@BrooklynRye if we’re being honest it’s always going to be a challenge for Yale to compete with the likes of Columbia or a ND just based on the different admission criteria. Columbia’s coach has much more sway in Admissions. Harutunian has zero sway, and Yale’s Admissions Committee expects their fencing recruits to have the same academic stats as the rest of typical Yale admits.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone! As I procrastinate brining a turkey…
From Yale’s roster, out of the 10 first year male fencers, four are not on the points list, three are in the mid forties to high fifties, two are in the top 20, and one is european and unranked on FIE. It’s hard to to know if these athletes were recruited in an official capacity – something I would not assume. Given what @ShanFerg3 said about Coach Harutunian, It’s difficult to make a bid for recruitment if this is indeed the case.
@fencingmom Almost uniformly the fencers not on the points list are walk ons. They wouldn’t be recruits. Harutunian was very happy when the AdCom approved my daughter. It’s not that he’s not an active recruiter he understands his limitations with Yale’s admission criteria. He’s literally at their mercy lol, and told me such. I know he picked up one of the best men foil fencers in the country coming in this year and Joy Ma, a woman’s Epeeist, is also one of the best juniors in the country. He did a great job recruiting next year’s class and to my knowledge most of these recruits made it pass the AdCom.
@fencingmom Happy Thanksgiving ?!
I do not find the dearth of top ranked fencers at Yale much of a surprise. Most of the very top ranked fencers tend to look for recruitment from among the most competitive fencing programs. Relative parity among the Ivies (my apologies to my Eli, Crimson, and Tiger cousins) permits top-ranked fencers to pursue these programs without ceding academic value. There are some fencers who do not continue to compete significantly at the national and international levels. For them it may all have been about peaking at college recruitment and looking forward to NCAA competition, or it could simply be that competitive advancement ended or became less of a priority. This is why you sometimes see former top-ranked fencers show up at less competitive programs. There is also the recruitment trickle-down, specifically, higher ranked fencers who might aspire to a more competitive program at an elite school, but when not recruited choose a higher-ranked school despite a less competitive program.
@BrooklynRye I respect your opinion. But, I guess it comes down to the chicken or the egg argument. I really don’t think the Hurley sisters would’ve been at the University of Texas if all things were equal, by way of example. I think since there aren’t many prospects of making a career in fencing after college, many fencers logically look at a prospective University for it’s academic program/reputation. I can say my daughter was recruited by a wide variety of schools, including those considered the most competitive fencing programs. The 2 teams she was most interested in fencing for were Harvard and Yale because of their strength in her area of study. This, along with its proximity to NY which enables her to continue fencing with her coach, is why Yale ultimately became her top choice.
Not sure I understand the Hurley example. And, of course, despite my sense of academic parity among the Ivies (with a nod to Stanford and Duke), there may be areas of study unique to certain schools. But I don’t think we are in disagreement. I think, more, that we are talking about different things. My point, and I believe this is well-documented among top-rated fencers heading into recruitment, is that top recruits tend to go to top programs. Focusing on the Ivies as we seem to be doing, in my estimation, a truly top recruit will opt for Princeton or Columbia over Yale or Brown. There are exceptions based on a variety of factors. Some fencers opt for Stanford for academic programs, coaching, rank or just location. I imagine the same can be said for Yale or for Brown. It sounds as if your daughter falls into one of these exceptions in that at least one of the two top schools offering strength in her area of study simply was not a top fencing program. But without those exceptions, most higher-ranked fencers I know, at Yale in particular, are there because they did not get a berth at an elite school with a more competitive program. It would make for interesting data, if you are comfortable with sharing, as to whether or not your daughter received a recruitment offer from Harvard. If she had, would she have opted for Harvard over Yale?
