setting.

Yeah…anyone not into any sport doesn’t really care about talking about the sport.

However, we have a guy in our firm who played baseball at MIT…and absolutely nobody is interested in talking about MIT baseball, including the guy himself.

Absolutely nobody except an extremely small group and only around the Olympics talks about swimming. You have to go past LAX, soccer and all sorts of other sports until you hit swimming…and even fewer care about college swimming vs Olympic swimming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think so. D3 is fine, but still D3.

I'm sorry, weird take and the "D1 or bust" business is so dumb. There are D2s and D3s that can beat some D1 schools. Lots of D1 athletes "ride the pine" and don't contribute on the field/pitch/court much. They all balance time between school and athletics, show resilience and all of the qualities that sports promotes.

So I don't see why anything under D1 is looked down upon. And it's beyond weird that some people do. I know several kids at D3 schools who will get to play their sport for 4 more years and have nearly a free (or in some cases free) education).

I am sorry...but in at least prominent sports (basketball, football, baseball, soccer, lax), there is no D3 team that can beat a D1 team if both competed as though it was a tournament. Using some one-off friendly match is not relevant because a D1 baseball team as example would likely not have anyone from their starting rotation pitch against a D3 team...there is nothing on the line and their D1 1st string could always get hurt.

I know a D3 basketball player heavily recruited by MIT and Chicago that couldn't even get a glance from an Ivy coach.

Now, from a career perspective...I am sure the Amherst baseball team has a great alumni network that wants to hire current Amherst baseball players. However, it will be a short conversation with a new client that is just interested in watching baseball when you say you played Amherst baseball vs. when you say you played LSU baseball they want to talk about Dylan Crews and Paul Skeins...and they know you had to be a pretty darn good baseball player to play for LSU.

Of course none of this is relevant to OP's post who specifically asked about how important athletics may be for acceptance to Medical or Dental school...not getting a corporate job.

MOST kids don't play these sports and, frankly, in my own kids' sport it is widely acknowledged that some D3 teams are better than some D1s. The powerhouse D1s? Of course not. But there is a spectrum of schools at the D1, 2, and 3 level and it's silly for you to argue otherwise. Even more silly to think that people are as simple-minded as you in not wanting to hearing about someone's D3 sports experiences.

Give me an example...and by default, MOST kids do play these sports as they are the most popular sports. You do realize how silly you now sound by claiming that the most popular sports, where empirically the most kids play...are somehow not the sports that most kids play.

I have a recruited athlete, so I am well aware of D1, D2 and D3. I was speaking of prominent sports, and I gather you are talking about a niche sport. Perhaps it is different.

D2 is a completely different animal. I was responding to D3 vs. D1. I am all ears...give me an example of the sport to which you refer and where D3 teams are better in a tournament setting.

Lax and Field hockey, to start, Mr. All Ears.

You are wrong in my experience about the baseball discussion. Even high-level D1 college baseball isn't going to impress many people who are not really into baseball. College baseball gets terrible ratings and a large percentage of the best players skip college baseball. I have enjoyed taking to a big tech coworker about his team's trip to Omaha in college but most talk to him and our coworker who played D3 in the same way. If anything, people are more interested in hearing from the D3 person because it was a very high academic school. Beyond some of the analytics talk in our tech setting, baseball is more like swimming or track than football or basketball from a conversation and networking perspective.

The few people who played basketball and football are the ones I think it helps with networking quite a bit (if D1 or really high academic) since so many people want to talk about it and those sports, assuming they know more given their history. MBA and JD programs also love their former revenue athletes. Olympians and the small number of people who played professionally do very well in the cocktail setting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, my husband rowed Division 1 crew. Hard to tell if it helped with law school admissions but at biglaw firm interviews he felt it was an advantage (he listed it on his resume). And when he got to his firm it was always something higher ups remembered about him from the interview process.

My DH’s D1 rowing teammates are a lot of fun, but never would have gotten to where they are now without alumni hiring support in their early careers and/or admiration from recruiters during the b-school and law school recruiting process. For example, he is in consulting and they love athletes and dancers. His hiring year was packed with former professional ballerinas and college and professional athletes. They’ve all described it as a big conversation starter during interviews, recruiting dinners, and social events. Partners love to have someone to show off who has an interesting story. More importantly they that see that background as confirmation that a candidate is willing to do years of scut work to reach their goal.

I agree with this. Sports are a talking point. And there are a lot of sporty people out there.

