1 school pre-red currently in top 5 (Canada)
2 pre-reads with positive coach response (US)
2 pre-reads, hoping for coach support (US)
3-6 schools where improved times in upcoming meets are necessary for meaningful dialogue (US)
10+ schools completely ruled out / 2024 recruiting complete (US & Canada)
One would presume that emails to coaches would include updated PBs right in the subject line. If no info is forthcoming here, I suppose those times haven’t been lowered.
I’m interested in what data was used to declare back in February that the potential recruit has a PB time in one event that would have been top 16 in the Ivy League 2022 championships (and scoring level in various other conference championships like NESCAC and UAA). That doesn’t appear to be accurate. And likely neither are previous statements about how times would rank to compared to existing rosters (e.g. #1 to #4 in specific events).
Since people’s advice on this thread has been at least partly based on that data and stated level of competitiveness, it would be good to see a clarification with accurate data.
5 pre reads is great!! best of luck with those results
I’m ignorant regarding athletics - but why “non-swim”?
Probably because @NiVo’s daughter isn’t fast enough to be recruited there. It’s a d1 school, and they are targeting d3.
I think at this point @NiVo has all the information they need in order to continue their recruiting journey. I find some questions almost harrassing, and don’t think they add value. I vote a little more kindness.
My apologies if that’s how it came across.
I meant it to be kind, by making sure there wasn’t a misunderstanding about how athletics work at Columbia University vis-a-vis their individual colleges.
Didn’t realize I was taking seat on an ant-hill. 
Oh no!!! Apologies, the rest of my post was not directed at you!!
The most recent questions I’ve seen are about whether the PR times that were posted in February have been improved, whether the athlete had qualifying times for the summer events the OP stated they were attending, and what data the OP used to make statements about theoretical placement in conference championships.
“Harassing”? That stuff is all straightforward information relevant to value-added advice for recruitment targets and strategies in a time-based individual sport. (shrug)
The process is generally accelerating, discussions become more detail focused whether it’s on pre-read requirements, whether to submit SAT, and of course swimmers ranking on the coach’s priority list for the 2024 candidates. Her teammate has confirmed strong support at Chicago and is hoping for strong support from Brown and Harvard. D24 has couple positives and hoping to seek strong support at couple other schools. They are both looking forward to their upcoming meets to see how it will impact the remaining discussions.
Ask the coach, but the norm is typically to submit the SAT for the pre-read. Admissions msy then recommend applying without it. This is one of the benefits of the pre-read.
coaches who have confirmed pre reads have been very direct regarding SAT, recommending to submit to their admissions if the mark is above a certain XXXX. One coach directly connected her with the AO.
Thanks. You said “whether to submit SAT”, so glad you have clarified that you are not deciding that.
That all sounds positive. It seems to me that in a timed individual sport like swimming, it should be pretty straightforward to figure out if an athlete is recruitable at different levels (even without talking to coaches or others familiar with the standards). And with SwimCloud publishing historical results and progress, It’s very easy to get an idea of athlete trajectories. Especially in women’s swimming, in the vast majority of cases, the top swimmers will be distinguished by age 14 or earlier. It is rare to get late-bloomers who make a splash at elite levels later in high school if they weren’t at a very high standard years earlier.
Looking at Ivy League 2023 swim championship times, in the 100Y Freestyle the top two Brown swimmers placed 3rd (49.36) and 7th (50.23), and the top two Harvard swimmers placed 7th (50.23) and 10th (49.87; in the B final–didn’t qualify for the A final).
In the 2023 UAA championships, for the 100Y Freestyle the top two UChicago swimmers placed 2nd (51.28) and 3rd (51.29). Those times would be essentially the last scoring places in the Ivy League championships down at 23rd place and slower than the 5th-fastest Brown 100 Free swimmer. It’s a different level there.
And historically those swimmers would have been comparably fast years ago. Here’s the progression
Conclusion: Three out of the four Brown and Harvard swimmers listed had times by late 10th grade as fast or faster than the two fastest times for UChicago swimmers in the 2023 UAA championship You can predict by that age (and many times a lot earlier) who has a shot.
