There are a good number of good schools (mostly LACs) that are not need-blind:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission
WashU and Tufts are probably the highest-ranked research U’s that are not need-blind.
Many of the top publics may not be need-blind to OOS.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Move off the need-blind discussion please. The OP has already indicated that they are full pay, so the side bar discussion is both rude to the OP and derails the thread.
BTW, admissions to the very tippy-top is a bit crazy, but the schools just outside the Ivies/equivalents would be filled with kids like your kid (as would a good part of any student body outside HYPSM). Of the schools you listed, I think he’d have a decent to good shot at UMich, UVa, CMU (except SCS), and JHU (as well as WashU and Vandy). Great shot at SMU (unless he makes it clear to them that they are a safety).
Obviously, even better chance applying ED (and maybe EA to publics).
I disagree that 98% of high school athletes are not ‘recruitable’ and cannot play in college. Any athlete who plays 20-25 hours per week on a successful high school or club team can play somewhere. It is more a case that the student doesn’t want to play in college (as OP said her son doesn’t want to continue) or that the student wants to go to a particular school and he can’t play at that school or at that level. A student who does want to play in college has to look for a match both athletically and academically. If you want to play something at Caltech, it’s likely they’d have room for you on a team if you have the academics to get in. There are some pretty good schools that have some pretty weak teams. My daughter was recruited by a lot of the CC favorite LACs, but she had no interest in those schools. She didn’t want the D1 schools that wanted her and the D1 schools she wanted didn’t want her, but there are matches out there if you look for them. I know a lot of high school athletes that chose not to play in college, but they were certainly good enough to do so.
I do think most schools view high school sports as a good EC, and maybe even give bonus points for being a captain or if the team wins championships. How much? Can’t really tell and it could vary from school to school. I think playing on 3-4 teams is a very good EC, showing commitment, leadership, teamwork, and that the student enjoyed something enough to stay with it.
“And anecdotally, some of my neighbors’ kids went to Stanford, Yale, Duke, Northwestern, MIT, etc. without national awards, and they were all full pay. So @elguapo1 may be revealing a real secret …”
Even at HYPSM, only a small percentage of the student body would have national awards. Go only a tiny bit further down and that percentage drops even more. Granted, at HYPSM, the majority probably are hooked in some way (or have some national accomplishment), but even that may not be enough as tons who are still are rejected. Drop to the rest of the Ivies/equivalents, and the majority are hooked, super accomplished, or applied in ED (which gives as much of a boost as any hook outside of being a recruited athlete at some schools) yet plenty in those categories are also denied. Drop a little bit more to many of the schools the OP is looking at (like UMich/UVa/CMU), and an “average excellent” kid with top stats has a decent to good chance.
That’s not what I said. There’s a difference between can’t and don’t and between recruitable and recruited. I also further limited my statement to D1. You can pick up the latest issue of Time magazine to learn more on the topic. Additionally:
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Recruiting%20Fact%20Sheet%20WEB.pdf
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-odds-of-playing-college-sports/
S19 has a friend from XC who graduated last year. He’s running for Harvard this fall. He was NOT a national champion, in fact he was maybe 15th at the state meet as a senior. We also have a friend whose son is running for Middlebury who was hurt most of his senior year but was 18th at state for XC his junior year. Neither of these kids had the best scores or GPAs. I think both of them had an ACT of 31. Both are full pay.
^ Yep, as I mentioned previously, DivIII schools aren’t going to be getting nationally ranked athletes and Ivies typically don’t either.
^ I have no clue about other sports, but on the men’s side in tennis, some colleges, especially those in the NESCAC, are getting nationally ranked 5-star recruits, while the Ivies are getting Blue Chips and 5-stars.
@shuttlebus: Fair point. I should say that’s only true for the head-count sports.
In tennis, with only 4.5 scholarships to split up and talent drawn from all over the world, Ivies and even some DivIII may get a few top players.
Still, even in tennis, Ivy teams generally aren’t going to be able to match up with academically comparable DivI scholarship schools.
For example, over the past 5 years, across both men and women, the 4 schools Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, and Vandy have made the final 16 of the NCAA tennis team tournament 17 times vs. 2 by the 8 Ivies (both by Columbia). And I’m not even counting USC, ND, Wake, or the (academically) top publics like UVa, Cal, UMich, UCLA, and UNC. Those 8 schools would best the Ivies, in aggregate, by an even greater margin.
Again, to put this in context, most recruited athletes -even D1 -aren’t even nationally or internationally ranked. Those who are will probably have their pick of schools if they wish to pursue the recruitmental route.
My comment was that the AD at a top LAC said that for any activity to cause the Admissions Committee say “we have to have this kid”, the achievement needed to be at the national or international level. She was talking about everything from math and science competitions, musical talent, and sports. It included sports the school might not have, i.e. figure skating, equestrian (grand prix level), etc.
