<p>That is how I've always understood it, too. But it seems that a lot of the posts above espouse the belief that schools will not care at all that your child played sports if he is not good enough to be recruited. (I can't figure out how to use the quotes! I've copied and pasted some remarks below.)</p>
<p>"As far as I can see so far, colleges really don't care about the fact that he's a decent 3-season athlete or the hours he puts into it because he isn't good enough to be recruited."</p>
<p>"I do think this is a harsh reality you have to consider. You should make a realistic assessment of how strong her track talents are, and how competitive she is likely to be over the next few years. While I agree that people should follow their passion, in this case I would question whether the extreme degree of focus and elimination of activities is worth it, unless she really has a realistic prospect of being competitive at the college level."</p>
<p>I don't know about "most," but I can tell you that the kids I've known--or known of--who were recruited athletes at several Ivies in recent years did nothing but their sport or sports. (Of course, this is completely anecdotal evidence, and a small sample to boot.) I have little doubt that schools like Yale would <em>prefer</em> to see recruited athletes have an added dimension, particularly an interest in social service, but whether they <em>require</em> it is another matter. (On the other hand, none of the sports-only kids I'm talking about went to that particular school.)</p>
</i>
<p>I think those comments were made in the context of OP's question: Should his D continue with just sports, or cut back on sports and add other ECs?</p>
<p>If you know your kid is not going to play sports in college, then the high school sport is likely to be given the same weight as any other non-hook EC.</p>
<p>Consolation,</p>
<p>My D was recruited by numerous D1 scholarship schools and 5 Ivies and attends one. Her sport is her passion, but she also had 40 CS hours (honestly only because it is required for graduation by our h.s.), and an EC that she held a top position in. She was only able to do that EC, however, because she was injured for a season. Her grades/test scores really seemed to be the only thing that mattered other than her sport. (Although we were never told this directly).</p>
<p>Blossom basically said it all - “she needs to make the decision based on what works for her, and not what works for some adcom out there.”</p>
<p>If anything, that sort of decision making is what the adcoms will be looking for.</p>
<p>Beyond that there has been a lot of cross talk here failing to distinguish between
1) playing a varsity sport well in high school
2) excelling at that sport such that one is talented enough to play in college
3) actually being recruited by a college to play that sport</p>
<p>At the basic level, Bay is correct – “colleges will look at your D's sports commitment the same way they would look at any other EC commitment.” </p>
<p>At the second level, adcoms generally like to see commitment and dedication translate into excellence. Some may well view that combination transferable to other endeavors.
(I certainly believe Harvard does this.)</p>
<p>Finally, being a recruited athlete is a huge hook at an elite school. But that is not so much a matter of your daughter “wanting” it as it is a matter of the coach wanting it. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems that the school grades tests matter more than the athletics for these schools, i.e., the coaches have to get the kid in (past admissions). Many Ivy group schools require the coach to pass the propective recruit to pass through admisisons and admissions gives the coach the permission to continue. However, there is more slippage for "revenue" sports than others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are talking about the AI that is used by the Ivy's - academic index - and athletes must meet the minimum AI # to even be considered for admissions. It sure can be frustrating to some coaches when their great prospect doesn't pass muster with the AI....</p>
<p>D says she would like to run in college, but probably only if the school is Div. I or at least has a team better than her current team. We have looked at the stats for a few smaller schools and found their team members to be running about the same times as kids on her decent, but not exceptional, high school team. I think that for her to want to continue to dedicate that kind of time to the sport in lieu of so many other opportunities available on campus, she would have to believe the investment would help further her running career/help her improve. Just doing it for the sake of doing it, or even for money would probably not be enough of a motivator. </p>
<p>While she has good times for now, she's only a soph. We can't predict her trajectory (so many girls get slower as they mature), nor how well she'll stack up against the other recruits of her same age two years from now. Her academics should be very good but probably not Ivy League brilliant, her PSAT score was in the 99th percentile, but most kids thought it was an easy test.</p>
<p>THEGFG - your gal wil be going thru some pretty dramatic changes regarding her sport over the next 2 years - if she fairs these changes and improves her times/abilities - and it continues to be her passion - she may want to consider going for it as far as being a college athlete - but if she does not - then her time spent will not be in vain - if she continues to pursue her sport - that usually shows passion and drive - and even tho she may not continue at the college level - it still will show alot about her.</p>
<p>Just keep an eye on things for now - she still has a ways to go - she may decide to pursue it - or not - but it kind of needs to be her choice - and that of mother nature as well ;)</p>
<p>"A guy I know from the national fencing circuit told me how his daughter was told to drop all her other ECs and just focus on her academics. She is now matriculating at Harvard."</p>
<p>Sherpa, about the above comment. Who told the girl to drop her other EC's? Her own coach, the Harvard coach?</p>
