Anonymous
10/19/2025 17:30
Subject: Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Anonymous wrote:Or is a very strong student at a top high school plus a good but not tippity top club/varsity player enough? Are there many top athletes out there who also have the academic chops to hack it at these colleges? I am sure it depends on the sport, but how about for sports outside of football and basketball? If your SAT is in the 1550-1580 range, high rigor at a strong, nationally recognized HS, and let's say you are an ok lacrosse/volleyball/soccer/track athlete, what are the odds that you'd get recruited by a top academic institution? Obviously no chance at Duke, Stanford and the likes.
I am new to this site and process and curious how it all works.
Yes, your mid athlete definitely deserves to be recruited to the top colleges in America because the great athletes are all morons.
Those top jocks can achieve what your DC has more easily than the other way around. Let that sink in.
Anonymous
10/19/2025 17:21
Subject: Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Patriot league members Colgate, Holy Cross and Bucknell are Div1 (FCS for football) and all are SLAC . Maybe Davidson.
Anonymous
10/19/2025 16:31
Subject: Re:Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just to add that it's a 40% acceptance after MIT's version of a pre read or pre application review. The coach probably ghosts the student if don't have a changes of being admitted and the student doesn't apply.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:40% acceptance rate at MIT is still insane - that's an 8x boost to your oddsAnonymous wrote:Ivies: yes, top athlete
MIT: not top, but it is not a typical hook, meaning you don’t have a preread and if you pass that then you’re pretty much in when you apply barring unusual circumstances. Instead, many still don’t get in when they apply even with coach support so lots of athletes commit elsewhere where their admission is virtually guaranteed.
Those odds are completely kid and coach dependent. It is coach dependent bc those who are there longer tend to be more accurate as to whether the kid will end up getting in based on years of experience. The issue is lots of good athletes/students don’t want to risk losing a spot at another good school for the risk of a maybe at MiT. Cal Tech is the same way.
Good points. My kid was offered recruiting support at MIT and after reviewing her package said should get in two out of three times based on his experience. It is an amazing advantage but the challenge for the coach is that kids of the level that they need have options. In my kids case she had offers from NESCAC schools, top UAA schools, and Patriot League schools which were all basically 100% if she said yes. In the end she chose a NESCAC instead.
The athlete I know who wanted to go to MIT wasn't ghosted. The coach told them outright that they were sorry but they couldn't support their application.
My kid (not yet a senior) has gotten attention from MIT coaches. They were at least as interested in his academic chops as his athletic ones. They don't want to waste their time on kids that don't have a decent shot.
My impression is that sports won't move the needle at all on things like test scores, GPA and level of rigor, but they'll be somewhat more forgiving on EC's, or rather they'll consider lacrosse as an asset in the same way that they'll consider math team as an asset.
MIT directly told my kid they are requiring all coach backed recruits to have a 780 or higher on the math section and above around a 1550 total on the SAT.
Cal Tech told my kid who has nationwide awards for STEM and an enormous amount of leadership and impactful ECs that admissions wants even more STEM work.
MIT doesn't require a 780 to be recruited, the requirement is 750 and they prefer 770. Also, nobody requires a 750 for support. They basically require a 1500 the same as JHU but prefer something north of the 25th percentile 1520, not 1550.
If they actually told you that they weren't very interested in you and were letting you down easy. Of course they love athletes who are above their medians but they aren't going to turn down an impact athlete who is at the 25th pect.
Anonymous
10/19/2025 08:57
Subject: Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Tippity top athletes are recruited. We've been to camps for our sport at Harvard and one that featured head coaches for Princeton and Dartmouth. It was sobering.
Anonymous
10/19/2025 08:50
Subject: Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Anonymous wrote:You don't have to be any kind of athlete to go to any of those colleges. I've had friends who can barely roll a ball along the ground at Columbia, Harvard, MIT etc
It’s always kind of funny when people reference Ivy schools as not having good athletes and completely ignore that these schools are often top 20 ranked in most sports other than football, basketball and baseball.
Lax, hockey, soccer, field hockey, water polo, fencing et al.
I get you may not care about those sports…which is a different story.
Anonymous
10/19/2025 08:13
Subject: Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Anonymous wrote:So MIT is 1550? Maybe this is why the coach didn't respond to my 2027 who is at 1510 (790 m, 720 V).
The team average needs to be near this number. Not each and every athlete.
Anonymous
10/19/2025 08:12
Subject: Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Yes of course. Being chosen for a team is an admission booster.. they want the best.
Anonymous
10/19/2025 08:04
Subject: Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
This MIT post is helpful. Hopefully my kid can hit the 1550 mark on the next SAT try and it will change the trajectory of recruiting.
