The Only College Fencing Recruiting Thread You Need to Read

His plan was to coach for total of 50 years, which is another 3 or 4 per years more. To his credit, after meeting him in person, he can pass for someone in his mid 60s. He can also climb the stairs much quick than I who is half his age.

@fencerdad I agree with your assessment…I hope I’m as energetic and spry at that age. I didn’t realize he was that age.

I agree that the key piece of information here is if Zhao got a recruited slot or was a walk on. Per @Lllvillegrad 's post, Zhao’s athletic CV is much weaker than the others on the H roster. If he got a recruited slot, I am dubious of the excuse that he was used as an academic index off set. If the sport were FB or BB or some others -sure. I am not buying it for fencing. My nephew, who does a different sport, was offered recruited slots at two Ivies this cycle. He probably had about as a high of an academic index as you can get. A great athlete in his case but still in the bottom half of the recruiting class in each instance. Both coaches told him he was not being used for academic index off set purposes because there was no need for it. I suspect its use is in certain sports is very rare especially in those sports with affluent demographics.

There are comments on the Harvard Crimson article by someone who says he is affiliated with Harvard and knows the boys, and he said that they definitely had likely letters. The same person also posted that he doubted they were both at the top of their class at St Albans “given their reputation at Harvard,” but that post seems to have been deleted.

Oops, I guess that comment is still there after all, it’s just quite far down in a subthread: “it certainly stretches belief that the Zhao brothers were respectively top of their class at St. Albans given the reputation they had at Harvard. But I won’t cross that line any further as it feels inappropriate.”

When the student in question was recruited into the fencing team, we had strong suspicion of some sort of impropriety. Being that his timeline was the same as our fencer, we knew all the fencers in his year in regards to their stats and to some degree their academics. Because he wasn’t a “stellar” fencer and barely on the JPL, we were quite surprised to see him on the Harvard roster. He wasn’t a walk on, since he had received a Likely Letter early Spring.
Unfortunately, this type of scenario isn’t unique. A few parents told us their child was “reassured” by an Ivy coach to just maintain good grades and it will not be a “problem” getting that fencer on the team, despite that fencer not being a “stellar” athlete.

Although not unique, fortunately not common. Practically all of the fencers recruited to the Ivys are elite fencers with the strong solid fencing stats to support their status as well as the academics to warrant their admission to the Ivy school… However, still disheartening to know that there are potentially illegitimate or unethical practices still occurring taking the spots of more deserving student athletes .

Correction: likely letter in early fall

It is disheartening when one understands the work and sacrifice that goes into a student athlete putting oneself into position to be considered for one these limited spots.
I also think of the level of narcissism that must exist on behalf of the parent. Obviously, he sees a school such as Harvard as this brand name like a Hermes handbag, that should be obtained/purchased, as opposed to earned. As a parent it’s a great moment when one’s child gets admitted to a school, that each party saw as a mutual fit, on there own merit. This parent robbed himself and children of this moment. There are so many institutions that students can have phenomenal educations and experiences. I wouldn’t trade the opportunity to have my child experience the value of earning your place through one’s own effort. I feel this is much more valuable in contributing to a fulfilling life than whatever perceived cache comes from attending a brand name school.

@ShanFerg3 Agreed. Many recruited athletics go all in to their particular sport devoting the majority of their non- academic time and energy into the sport at the expense of pursuing other activities and ECs. Pursing sports to get recruited to a top university is a high risk / high reward proposition. If the student athlete does not make it over the hump and land a recruited spot, then are they possibly left in the fall being a typical high stat applicant with unremarkable, undistinguished ECs-not a good place be. If the reports above are true, somewhere out there a kid who did everything right by nailing his academics, obtaining a high (fencing) ranking, doing well on his OV only to get cut in line and cheated out of a spot that he earned. If that happened, that is pretty sad. I hope if these allegations are true that Harvard does not sweep this under the rug.

@Shiprock1976 you make many great points. I do feel that a talented student fencer will find a home as there are many great institutions that have great fencing programs. I also think that in many top programs, some talented fencers don’t get the opportunity to fence much due to the talent in front of them. So I see how a program could hide a player on the bench. With that, it is sad when a certain portion of the system that is supposed to be purely meritocratic is circumvented. I get Development cases, and an argument can certainly be made for it’s usefulness. This is supposed to be different.

How many likely letters can an Ivy coach give out for fencing?
I’m only curious. I do not have a D/S that fences but have had children recruited by Ivies for their sport and given LL.
I would imagine the pool for a HS Fencers is much small and probably much more tight knit and perhaps more affluent with more parent involvement than most other sports that have many more potential HS athletes.

@recruitparent Harvard gave out 4 likely letters, across the various weapons. None in Women Epee or Women Saber. Yale gave out 6. None in Men Saber. Every year it varies, depending on program need, strength of the recruiting clsss, etc. But, this is about the avg.

Recruiting for fencing is done on the club level. Most of the top fencers don’t compete in High School. But, you are correct. It is a small pool, and pretty much every fencer/family knows the recruitable fencers in their child’s weapon.

