<p>Just out of curiosity, wonder what kind of feel you all have gotten whether non-athletic ECs mattered much in the admissions process for recruited athletes at the Ivy/similar caliber schools? By extension, what about the quality of the essays etc. in the application? Obviously, no one should put in a poor app, but did you get any feel for whether anyone at admissions really cared if it was a decent app vs stellar app in terms of the 'soft' part of the application? </p>
<p>I understand that for those who are Olympic caliber/top D1 prospects, no one would expect them to have devoted much time to NHS, but for those not quite so highly athletically qualified?</p>
<p>I think that even at the Ivies, they are looking for solid contributors in their DI programs. To be at that level usually requires a large time commitment which often does preclude involvement in many other activities. I don’t think they would expect too much else, although it is good to still have some community service/leadership type activities in addition. I know that the athletes who go from my son’s school to Ivies, don’t do too much more in addition to their sport.</p>
<p>I agree - I think the 2 critical issues for an athlete recruited at the Ivy’s are academic credentials and the coach’s strong support. An athlete has to be able to really contribute to the team in order to get the coach’s support and needs to be viewed as academically capable by admissions. Beyond those two issues, I think other factors, such as other EC’s, have much less influence. As an example, when our S was being recruited, coaches routinely asked him to send copies of SAT’s and transcripts to them to be screened by admissions and of course they wanted his athletic stats, but he was never asked about his other EC’s, in advance of his final application. It’s my impression that his other EC’s didn’t make much difference after he had cleared the 2 hurdles identified above.</p>
<p>I don’t think they care really. As a D1 athlete you really tend to not have time for much else, and even if you did they’re not really interested in what you did during that free time because if you’re getting in as an athlete it’s clear that what they really care about is what you will contribute athletically while remaining on top of school. As for presentation, like it’s been said before, numbers and athletic skill. As long as you’re not trashing your app (why would you?), you’ll probably be fine in this regard too.</p>
<p>I don’t entirely agree. During recruiting my daughter was asked specifically about community service and leadership outside of athletics BY THE COACH! Her impression was that the coach wasn’t asking because he wanted to see if the pieces were in place for the application, but because the culture at the school values leadership and service, and he knew these things would be asked of her. This is the school she eventually matched with. </p>
<p>I know my daughter was impressed that this was important to the coach. Her college team takes on service projects, as do other teams at the school. I don’t know that you can make a blanket statement about the Ivies on this issue. I certainly don’t know how other Ivies handle this, but I know this particular one was careful to ask about her service activities in high school (of which there were many!).</p>
<p>Would zero service hours in high school have kept her from being a recruit there? Hard to say. I certainly think the coach saw her as a good fit on many levels because of her response. All things being equal, maybe she edged someone else out, with her open willingness to serve and a documented history. We’ll never know!</p>
<p>This article is from the September 19th, 2009 Yale Daily News.</p>
<p>“Sheffield said that things like Master’s Teas and other mid-afternoon activities that were formerly not accessible to football players — like community service — are now something they can take part in.”</p>
<p>Community service is valued at this school by all teams.</p>
<p>Good point, Riverrunner - in our effort to understand this confusing process, we probably all tend to err on the side of making sometimes unfounded generalizations. It would be a lot easier and would make us more comfortable if we could just figure out a rulebook that applies to all schools. The reality though is a lot of this process is too individualized to talk about in generalities - individualized by school, sport, coach, and competitiveness of athlete (both athletically and academically). Just when you think you’ve got it figured out, you hear of a story of someone who had a different experience! Our S had significant EC’s outside of his sport and was never asked about them (although of course they went on his official application) - different school, different experience, both Ivy’s.</p>
<p>Until my D just turned them down, she was being recruited to the same Ivy riverrunner’s D attends and took an official there. In her case, though, the coach did not specifically question her about her other EC involvements. To make small talk when the coach called in July, she asked what D was doing that summer, and perhaps other information was gleaned incidentally during phone conversations, but there did not seem to be a concern over this. I’m not doubting riverrunner’s experience–it seems her D talked with the head coach more and my D mostly dealt with the assistant coach, which might explain the difference. </p>
<p>D said no to Brown early on, and did not accept their offered official visit. When that coach called on July 1 and asked what D was doing over the summer, she actually seemed a bit worried about D’s summer activities and asked “But you’re going to have time to train, right?” My guess is she wouldn’t care one whit about other EC’s. Similarly, D said no to Dartmouth early on as well, and that coach is of the opinion that you can only do 2 1/2 things well. She said that if D were to be an athlete in her program, she’d be able to run, study, and participate in a limited way in one other thing. For ex., she could be in a club but wouldn’t have time to be an officer. So I’d say she wouldn’t be one to care about other activities either.</p>