Anonymous
10/19/2025 05:10
Subject: Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
You don't have to be any kind of athlete to go to any of those colleges. I've had friends who can barely roll a ball along the ground at Columbia, Harvard, MIT etc
Anonymous
10/18/2025 23:51
Subject: Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Anonymous wrote:So you are missing the point about athletics. Except maybe for MIT, coaches will take a top athlete who just meets the academic bar over a student who won’t be an impact player. Coaches need wins. That’s it. Your kid needs to be admissible, but the athletics are the critical part.
Exactly this. I think a lot of parents don't understand the typical coach's motivations, even at high academic schools. They're looking for the best athletes that will help them win. Let's say Kid A is a 95 on athleticism and a 85 academically. Kid B is a 85 on athleticism and 100 academically. Coaches are going to want Kid A, as long as Kid A can gain admission. They don't care that Kid B is better academically.
Anonymous
10/18/2025 22:24
Subject: Re:Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just to add that it's a 40% acceptance after MIT's version of a pre read or pre application review. The coach probably ghosts the student if don't have a changes of being admitted and the student doesn't apply.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:40% acceptance rate at MIT is still insane - that's an 8x boost to your oddsAnonymous wrote:Ivies: yes, top athlete
MIT: not top, but it is not a typical hook, meaning you don’t have a preread and if you pass that then you’re pretty much in when you apply barring unusual circumstances. Instead, many still don’t get in when they apply even with coach support so lots of athletes commit elsewhere where their admission is virtually guaranteed.
Those odds are completely kid and coach dependent. It is coach dependent bc those who are there longer tend to be more accurate as to whether the kid will end up getting in based on years of experience. The issue is lots of good athletes/students don’t want to risk losing a spot at another good school for the risk of a maybe at MiT. Cal Tech is the same way.
Good points. My kid was offered recruiting support at MIT and after reviewing her package said should get in two out of three times based on his experience. It is an amazing advantage but the challenge for the coach is that kids of the level that they need have options. In my kids case she had offers from NESCAC schools, top UAA schools, and Patriot League schools which were all basically 100% if she said yes. In the end she chose a NESCAC instead.
The athlete I know who wanted to go to MIT wasn't ghosted. The coach told them outright that they were sorry but they couldn't support their application.
My kid (not yet a senior) has gotten attention from MIT coaches. They were at least as interested in his academic chops as his athletic ones. They don't want to waste their time on kids that don't have a decent shot.
My impression is that sports won't move the needle at all on things like test scores, GPA and level of rigor, but they'll be somewhat more forgiving on EC's, or rather they'll consider lacrosse as an asset in the same way that they'll consider math team as an asset.
MIT directly told my kid they are requiring all coach backed recruits to have a 780 or higher on the math section and above around a 1550 total on the SAT.
Cal Tech told my kid who has nationwide awards for STEM and an enormous amount of leadership and impactful ECs that admissions wants even more STEM work.
What sport? 1550 isn't a hard rule for football and I doubt it is for basketball either.
Swim, class of 2026
Yes…the sport matters for the stats. Football, basketball and baseball will have more leeway than swimming or tennis as examples. Also, the top three recruits in any sport will have more leeway than all the other recruits.
However, it’s MIT so kind of silly if a football player only needs a 1500.
Anonymous
10/18/2025 22:13
Subject: Re:Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just to add that it's a 40% acceptance after MIT's version of a pre read or pre application review. The coach probably ghosts the student if don't have a changes of being admitted and the student doesn't apply.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:40% acceptance rate at MIT is still insane - that's an 8x boost to your oddsAnonymous wrote:Ivies: yes, top athlete
MIT: not top, but it is not a typical hook, meaning you don’t have a preread and if you pass that then you’re pretty much in when you apply barring unusual circumstances. Instead, many still don’t get in when they apply even with coach support so lots of athletes commit elsewhere where their admission is virtually guaranteed.
Those odds are completely kid and coach dependent. It is coach dependent bc those who are there longer tend to be more accurate as to whether the kid will end up getting in based on years of experience. The issue is lots of good athletes/students don’t want to risk losing a spot at another good school for the risk of a maybe at MiT. Cal Tech is the same way.
Good points. My kid was offered recruiting support at MIT and after reviewing her package said should get in two out of three times based on his experience. It is an amazing advantage but the challenge for the coach is that kids of the level that they need have options. In my kids case she had offers from NESCAC schools, top UAA schools, and Patriot League schools which were all basically 100% if she said yes. In the end she chose a NESCAC instead.
The athlete I know who wanted to go to MIT wasn't ghosted. The coach told them outright that they were sorry but they couldn't support their application.
My kid (not yet a senior) has gotten attention from MIT coaches. They were at least as interested in his academic chops as his athletic ones. They don't want to waste their time on kids that don't have a decent shot.
My impression is that sports won't move the needle at all on things like test scores, GPA and level of rigor, but they'll be somewhat more forgiving on EC's, or rather they'll consider lacrosse as an asset in the same way that they'll consider math team as an asset.
