3girls3casts…good question. The reality is that the coach shouldn’t really be offering an opinion on admissions unless he says it is his own after being their many years. As someone that has been involved in recruiting, the responsible coaches will say “I think you have a good shot, but let me run it by admissions first”. Parents should specifically ask for the feedback from ADMISSIONS, not just the coaches personal opinion. At every college, each coach has a admission liason, so unless the coach is misrepresenting things like the Haverford Lacrosse coach, it is usually a very very smooth process. I just wish I had known about Bathory being a bad apple.
The coach asks the student to fill out a form with information on their academics-class schedule, GPA, disciplinary record, test scores, etc… The coach then gives that information to admissions and admissions gives it a “pre-read”, and tells the coach the results. The coach often contacts the high school coach as well to make sure there are no issues that might damage the student’s chances. The final admissions decision happens after admissions receives the full application, including any recent grades, letters of recommendation and essays. If the application is considerably weaker than the pre-read would have lead admissions to believe the student may be turned down. This is one of the reasons coaches are careful about who they recruit-they hate to waste their few chits on kids who aren’t admissible or who won’t attend.
Here’s one of the letters my kid got, with the particulars redacted.
I am the parent of a lacrosse player who was admitted to Haverford. While I can understand the disappointment and frustration of those with kids who aren’t admitted, I really have to take exception with the unadulterated bashing and demonizing of Coach Bathory. It’s doubly unfortunate that some reading this forum might be discouraged from applying (including ED) to Haverford or other top LACs because of what I would characterize as “sour grapes” borne of a failure to acknowledge and understand the process for what it is.
I spoke with Coach Bathory personally as did my son all through the recruitment process. He was very careful to say, repeatedly, that he could guarantee nothing with the admissions process. He stated that he thought our son had a good chance based on a review of his grades, scores and application. He saw him as a strong athletic recruit but emphasized that he would have to ultimately pass muster in the admissions office across all the factors that Haverford weighs in the admissions process. He made clear that “fit” was critically important for all admitted students at Haverford - athletes or not. I might suggest that those who are turning up the vehemence towards coaches instead spend time reflecting on the very competitive process that is admissions at top LACs, and the tendency for some to hear what they want to hear, in spite of coaches’ attempts to moderate the message under what must be very challenging circumstances.
I’m sorry that some are disappointed by the outcome of the admissions process, but there are NO guarantees in top DIII athletic recruitment, and that type of character assassination is unfair and uncalled-for.
When I look at all the lacrosse blogs, this one, Back of the Cage, etc, many complaints are all directed at one coach over a period of many, many years. So not sure how you feel it is unwarranted. My son’s lacrosse coach made a statement to the entire team and their parents that he felt Bathory had lied to him repeatedly over more than one year, and would never deal with him again. Coming from a coach that deals with multiple coaches, won the States twice in a row, and probably has 8-10 kids a year go on to play college, I will go with his opinion over yours. I’m happy that it did work out for you though.
I shared facts. Pack mentality (piling on) always indicates deep and profound truth - right?. Bitterness from numerous individuals who refuse to see the process for what it is (including the high school coach you mention) and instead want to scapegoat Bathory - that’s plain bush league.
Actually there are guarantees in D111, and most coaches have a 98-99% hit ratio when they give you a positive “pre-read”. So I think you need to ask around a bit before making that statement.
No, lying to 17 year olds is “bush league”
TBull…could you kindly explain to all why this problem has been coming up with Haverford lacrosse year in and year out, on multiple blogs, and doesn’t seem to be a complaint about any other school or coach?
@laxworld, I know nothing about this one coach, but where have you ever seen guarantees in DIII recruiting?
You are trying to tear down an individual’s (and school’s for that matter) reputation. I am very familiar with the recruitment process across other D3 schools (a recent example - a friend’s kid plays lax and was just admitted to a NESCAC school under the same circumstances I described). What you are stating is obviously something you want to believe - but it is patently false. I don’t for a minute believe that anyone “lied” to you at Haverford or that lying is countenanced as you would describe it - that’s absurd. Parents of college applicants are often the worst at looking reality in the face - I work with them all the time. Often it’s about someone else if their kid doesn’t get in. 'Suggest you hold up a mirror and consider the example you are setting for your son through this type of venomous behavior.
My other son and one daughter were told “done” by two separate D111 schools, the coaches told me they had never given someone a “you will be accepted” pre-read from admissions and not gotten the kid in. Both were academically at the level of Haverford. And the school my son went to after Haverford rejected him after telling him he would be in, had ED 2 and the coach said he had never told a kid he would get in and had him rejected. I will admit, after Haverford, I had separate meetings to double and triple check with each of these coaches, put everything in emails, etc…so Haverford definitely taught be a lesson. Only problem was my son had been told my Middlebury coach he was “done” as did Haverford, so our mistake was picking Haverford over Middlebury and losing that opportunity permanently. This was several years ago, so I was surprised to see this issue still coming up on different blogs. I’m glad the defenders of Bathory who got kids into Haverford are happy, and I respect them trying to defend him, but the was a pre-read works is not 20 kids supposed to apply and 10 get in…leaving 10 happy parents and 10 kids that are totally screwed. As Skidmore, Middlebury, Vassar, Union, etc. None of them have had these types of problems.
