This is a small sample size and it has no true bearing on the character of Ivy athletes, but my HS sends a few athletes to Ivy schools every year, and I’d say that while a good deal of them are bright, conscientious leaders, quite a few are also frankly meatheads who don’t belong in an intellectual environment like that at Ivy League schools. They were permissible for admissions in that they had 2000+ SATs and GPAs that were high enough, but they simply demonstrated no interest in pursuing extracurricular causes other than their sport. Their non-athlete ECs consisted of Sunday hangovers and pot smoking.</p>
<p>I do think community service and other non-athlete ECs are very valuable and they certainly might shed the athlete in a positive light. But that is what they are not getting admitted for. Exceptions certainly occur, if the person is a bright student who also happens to be a good athlete, but even then I would have to question whether that person is truly being recruited to play at that school or not. These exceptions most likely would arise in D3 schools as well.</p>
<p>The coaches at two top Northeast LACs who were getting an early read from Admissions asked my son to provide a resume of his high school activities year-by-year, in addition to the academic info, so ECs may not be important to a coach, but at these schools at least, they matter to Admissions.</p>
<p>key, most top Northeast LACs (if not all) are D3s so my guess is no. I can only think of one D1 LAC in the nation and that is Davidson (does anyone know others?).</p>
<p>I don’t think the other EC’s matter because if that were the case, the coach’s hands would be tied as far as recruiting and he would soon lose credibility with athletes. Here’s why: first the coach obtains basic athletic and academic information (PSAT or SAT scores, GPA and courses taken) about a potential recruit to see if s/he is in the ballpark of the school’s requirements. This could happen through filling out a recruiting questionnaire, via an unofficial visit, and through e-mail and phone communication or all of the above. However, I don’t recall a single recruiting questionnaire that asked about non-athletic EC’s, nor did a single coach question D about her other EC’s in our unofficial meetings with them on campus.</p>
<p>Next, if both parties are still interested in making a match, the coach obtains an unofficial transcript and test score information and takes that to admissions. This is the pre-read. Admissions reviews the academic data and gives the coach the go-ahead to keep recruiting the student, or tells the coach he may no longer pursue the athlete. For this pre-read, no information is requested regarding other EC’s, although I suppose some schools may put that info. on the unofficial transcript. D’s school does not so that was not provided in her case. </p>
<p>If the athlete passes through this stage, the coach knows that now the choice is largely his and the student’s. The athlete is invited for an official visit. If after the visit, the coach still likes the athlete and the athlete likes the school, the coach will call and say “We’d love for you to come to our school. If you decide our college is our first choice, I can offer you a likely letter once you submit your application.” Student says yes, submits the app, and voila. Now imagine what would happen if at this stage, the student were rejected because he had insufficient outside interests? He would have just wasted an official visit, would assume the coach had not been forthright with him, or that the coach has no real sway with admissions. The stated interest of the coach would be worthless and word of that would get around. This would essentially deprive the coach of his only bargaining tool, since Ivies can’t offer scholarship money. </p>
<p>I doubt that most coaches are in the position of having too many top recruits, but I suppose if he had a glut and two students were of identical athletic value and had identical stats, it could come down to these other EC’s. I doubt that happens much, though.</p>
<p>I suspect there is significant correlation between the coaches influence/pull and the importance of remainder of app. Ohio state football player doesn’t need much, while the pole vaulter at CMC might be on his/her own. </p>
<p>However, even in the middling area, I’ve gotten the impression that EC’s, while a nice addition, are really not that big a deal.</p>
<p>As a follow up, how much work did your kids put into their essays? Did they work on them like they would if they were unhooked, or did they do an adequate job and leave it at that?</p>
<p>D2 did have a pre-read from admissions. We sent ACT and SAT scores and unofficial transcript. We also sent D2’s resume with extensive, significant and concentrated volunteer experience. While the coach was interested in her athletic ability, she was an “easier sell” to admissions because she brought more than her sport to the table. Her ECs may have tilted the decision in her favor, especially if the coach had to choose between D2 and another recruit. D2’s ECs ended up being our insurance policy; they were the sprinkles on top of the sundae.</p>
<p>If you have ECs to offer, why not make yourself that much more attractive?</p>
<p>To Ihs76: D2 worked essays as if unhooked. But she never does anything half way - that’s the scholar-athlete she is.</p>
<p>GFG, I agree with everything you wrote with the exception of one small but significant thing:</p>
<p>“We’d love for you to come to our school. If you decide our college is our first choice, I can offer you a likely letter once you submit your application.”</p>
