Anonymous wrote:

No athlete is accepted to a school junior year so the verbal commitments mean nothing.

Pretty sure coaches need approval from admissions to recruit. It means something; exactly what varies from school to school and with the recruit’s academic qualifications. The assumption on this thread is that athletes are stupid and have lower scores than traditional admits. Maybe in some sports, but not all

Most athletes are very smart and they have an amazing ability to balance academics and sports. I would hire a college athlete over one who wasn't any day.

And I have two college athletes. I laugh at the "I am going to Stanford to play some non-revenue sport" that is posted in September of Junior year. Recruiting has just started, coaches don't have the definite list they want to give to admissions and a lot can happen between Sept junior year and September senior year.

Also, recruits to top ranked schools usually meet the academic standards also.

No athlete is accepted to a school junior year so the verbal commitments mean nothing.

Pretty sure coaches need approval from admissions to recruit. It means something; exactly what varies from school to school and with the recruit’s academic qualifications. The assumption on this thread is that athletes are stupid and have lower scores than traditional admits. Maybe in some sports, but not all

Ok

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletic thumb on the scale is such a big scam.

can't believe after affirmative action ruling schools kept this unfair hook for non-money making sports like squash, crew and x-country running.

how does the rest of the school benefit from having those athletes there taking up space when there are more deserving applicants who have more to offer?

Agree 100%. Don’t love these small schools where 1/3 of the kids are recruited athletes. Makes the “only the brightest students come here” seem like total bullshit.

The dimness is those who have the idea in their head that athletes aren’t bright enough. I’m pretty sure that my 4.6 1580 state champion volleyball playing daughter is more accomplished than most kids on her campus. She more than deserved her admission to any school.

Anonymous wrote:athletic thumb on the scale is such a big scam.

can't believe after affirmative action ruling schools kept this unfair hook for non-money making sports like squash, crew and x-country running.

how does the rest of the school benefit from having those athletes there taking up space when there are more deserving applicants who have more to offer?

Because athletics are a priority for the school and others are only “more deserving” in your eyes.

Anonymous wrote:

Junior verbal commits means nothing.

This really varies from school to school - some coaches are known for honoring their commitments, some are known for decommitting athletes.

No athlete is accepted to a school junior year so the verbal commitments mean nothing.

My son plays a sport at an Ivy and he got a pré-read and coach basically told him it was a done deal. And yes he was admitted. So the better athlete you are, and if you have the grades (DS ahead a 1580 SAT) then they just know.

Junior verbal commits means nothing.

This really varies from school to school - some coaches are known for honoring their commitments, some are known for decommitting athletes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What hasn't been discussed yet is the element of trust inherent in athletic recruiting. When a student commits to a school, they're committing to the process and typically stop pursuing other options. Any problems that arise between the commitment and official acceptance, and/or official signing for scholarship athletes can leave the athlete scrambling to apply elsewhere at the last minute.

Some recruited athletes at highly selective schools are often admitted with lower academic credentials than non athlete applicants. These athletes may receive likely letters indicating they'll be admitted if certain conditions are met, which can feel like preferential treatment. If you don’t like it, either get recruited as an athlete or protest by not applying to schools that recruit athletes.

Agree with this. Disagree that it feels like preferential treatment. It is preferential treatment.

Yes, that’s the way it works. Why do parents of recruited athletes try to pretend it’s so hard and athletes work for the hook. They don’t work for the hook. As PPs have said, the hook is the decision made by the school to give preferential treatment to athletes. Athletes don’t earn that institutional thumb on the scale.

It works for you. Own it.

Preferential treatment implies that they are less capable. The reality is that schools are building communities and developing leaders, in addition to teaching content.

Athletes can have different, equally valuable skills. The kid who wins the Westinghouse science fair (or whatever it's called now) might make a great scientist and go on to get a PhD in physics because of their intellectual rigor, diligence, precision. The captain of the HS soccer team might make a great CEO because of their decisiveness, lack of analysis-paralysis, ability to build comraderie in a group of disparate people, etc.

People complain that George W Bush shouldn't have gotten into Yale, that it's legacy preference, but the man had the family connections and likeability to become President! Yale probably understood that this was a possibility, and thought it was worth their while to keep him in the fold and educate him as best they could. Why should Yale be obligated to accept a higher stats kid, when in their estimation, accepting a legacy brat instead might have a more significant impact on the future of the US?

