<p>I don't think we do either.</p>
<p>It looks like a coach's blessing isn't the end of the story, as I had once believed. . .</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Perhaps more surprising was how many candidates lost support because of curriculum choices. Some had not taken the handful of advanced placement courses that are preferred by Haverford. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Others had perhaps unwittingly taken advanced placement courses that would carry less weight with admissions. An advanced placement course in statistics, for example, while valued and considered challenging, is not seen as a substitute for advanced placement calculus. Even some coaches have been tutored by admissions to notice that difference, and others like it. An advanced placement course in environmental science, for instance, does not impress as much as one in physics, chemistry or biology.<<</p>
<p>This should be interesting to anyone applying to highly selective colleges.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Fran Rizzo, the women's cross-country coach for the past 16 years, said he rarely endorsed an applicant with a score lower than 1,400 on the old SAT exam.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>"One time I made a real exception, because she was a great athlete," Rizzo said. "It turned out to be the biggest mistake of my career. Plus, she only lasted one year with us.">></p>
<p>I admit I don't know much about Haverford, but I was surprised that a recruited athlete has to have such a high SAT score.</p>
<p>Also telling was the anecdote about the unfortunate kid who, on his interview, talked about stealing food from the next-door neighbor's fridge! A funny story for us, but I'm sure the kid feels differently.</p>
<p>To me, as the father of a previously recruited student-athlete, this is not news. It was not the highly regarded Div. III schools that lowered their student expectations, it was the more well known Div. IAA schools that did so.</p>
<p>I, too, was surprised about the 1400 SAT comment. That sure doesn't jive with the information I have about former recruits at Williams, Amherst AND Haverford. They certainly have to have strong academics, but I really don't believe 1400 is the benchmark.</p>
<p>It looks like B+ students can get into Haverford and that surprised me.</p>
<p>MOWC, I think that 1400 is a sort of benchmark at AW - driving whether or not the coach is going to have to use a tip.</p>
<p>jrpar-that is what is odd about what the Haverford CC coach said- that he wouldn't endorse an athlete with less than 1400. Seems like it is the other way- if the athlete has less than 1400, they need a tip!</p>
<p>Actually, the way it works at Williams, according to their own report on athletics, is just the opposite. The incentive is for coaches to use their "tips" on students with LOWER SAT scores, not higher ones. And the reason for that is simple, when you think about it: students with the higher scores have a reasonable expectation of getting in regardless of the tip, so to use it up (especially as higher stat applicants are more likely to go elsewhere) would be wasteful. 1400 is definitely not the benchmark, not with 25%+ plus of the student body with scores below that.</p>
<p>This does, however, have other "interesting" effects on admission. URMs at Williams are only have as likely to play sports as white students. White students are much less like to require (or receive) financial aid.</p>
<p>the difference between Haverford and Williams or Amherst is that Haverford doesnt have any slots or quotas for athletes, and W and A have.</p>
<p>MOWC, it does seem that the Haverford coach is doing his own screening. I was surprised to read that Haverford doesn't have the tip system that the NESCAC schools use.
Mini - that's what I was trying to say - that if the prospect doesn't have 1400, then the coach is going to have to decide whether or not to use the tip.</p>
<p>
[quote]
to use it <a href="especially%20as%20higher%20stat%20applicants%20are%20more%20likely%20to%20go%20elsewhere"> the tip </a> would be wasteful
[/quote]
This is the aspect I had hoped to read about in the article. My indirect experience (through a friend's recruited D3 S) was that there's a two-way dance going on: athlete wants the tip but coach wants the athlete to demonstrate commitment/likelihood to come, so coach doesn't "waste" the few tips he has. In friend's case, he was admitted to Williams, not admitted at other "lesser" schools where he expected a "yes." </p>
<p>In the end, tho, he didn't matriculate at W, "tipped" by better financial package elsewhere.</p>
<p>"Mini - that's what I was trying to say - that if the prospect doesn't have 1400, then the coach is going to have to decide whether or not to use the tip."</p>
<p>I think this is true, but I would likely put the level at more like 1300-1350. Remember, a third of the Williams student body has scores lower than 1400. And, remember, for the most part we are talking about white athletes with lower than average need for financial aid, and often from private schools.</p>
<p>Figures-- my D's ED1 school didn't even have designated coach picks! Boy were we dumb!</p>