My work has recently tilted hard towards male leaders who are obsessed with college football and basketball. So now our social events are skewing towards bar nights and sports. College 101. Ugh.

Played D2 at a no name school and it helped me tremendously. Offers from D1-D3. D1 had more time commitment and sometimes major stipulations. D2 gave me the opportunity to play 4 years, captain for 2 of them, and recieve a nearly free education. It also gave me more time than D1 for extracurriculars and internships. I was able to show on my resume and articulate in interviews my leadership, work ethic, and ability to balance several things at once. I've had my sports background cited in both graduate school acceptances at top schools and companies that I would not have had a shot at otherwise (most peers from T25 schools).

Network would have been much better at D1 though. Also, I don't think playing a sport helped much for my teammates who chose to skate by in school.

Anonymous wrote:Just curious if anyone -or their child- has used their high performing sports background (college athlete, national teams experience, national rankings. . . ) as a springboard for things like medical school, dental school, pharmacy school, law school . . .
I'm not talking as something dispositive for admission or getting any financial help. But is it something these schools view as positive/relevant to the "leadership" criteria applied by these schools?

We are nowhere there yet. But my child has college offers to play their sport (at diff division levels) and is weighing the options. But, just thinking way ahead. A pre-health path is the goal but not sure which path yet.

Any thoughts?

Husband is VP sales for silicon valley tech company. Those jobs are primarily d1 athletes, they hire that way and network that way. RhTs how he got the job and keeps in touch with about 10 guys from his team who are in C level or VP level for tech companies mostly in sales/finance roles. But not a lot of people in this area would want that career path for their kids but it’s a great position for someone with great people skills and competitive and pay is good, usually 500-1m annual at that level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think so. D3 is fine, but still D3.

I'm sorry, weird take and the "D1 or bust" business is so dumb. There are D2s and D3s that can beat some D1 schools. Lots of D1 athletes "ride the pine" and don't contribute on the field/pitch/court much. They all balance time between school and athletics, show resilience and all of the qualities that sports promotes.

So I don't see why anything under D1 is looked down upon. And it's beyond weird that some people do. I know several kids at D3 schools who will get to play their sport for 4 more years and have nearly a free (or in some cases free) education).

I am sorry...but in at least prominent sports (basketball, football, baseball, soccer, lax), there is no D3 team that can beat a D1 team if both competed as though it was a tournament. Using some one-off friendly match is not relevant because a D1 baseball team as example would likely not have anyone from their starting rotation pitch against a D3 team...there is nothing on the line and their D1 1st string could always get hurt.

I know a D3 basketball player heavily recruited by MIT and Chicago that couldn't even get a glance from an Ivy coach.

Now, from a career perspective...I am sure the Amherst baseball team has a great alumni network that wants to hire current Amherst baseball players. However, it will be a short conversation with a new client that is just interested in watching baseball when you say you played Amherst baseball vs. when you say you played LSU baseball they want to talk about Dylan Crews and Paul Skeins...and they know you had to be a pretty darn good baseball player to play for LSU.

Of course none of this is relevant to OP's post who specifically asked about how important athletics may be for acceptance to Medical or Dental school...not getting a corporate job.

MOST kids don't play these sports and, frankly, in my own kids' sport it is widely acknowledged that some D3 teams are better than some D1s. The powerhouse D1s? Of course not. But there is a spectrum of schools at the D1, 2, and 3 level and it's silly for you to argue otherwise. Even more silly to think that people are as simple-minded as you in not wanting to hearing about someone's D3 sports experiences.

Give me an example...and by default, MOST kids do play these sports as they are the most popular sports. You do realize how silly you now sound by claiming that the most popular sports, where empirically the most kids play...are somehow not the sports that most kids play.

I have a recruited athlete, so I am well aware of D1, D2 and D3. I was speaking of prominent sports, and I gather you are talking about a niche sport. Perhaps it is different.

D2 is a completely different animal. I was responding to D3 vs. D1. I am all ears...give me an example of the sport to which you refer and where D3 teams are better in a tournament setting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think so. D3 is fine, but still D3.

I'm sorry, weird take and the "D1 or bust" business is so dumb. There are D2s and D3s that can beat some D1 schools. Lots of D1 athletes "ride the pine" and don't contribute on the field/pitch/court much. They all balance time between school and athletics, show resilience and all of the qualities that sports promotes.

So I don't see why anything under D1 is looked down upon. And it's beyond weird that some people do. I know several kids at D3 schools who will get to play their sport for 4 more years and have nearly a free (or in some cases free) education).