@BrooklynRye i’m not incredibly comfortable sharing but I will in order to provide perspective that could be useful to others. I think for your example it’s probably more pertinent that she would’ve been offered at Princeton is she committed early in the process. Peter at Harvard had 2 recruiting slots available to him and had to use them on WF. He added 2 WE the year before in Saanci and Beddingfield. He told me my daughter would’ve been his #1 recruit if he could’ve added a WE. That being said he stated he would support her application for admission, believing that with his support and her transcript she would get in and then she could join the team. She was offered spots at 2 other Ivies and also recruited by Duke. She met with Mike at Columbia and he told her she was one of 3 fencers he was interested in. But, that was never a real consideration for my daughter and Mike picked up 2 great girls in her weapon. One being the best in the country, IMO.
Just from my limited experience and families I know who have top fencers in ranking and academics, I believe academic strength plays a part in deciding where you wind up. I also believe geography, Olympic aspirations, and area of study are major factors. When I spoke to a one of Harvard Recruits at an international tournament last year she told me viscerally she never considered Princeton, and H was far away where she wanted to be. Now she made the US team and could’ve gone where she wanted. Conversely, I know 2 top ranked girls who wanted to fence at Columbia because of their interest in engineering/STEM. It really had zero to do with Columbia’s strong fencing program. One of those girls hasn’t shown the same enthusiasm and results since she matriculated.
I honestly think you are talking rarefied air the type of fencer that would pick a program solely on the basis that team is more competitive at the NCAA Championships. I think the fencer that would make that kind of decision is probably someone like Candreva and her family. It is a very realistic aspiration for her to have her sights set on the Olympics. I could see this possibly being the major consideration. My example of the Hurley sisters were to illustrate I don’t believe that University was their top choice and academics probably played a role in them being there. When I spoke to a coach at a very competitive fencing program, he told me if he a had a top recruit with a C on their transcript he could get them past the AdCom. I know Harutunian at Yale couldn’t. I do think this is obviously a factor in recruiting if we’re being objective.
@BklynRye just asking your honest opinion. I know parents can be biased and perhaps protective over the school/program our children are a part of. It’s fair, it becomes a part of our family. But, can we acknowledge that Princeton and Columbia are more competitive fencing programs than Harvard/Yale, absolutely. Can we also acknowledge that Mike and Dudas have more sway in admissions than Peter and Harutunian?
You didn’t answer my question about H-Y so I am making my own assumptions. I understand the response you want with regard to your query. I just don’t think it is that simple. First, I don’t think that top fencers who opt for schools other than Yale do so because they cannot meet Yale’s rigorous academic requirements. I think they primarily do so because Yale does not have a competitive or engaged fencing program. Second, with a nod to your chicken-egg scenario, Yale does actively recruit in other areas, e.g., Ice Hockey. Perhaps if the fencing program showed some consistent energy and a greater level of success, the powers that be would vest more in the program as well. Talk in the fencing community about less than engaged and less than professional recruitment proactivity and response for the program is pretty legendary. So, to your question, while programs such as Princeton and Columbia may have a bit more flexibility, I think it is relatively marginal and think it largely exists because of the success of the programs and the engagement of alumni, administration, and the student body in the programs.
@BrooklynRye I thought I did answer your question. I thought I made it clear that in regards to H, the coach laid out an option for her to be on the team, but she felt Yale checked off more boxes for her. The final box being proximity to NY which would allow her to continue training with her coach.
In regards to the chicken egg scenario, I don’t believe it’s as simplistic as you present it. I just don’t see how you can make such a wildly speculative statement in reference to the motivations of Yale’s AdCom. That was a bit bizarre to me and it seems our discourse has devolved into becoming argumentative or at the the very least a debate. That wasn’t my intention. Obviously, I feel there’s cause and effect. The schools where the coach’s have more pull or the admission requirements are more lax are more competitive, ie, Columbia, Princeton, Notre Dame, Ohio St, Penn St, and St. John’s. You think this has nothing to do with it. Maybe, there’s bias on both our parts. Or, maybe we’re just on opposite ends of the argument. I will say we are both happy where our children are and love the sport. From reading your post it’s obvious your son met the academic requirement to fence at Yale or Harvard or anywhere in the country, but is exactly where he wanted to be and is thriving. My daughter met the athletic requirements to fence at the school’s you label competitive, but is exactly where she wanted to be at the onset of the recruiting season. My desire is she is as happy and fulfilled with her collegiate experience as your son is. Ultimately, this is really what is important. I think I found something we will agree on ?.
