This would absolutely NOT be allowed. Coaches can never ask an athlete for money. Think what this could lead to. Coach could claim the slot or the tip or the letter of recommendation was worth $100 or $100,000, and any recruit who didn’t stay with the team would have to pay the coach? I think not. People could be buying their way into the school.
It definitely happens that recruits use the coach to get into the school and then drop. I know someone who did it at Georgetown. The rules allow it.
We had a girl dismissed from our team within the first weeks of school and she got to keep her scholarship, at least for the fall semester, because the coach didn’t want to go through the process of showing she was dismissed for cause (she was).
^ agree. I’ve heard Taylor, the track coach, has asked for such assurances from recruits. As mentioned, recruits should view this as non binding. I imagine he does this just to make a point. Whether it discourages athletes from using his support just to gain admissions, then not participating in the sport, I have no idea. I do know it’s a bit of a turn off. Ivy coaches face the same risks, can offer firm support, and yet don’t ask for such a document. Perhaps they have more faith in their ability to size up a recruit’s commitment to the sport during the recruiting process.
The school transcript is extremely important. Admissions is deciding if the student athlete can survive/succeed at MIT. The pace of MIT classes is no joke, a student athlete must keep up in season and out. I’ve never heard of a non-binding agreement to play for 4 years in exchange for admissions support but I suppose a coach can ask for the commitment if he/she wants to. I wonder if that works both ways, is the coach guaranteeing not to cut you in the future? As far as character/personality qualities, take a look through the MIT admissions website, there is a lot of good info in there.
A D3 coach has no clue what his team looks like until the kids show up. Since there is no scholarship involved he could have “commitments” from kids who never move in. So you want some assurance that the kids are committed but at the end of the day it’s only a handshake deal.
@alwaysdriving I did not get the impression that there was any commitment from the coach regarding not getting cut from the team. He has a lean roster though which should mean better individualized coaching and higher retention rates.
MIT is the only school I know where athletics is not an asset getting one through admissions. Must get in on your own.One still wants to be recruited, however Coach cannot help you get in.
There is most definitely help from the coach regarding T & F, but you need to be a sold athlete and have scores in the minimum range of 750 SAT both sections and subject tests, and generally no B’s in any Stem related classes in order to be truly considered. Even with coach support a decent percentage of athletes get rejected by admissions there.
Make sure to have a decent back up plan. Good luck.
Athletics can be an asset and the coach can help you but you have to have the scores, grades, essays and everything else Admissions is looking for. We were told it increases your chances from 6% to 30% depending on where you fall on the coach’s list. And you will not get any pre-read or indication on where you stand until the day results come out. Many high-quality student athletes will get rejected.
DD had a soccer teammate last year who was a double legacy, 36 ACT, highest GPA and course rigor, great ECs, very strong, state recognized soccer player who was rejected. Ended up playing at another highly selective D3, but she was under the impression she had support of the coach, had everything else there is to have and was still rejected. Just no “likely” when it comes to MIT until you see the acceptance letter.
Everything I have heard about MIT is that there is very help given to an athlete as far as admissions goes. I think Caltech is the same , if not more so. U of Chi athletics has a bit more pull with admissions, but it is still slight.
I am comparing these schools to other D3’s such as the NESCAC’s, Swarthmore’s, Carleton’s, etc., where there is a definite advantage given to an athlete if they are good enough to make a team. S1 went through the athlete/admissions dance last year with some of the schools named above.
@sable999, that is actually a sad story, though I have heard that “legacy” provides no bonus to an applicant at MIT or Caltech. Still, with everything else apparently so strong, I would have expected the kid would have gotten in!
(edit: did not see @57special’s post. It is spot on)
As others have said, there’s no legacy, no nothing except getting in on your own merits which must include academics regardless of the ECs. Once at MIT all students have to make it through 2 courses in physics, 2 in calculus (not just math-but calculus) , college level chem, bio (of which all are rigorous course rather than “math for athletes”) and at least 8 courses in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, among other requirement. There will be the full range/distribution of grades in each of those STEM classes despite the fact that most students enrolled have never gotten below an A before. All students sweat it at some point at MIT; many struggle to pass classes. Getting in without having the academic strength would be hell even if you can shoot a basket.
@lostaccount#33 I understand the challenges of being admitted to a tech school without a strong aptitude in science and math. But, what I don’t understand is the disdain a lot of you have for the leeway given revenue sports. Remove the fact that these basketball/football players provide huge money for the University and there is value in them being admitted just for that. Do you people not see how valuable these players/teams are to overall student life/experience, student pride, and a lifelong connection/affection for these schools? My daughter just received a LL Friday and I found myself watching the school’s football team play its’s rival game on ESPN Sunday, being part of the school pride and watching the students in the stands bonding, going crazy, and bursting with school pride. It’s a given most players in these sports aren’t going to be superstar students that have the 4.0 gpa and 36 ACT. How is it realistic to expect someone so talented, driven, and dedicated in this arena, to compete on the same academic level with some superstar unathletic math/science/computer geek in that one. But, they are an invaluable part of the school’s culture and identity. As Alumni we remember the sporting events that we bonded with our friends, and demonstrated school pride over while we were matriculating. We remember that more fondly than the avg faceless science/math geek. I don’t understand the venom that is displayed here because they get admitted with lower academic stats. They are an extremely important part of a University’s landscape and one can argue (I certainly do), more important than your faceless son or daughter that is exactly identical to the many thousand of identical applicants to these schools.
I’m not sure “disdain” is the right word (at least I did not perceive as such). They are simply stating reality.
I say this as one who loves football - let’s be real about revenue/school spirit/etc. An MIT/WPI football game, or even the Harvard/Yale game is light years away from Alabama–Ole Miss or Michigan–Ohio State
@ShanFerg3 I don’t see any “venom” directed toward athletes in general, or revenue sports in particular, in this thread. You might be referring to other threads on cc? The Athletic Recruits section is, in my experience, followed mostly by folks who are sympathetic to student athletes and trying to help each other understand the various nuances of recruiting.