Looking at the progression of the UChicago swimmers:
By late 9th grade, both were swimming at around 52-even.
For a potential D3 recruit with a 100 Freestyle PB time in the 53-high range late in 11 grade, as seems to be the case here, initial targets should have been way farther down the list. Top Ivy championship times are at 49-low and UAA’s are 51-low. 53.56 was the slowest qualifying prelim time (24th) in the UAA this year
And I would think D3 coaches will not be expecting substantial (if any) improvement from 11th grade PBs, unless there are some extenuating circumstances (e.g. swimmer was injured or doesn’t have years of club training and is rapidly improving) Maybe a few tenths of a second.
I agree with this. While many boys get faster in 11th grade, the majority of female swimmers plateau in high school.
OTOH not uncommon for D3/lower D1 swimmers to see big drops in college, since the faster you are, the harder it is to improve. And maybe these slower swimmers were not in such intense programs, did not lift etc, which coaches know for account for this does not to be OPs case from their description.
In “skill” sports (not that swimming doesn’t require skill and technique!), college coaches will often discount higher level of play in potential recruits in favor of better raw athleticism (e.g., speed and size). They figure you can teach the former but not the latter. Recruits who have been in the best club programs and received top skill instruction since they were little may have maximized their potential, while others without that background may have a higher ceiling.
For swimming at the D3 level, I imagine the workout schedule and NCAA-imposed limitations may mean less intense training than some of the athletes were used to year-round in club, and it’s tough to maintain previous times. much less improve them.
I can see that, though top programs seem to put in plenty of hours. As for club, our team doesn’t do doubles and only minimal drylands. Less volume than the clubs around us, but not so rare a thing. But the biggest gains in college seem to come weight training.
Time improvements from HS senior through college is substantially dependent on volume and hours of combined pool and dry land training. Because D24 trains under 14 hours/week, which is substantially lower than many US high schoolers, her current coach expects her times to improve with the added volume in college, where she would be expected to train closer to 18-20 hours/week. of course, those depends on every athlete, and how they manage their academic load. This summer alone, her US training volume will be 18-20 hours a week training with both high school and college swimmers, which is a substantial volume increase, and will hopefully help her improve her times at US meets.
at this juncture, her upcoming meets in the next 2 weeks could be critical to advancing her recruiting discussions.
It’s more critical whether potential college coaches would expect that or not. I don’t know that they would. If the athlete is not used to workloads that other athletes have had for years, a sudden increase could just as likely lead to injury or burnout.
On the margin, I would think coaches are likely to go for recruits with actual times rather than one with theoretically lowered times sometime in the future.
I’m not sure that an accurate assessment was done of the athlete’s competitiveness relative to certain programs. At one point it was stated that they had a time in one event that would have been top 16 in the 2022 Ivy League championships. What data was that based on? Hopefully not the current coach’s “expectations” of future time drops?
When are those US meets she’s targeting? Increasing volume like you describe is a typical aerobic capacity base-building strategy in the early season, a half-year or more from target meets.
This seems the opposite of the usual periodization plan to sharpen for time drops, which involves decreasing volume while increasing intensity before a specified taper to aim for max performance in a relatively small time window.
I’m not sure the point of your posts, or that they are helpful to OP, who has asked for help and insights about the recruiting process?
At this point, we all know this student’s priorities and the current school list…which may or may not change as the recruiting process continues over the next five months or so.
As much as some posters might want OP’s D to target a different set of schools for swimming, they are in charge of their list and their priorities and have repeatedly communicated them…targeting highly selective US schools for swimming, college name/fit>swimming so two distinct lists where the student would/would not swim (common and prudent among potential recruits), with two highly likely Canadian schools…and I would encourage us all to respect that.
IME the swimming list looks reasonable at this point, in context of this student’s priorities and goals, and the D is doing all the correct recruiting activities along with trying to improve swim times.
ETA: the summer schedule is around post #47, assuming it hasn’t changed.