<p>I ask because we recently had a consult with a college counselor. It's a nice benefit provided by DH's company. I tried to get an answer to this sports question from her. She himmed and hawed a bit with some PC-type comments. But then she basically told me that my D could scale back her academics if she wants to if she's good enough in her sport, and she'd still get recruited by some top schools. Slighting academics would not be a plan I would endorse because we value education for its own sake, not just as a ticket to get into college and then get a good job. Still, it made me wonder if that could be applied to EC's and if she really knows her stuff. She has good credentials but seemed overly impressed with some things about D's curriculm which are pretty standard for our hs, so I wasn't sure if her assessment about the other issue was accurate.</p>
<p>If your daughter is good enough to be actively recruited, as in getting a likely letter in the fall, as long as her AI is not below the agreed level, academics become a non-issue.</p>
<p>My D once mentioned a track athlete at Princeton. SATs for old SATs were something like 1200. But he was #1 in his event in his quite large state. So there you go.</p>
<p>"If your daughter is good enough to be actively recruited, as in getting a likely letter in the fall, as long as her AI is not below the agreed level, academics become a non-issue."</p>
<p>The relationship between recruitment and academic record is more complex than that. At highly selective schools, there is an absolute floor for admission. Above the floor, without going into the gory details, as the recruit becomes a lower priority for the coach, the academic requirements go up.</p>
<p>EMM - agreed. The point I am making is that the top recruits for coaches, the kids who can make their team win in a visible sport, those kids have only to meet the minimum level. The floor, as you call it.</p>
<p>I've heard many recruiting anecdotes. Since all of them related to people who were several degrees of separation from me, it's difficult to judge the reliability of the information. A common theme, however, was that a top athlete would need a minimum of only 1200 on the old SAT scale to be considered by Harvard et al.</p>
<p>I worried that my D would have no "hook" and be turned away from top schools because she was mostly just a super good student. It is turning out that top schools like her very much . . . because she is a really good student. If she had kept putting tons of time into her sport I don't think she would be the student that she is and I don't think she would be having the admissions and scholarship success that she is enjoying. There are many ironies in this process. The sports hook is very seductive to pursue - after all, the athletes get those coveted "likely" letters way before the rest of the crowd. But in the final analysis, I'm glad the my D can take her time now, compare offers, not worry in the slightest about pleasing a coach. And not feel any particular pressure to pursue any particular EC at college. I'm excited to see what directions she takes once there. So my main message to this OP with a very talented daughter in both academics and sports is this - don't feel as if sports are the high road or the safe road or the smart road and certainly not the only road. Lots of roads can be the right road.</p>
<p>^ Truth is I did miss the meets when she pulled away from the sport and in my heart of hearts I'd love to see her pick it up again in college, even if just at the club level. I'd probably fly in to watch!</p>
<p>Funny, mammall, just this morning I gave my D a similar talk--mainly to ensure that she knew that she has many options open to her even now in hs. If she ever tires of track, she can more seriously pursue music or any of her other interests again and we would support her decision to do that.</p>
<p>Frankly, a complicating factor in this whole thing has been some coaching issues. Her coach seems to be unable to come up with a way to motivate his team which doesn't involve tearing D down. His behavior is so strange in the sense that you'd assume he would coddle a top athlete (who's not conceited), that the only way I can rationalize it is to conclude he fears that my D's success is intimidating or discouraging her teammates. Thus he regularly criticizes her in the press or in front of her fellow runners. One of his favorite things to say is that the team is not a one-person team (not so bad) and that they don't need her. Also, it's amazing she has been able to win so many races with the terrible pacing, faulty strategy, and lack of psychological toughness he attributes to her. Ugh.</p>
<p>This has caused a lot of pain, and neither D nor I have been able to get through to him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The sports hook is very seductive to pursue
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It has been said before but bears repeating: A Division 1 athletic commitment is huge, and should only be pursued by students who love their sport, and not by those seeking only to gain admission.</p>
<p>That said, the beauty of Division 1 athletics in the Ivy League is that there is no contract to perform (unlike scholarship sports). All Ivy League athletes are volunteers, which (in my biased opinion) gives us another reason to admire their hard work and commitment.</p>
<p>"Sherpa, about the above comment. Who told the girl to drop her other EC's? Her own coach, the Harvard coach?"</p>
<p>The Harvard coach. </p>
<p>Disclaimer: I heard this secondhand from the girl's father. I don't know exactly what was said.</p>
<p>Among collegebound fencers the conventional wisdom is that if one is good enough to be recruited, then grades and test scores and a clean disciplinary record will complete the package. From what I have seen this conventional wisdom is indeed true.</p>
<p>LOL, stickershock. There must be something in the NJ water, because you always seem to be able to relate to my situations despite living in another Jersey town. This is, indeed, a bizarre state.</p>