MIT directly told my kid they are requiring all coach backed recruits to have a 780 or higher on the math section and above around a 1550 total on the SAT.
Cal Tech told my kid who has nationwide awards for STEM and an enormous amount of leadership and impactful ECs that admissions wants even more STEM work.
What sport? 1550 isn't a hard rule for football and I doubt it is for basketball either.
Swim, class of 2026
Anonymous
10/18/2025 20:40
Subject: Re:Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just to add that it's a 40% acceptance after MIT's version of a pre read or pre application review. The coach probably ghosts the student if don't have a changes of being admitted and the student doesn't apply.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:40% acceptance rate at MIT is still insane - that's an 8x boost to your oddsAnonymous wrote:Ivies: yes, top athlete
MIT: not top, but it is not a typical hook, meaning you don’t have a preread and if you pass that then you’re pretty much in when you apply barring unusual circumstances. Instead, many still don’t get in when they apply even with coach support so lots of athletes commit elsewhere where their admission is virtually guaranteed.
Those odds are completely kid and coach dependent. It is coach dependent bc those who are there longer tend to be more accurate as to whether the kid will end up getting in based on years of experience. The issue is lots of good athletes/students don’t want to risk losing a spot at another good school for the risk of a maybe at MiT. Cal Tech is the same way.
Good points. My kid was offered recruiting support at MIT and after reviewing her package said should get in two out of three times based on his experience. It is an amazing advantage but the challenge for the coach is that kids of the level that they need have options. In my kids case she had offers from NESCAC schools, top UAA schools, and Patriot League schools which were all basically 100% if she said yes. In the end she chose a NESCAC instead.
The athlete I know who wanted to go to MIT wasn't ghosted. The coach told them outright that they were sorry but they couldn't support their application.
My kid (not yet a senior) has gotten attention from MIT coaches. They were at least as interested in his academic chops as his athletic ones. They don't want to waste their time on kids that don't have a decent shot.
My impression is that sports won't move the needle at all on things like test scores, GPA and level of rigor, but they'll be somewhat more forgiving on EC's, or rather they'll consider lacrosse as an asset in the same way that they'll consider math team as an asset.
MIT directly told my kid they are requiring all coach backed recruits to have a 780 or higher on the math section and above around a 1550 total on the SAT.
Cal Tech told my kid who has nationwide awards for STEM and an enormous amount of leadership and impactful ECs that admissions wants even more STEM work.
that's new. my daughter has a 760 on math and was an athlete at MIT. this was pre pandemic (barely)
Anonymous
10/18/2025 20:31
Subject: Re:Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just to add that it's a 40% acceptance after MIT's version of a pre read or pre application review. The coach probably ghosts the student if don't have a changes of being admitted and the student doesn't apply.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:40% acceptance rate at MIT is still insane - that's an 8x boost to your oddsAnonymous wrote:Ivies: yes, top athlete
MIT: not top, but it is not a typical hook, meaning you don’t have a preread and if you pass that then you’re pretty much in when you apply barring unusual circumstances. Instead, many still don’t get in when they apply even with coach support so lots of athletes commit elsewhere where their admission is virtually guaranteed.
Those odds are completely kid and coach dependent. It is coach dependent bc those who are there longer tend to be more accurate as to whether the kid will end up getting in based on years of experience. The issue is lots of good athletes/students don’t want to risk losing a spot at another good school for the risk of a maybe at MiT. Cal Tech is the same way.
Good points. My kid was offered recruiting support at MIT and after reviewing her package said should get in two out of three times based on his experience. It is an amazing advantage but the challenge for the coach is that kids of the level that they need have options. In my kids case she had offers from NESCAC schools, top UAA schools, and Patriot League schools which were all basically 100% if she said yes. In the end she chose a NESCAC instead.
The athlete I know who wanted to go to MIT wasn't ghosted. The coach told them outright that they were sorry but they couldn't support their application.
My kid (not yet a senior) has gotten attention from MIT coaches. They were at least as interested in his academic chops as his athletic ones. They don't want to waste their time on kids that don't have a decent shot.
My impression is that sports won't move the needle at all on things like test scores, GPA and level of rigor, but they'll be somewhat more forgiving on EC's, or rather they'll consider lacrosse as an asset in the same way that they'll consider math team as an asset.
MIT directly told my kid they are requiring all coach backed recruits to have a 780 or higher on the math section and above around a 1550 total on the SAT.
Cal Tech told my kid who has nationwide awards for STEM and an enormous amount of leadership and impactful ECs that admissions wants even more STEM work.
What sport? 1550 isn't a hard rule for football and I doubt it is for basketball either.
Anonymous
10/18/2025 19:59
Subject: Do you have to be a top athlete to be recruited at SLACs, MIT (D3) and the Ivies?
So MIT is 1550? Maybe this is why the coach didn't respond to my 2027 who is at 1510 (790 m, 720 V).