If they think an athlete with lesser grades is more likely to impact the world than some other random high stats kid, that isn't preferential treatment, it is them placing a bet, and for all you know, they are 100% correct. There are plenty of underemployed PhD's in the world, maybe they don't want to generate more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What hasn't been discussed yet is the element of trust inherent in athletic recruiting. When a student commits to a school, they're committing to the process and typically stop pursuing other options. Any problems that arise between the commitment and official acceptance, and/or official signing for scholarship athletes can leave the athlete scrambling to apply elsewhere at the last minute.

Some recruited athletes at highly selective schools are often admitted with lower academic credentials than non athlete applicants. These athletes may receive likely letters indicating they'll be admitted if certain conditions are met, which can feel like preferential treatment. If you don’t like it, either get recruited as an athlete or protest by not applying to schools that recruit athletes.

Agree with this. Disagree that it feels like preferential treatment. It is preferential treatment.

Yes, that’s the way it works. Why do parents of recruited athletes try to pretend it’s so hard and athletes work for the hook. They don’t work for the hook. As PPs have said, the hook is the decision made by the school to give preferential treatment to athletes. Athletes don’t earn that institutional thumb on the scale.

It works for you. Own it.

Of course athletes work very hard to get good enough at their sport to be recruited. How is your quirky kid's bee keeping or whatever pointy EC any more of a worthy institutional priority?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What hasn't been discussed yet is the element of trust inherent in athletic recruiting. When a student commits to a school, they're committing to the process and typically stop pursuing other options. Any problems that arise between the commitment and official acceptance, and/or official signing for scholarship athletes can leave the athlete scrambling to apply elsewhere at the last minute.

Some recruited athletes at highly selective schools are often admitted with lower academic credentials than non athlete applicants. These athletes may receive likely letters indicating they'll be admitted if certain conditions are met, which can feel like preferential treatment. If you don’t like it, either get recruited as an athlete or protest by not applying to schools that recruit athletes.

Agree with this. Disagree that it feels like preferential treatment. It is preferential treatment.

Yes, that’s the way it works. Why do parents of recruited athletes try to pretend it’s so hard and athletes work for the hook. They don’t work for the hook. As PPs have said, the hook is the decision made by the school to give preferential treatment to athletes. Athletes don’t earn that institutional thumb on the scale.

It works for you. Own it.

I'm a little slow on the uptake today. You are technically correct that the "athletic hook" exists regardless of the effort or talent it takes to utilize it. And sure, getting the hook is awesome if it helps you get into a school that you wouldn't normally get into. If you are a non-scholarship athlete, you can even choose not to play the sport. If you are a scholarship athlete, they own you. Either way, the early commitment timeline creates real risk if anything falls apart before official acceptance.

Anonymous wrote:Our son committed to his D1 school in February of his junior year. We asked the coach if he was guaranteed admission. The one word answer was “yes.” Our son went through the motions and filled out the application. He was admitted.

But that verbal commitment is not binding. He still had to apply and be accepted his senior year.

Junior verbal commits means nothing.

For a senior- they have to apply and usually do it right when the application opens. They will get an official acceptance very quickly.

Anonymous wrote:What hasn't been discussed yet is the element of trust inherent in athletic recruiting. When a student commits to a school, they're committing to the process and typically stop pursuing other options. Any problems that arise between the commitment and official acceptance, and/or official signing for scholarship athletes can leave the athlete scrambling to apply elsewhere at the last minute.

Some recruited athletes at highly selective schools are often admitted with lower academic credentials than non athlete applicants. These athletes may receive likely letters indicating they'll be admitted if certain conditions are met, which can feel like preferential treatment. If you don’t like it, either get recruited as an athlete or protest by not applying to schools that recruit athletes.

Agree with this. Disagree that it feels like preferential treatment. It is preferential treatment.

Yes, that’s the way it works. Why do parents of recruited athletes try to pretend it’s so hard and athletes work for the hook. They don’t work for the hook. As PPs have said, the hook is the decision made by the school to give preferential treatment to athletes. Athletes don’t earn that institutional thumb on the scale.

It works for you. Own it.

As with so many of the questions on this site, it really depends on the particular school's own policies as well as that of its division and league. For the Ivy League at least, students absolutely by now (from Oct 1 on of their senior year) can have an essentially binding commitment: "Likely letters will have the effect of letters of admission, to be confirmed on the common notification date, subject to revocation only on the same terms as letters of admission."

You can read the entire Ivy League Agreement here: https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/glossary-term/ivy-league-agreement

Other leagues or schools likely have their own statements of policies.