Hmmm… didn’t see @BrooklynRye post until after I posted. The former/latter similarities in posting are purely coincidental.
Oh, and Brooklyn knows way more about this than I do. 
@BrooklynRye, when I mentioned top 10, I was referring to his recruitment year, not Top 10 of the overall JPL. I have looked at the make-up of all teams, and have identified those that will be losing a higher than normal number of fencers to graduation. He knows he has work to do to improve his ranking, and we’ll see if he’s successful. He also knows that if his academic credentials are stellar, that will help his standing in the recruiting, with the recognition that he may/may not have interest from his first choice.
At the end of the day, finding the right fit for him and his academic interests should still be a priority.
@saharafrog - I didn’t see your post until I posted! That is exactly the approach he’s taking. In terms of schools, I’d rather not say, but it’s some of the usual suspects, and yes - Div III is not discounted either. I try to make sure he’s making school decisions based on the entire package (athletics and academics), not just the logo on the mask (or socks, or jacket).
It’s a marathon, not a sprint.
@Rollhigher “It’s a marathon, not a sprint.”
I don’t know, in both a marathon and a sprint, the course from start to finish is clearly marked. I’d almost call the college search more of a multiple exit labyrinth (complete with minotaur to give you a sense of urgency). But that may just be me…
My friend @saharafrog flatters me (and I pay him well to do so)… It may sound trite or even naive, but targeting the best school fit should really trump fencing. Although we disagree on the worth of support from coaches in lieu of an official recruiting commitment, @superdomestique and I are very much on the same page when it comes to prioritizing the school over fencing. IMHO, fencing has provided tremendous benefits, almost too numerous to count, even if our kids never fence again. We should not take for granted the tremendous leg-up we may get because of the sport. My son is a very bright young man, but I have no illusions that a straight-up application to an Ivy League or other elite school would enter a very competitive and very uncertain process. It’s for this reason that exploring the gamut of elite schools is well worth the time. Super schools such as MIT, Haverford, Johns Hopkins and more, may never see the glory of an NCAA Championship, but your kid is going to get one hell of an education.
Do coaches generally avoid unofficial visits during the fencing season? I’m trying to decide if it’s even worthwhile to plan visits between December-March.
We did all of our unofficial visits at the Ivies in February, right after JOs.
Question: has anyone every used 14meters to track, organize, or convey results – and are there comments about is usefulness? I tried searching for the term in this discussion and the system didn’t seem to find it, so apologies if it has been discussed before and I missed the thread. Thanks!
@Rollhigher: Daughter’s unofficial visits were mostly in the Spring…a few in the period in between regular season/regionals and NCAA championships. I know that the typical HS spring break period is a VERY popular time to do unofficial visits.
@SpaceVoyager: While I also keep my own spreadsheet of results, I do use 14meters (in its present subscription based form), but mostly for my own reference/entertainment. In terms of conveying results to coaches, I have found that coaches are already keeping track of kids they are interested in…with responses to emails containing results in the vein of “I was following the live results/Yes, we checked the tableau.” My daughter’s fencing resume did contain some listings of key victories (over national team members or college fencers), but not scores. Additionally, I have video of some of these key matches posted online and visible by invitation.
Thanks for your stories and wisdom for navigating this labyrinth (and sorry for not looping back earlier - busy work week for me!). I’ll take a look at rosters and see where there might be movement and possible opportunities at the academically strong schools. How important is international experience, and is more generally better?
In my experience having some international competition on one’s college resume certainly doesn’t hurt. The stronger programs use this stuff in pitching recruits to their colleges, as well as for PR when announcing each season’s incoming freshmen. However, I would not spend the money, time or wear & tear just for that. Unless you are presenting exceptional results, e.g., winning a CDE or JWC or even a WC, it doesn’t really factor. If, in the normal course of high-level competition your child competes in international designated events, a Cadet or Junior World Championship even, by all means go for it. No doubt a top finish at a DE or at WCs is a nice highlight.
