<p>"one college report on athletic recruiting"
Could you let us know which report you're referring to?</p>
<p>Any college's report. The two on Division III I've read recently are from Williams and Swarthmore. Both provide quite a bit of detail on the recruiting process, the specific definitons of "tips", and other categories. The Williams one was really specific in laying out the three categories of recruits: "tips", "protects", and "good luck, you on your own". It is very clear to me that protects often think they are tips and "good luck, you are on your owns" think they are actually getting support from coach when they are NOT.</p>
<p>Actually, if I were a recruit at a college, I would first ask the coach to define the terms and explain, very specifically, what categories of "support" he can offer.</p>
<p>BTW, I believe that colleges (athletics depts, admissions depts, and Presidents) are sometimes willfully misleading in the way the discuss recruiting.</p>
<p>Not all of the NESCAC schools use "tips" and alternatively tell you that all they can do is "support" an athlete. After my son's rejection from the midwest top tier LAC we went back to the other LAC's that have been recruiting him and asked specifically if he was a tip. Only one of three acknowledged the use of "tips". One used the term "identify" and the other said they would "strongly support" his application.</p>
<p>I am surprised to read that disillusiondad. I thought all of the NESCACs used tips and are limited by NESCAC rule to 66 for all sports. Many of the tips are used in ED1, but some sports actively use ED2.</p>
<p>I guess if would be appropriate to now ask what leeway the various coaches have at ED 2 (i.e. "tip", "protect" or "support") and evaluate the likelihood of admission and make an "informed" decision based on that. Unlike the IVY league with the "likely letter" all you can really rely on at D111 is the pre-read conducted by the coach and then to some extent you have to ultimately trust what they are telling your child.</p>
<p>Correct, jrpar. The NESCAC rules limit the number of "tips" to 66. I find it inconceivable that any member school does not use "tips".</p>
<p>In fact, I am not aware of a small LAC that doesn't use athletic tips (although there probably are some). Robin Marmot instituted the "tip" system at Swarthmore years ago before heading to Stanford as their admissions director. She did it in an attempt to bring some sanity to the system. The admissions office would give the athletic department the list of admittable athletes and the athletic department would largely decided which among those would be chosen.</p>
<p>I don't think Haverford uses tips (based on the NY Times articles which followed a season of athletic recruiting there published a couple of years ago). I remember reading the articles and being surprised at how different the process was from NESCAC, and how little influence the coaches had.</p>
<p>jrpar:</p>
<p>Could be, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude that Haverford doesn't have a tip system from those articles. They talk about "the lists" and the percentage of recruited athletes in the freshman class. These are all metrics used in the public discussion of the tip system at Swarthmore.</p>
<p>A "tip" system is really any system that reserves a fixed number of slots, divvied up by team, for recruited athletes -- some percentage of whom would not be accepted without athletic consideration. The degree to which the athletic department and the admissions department are on the same page differs. Haverford was a bit unusual in that the Athletic Director was one of those major figures on campus, who had served in many roles and moved over to become Dean of the College the following year. I'm pretty sure that he had also been Admissions Dean at one point. In effect, the tip system there could have been a one-man band.</p>
<p>I do think that the "tip" system at Swarthmore (and whatever they want to call their system, or perhaps lack of system, at Haverford) seems to parallel two lists at Williams -- the "tip" list and the "protect" list. This could be accomplished by simply using a different formula for the permitted distribution of academic ratings within the tip admits. </p>
<p>For example, the lacrosse goalie that Haverford rejected ED and Swarthmore accepted RD was described as a "A student" with "1380 SATs". Those are "average academic qualifications" and would fall into Williams' "protect" grouping. Those aren't below-average tip-level academic rating scores, not with the "A" grades.</p>
<p>I could be wrong, but I suspect that the "protect" list at NESCAC schools is a mechanism for bypassing the conference limit on "tips". The category "average academic qualifications" used for the protects has a bit of a nebulous meaning at a school like Williams where white applicants with "average academic qualifications" aren't normally admitted.</p>
<p>Well my D was admitted to IVY that provided her with a likely letter. Coaches were right on the money all the way through admissions process. I am still waiting to hear of recruit who was given likely letter and then not admitted.NESCAC with tips is just not as reliable it appears.NESCAC coaches have different relationships with admissions. A friend who coaches at a NESCAC school said she just got agreement with admissions that her tips are "hard" By that , she means, after a pre read by admissions, she can basically guarantee a recruit a slot. But couldn't do that up to this year! some coaches have that ability, obviously others don't.</p>
<p>ID-
Can you provide a link to the college articles/definition of their tip vs protected policy?</p>
<p>Here ya go:</p>
<p>Faculty</a> Committee on athletics</p>
<p>The numbers have changed a bit (tips reduced to 66 from 72), but the basic outline is still the same.</p>
<p>In the most recent freshman classes, Williams has enrolled roughly 150 students with the "athletic attribute" tag, meaning that they have been identified as likely four-year contributors to a varsity sport by the athletic department during the "recruiting" contacts.</p>
<p>**66 of those are "tips"<a href="a%20distribution%20of%20below%20average%20academic%20ratings,%20x%20number%20one%20standard%20dev.%20below%20average,%20so%20many%202%20standard%20deviations%20below,%20and%20so%20forth">/B</a>. This is actually modelled after the Ivy League rules.</p>
<p>**30 to 36 are "protects"<a href="average%20academic%20ratings%20with%20an%20athletic%20boost">/B</a></p>
