You frankly twist this to an interesting conclusion. In my experience and that of others I know, they are being 100% clear. Nobody is forcing anyone to play their version of the recruitment “lottery.” Not liking it and questioning their integrity are being conflated.
And there seems to be a multitude of people on blogs that did not know they were playing a recruitment “lottery”. I just don’t understand how you can read from so many different people, including post #16 who knew 5 people that had this problem at Haverford, Laxworld that was from a town where it happened to multiple kids and the coach would no longer deal with Bathory, and just assume your case is typical, and they are all hearing what they want to hear. You said you were “quite knowledgeable about Div 1 and Div 3 recruitment”, so maybe the difference is you had a better background to ascertain that Haverford has a different system than almost every other school, where the majority of average lacrosse Schmoes would have no idea. Might that explain you feeling the process was “crystal clear” and so many others feeling that the Haverford “lottery” was misrepresented to them?
I just found this thread, but can offer a similar recent Haverford experience in another sport (NOT lacrosse).
To make a long story short, after a year of consistent communication (email, phone calls, and in-person meetings), the Haverford coach arranged for a meet-and-greet phone call between my son and the team’s captain just DAYS before admission RDs were released. During the year, my son was repeatedly told he was at the top of the coach’s recruiting priority list.
One would have thought the coach would have had at least an informal thumbs up or down from Admissions by that point, right? Otherwise, why even make the effort so close to the results date?
Nope. A few days later, my son learned he was denied admission. I am just grateful that we didn’t burn our ED shot on goal there.
I want to be clear that I’m not casting aspersions on the motivation of the coaches there. But I firmly believe there is an organizational issue at the school where the coaches are often surprised by the final admission decisions which leads them to be overly optimistic in their recruiting conversations, even right up to the end.
it’s pretty simple.
Generally, Williams is harder to get into than Haverford, and most people would score it as generally a “better school.” More money, better stats … by most measures other than “my Johnny found XYZ College was a better fit for him,” Williams > Haverford.
Lacrosse can help a kid who has the right stats get into Williams.
Lacrosse puts that same kid in with the regular applicant pool with no advantage at Haverford.
That kid fails to understand that (why he fails is the debate here), and pulls the trigger on Haverford because he wants to play for that coach, or in that league, or he feels like Haverford, being overall the easier school to get into, his ED shot is better used there.
Kid gets rejected at Haverford and rejected RD or ED II (ED II, btw, is not “the deal” in D3 athletic recruiting) at Williams.
Kid could have been accepted to Williams, the better school, if he’d know that, with lacrosse, Williams is actually the higher odds admit for him.
Kid realizes he really screwed up by playing at the wrong black jack table.
Everyone agrees, bad outcome. Except for Haverford. Why?
Because there was a chance Kid would have been admitted to Haverford, and they got to play a hand against the dealer with no chips on the table. He’s admitted - great, we got our guy. He’s not - oh well. Cost us nothing. And, there’s a little side benefit - the kid won’t be on the Williams roster when they see each other in out-of-conference play.
That is the point here: there is only upside for the coach and a heck of a lot of downside for Kid. There is no reason why they would not tie up as many recruits as they could attract, hope for the best, and know that all the while these kids aren’t making end-roads with other coaches because they think they’ve got a good shot at Haverford.
A good and honest pre-read is HUGE. Without it, you’re basically a RD kid deciding where to use your ED.
Just completed this process in a different sport & schools (same conference and other conferences).
My S did speak to coaches at Swarthmore and Hopkins, as well as in other conferences, mostly D3,
some D1 high academics too. All coaches who found athletic interest were very clear that academics count a great deal, and they do not have the final say. We found both coaches at very high academic that were honest that you have no chance with good, not great test scores. Even found one coach who claimed he might not support an applicant because “his grades were so high, he’ll get in without my help” (very good but slightly less competitive school than Swarth/JH), implying he has pull but will use it for more borderline academics.
In the end, my S ended up at a school where they did not pressure for ED (though pointed out it may
help with finaid, but they don’t like to pressure students and don’t require it). It did cause me to worry all winter about admission that MAY have come sooner, but it worked out. They never promised admission either way, RD or ED, were more interested in knowing your level of interest and that was it. I really respected the honesty and integrity of all interactions with these coaches, and was ready to accept whatever comes.
I am not sure people realize what a long shot it actually is, to get a coach and admissions committee both interested in the same person, at a very small school with very few spots for students. Anyone who gets to study and play at a top institution, is very lucky and should not think they are entitled to any outcome. I fully expected for this process NOT to work out, and was pleasantly surprised when it did.
I totally agree with blevine. I also found at the vast majority of schools, that the coaches were upfront, honest, aware they were dealing with young men and affecting their lives, and also acutely aware that if they BS’ed too many people, the word would get out and hurt their reputations and thus ability to recruit effectively. One little known factor here that is important, but hard to ascertain, some coaches just have better relationships with their admissions liason than others. Thanks for sharing a positive story. Congratulations.