With regard to international competitions, it depends on your goals.
If your goal is to be recruited by academically elite NCAA fencing programs, I don’t think it matters.
If you are good enough to qualify for international events, you are probably recruitable at most if not all of the top program already. Go if you want to, can afford the time (or money), and can maintain your academics. Just know it is an unnecessary to have international experience to be recruited for college.
As I have mentioned many times on both this and the old thread, when we contacted the Ivy coaches about the importance of international experience, all of them said not to go if it would negatively affect our son’s grades. As we are not based on the east coast, the time commitment travel to Eastern Europe required would have made it difficult to maintain grades, participate in school activities and attend all the domestic NAC events.
I think the frequent discussion of international competition is a way for parents to feel there are distinguishing their fencer and it has become sort of an arm’s race. It doesn’t have to be this way.
There have been examples of families stretching finances or risking grades, unnecessarily in search of this resume item where not going would have been the safer bet.
All this being said, if your fencer has goals beyond NCAA fencing, keeping up point totals, national team standing, etc. can be important, so international experience is probably required.
For those who are new to the thread, at the risk of being repetitive (but with the intention of being helpful), our son had no international experience, but had pretty good academics (AI 225+) and was well inside the top 32 on the JNPL (and top 10 for his grade) after SN/before his senior year. While few college coaches spent any time with him before July 1st (after SN), his college recruitment odyssey was enviable.
Hopefully those in the HS class of 2018 who are being recruited have some idea of their plans. As we are a week away from the EA/ED deadlines, much if not all of the posturing/positioning on either side will fall away and one early application is submitted. It is a stressful time that hopefully will culminate in relief and jubilation. Once this good news is received, it is hard to share until everything is completely official on December 15th. For those who are in this boat but need to tell someone, feel free to PM @brooklynrye, @sherpa or myself. Our participation on this thread has been a labor of love and we hope it has been helpful. All PMs will be treated with confidentiality and discretion.
If you are a recruitable fencer without a firm commitment at this stage of the game, all is not lost, but you need to be creative, perhaps expand your horizons, and think outside the box.
Just to echo what superdomestique and BrooklynRye have said…
In and of itself, international experience does not seem to matter much to college coaches. What would matter are results at the internationals vs. just going to a bunch (to answer your quantity question). However, generally speaking the top kids (national team contenders) in each weapon/gender ARE going to and doing well in the internationals…which is one reason why they are top kids (their international results can fill in additional point slots)…though it is a bit of chicken/egg thing.
If you’re on the fence about whether you’re/your kid is good enough, the limits on the traveling squad (20 for Cadet and 12 for Junior) are fairly good indicators of if you can hang with international fencers who attend these things. Domestic location is definitely a factor…as superdomestique notes, flying from NYC area to Europe is really not so different from flying to Anaheim in terms of cost/convenience. So if you can afford it financially and scheduling/workload-wise, and your fencer is interested, go. It’s definitely an experience (you cannot complain about a NAC-venue bathroom until you try one of the ones in Eastern Europe) and a nice way to get to know fencers/families outside of your normal circle of fencing friends.
As a data point, my D did fence in two CDE (Cadet Designated Events) over the course of her cadet career. She didn’t earn any points, but we don’t consider either trip a waste of time or money. As I think I’ve noted before, what’s not to like a bout a long weekend in France?
Ok, another question: this is about the SATs, and by when they need to be taken. If unofficial visits/reaching out to coaches is happening before SAT tests are taken, but other academic performance is very strong (GPA, AP test results), is that enough to at least start with? Most juniors don’t take SATs until the spring and many take the test twice (or more), but that’s not considering the earlier process for recruiting, and I’m not sure what the expectation is here. Thanks!