I am sorry...but in at least prominent sports (basketball, football, baseball, soccer, lax), there is no D3 team that can beat a D1 team if both competed as though it was a tournament. Using some one-off friendly match is not relevant because a D1 baseball team as example would likely not have anyone from their starting rotation pitch against a D3 team...there is nothing on the line and their D1 1st string could always get hurt.

I know a D3 basketball player heavily recruited by MIT and Chicago that couldn't even get a glance from an Ivy coach.

Now, from a career perspective...I am sure the Amherst baseball team has a great alumni network that wants to hire current Amherst baseball players. However, it will be a short conversation with a new client that is just interested in watching baseball when you say you played Amherst baseball vs. when you say you played LSU baseball they want to talk about Dylan Crews and Paul Skeins...and they know you had to be a pretty darn good baseball player to play for LSU.

Of course none of this is relevant to OP's post who specifically asked about how important athletics may be for acceptance to Medical or Dental school...not getting a corporate job.

MOST kids don't play these sports and, frankly, in my own kids' sport it is widely acknowledged that some D3 teams are better than some D1s. The powerhouse D1s? Of course not. But there is a spectrum of schools at the D1, 2, and 3 level and it's silly for you to argue otherwise. Even more silly to think that people are as simple-minded as you in not wanting to hearing about someone's D3 sports experiences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think so. D3 is fine, but still D3.

I'm sorry, weird take and the "D1 or bust" business is so dumb. There are D2s and D3s that can beat some D1 schools. Lots of D1 athletes "ride the pine" and don't contribute on the field/pitch/court much. They all balance time between school and athletics, show resilience and all of the qualities that sports promotes.

So I don't see why anything under D1 is looked down upon. And it's beyond weird that some people do. I know several kids at D3 schools who will get to play their sport for 4 more years and have nearly a free (or in some cases free) education).

I am sorry...but in at least prominent sports (basketball, football, baseball, soccer, lax), there is no D3 team that can beat a D1 team if both competed as though it was a tournament. Using some one-off friendly match is not relevant because a D1 baseball team as example would likely not have anyone from their starting rotation pitch against a D3 team...there is nothing on the line and their D1 1st string could always get hurt.

I know a D3 basketball player heavily recruited by MIT and Chicago that couldn't even get a glance from an Ivy coach.

Now, from a career perspective...I am sure the Amherst baseball team has a great alumni network that wants to hire current Amherst baseball players. However, it will be a short conversation with a new client that is just interested in watching baseball when you say you played Amherst baseball vs. when you say you played LSU baseball they want to talk about Dylan Crews and Paul Skeins...and they know you had to be a pretty darn good baseball player to play for LSU.

Of course none of this is relevant to OP's post who specifically asked about how important athletics may be for acceptance to Medical or Dental school...not getting a corporate job.

Athletes were actively recruited at my college alumni office for corporate training programs, sales, and consulting.

Anonymous wrote:I think so. D3 is fine, but still D3.

I'm sorry, weird take and the "D1 or bust" business is so dumb. There are D2s and D3s that can beat some D1 schools. Lots of D1 athletes "ride the pine" and don't contribute on the field/pitch/court much. They all balance time between school and athletics, show resilience and all of the qualities that sports promotes.

So I don't see why anything under D1 is looked down upon. And it's beyond weird that some people do. I know several kids at D3 schools who will get to play their sport for 4 more years and have nearly a free (or in some cases free) education).

I think it’s too far removed to factor into the decision in this way.

First, I think it’s something to talk about at the interview and shows that you can balance lots of things going on and still be successful in both school and outside of school but I don’t think it gets you the job per se.

And I would also consider what the kid wants and what’s the best fit in terms of college? Are the schools academically somewhat on par - ex, is it a Middlebury D3 vs Ivy D1?

I think so. D3 is fine, but still D3.

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a daughter who played 4 years of college soccer I can say it was - still is — a big help. More than a line on a resume, playing a sport through college gave her maturity, confidence and leadership experience. Many times things do not go well, and she gained experience working under pressure and in adverse conditions.

It’s not an immediate thing. And, you could do similarly well in other environments- though obviously the experience would be different.

You can see why so many women executives played a college sport. Work well with team peers. Lead when needed. Not afraid to communicate when and where needed upstream. Jump in and do whatever is needed. Those are some of things that you do in sports and that translate easily to work environments.

Does sport division matter, in your opinion?

A friend of mine who was a professional ballerina says that it got her a job at Goldman after college. They told her that it showed dedication and grit.