“I am not sure people realize what a long shot it actually is, to get a coach and admissions committee both interested in the same person, at a very small school with very few spots for students. Anyone who gets to study and play at a top institution, is very lucky and should not think they are entitled to any outcome. I fully expected for this process NOT to work out, and was pleasantly surprised when it did.”
I disagree that it’s a long shot. It’s a long shot if EITHER (1) you’re not that great at your sport or (2) your academic record is a reach for that school even with athletic support. But if you have both, then you go from being a long shot to being a good shot. Having said that, having both ain’t easy, especially #1. But if you are a kid with the athletic ability to play D1 (like my D the soccer player, who is sitting on D1 offers), then most D3s are going to make you a priority. At that point, it’s a matter of being good enough to get through admissions. Try doing it without sports to get a feel for it. I’ve been through both.
I also think you’re missing the point. The word “entitled” is one you brought to the conversation. Nobody said they were entitled to an outcome. What they are saying is that they’re entitled to an honest pre-read.
I don’t know why this is so controversial. If a school like Williams or Amherst or Tufts can do it, then little old Haverford can too. They, apparently, choose to do things differently, which is ok. The important thing is that the consumer be aware of it.
That’s the thrust of the debate - whether the consumer is aware of how it works at Haverford. And confusion is understandable if the coach isn’t being clear, because schools that are ostensibly harder to get into DO IN FACT give their coaches some degree of influence in the outcome. So when you’re out on the Main Line talking to whomever at Haverford, you gotta know that it’s different there.
I would expect a school that wears their honor code tattooed on their butts, to be more clear, not less, to be more honest, not less. to work extra hard to avoid confusion that MIGHT be misinterpreted as deceit, not take for granted or be defended by people saying the parents need to “ask the right questions”!
You know what, DivIII - you are so determined not to listen and to be right that I hereby declare you “right”. The certainty of your world view is quite inspiring…
as is yours, but these posts that keep popping up like TheTwoKidCrew and MiddleburyDad2’s make me feel I’m probably more right than wrong. But I could be wrong.
DivIII - Wait…can I get that last statement in writing?
@tbull , all I can say is, the reputation that the Haverford lacrosse coach has precedes him. it was enough for me to turn away overtures from their women’s soccer coach, who saw my daughter at an ID tournament and began recruiting her. she wasn’t in love with Haverford and I thought, why take the chance that this is an institutional practice?
I’ll tell you one thing - in the 10s of emails we’ve received from the coach, there hasn’t been a single mention of the fact that they have no pull in admissions.
“No pull”? Who said that? They have influence; but they can’t decide or make guarantees. I know several kids at Haverford who had their admissions chances boosted by the athletic hook.
But if you keep saying the same thing over and over (in different words) it does magically become true…
@tbull - that’s the issue. the view is that they really have no pull, or so little that it’s meaningless.
either that, or they are simply not doing pre-reads.
you tell me. why is there an issue?
nobody makes guarantees. even division 1 coaches at football factories don’t make guarantees everybody in this thread knows that.
They don’t do “pre-reads” followed by 99% certainty. It’s all relative. I’ve already told you what I believe the problem is. To re-state: you and others want them to play the game by other than their rules. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the coach’s influence helped my son gain admission.
I haven’t read all of the posts in this long thread.
If you are thinking of applying ED, the most impt question to ask a DIII coach, whether at NESCAC, Haverford or elsewhere is this:
(After first getting a positive pre-read from admissions) “Of the kids in my position, i.e., positive pre-read and your full support for a roster spot, what % have not been admitted during your time here as head coach?”
It surprises me how many kids will apply ED without knowing the answer to that critical question.
@tbull “They have influence; but they can’t decide or make guarantees. I know several kids at Haverford who had their admissions chances boosted by the athletic hook.”
I’m not sure if by “they” you mean Haverford coaches, or all DIII coaches.
But if you mean all DIII coaches, I have to somewhat disagree. While technically it’s true the coach can’t make an admission decision or guarantee (like at any school), in reality and for practical purposes, they can, after getting a positive pre-read, decide who gets in.
This is shown by the many coaches who have a 100% success rate getting their pre-read recruits in, year after year, sometimes for decades.
And that makes sense. That’s the purpose of the pre-read - the athlete has been cleared by admissions.
My statement is n reference to Haverford. Go back to the beginning of the thread for context. Haverford is different.
tbull, no one “want them to play the game by other than their rules”. No one. There just seem to be many people that have been under the impression during the recruitment process that Haverford has the same system of pre-reads as Colby, Bates, Skidmore, Vassar and 99% of the other colleges that recruit. The discrepancy is whether this is intentional or an oversight. As you have pointed out, I don’t care. If feel they are dealing with 17 year old kids. Each and every coach should be leaving NO AMBIGUITY, yet we have heard from multiple people in multiple sports going back to the NYTimes article and Murphy leaving Haverford to go to U Penn, partly over this issue. Yes, I know Mike well. Stop defending the indefensible.