New York Times article about college recruiting

Parents Forum
1

<p>A portion of the article from the online edition at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>December 25, 2005
Admissions and the Cold Slap of Rejection
By BILL PENNINGTON
Kevin Friedenberg was certain he had played by all the rules of the college recruiting game. </p>

<p>A top high school lacrosse goalie from Needham, Mass., he had e-mailed coaches to promote himself and had attended showcase camps and tournaments. An A student who said he had College Board scores equivalent to 1,380 on the two-part SAT, Friedenberg narrowed his choices to three Division III institutions, including Haverford, a small, selective liberal arts college.</p>

<p>Friedenberg twice visited the Haverford campus outside Philadelphia, with astute questions for the lacrosse coach, Mike Murphy: Could he study a year abroad? How many advanced placement high school courses did he need to take? Did Haverford need a goalie? Would the coach support him in admissions?</p>

<p>Assured he was in the top half of the list of athletes Murphy would forward to admissions, Friedenberg completed Haverford's binding early-decision application in November. He spurned overtures from Swarthmore College and Connecticut College.</p>

<p>"I thought I had all my bases covered," Friedenberg said. "But what I got in the mail was a thin letter."</p>

<p>A thin letter, as opposed to an envelope thick with acceptance forms, is code for a rejection.</p>

<p>"I was completely shocked," said Friedenberg, whose application was not among the few deferred to Haverford's regular decision process in the spring. "I didn't know what to do. I have to get back in touch with all those coaches again, but they've probably already recruited their goalies and moved on without me.</p>

<p>Pretty scary stuff!</p>

2

<p>That series has been interesting. Today's article was especially interesting because it revealed how even in athletic recruiting social factors and a school's desire for socioeconomic and geographic diversity may come into play. According to the article, the lacrosse goalie who was accepted (presumably in place of Friedenberg) was a kid from Texas who worked at various jobs, including housecleaning, to raise money for visits to schools who might be interested in him; neither of his parents had attended college and his mother was Nicaraguan. His grades and SAT scores were notably lower than those of the Massachusetts goalie however.</p>

3

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/sports/ncaafootball/25sidebar.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1135540677-nFrRjRfIgQSBzerjCVWR/A%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/sports/ncaafootball/25sidebar.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1135540677-nFrRjRfIgQSBzerjCVWR/A&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>With so many athletes accepted each year, I do have to wonder how academically elite these schools really are.</p>

<p>A 3.1 gpa and a 1200 at Haverford? And you know the kid is going to do just fine.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/sports/ncaafootball/25haverford.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/sports/ncaafootball/25haverford.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Athletic prowess gave some candidates a clear edge toward admission - in 10 cases in particular. But of the 71 recruited athletes in the early-decision pool, 31 were rejected. Three athletes endorsed by coaches were deferred to the regular admissions pool.</p>

<p>One athlete was rejected for having received two C's in the first semester this year. Another was rejected in part because two of the five required SAT scores were below 600, although the 650 average was in the acceptable range."</p>

4

<p>If by "these schools" you mean the top 10 LACs in the country, I think we can safely say they are truly academically elite, even if a few athletes with slightly lower stats slip through. </p>

<p>And thanks for the post. I have enjoyed this series of articles and might have missed it on this busy Christmas Sunday!</p>

<p>And I don't know if I would go so far as to call it "scary stuff" but it does sound like some poor communication was going on in that case. I would like to see the follow up article on this kid. Somehow I think he will be ok, and land on his feet (in front of a goal) somewhere.</p>

5

<p>I think the biggest problem with recruiting is unmanageable expectations. All these kids are told by their parents how great they are at sports, when in reality, there are thousands of kids that are probably better. These kids and parents then meet with coaches and hear exactly what they want to hear, even if the coach is just saying "i'd love to have you on the team" the kid then goes and tells everybody he got recruited because he had selective hearing, unless a coach tells you, "I am definetly going to get you in" you really shouldn't be expecting much. Then, the kid gets the rejection letter, tells everybody how the coach "screwed" him, even when there was never anything promised. If you are a top athlete, you will get in, period. If you aren't that good, you are expendable. Chances are, if this kid had to initiate contact with these coaches through e-mail, he wasn't THAT outstanding or they would have found him on their own.</p>

6

<p>I think what is scary about this is that students may be lured into putting all their eggs in one basket, thinking all is well, and miss other excellent opportunities. Seems this happened to student Friedenberg at least at this stage of the game. Hope he does land safely!</p>

7

<p>I honestly am not too surprised at the outcome. As an athlete getting daily phone calls from DIII LAC coaches, I think I've learned to take everything they say with a grain of salt. The coaches who have run things by admissions officers for me, and allowed me to explain things that otherwise would not come across in my application- those coaches and schools hedge ahead on my list. They aren't making promises, empty or not, but are being extremely helpful in the process which I appreciate whether I get in or not.</p>

8

<p>
[Quote]
If by "these schools" you mean the top 10 LACs in the country, I think we can safely say they are truly academically elite, even if a few athletes with slightly lower stats slip through.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Correct me if my math is wrong, but it looks like 70 out of a few hundred are recruited athletes at these small DIII LACs.</p>

9

<p>^^Recruited athlete doesn't necessarily mean below average. I think that NESCAC schools allow 33 tips per school which would be BELOW academic standards. The rest of the tips are used on kids that are academically qualified but it takes the chance out of it. I was given a tip at Williams and I have a 2250 and 2 780's on SAT 2's so it's unfair to lump all recruited athletes into the "below average" category, I think that about 75 percent of recruits are in an academic situation similar to mine.</p>