<p>As for the other Ivies D dealt with, none specifically questioned her about other EC’s. Given the fact that D doesn’t have any real significant ones outside her three-season sport, and was still being recruited to all the Ivies, I doubt it matters much. D is on the upper end of their recruit pool, though, so I suppose it’s possible EC’s might matter more if the athlete is less skilled.</p>
<p>My friend’s D, a soccer player, got the idea that many coaches saw a lot of clubs as a liability, and would worry that the kid would drop their sport in order to take advantage of all the great options on campus to pursue those things.</p>
<p>Well, on the other hand, the coach at one highly selective LAC recruiting my son specifically said " A kid like your S, who does so many other things, is more of an asset to our institution, and admissions likes that". But I think this was for a “tip”, not a “slot”. He had the academics, it was so the coach didn’t have to use one of his “slots”. Of course, if you are the BEST athlete, I don’t think they care what else you do.</p>
<p>I think the main point is this: If they want you on the team and you have the academics, you’re not going to get rejected because your other extra curriculars are weak.</p>
<p>My impressions overall has been what monstor said. Haven’t had any coaches show any interest in anything besides academic numbers, but was curious what others experiences have been. Our contacts were not with Ivies but similar.</p>
<p>I think this could vary a great deal between elite LACs and D-1 schools. Maybe Ivies are somewhere in the middle? The LAC coaches my D had contact with seemed very enthusiastic about how strong her application would be, and I assume this was mostly academic (test scores, quality of her high school) but partly because of her level of engagement with school and community. If you’re dealing with a coach who doesn’t get slots, he’s very happy to find an easily admissible kid who also happens to be a good athlete. An admissions office really does have the final say at LACs, although they certainly have reason to want to help the coach out too. That means a kid who is easy to admit is easy to support.</p>
<p>FauxNom, agree. Question is whether ‘easy to admit’ pretty much stopped with numbers, which are easily quantifiable/justifiable, or whether it extended beyond the numbers, which are less quantifiable.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m some kind of crazy idealist, but I think some coaches really seek a match between the kid and the school, outside of the athletic arena. The Yale football article I posted earlier seems to show an effort to help the players have a broader college experience than just class and training: they’re trying to give them time to attend talks by visiting speakers, and to participate in community service. </p>
<p>Some people (not just high school students polishing a resume) actually LIKE to volunteer, and want to continue with this pursuit in college and later. Matching these students with a college that will help them to do so is a win-win. No, community service may not help you get in to school if you’ve already got great scores and exceptional athletic ability, but if you LIKE to serve, know there are some programs that can facilitate this, and will appreciate your efforts. </p>
<p>I’m sure it’s not just Yale. I don’t mean to shine the light exclusively there. It’s just one of the programs I’m familiar with at this time.</p>
<p>At my D2s elite LAC I had the definite feeling that her other significant EC made a big difference in admissions. We were told that “admissions was excited by her application”. While she had excellent grades and scores and was a good fit on paper for the school, she had two serious ECs, her sport and her concentrated volunteer activities. I think the other EC made an impression with admissions that made her an easier admit than someone who just had the scores and the sport.</p>
<p>While many coaches will not care about the extra ECS, admissions officers are the final judges, and most likely would love to see some breadth of interests.</p>
<p>After reading Chris Lincoln’s excellent book, “Playing The Game” and learning a little bit about the relationship between the athletic department and admissions, I can see how strong ECs could be a benefit. If a coach brings admissions a kid on their list who is not only an athlete and scholar but has strong ECs - I can’t help but think admissions will look favorably upon that coach in the future.</p>
<p>I really don’t think they care. This is based on observation. Because of where my son attends high school, there are lots of kids who go on to Ivies to play sports. They are, for the most part, just playing their sport. My daughter has three or four friends at Yale (all people she compete with at the club level of her sport). These girls of course just did their sport pretty much…as it takes 30+ hours/week year round. I think most of the schools encourage the teams to take place in community service activites once you are at the school; that doesn’t mean they expected you to have separate EC’s before coming.</p>
<p>For basketball and football, the money sports, it’s just the sport!</p>
<p>For all others, and at top schools, I’d say a “theme” of EC’s that fits your sport is a small plus for both coaches and admissions. I also think that often the EC’s are related or even why an athlete is so good at their sport. A runner who’s EC is the philosophy club, a tennis player who competes in regional debate tournaments, or say a captain of the team who is also class president. Many of them actually are scholar athletes!</p>