<p>Coaches are very careful to make it clear that the likely letter comes from admissions, not the coach. So while the coach may not care about ECs - the ultimate authority, admissions, does. Will a lack of ECs cause admissions to reject a coach-backed athlete? I don’t know, but I’d rather err on the side of caution.</p>
<p>Our impression of how this works at the schools D has been dealing with is that after the pre-read, the decision on who gets a likely letter is really the coaches’. However, they tend to play it both ways with the recruit, as needed. Good cop, bad cop. They’ll say admissions has the final decision, they’re really committed to high academic standards, blah blah, but it looks really, really good for you. Out of the other side of their mouth, they’ll assure you that they have clout with admissions, and though it’s not a sure thing, they pretty much get what they want.</p>
<p>The claim that the “final decision” belongs to admissions is the out the coaches maintain open for themselves, in case the kid they want slightly more than you decides to commit. That way, the coach is off the hook–it was admissions who turned down the recruit. The coaches have to court around double the athletes they have spots for, because they don’t know who’s going to ultimately commit and so they need backups. They need to convince all of them that they can get them in the school if they’ll commit. Otherwise, the recruit will leave for a sure thing elsewhere.</p>
<p>However, I’m sure when the coach presents the applications he’s got an idea of just how far he can push admissions. He knows which candidates will be an easy sell, and which won’t, so he might placate admissions with a lesser athletic candidate with very high academic stats and great EC’s in order to get the lower-stat stud he wants.</p>
<p>“The claim that the “final decision” belongs to admissions is the out the coaches maintain open for themselves, in case the kid they want slightly more than you decides to commit. That way, the coach is off the hook–it was admissions who turned down the recruit.”</p>
<p>varska: D has her college decision narrowed down to 2 schools. What I quoted is near verbatim what the one coach told her. He said that HE can offer her a likely letter.</p>
<p>Hey G, can I call you G? TheGFG just seems so formal. Anyway, if there is one bit of information of which I am certain in this whole surreal process, it’s that likely letters are issued by admissions, not coaches. “Playing The Game” is a fascinating look at Ivy recruiting and devotes chapters to the dance that plays out between admissions and athletics. “But in the end, any Ivy coach will tell you, the tail doesn’t wag the dog”.</p>
<p>A coach may have a high level of predictability, and they may have it on fairly good authority that the prospect will be admitted, but it’s against Ivy league rules for a coach to convey an admissions decision. And a likely is tantamount to an admissions decision.</p>
<p>So really, it’s not an ‘out’ that a coach leaves open, rather it’s the way that a coach with integrity has to phrase it. I’d be very circumspect about a coach that leads you to believe that he has any greater authority over the admissions process.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to be contentious here, but I’m trying to make sense of the whole process myself and this is one aspect of which I’m quite certain.</p>
<p>I agree that the process is cloudy and confusing. I’m also not trying to be contentious; I’m trying to reason it through out loud on here. What I think is that we’re both right. The decision ulitmately belongs to admissions, yes, but I think they mostly exercise their power at the time of the pre-read. As you say, the coaches are good at predicting who will be acceptable to admissions and who won’t. So they pre-screen the prospects using the academic info. the student provides. But the coaches can be wrong, and they get told so during the pre-read stage. For example, one Ivy coach told us that this year, things were more competitive than ever before. Two recruits who in any other year would have made it through the pre-read, didn’t. The coach was told to stop recruiting them. So admissions was definitely in charge.</p>
<p>But after that point, it seems that the application is a formality–so long as it is moderately well-done, the recruits the coach chooses support WILL be admitted. I could be wrong here, but it would seem to me that if I am, not only would the coach’s abililty to recruit be compromised (as I explained in my other post), but the school could end up wasting a heck of a lot of money on official visits since they are done and paid for before any applications are even submitted. If I’m wrong, then a program could conceivably pay for 12 recruits to visit only to have all but 1 rejected, assuming an 8% Ivy admissions rate.</p>
<p>Just hope our kids get that letter and soon!!!</p>
<p>GFG - that was our experience as well, e.g. at all Ivy’s that were seriously considering our S, a thorough pre-read of data was done by admissions, then once admissions gave the go ahead, the coaches were ok to talk about a likely letter. </p>
<p>Clearly the decision as to whether or not he could be accepted was up to admissions and they produce the likely letter - but among those recruits deemed acceptable by admissions it seemed the coach decided who he/she most wanted and wanted to offer a likely letter (again, with approval of admissions). That’s why it seemed to us that EC’s were not terribly important, at least in S’s case. At the time admissions was making a decision regarding whether or not a likely letter could be offered, they didn’t have a list of his EC’s. That followed in his formal application, but we had already been assured a likely letter was available pending a solid, completed application.</p>