10

<p>It looks like Amherst accepts around 126 athletes and 66 are tipped.</p>

11

<p>"His grades and SAT scores were notably lower than those of the Massachusetts goalie however."</p>

<p>"^^Recruited athlete doesn't necessarily mean below average. I think that NESCAC schools allow 33 tips per school which would be BELOW academic standards."</p>

<p>Actually, the way it is has been explained at Williams (and is probably true at the other schools as well) is that coaches are much less likely to use the tips for students who are academically in the upper half of the applicant class statistically, since they are going to get a portion of those anyway. So "recruited athlete" doesn't necessarily mean below average, but "tips" are more likely to be given to those "below academic standards". No contradiction there. Put that together and, barring a "must-have" athlete, the academically lower-ranked athlete has a better chance of getting in. </p>

<p>(And I don't have any problem with that - they can all do the work. As for them being "academically elite"? Depends what you mean. they don't become less "elite" because there are students with lower SATs. I would judge "elite" by what comes out, not by what goes in. Financially elite goes without question.)</p>

12

<p>Note, there were TWO articles in today's NYTimes, both by the same author. dstark has links to both articles. Make sure you read both. I found the second article more interesting because there was some hard data, vs more of a good narrative in the first article. I didn't realize that there was so much variation in DIII schools as to the influence that a coach had with admissions. Made me appreciate anew the accomplishment of our HS grads that are at Haverford and Middlebury (and other colleges).</p>

13

<p>Mini: haha yea that's why I was grateful to get in, especially after reading this article.</p>

14

<p>It seems to me that the Division 1 recruiting process for the major revenue sports is much more transparent than this D3 stuff. Here you have kids who are serious about school and can get screwed because the coaches don't have control over the admissions decisions. In contrast, D1 bball/football coaches hand out the scholarships, and the requirements (meeting NCAA standards) are known in advance.</p>

15

<p>
[Quote]
Here you have kids who are serious about school and can get screwed because the coaches don't have control over the admissions decisions

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>From what I understand, it can work the other way too: after the student gains admission, he can drop the sport.</p>

16

<p>they take to many retarded athletes anyway. good. the kid should go to school with the other dummies stay out of IVY who are they kidding...come to VANDERBILT! We love athletes and parties!</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
Haverford accepted 101 of 237 early-decision applicants this month, and 37 of those were athletes who had been endorsed by a coach at the college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wow, over 1/3 of the ED kids recruited athletes?!</p>

18

<p>I read the NYT article with great interest, as my junior S is interested in playing football in college. I was pretty shocked when I saw who the boy from Texas was who got the scholarship. My S played on a tournament la crosse team with him and the description of him as a poor first generation immigrant is OFF the mark. He had to mow lawns to earn money to go to camps? I hardly think so! Wow, weird how someone can be packaged in college apps or maybe that was just how the NYT wanted to spin the story. The private school he attends is one of the best in Texas and a 3.1 is a great grade there, the competition is stiff. The 1200, well, some people just cannot take standardized tests.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
It looks like Amherst accepts around 126 athletes and 66 are tipped.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sounds about right. With a larger freshman class, Williams had 151 new students this year who were identified by the athletic department as likely 4-year varsity athletes. 66 of these were below-average impact players. Another 36 had average academic qualifications for Williams and received a boost from being on the coaches' list. The remainder had above average academic stats and received no boost from the athletic deparment.</p>

<p>Speaking of the 126 freshmen athletes at Amherst, here's what Amherst's admissions dean had to say in a 2001 edition of the Amherst student newspaper when he poo-poohed Swarthmore's decision to drop football because they could not allocate 30% of their freshman slots to athletes:</p>

<p>
[quote]
According to Parker, 112 of the 375 Swarthmore freshmen, or 30 percent, play a sport. By comparison, Amherst’s freshman class contained 74 athletes out of 425, or 17 percent. </p>

<p>“To me, that’s baffling. It makes no sense to me,” said Parker, who said that *a similar percentage to Swarthmore’s would mean that 128 Amherst freshmen would play on a team. “I’d get fired if I did that here.” *

[/quote]
</p>

20

<p>If Amherst accepting 126 athletes in its current freshman class "sounds about right," then I'm not sure what relevance can be attached to the 2001 student newspaper report stating that "Amherst’s freshman class contained 74 athletes out of 425, or 17 percent." It's either hopelessly dated, or just wrong...I strongly suspect the latter. 74 would obviously refer to "tipped" athletes, back in 2000-2001...The number was reduced by common agreement among the "Little Three--Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan--to 66 a couple of years ago.</p>

<p>As for 30% of Swarthmore students "playing a sport," you need to be a little more specific. According to Swarthmore's own website, only 21% of students participate in varsity and club sports....combined. Here's some data I posted back in late September on a similar thread. All info came directly from the college websites, as of 9/25/05.
[quote]
Any small college that wants to field a full set of varsity teams is going to have to have a higher percentage of athletes than one that doesn't particularly care about it. 34% of Williams students are varsity athletes. This is similar to Amherst (32%), a tad higher than Middlebury (28%), but substantially lower than both Colby and Haverford (42%). In addition, these schools all have unofficial intercollegiate teams--club sports such as rugby, Ultimate Frisbee, Men's Volleyball, etc. At Williams, this bumps the number up to 40%--and Haverford jumps to an amazing 50-55%. At the other end of the spectrum you have Swarthmore (21% varsity & club combined) and Wesleyan (25% varsity & club combined) and Hamilton at 30% combined. Virtually all these schools report intramural sports participation at around 75%--they're fun and good for you, they relieve stress, they're social (and often co-ed), and there often isn't that much else to do.

[/quote]
</p>