We are all good then, my friend. The happiness and thriving of our children is what counts. The parsing and analysis of programs and recruiting is fine as far as it goes, but for us in particular, as you note, we are both happy with our decisions and our kids are happy too!
@BrooklynRye I do see your point about Harutunian’s approach/demeanor. He isn’t as engaging as Mike or Dudas. This is true. And, Peter from Harvard is closer to Harutunian’s approach than the other 2 IMO. I find this interesting. I don’t want to engage in the same debate it’s obvious we aren’t changing each other’s minds. But, I do think the support of the Universities may/could have an effect on the level of recruiting activity. I will say this, Harutunian was a 100% straight shooter to us. He wasn’t confusing and didn’t play games. He told my daughter in the first face to face, if you commit to us we will commit to you. Peter Brand was the same exact way. As a matter of fact Peter spent so much time helping me navigate the process. He told me my daughter was one of his favorite recruits in the last 20 years, not just as a fencer but as a person. He spent a lot of time on the phone with me giving his opinion on the programs. He is one of the people that told me he believes Yale’s program is growing in the right direction as is U Penn’s. I say this to say there was a genuineness to both Peter and Harutunian that didn’t feel like recruiting. It felt like 2 guys who have been doing this a long time that just gave it to you straight. They know their programs, they know what attracts a fencer to their program, and they know their Admission Committees.
@BrooklynRye yes sir. Well said.
@ShanFerg3 I agree that both Harutunian and Brand were straight shooters. They both expressed their limitation of their influence on the adcom. Based on their recruitment experience, they did give a general probability of getting admitted as a slotted recruit. Great thing about the two coaches was their response time was extremely quick, matter of minutes sometimes. Unfortunately Columbia sometimes took days if not a few weeks to respond.
@downallunder I absolutely agree with you on all fronts.
Moving on…Word is that Coach Ripa has reenergized the Brown Fencing program at least enough to warrant an additional recruiting slot for 2023, and probably another additional for 2024. Great for Brown’s program, for future recruits, and for NCAA fencing.
Based on what I’m seeing at my daughter’s club, I would have to concur with @BrooklynRye. The club’s better fencers who are also good students are committing to and competing at Columbia, Harvard, Princeton and Penn. I don’t see any of these kids saying I’m not going to consider Yale because of the admissions hurdle, they are just not considering Yale at all. It’s not on their radar. Same with Brown. Having said that, we did have one girl go to Yale and go on to be an an Olympic Medalist and a Senior World Champion. Her father was a Yale fencer, which I think factored in to her decision. She was also able to train in NYC on the weekends. .
Columbia’s head coach is a dynamic recruiter. Yale’s head coach is pushing 90 years old!
.
.
@BrooklynRye That is very interesting regarding what you shared in reference to Brown. Ripa seems to be doing a great job there.
I haven’t participated on this thread for quite a while, but I have been keeping up with the discussion since my last post a year ago.
My lack of participation has been mainly because I have already shared most of my college fencing recruiting experiences and knowledge (well cataloged and organized by @sevendad) so there isn’t much more to tell.
While I have been impressed with the interest and subsequent growth of the thread since it began in June 2016 (over 800 posts, over 90K views), I think it is important for some of the more recent posters and readers/lurkers to know the origins of the current thread, and the intent of the original organizers.
We (@sevendad, @brooklynrye, @sherpa, and I) decided to launch this new fencing-oriented thread to be helpful to those curious about and/or engaged in the arcane process of college fencing recruiting (with an emphasis and specific expertise in the elite/Ivy-league recruiting process). Obviously, this thread was not the first one on this topic, but we wanted to consolidate all of the available/current/useful information on CC in one place.
At that time (over two years ago), many of the older fencing recruiting threads had become cluttered, and most importantly had gone “off topic”, devolving into spaces where posters used the thread more as an outlet to brag (often cryptically), often about narrow recruiting successes without the requisite background information to be useful to others in the context of learning about the college fencing recruiting process.