This comment was in the context of how virtually all of the applicants who made it to the serious consideration point, a multiple of the number who would be offered admission, all had great grades and score and impressive activities/achievement outside the classroom. While she basically framed it as “this would have been enough to assure admission 2 decades ago”, it was also a bit of a plea to not try to work the system because without an extraordinary level of achievement, the Admissions Committee saw these activities as "equal " and that they would be reviewed in the contextof the rest of the application.
She was not saying that coaches only supported kids at this level nor that an unrecruited walk on had to be of this level.
Again, for the OP’s purposes, her kid has cleared the bar with his stats and sports and will be considered seriously. As seriously as any other unhooked, well-qualified applicant.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Once again, let’s try to focus on the OP and her son, not recruited athletes in general.
@skieurope this has gotten off topic because continuing sports is not an option he wishes to pursue. Thank you
@LvMyKids2 I just wanted to clarify my early point. I wouldn’t worry about his sports EC being looked at as less than. One admissions officer told me I want to see that the student has committed to something - that they have a passion. I would however really focus on his essays and if he will be interviewing prepping for the interview. I really believe that the three students I know who got into tippy top schools got a big push from these two areas. The three students who got in were all kids who had exemplary character. They were the type of kids who could talk to adults easily and for some kids that is not easy or natural.
I don’t think the OP (please correct me if I misunderstand, @LvMyKids2) i s looking for a path toward recruitment. Just the opposite, with a twist. The OP’s son is NOT looking to be recruited. Her/His concern is that to the extent to which the son’s sport(s) represent the bulk of his EC package, they do not measure up to non-athletic ECs. With 3 kids in college, 1 at an Ivy, 1 at a highly specialized undergrad, and 1 at a highly-ranked State school, I think I speak with some experience. All ECs have the potential to demonstrate commitment, leadership, and character. This goes for athletics as well as robotics, Italian club, and the school newspaper. Since arguably all elite students will play this card with respect to their ECs, the tie-breaker most often comes down to what comes next. If the star kid in robotics wants to go to Cal Tech or MIT to continue his work in the field, I think that’s a stronger EC for him. If the editor of a school newspaper wants to got to Newhouse or UNC for journalism to continue her push to be a newscaster, again, I think this renders her EC more powerful. The problem for the OP’s son is that he does not intend to pursue his EC in college. So once you get past the generic values intrinsic (or at least possible to derive) in every EC, his EC’s fade away. In other words, great that you are committed and a great team player. I got lots of those. Are you going to play for one of my teams?
Unless the OP’s son can take what he learned about himself and the skills developed through those ECs and express his goals for expanding on them through his collegiate experience and contributions to the college campus.
Which is exactly what every other top candidate will do. The difference is that many of them will be continuing on in the field to which their EC is devoted.
@BrooklynRye I disagree that that is what every other top candidate will do. I doubt all kids realize just how important it is to create a vision of who they are. Dismissing any competitive aspect of this student simply bc his ECs are sports ignores the fact that students like him are accepted.
If I shared a complete profile of a couple of of my kids as a hypothetical, I am sure posters could be dismissive. One in particular had very few ECs. Equally, the student knew how to present what they did do on a daily basis as a strength and how that strength would translate into campus life. The lack of defined leadership ECs did not negatively impact in terms of results.
There is no magic formula. Sports are not an in when not recruiting, but neither are they going to be an automatic rejection, either. To state otherwise is an oversimplification. It is really hard to translate one students outcome to another. It is the entirety.
Does this student have a chance? Similar to lots of other students applying…
I think you are oversimplifying and overstating my post.
I am in no way “dismissing” the OP’s son’s high school record, including both his academics and his ECs. As the parent of a recruited athlete, I am most certainly not dismissing them because they are sports. Nor am I totally dismissing his chances of admission at a top school. I am merely pointing out that what makes ECs truly unique is not the amorphous, universal character traits of every student who participates in an EC. All EC’s can be spun to promote character, focus, and teamwork on a college application.
Where I believe students render themselves exceptionally unique through ECs, is when their EC marks an endeavor that will translate directly into college. If Student A is in the robotics club, but has no intention of pursuing this field in college, while Student B is the editor of the school newspaper and intends to pursue journalism in college, how can you say that, all other things being equal, Student B is not, in most cases, more attractive?
Parents are investing upwards of $250k for an undergraduate education. These kids are diced, spliced, and refined by every professional advisor, guidance counselor, parent and relative who guides them through this process. While there are no hard statistics in this area (and perhaps you and I must simply agree to disagree), I cannot fathom in today’s world of college applications, that top students are not well aware of “creating a vision” or presenting themselves as unique, with special gifts to offer their top choices. It is just not reasonable to assume such ignorance.
There will almost always be exceptions. While you may well have kids who defied the odds, I seriously doubt this represents the norm. I also doubt, given their statistics, that they would be dismissed on this thread. Kudos to those who know how and effectively communicate the strengths inherent in their daily activities and how those translate into a desirable campus addition.
Getting back to the OP’s original question, my sense is that she is concerned that having solely sports as her son’s ECs is somehow lesser than other ECs. I believe I made it clear that I do not believe this is the case. Where I see a weakness relating to her son’s ECs is NOT that they are sports, but rather that he does not intend to pursue them in college.