I’ve asked already but didn’t get any response on whether this is a problem with any other coaches at Haverford, so my guess is the answer is no.
The men’s lax team seems to get 11-13 new kids over the past couple of years based on the roster so obviously no problem getting players in. It is also a very young team right now. My guess is he over recruits big time as much as it is a admissions/coach issue and that those players not getting in aren’t at the top of his list. Who knows? But it doesn’t seem to be across all sports at the school.
Doschicos, just be careful. If the AD, Wendy Smith allows the lacrosse coach to lie year in year out, than it is very likely other coaches will try to get away with this type of behavior. Let’s face it, they can lie at Haverford 3 or 4 years, and if their team does well, they can move to a more powerful D1 school to coach. the incentive is there if there is not an ethical approach enforced by the AD or the school. I know of one top Long Island coach, been their more than 10 years and at his yearly meeting with parents, said point blank that he would not support any of his kids looking at Haverford as long as Bathory was there. It is common knowledge in our town.
PS. Doschicos, the issue is not whether Haverford gets in 11-13 kids over the past couple of years, the issue is they tell 20 lacrosse players they are in, and than only 11-13 kids get in. The 7-9 have been misled and than miss their one ED bullet and basically, unless they can find schools with ED 11, they have wasted their one shot. That is the crime. And it is now pretty common knowledge to those that have been thru it how Haverford, Bathory, the AD Smith and the school are misleading 17 year old kids and their parents. The problem is, there is always a new crop of 17 year olds that can be misled.
@laxworld , and the irony here, for those who don’t know, is that more than any other school I can think of, Haverford waives around this honor code thing like they invented it. Somehow, it’s taken more seriously there than anywhere else.
“Yes, I’m sure Stanford has an honor code, but at Haverford, it’s a way of life.” They really waive that around a lot.
Something about Shakespeare and the lady doth protest too much comes to mind whenever I hear people running amok with sanctimonious proclamations of superior ethics. It’s like Jerry Falwell U.
@middleburyDad2, well maybe if Bathory who graduated from Haverford in 1999 and the AD, Wendy Smith, who graduated from Haverford in 1987 had both gone to Stanford, they would be a little more honest. Obviously the Haverford honor code as a “way of life” only applies while you are a student…if at all.
If you think about it, this perceived bait and switch for athletically hooked applicants is better than the situation for students whose “hooks” are strictly academic credentials. Any school like Haverford that does not offer scholarships and subjects athletes to a standard admissions process with an acceptance rate of ~25% is going to produce some disappointment. If the kid really wants to go to a selective school and play a non-scholarship sport, then applying ED is likely advantageous to RD. Just like a a strictly academic applicant, he must risk his lone ED application and might not get in.
If you apply academically and are not admitted, you won’t shed many tears for those green dots of acceptances in the lower right quadrant of the scattergram.
WISdad23 seems to me missing the point. A scholar-athlete does NOT have to “risk his lone ED application and might not get in”. Like a Ivy “likely letter”, it means that 99% of the time, your kids is accepted short of an arrest, expulsion, DWI, etc. It is only at Haverford that there is risk of not getting in, because of the unethical behavior. If you have a child applying to Haverford, which I assume you might since you are on this page, I suggest you go back and read the last 4-5 pages here.
The basis of the negativity in this thread is well-founded. However, kudos to the players. Talented and tenacious until the last literal second on Saturday.
Maybe you are correct that I don’t understand the process. I was under the impression that the athlete applicant to Haverford was required apply to the school through the usual process and applied ED to increase the likelihood of success while the coach lobbied the admissions team. In this case, the athlete was not accepted and lost his ED pick. Is this incorrect?
Incorrect. The athlete applies ED so that the Coach and Admissions can be assured that when the commit to the student athlete that that student will than attend that school. If you tell a Div 3 coach you are applying RD, they really have no interest because they don’t want to push for someone that could go to another school. The Coaches and Admissions do this to protect themselves. At almost all Div 3 schools, 98-99% of those that get a positive “early-read” from the coach that has vetted it thru admissions, get in. only Haverford has the problem you are reading about here and on other sites, because they are using the general system to bait kids into applying ED to Haverford and pretending Haverford admission is like every other Div 3 school. Obviously Bathory the HC of lacrosse and Wendy Smith, the AD, are complicit in this.
OK, thanks. I prefer the Haverford way as you described it. It seems the most fair rather than a rigged system that favors athletes.
Well, if you are comfortable with lying to 17 year olds, you will absolutely fit right in. Sure you taught your children that as well, so Haverford seems perfect for them
I did not advocate lying to children. I advocated a merit based and open admission process that does not offer affirmative action to athletes. I love sports but not free lunches.
Got it. A kid practicing 20-30 hours per week to increase his skill level, than going home having dinner, and cracking the books while exhausted from practice AND still maintaining an excellent average to be able to apply to a place like Haverford is a “free lunch”. I guess as someone that interviews for an Ivy League school as well as helps recruit for their lacrosse, I’ve been handing out free lunches all these years. Silly me.
The free lunch I was referring to is the preferential admissions process in which the athlete has a coach advocate sitting in with the admissions staff for an “early read” with a “98-99%” success rate. I am all for considering sports in the EC portion of the application or whatever else a private school deems appropriate for admission. But I don’t like the preferential treatment of some applicants over others.
Good point. Me too. I don’t like Intel Scholars getting a free lunch, or exceptional violinists or incredible artists or anyone that excels in their chosen field.
And understand “98-99%” of athletes are not accepted, the 98-99% refers to the probability of that athlete getting in after Admissions has giving that athlete a full review; grades, letters of recommendation, boards, ACT’s, etc. Many athletes will be told by admissions not to bother applying. But those that are told they WILL GET IN, and apply ED, should get in. Period.
@WISdad23, do you also take exception with Haverford favoring legacy students too? Because there’s plenty of that too.
Seems like WIsDAD23 takes exception to anything outside a straight GPA.
@WISdad23, I completely agree. And while it’s not as much of a problem at D3 schools, many D1 athletes are done a a real disservice by the process.
However.
Whether you or I like the game doesn’t change that there is a game and there are rules. If there is an accepted quid pro quo of “I give you an ‘early read ok = 98% ok’ and you give me your ED pledge”, but you make that trade with more people than you know you have places for - in effect, crossing your fingers behind your back- and then shrug and say, 'sorry, can’t win ‘em all’, that is dishonorable. That you are doing it with 17 year olds just makes it worse.
collegemom3717. Well said. I agree 100% with how you describe the situation