The hope for the new thread was for people who had become experienced with the process to share their stories/insights/appreciation of nuance with others in a discreet manner that was respectful of everyone’s privacy.
I am writing now because I fear this thread is moving in a direction that reminds me of many of those older threads, and I wanted to remind those who participate that this thread was started to help others, not to pat ourselves on the back and/or to argue whose program/fencer/coach is better than everyone/anyone else’s. That is what www.fencing.net is for.
In the interest of keeping things on track, here are some guidelines:
- The names of any minor-aged children should not be used on our thread, nor the names of any fencer that is not the child of a given poster. Personally, I think anyone who reveals the identity of their fencer known via college affiliation is inviting unnecessary pressure/violating privacy of a child, especially if this news is disclosed before the fencer even matriculates (or graduates HS). While I am not sure what the official CC rules are that govern this sort of thing, I just think this is good practice from a safety standpoint and generally how a courteous community behaves.
- Additionally, mentioning where the child of any poster goes to school is an invasion of privacy and should not be done without express consent of the parent of the specific fencer.
- Mention of private conversations with specific coaches with subjective details should not be posted to the thread, but rather shared in PMs to address specific issues/circumstances.
- Any readers in search of more specific information can/should use the PM function. The original founders regularly get PMs from parents and their fencers with questions specific to their situations and we feel gratified to have helped those who have taken the time to correspond. In these cases, we ask that these members of the community post helpful stories of their recruitment process to the public thread so others can benefit from the collective and growing expertise of the group.
- One last thing. The Like and Helpful buttons at the bottom of each post are there for a reason. Posts of “I agree fully with_________” just clutter up the thread and make it harder to read for new members of the community.
An example of a post that follows these guidelines:
As our son’s fencing career comes to an end this season, we are extremely happy with his college experience and with the opportunities recruited athletes enjoy. He had his share of athletic successes (Ivy championships/formal recognition from teammates & coaches), but had to make some sacrifices along the way. Four years of high-level fencing is a large time commitment and important parts of the college experience are unavoidably missed.
From a fencing standpoint, we are happiest with the relationships he has built off the strip with fencers he has met both on the team and thru intercollegiate competition. Some older teammates as well as members of other teams from different weapons have been helpful (advice and contacts) in the career/grad school decision/search. Fencing can be a community that continues beyond college, even if you don’t go to the Olympics.
Note that no names of specific fencers, coaches or schools were used.
Getting a child through this process is hard and success can be intoxicating, however, please be sensitive that not everyone’s definition of success is the same. While the founders of this thread have particular experience with Ivy recruitment, there have been wonderful posts from parents with equally valuable experience from non-Ivy/D1 schools, as well as a range of D2 and D3 programs. I think it is important to share the process (both the good and the bad), rather than compare/measure the size of an individual prospect’s success.
An anecdote:
At a team dinner on an Ivy Championship weekend a few years ago, I was sitting next to a parent of a freshman who was regaling the table with stories of how highly-recruited their child was and recalled detailed conversations with Ivy coaches and how they all told this parent that their child was the best fencer to come along in many years. It is worth noting that at this dinner there were families who had experienced championship victories at both NCAA and Ivy competitions (and whose fencers wore the championship rings to prove it), so most of these parents had similarly gifted fencers. It was sad that at the next year’s Ivy Championship team dinner this parent continued to believe their child’s recruiting experience was unique.
It’s no wonder my wife (who is Asian) refers to the Ivy Championships “the National Convention of Tiger Moms”!
Anyway, please take this long-delayed/winded post in the spirit it is given. We started this thread to provide helpful, humble advice and hope the next generation of posters can take this to heart and share their experiences (both successes and struggles) to pay it forward for future generations.
This season’s Ivy Championships are February 9th-10th at Yale. It will be the last time we attend a fencing tournament. Win or lose, it will be a bittersweet, but happy event for our family.
Happy Holidays to all young fencers and their parents.