<p>The rest have top academic ratings (1s and 2s, 3 being just below average for Williams) and are admitted with no support from the athletic department beyond being identified as likely 4 year varsity contributors. I don't know, but I think these are the students who most often feel like they are getting recruiting support when they are not. The athletic departments don't want to waste slots on kids that can get accepted without support. They just take their chances and, if a kid they want doesn't get accepted on academics, that's just the price of doing business for the coaches. People often seem to think it's great to be a recruited athlete and a great student. That is not necessarily the case (although, from a big picture standpoint, how could a parent argue with that?) A student in this group could be "at the top of the coach's list" and receive bupkis in terms of admissions support. Only a Tiger Woods would justify a wasting a tip on a kid with a top academic rating when it is literally impossible to find a men's hockey starter with average academic ratings for Williams.</p>
<hr>
<p>Again, I think the "protect" category is kind of a cute little semantics game. In theory, these average applicants would have 50%/50% shot of admission. But, we all know that white kids (and virtually all athletic recruits are white at these schools) don't get accepted to high-end joints like Williams with "average" academic ratings. This group is conveniently never mentioned by coaches, ADs, or college presidents when they talk about only 66 students getting a boost from athletics.</p>
<p>If I get a chance later, I'll try to find a place to host Swarthmore's 2006 report. It has actual admissions data for their recruiting class: number of recruits, number deemed admissable, number accepted, number enrolled, number of Athletic 1s (potential All American) and Athletic 2s (likely 4-year starter), and so forth. Swarthmore had it on their site for a year, so it's not secret or anything. It just got wiped out in the massive website overhaul. I don't think I can link you back to the details of their tip system. That appeared in articles and reports from the committee that dropped football in 2000. I think it's all scrolled off the newpaper archives now. The short version is that Swarthmore designates up to 15% of the freshman slots for recruited athletes being admitted WITH consideration of their athletics.</p>
<p>this just happened to D's friend.</p>
<p>Look at the swim program at the D3 school. Do Kenyon or Denison provide
tips for swimmers. Absolutely. How about preferential fin aid packages.
Absolutely. How about Fand M or Depauw or Wustl. Sure. That's why year
in and year out they have strong teams. Williams, Amherst sure on the
tips to get in, preferential packages probably not, but then their aid is
excellent to begin with, but full paying customers may decide to take
the academic money from elsewhere. Other nescac schools say Trinity,
not much success over the years. tip system probably is weak or coach
doesn't have much pull. Bates? Weak program, probably a bad bet. It's
probably more reliable if the team is good and the coach has been there
for years. They know what the college will do and give clear answers.</p>
<p>As for Swat. They have a tip system but don't usually reveal it to
recruits and certainly not to parents. After application, the sheets
come back essentially graded. ED you can actually get in even if
you're an intial reject. There are a couple of slots. There are also
half a dozen push slots for borderline cases. Most of the tips are
used ED and very few left for the RD round. If you are slotted
you are almost certain to be accepted. However, you may come
back on the list as a likely admit, the coach doesn't use a slot, and
you don't make it. Sometimes other factors get in the way - maybe
3 other people already from you h.s. that kind of stuff. It's almost
better to be a little weak so the coach is forced to use a slot on you.</p>
<p>Coaches that give their opinions on whether or not you will be
accepted are foolish. You never know, the 1600 sat student may
have a blemish on the app and the 1250 student may be the
nephew of the Pres. Only after the apps are submitted and the
likely lists produced can the coach have a clear indication and even
then not entirely 100%. </p>
<p>So for the op. How successful is the team at the college
and how long has the coach been there?</p>
<p>Speedo:</p>
<p>It's also important to look at the number of teams a college is supporting. Mens football and mens ice hockey devour tip slots because it is virtually impossible to get impact players with the academic qualifications for the top schools. Occasionally in football, yes, but you have to recruit for twenty different positions. Schools with both of these programs are going to have to limit the use of tips elsewhere. Women's sports could get shortchanged because women athletes, as a group, tend to have higher academic qualifications.</p>
<p>Thanks, ID. Interesting reading.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Interesting reading.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's pretty easy to see that football and men's ice hockey are the elephants in the living room that nobody at elite colleges wants to talk about. I think it's funny that, throughout the entire report, the faculty committee won't even mention the team names.</p>
<p>Just to let you know, it is not permitted for D3 schools to give preferential financial aid or merit packages to athletes. They have to be pooled with other leadership and EC awards. Since sports are recognized a definite boon to colleges, it is permitted to consider it as such but the rules make it difficult for kids to get awards that they blatantly do not deserve other than for the athletics. In my son's case, though he was a standout athletically, his academic stats were not going to put him in the category of getting merit money from his reach schools . We did not qualify for financial aid, so he did not get any offers but from one school where his stats did put him way above average. That was his safety.</p>
<p>off topic but......</p>
<p>I understand the rules and at the top schools these are
probably respected but as you go down the ladder preferential
packages for athletes (under other guises) are the norm.
They can simply cut out the work study portion or cut down
on the loans for fin aid recips or just bump the academic
awards for full payers.</p>
<p>In my opinion, awards to the athletes are sweeter from what I have seen and known. There are supposed to be policies in the award presenting process that has some way to count the Athletics as an EC with other ECs also in contention. There might be a bit of slippage in the system, but blatant abuses are likely to get caught.</p>
<p>The top schools accuse each other of giving preferential aid awards to lure diversity recruits.</p>