From where did you construct the rules of this “pre-read” and “done” scenario? Talk to Haverford - they will tell you that there is not, nor has there ever been, any such process there like the one you describe.
You are missing the point. Haverford did tell me,and others, that they do not have that process, and as multiple posters have made clear here over the last 3 years, that was not how it was presented by the lacrosse coach. I should have checked with admissions before having my S apply ED, not after. That was my mistake, and I failed my son. Good luck to all interested in Haverford…and maybe the problem has been righted over the last year or two and that is the discrepancy between the “attackers” of Haverford Lacrosse as tbull says, and the defenders.
I’ve said more than I wanted to…so this is my last post on the subject.
Were it not for your unfair attacks on the coach and college (and those of others piling on in this thread), I would let it lie. However, I must say that I really am not missing the point. Consider this…it WAS how it was presented by the lacrosse coach, but it wasn’t heard, understood or accepted by parents of rejected athlete applicants because it varied from what they wanted to believe or what they thought they understood happens elsewhere. The problem here is with parents not seeing or acknowledging the defined recruitment process or that Haverford is unique in its approach to admissions - it is NOT with the school or the coach. Throwing around words like “unethical” and outright attacking the school’s honor code is beyond the pale. Some of us need to grow up…
I
I agree this whole thread has gotten too emotional and heated, both tbull who has a child at Haverford, and laxworld whose child was rejected. however, this thread started in 2013, and has continued till today. I read all 130 posts. I think post #16 and #20 are the most enlightening. The writer had no axe to grind, but seems to sum up the problem Haverford has developed, whether fairly or not. But tbull might need to acknowledge, that if the parents are "misunderstanding or believing what they want to believe, it seems that in 2013-2015, that it was a problem that Haverford seems to be having more than other schools (from the blogs I read) Maybe the problem has been corrected.
I will jump in to echo tbull. My son is not at Haverford. Our experience was nearly identical to tbull’s experience and similar to what laxworld reports about Coach Gress at Swarthmore.
My son was identified early and recruited actively by CB. We did our due diligence and spoke to many along the recruiting trail. The players sought by Haverford are typically coveted by many of the same schools - at least 2 in the Centennial Conf (and often more), many in the NESCAC, at least one in ODAC and an occasional Ivy league school. Each coach seems to work with a different level of confidence in the his ability to sway admissions - certain schools had nearly 100% confidence in their ability while Swat and Haverford hedged. All let us know their ability to influence admissions diminished significantly once the ED deadline passed. We found the key to be in how we listened to the coach.
I am aware of no one promised by CB a “definite” chance of admission. Rather, everyone I know reported that CB defers much like Gress to the independence of the admissions committee. Although he’ll note how much he likes a player and can promise to recommend a player, I’ve only heard that he qualifies his interest with a note that he cannot make any promises. He offers the lure of ED only to increase the chances of the applicant.
I have also never heard that he actively recruits 20 with promises of admission.
I found CB to be aggressive in his interest but candid in discussing the admissions process. As tbull noted, “fit” probably factors as much in the admissions process as athletic ability. Haverford simply did not weigh athletics as heavy as most of the other schools.
Look, tbull, you are right that no coach at an elite college ever guarantees admission. However, when a Div I or Div III coach at most schools tells a top recruit after a pre-read that he has a very good chance of getting in, then he’s actually in barring something drastic coming up. Something drastic would be an unexpectedly negative counselor or teacher recommendation–the kind that would also keep the same kid out of Middlebury as well as Haverford. The kid is not going to be rejected simply because the college decided they didn’t like him as much as they had earlier, or that now they preferred some oboe player from South Dakota and wanted to open up a spot for him instead. Rejection after a successful pre-read at schools other than Haverford is rare and is traceable to some previously unseen deficit, like a failing first quarter grade in a major subject. IMO, if the Ivies and Stanford can manage this pre-read process exceptionally well with few to no complaints, then who is Haverford to act as though they must be so very picky?
Now I will add this caveat: my comments are directed toward top recruits–players that the coach tells are in the upper half of his ranked list. I did get the impression that some less upfront coaches might want admissions to do their dirty work for them and reject the B or C-list kids they no longer needed once their A-list players at the same position committed. A girl who attended the same official visit as my D did at Princeton got told by the coach that it didn’t look great for her. This was because better girls on the same visit had told him they were committing, so now he did not want to use his pull on her. She got the message though, and committed elsewhere. There was no surprise rejection.