My POV, and the advice I’ve given to parents with kids in the class behind my daughter is to take a unofficial practice test of both SAT and ACT in the late spring/summer before Junior year. Under test-date conditions/timing. Many prep centers administer tests as a free service (because they count on getting your business afterwards)…but you could admin at home using one of the many readily available prep books.
This way, you know which test your kid is better suited to — and you have the rest of the summer to prep. Then Junior year, I recommending taking one of the early sittings…like the Aug or Oct SAT. That way you can see how student does and have plenty of time to take another before you go on UVs in Spring.
I do know that my daughter seemed to be ahead of the schedule compared to many of her non-athletic prospect friends. She was basically done with SAT Is by last January…and then could focus on SAT IIs…the last of which she sat for this month.
@SpaceVoyager - The goals is to get the best standardized testing results, so your child’s comfort level is the prime consideration. Considering the busy competitive season, some fencers choose to prep for the ACT or SAT during the summer of their sophomore year in high school and take the test in the fall. This is what my son did, taking the test in October of his junior year. Some fencers need more time, have summer commitments that make prepping difficult or just prefer to take the test later. It’s all fine. Just know, particularly if you are entering the recruiting sweepstakes early, that coaches will want to know scores. Any offer of recruitment will be based on an academic read that will include standardized test scores. The sooner you have acceptable scores, the sooner you can get a realistic sense of viable schools and commitments. There is no wrong or right answer here…
We found that Christmas vacation provided a good mental break from day-to-day school assignments. He took time to go over PSAT answers, read through the study aids, and took the test January of Jr. year. 'amusing because it became obvious when he arrived at the test location that there were a LOT of athletes taking the test in January.
Can you elaborate? What does Standford offer (fencing-wise) that other top tier programs like say Notre Dame, Harvard, Columbia or Princeton cannot.
Thanks
Fencing-wise, probably not a lot.
My thoughts on Stanford fencing were originally posted in #153 (http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/20477545/#Comment_20477545)
To amplify:
At this moment in time, Stanford is a/the most popular undergraduate university in the country if not the world. Students globally (not only the fencers) are routinely choosing Stanford over other top tier programs including HYPC, ND etc.
With that reality, some top fencers want to see if they can get into Stanford before they consider other options. While Stanford has a LL equivalent (known as the pink letter), I believe it is more commonly used in their revenue sports and is considered rare in fencing. I have heard there is only one pink letter issued in fencing per year.
Stanford has a nice fencing facility (certainly nicer than Harvard or Princeton’s) and a wonderfully nice head coach. While difficult to get a hold of and sometimes disorganized, Coach Lisa is very warm and refreshingly open and honest about what her program is and isn’t. Of all the head coaches we met, she was the one who was easiest to trust and inspired the most confidence from a parent’s perspective. For the fencers whom she is interested, she encourages them to apply Early (Nov 1st with her support). As a consequence, the earliest these fencers can hear is December 15th.
Obviously, this is problematic for those fencers who have LL offers from Ivy coaches who want to know by August-October. Because of “the Stanford factor”, some Ivy recruiting spots are not filled until Stanford’s Early Action results are announced. For the top fencer who wants to go to Stanford but is not offered the pink letter, Coach Lisa admits that turning down a LL and waiting for Stanford can be a bit of a roll of the dice.
While on the west coast and suffering from the long distances to compete with other top college fencing teams, Stanford has a terrific program and keeps a relatively large roster (in our recruitment year they had 9 fencers in one weapon/gender and because of this some really good Stanford fencers do not regularly/consistently see NCAA action). I think they do this because Stanford, as an academic institution, has such a breadth of opportunities for their students, they do not expect their fencers to be focused on fencing to the exclusion of other college experiences.
In my opinion, this is a wonderfully healthy attitude and approach.
One other point.
Athletes at Stanford are treated like Gods, whereas at the Ivies less so.
The advantages are many, academic support (tutoring), the ability to select classes in advance of the general student population, an overall culture that is impressed by athletic achievement.
At the Ivies, athletes are generally treated like any other student.