Is the 4-6 the total combined for both Men’s and Women’s teams? Understand still small % get LL but 4-6 sounds like a fair amount when compared to the size of the team and # of HS kids & club players participating vs. other sports/teams.

It’s combined for Men’s and Women’s teams. This year Harvard’s team recruited 1 Men’s Foil, Epee, Saber, and 1 women’s foil.

@ShanFerg3 If you’re referring to the list from fencing.net, Harvard has a few more recruits who are not on the list. I know of one who’s definitely recruited but didn’t make it on the list.

@fencerdad that’s interesting…Peter told me he had 4 spots this year, so it added up. Are you sure a few more recruits? Not overly important…just curious

@fencerdad Pretty sure Mitchell Saron applied without a recruiting spot if thats who you were talking about

Was out of town so just getting back to the thread. Please excuse if I go back a bit….

@observer12 – Is it “ok”? Not quite sure what that means. Our undergraduate education system has never been a meritocracy. There seems to be a mistaken linkage between punishing uber-wealthy parents who literally buy (fraudulently) their kid a slot at a top college, and parents of fame, connections and/or wealth, who use their influence and notoriety to gain such slots for their kids. George Bush was never brought up on any charges when W got a slot at Yale as one example among countless others. Arnold Schwarzenegger, donated $20M to USC and two of his kids went there. Need we mention Charles Kushner (Jared’s father), Meryl Streep or Donald Trump? As an ethical “ok”, I am not quite sanguine with it, but I recognize the reality.

@shanferg3 and @57special – There is more to the seemingly abrupt dismissal of the Yale coach. I will not speak out of school, but there have long been rumors of sexual harassment and other untoward conduct in that program. It may well be that the university decided to dismiss the coach quickly either as part of a settlement in one of these cases or to avoid an official Title IX or other filing against the coach and the school. Again, I stress the word “rumors”. While I am aware of more tangible circumstances, I am not at liberty to discuss. In any case, it may well be that the coach is aware of the circumstances and is spinning the story to appear ‘shocked’.

@shiprock1976 – While I agree with much that has been said about the Harvard matter, I still feel that this issue is raising hackles because it appears as if the coach self-benefited. Programs benefit all the time from so-called “developmental recruits” who happen to have wealthy parents who donate to the program in some way. It remains to be resolved in this case, but my instinct is that the coach is much more endangered by the NFF circumstances than by the apartment quid pro quo. He may be dismissed for the latter, but he can go to jail for the former should any sort of fraud, money laundering or otherwise be determined.

@recruitparent – Schools differ in the number of LLs each coach receives per season and that number can vary from season to season. There are internal calculations relating to overall admissions as well as to other NCAA sports for which LLs will be allocated. It is also often difficult to discern which fencers received LLs and which were walk-ons, admitted to the school outside of recruitment. The fact that a given fencer is listed on the ubiquitous “Dubious Rumors” postings, does not necessarily mean the fencer was officially recruited. Also, whatever the number of slots, and however initially allocated, e.g., 3 for men + 3 for women, it is within the coach’s prerogative to recruit as he/she deems fit. In this vein, keep in mind that coaches are not always straightforward with the exact number of slots available to them or they may find they have extra slots either through admissions or because of a failed prior commitment. In any case, everyone please be careful in posting exact numbers and, in particular, in mentioning current fencers/recruits by name.

Finally, please let’s not become overly distracted with matters such as the Harvard or Yale situations which, while newsy and of interest, tend to distract from the advice that is most useful on this thread. I and other hosts of the thread have received PMs expressing some dismay that we are all getting a bit off track. Questions about LLs, interviewing, prospects for recruitment, etc., are all why we are ostensibly here. Good advice and experience to be had!

@BrooklynRye I think what’s happening with the dismissals of Harvard and Yale’s coaches directly affects recruiting. So, I think it’s relevant to this thread. Not sure how the dispersing of an unknown rumor at this point is however. Not only was Henry surprised but so is fencing Alumni. You would think they would be aware of these rumors of impropriety since they were closer to the program than anyone. It appears he has the full support of his former students.

@ShanFerg3 - What is happening may indeed impact recruiting but it is not the sine qua non for moving forward. There will be new head coaches and a period of adaptation, but both programs are strong and will survive. IMHO, both will improve. Talk about the Harvard and Yale situations is largely theoretical. The investigations will play out and the situations will be resolved, with or without a clear explanation of all facts and circumstances to the general public. This thread will not resolve either issue and dwelling on them does not further the mandate of this thread.

I am neither “dispersing” nor is the rumor “unknown”. We can debate the genuineness of Coach Harutunian’s reaction, as well as the degree of purported alumni support (which, if it exists may be without knowledge of these other factors), but the circumstances to which I refer are clearly well-known. As I noted in my post, while I will refrain from discussing more concrete information, it is out there and hardly unknown. While it may appear to you that he has the full support of his former students, this is absolutely not the case.