gouf78, I was speaking only about differences in academic profile. because their GPAs and test scores are very close. The difference in one being more athletic and sports-minded than the other was covered by the difference in extracurriculars.
I’m not sure what you think you’re disagreeing with in your “Umm. Not” comment about debate. I didn’t say that speech and debate weren’t a culmination of prepared practice and learning. As for coaching, in my son’s case, not so much, neither his middle school nor high school coaches were debaters (both former interpers), don’t emphasize it, so he learned it on his own initiative, watching rounds, losing rounds at first, reading books on his own. That’s the point of debate, it’s ultimately an individual (he does LD) activity, you write your own cases on your own, there’s no coach to write them for you (or shouldn’t be) like a sports coach making and calling plays, and your debate coach isn’t in the round with you telling you to make X rebuttal because of what your opponent just said, or to critique your performance afterwards. Speech and debate provides a lot of opportunity to shine independently as an individual, and no room to take credit for others’ harder work or greater ability.
Might I remind members of the forum rules: “Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others."
and
“College Confidential forums exist to discuss college admission and other topics of interest. It is not a place for contentious debate. If you find yourself repeating talking points, it might be time to step away and do something else… If a thread starts to get heated, it might be closed or heavily moderated.”
I think it is true some coaches of team sports do not leave a lot of room for individual growth, but I don’t think that is a universal.
We’ve had personal experience with coaches who really take pride in giving each kid as much opportunity to develop as possible. We’ve also heard about coaches who are horrible to disfavored kids, and not so great even to the favored ones. I think this is another of those things where if you are on a sports track where you can take or leave things pretty freely, you can simply avoid the teams/coaches which would not be good for you. It is more when you feel pressured to be on certain specific teams to advance your goals that you might feel stuck in a toxic situation.
And then of course there are individual or pair sports too. Our experience with those is the coaches have a similar role as in debate. They may play a role in how you practice (although even then, my experience is the sorts of players who are going for national rankings and being recruited and such start pretty much taking over what they do in terms of development). But then once your match starts, it is all on you, or you and your partner.
None of which is to suggest I am not sympathetic to what sounds like a bad sports experience, nor am I suggesting it is uncommon. Yours is definitely not the first story like that I have heard about.
But it doesn’t have to be that way, you can participate in sports on different terms.
At the end of the day what it comes down to is the student/athlete being able to showcase their growth, in and out of the field, in a compelling way in the application, which is easier said than done IMO.
OP, did you read your son’s essays? I am curious what they each chose to talk about. Despite stats being roughly the same, this is always different from applicant to applicant.
Just to be clear, you are talking about purely for the purposes of college admissions, I assume. I personally think there is a lot more a kid can get out of a good sports experience than a bullet point for college applications. But I agree for college admissions specifically, it helps for that bullet point to have some sort of obvious progression.
You misunderstand. I personally think club teams are great.
I do not think they are as valued by admissions staff trying to assemble a class because there are already varsity athletes to fill their “sporty” spots. Just like I think admissions staff will be more interested in a dedicated musician who will be in the marching band and maybe even major in music over a self-taught pianist who likes to write songs in their free time, but hasn’t received recognition for it.
Both the club sports player and the pianist add to the campus environment, and many (most?) schools would be thrilled to have them. But I do not think they stand out enough at the uber-selective schools, who are taking the top athletes and top musicians, etc. Especially because SO many students play sports; it doesn’t make a student stand out as a particularly unique addition. I may be wrong, but that is the sense I have.
It also am not suggesting that dropping sports is the way to go — and certainly not for college admissions reasons. A student who drops something they love isn’t necessarily going to be great at something else that will attract the attention of a selective school. They will just not be doing something they love.
My point was just that the club sports machine presents a lot of problems and, outside of top recruited athletes, I question the value for college admissions relative to the investment.
I think I understand your claim, but I would suggest a different view.
In terms of non-academic extracurriculars, recruited varsity athletes are in a class of one. There is really no other extracurricular activity, certainly not debate, that functions like that.
Performing arts is a little different because if a highly-selective college has performing arts majors, they will often require conservatory-level talent. But that is not for them extracurricular, it is a core requirement for such majors. Conversely, if you are not trying to be a major, just participate in student clubs and such, then I think you are right back into the general mix.
OK, so yes, being a candidate for club and IM sports is not like being a recruited varsity player or a conservatory-level performing artist, but that is true of almost every EC.
And actually, there are some club sports that get closer than most. I referenced it before, but this discussion of Tier A club sports at Brown is really illuminating:
In sports like rugby, ultimate, and so on, club is typically the highest level, with national organizations running leagues, national tournaments, and so on. In Brown’s case, rugby did a type of coach-led informal recruiting. For ultimate, they did not, but it is still a major activity.
I note in some of these sports, even if they don’t officially recruit, the student captains and such may try to network with promising HS players. But often they also depend on good athletes starting the sport in college. So, like, that striker or wide receiver who was not recruited for soccer or football might well make an excellent ultimate player.
Of course a lot of this varies by college. But a lot of the most selective small and medium private colleges have very robust club and IM programs.
So personally, I really don’t see any reason to assume college admissions offices do not care about people who might excel in these sorts of sports, versus people who are going to do debate, say. It is really all the exact same sort of thing to me.
But yes, recruited varsity athletes and conservatory-level performing arts majors are different. Just from debate too.
Sports are not a waste of time if the kid enjoys them. All my children played on varsity teams in high school, and one even excelled at a national level in her sport. Playing on teams taught my children collaboration, discipline, leadership, and time management as they were also balancing a rigorous course load in addition to other extracurricular activities. It certainly didn’t hurt them in college admissions. In my opinion, it demonstrated their grit and ability to succeed under pressure.
I really don’t understand your complaint. Both of your children had fulfilling high school careers and were accepted into fantastic colleges. That’s a win in my book.
For posters who have only read the first few posts and then write their own post, it might be helpful if you read some additional posts, particularly #18 and #35 to have more context about how the discussion has extended beyond having kids pursue activities that interest them.
I appreciate the highlighted discussion posts. I say this with kindness, perhaps this is kid dependent. It’s possible to play sports at a high level and develop strong writing and critical thinking skills. Those things are not mutually exclusive but they are not attainable for every kid.
I might even go a step further, and say that the uber selective colleges are looking for excellence on multiple fronts. And while excellence in multiple areas might not be possible for some, for many it is just not what they want to do with their time–and that’s okay!
Summer after junior year, our daughter conducted STEM research at a university on one coast, while training for and traveling to national championships in her sport on the opposite coast. She didn’t do this to get into college, she did it to see if that’s what she wanted in a college experience. Would she rather dial back on sports, or dial back on the academic instesity, or could she handle the mental and physical toll from being intense in both areas. There was no right or wrong answer–just what was best for her.
Finding balance is hard! It’s hard for adults, too. We don’t want our kids to be robots that only perform. We want them to have lives and relationships. And to be happy.
Hugs to you, OP. Please don’t beat yourself up. Many parents think their kids are better at their sport than they really are, and a lot think their 9 year old will play Division 1 in college and get a scholarship. Very few have this actually happen. Youth sports are a business, and a lucrative one at that. Travel teams for 7 year olds, multiple levels (A team, B team, etc), new clubs sprouting up every year. Don’t feel bad for being sucked in. It happens.
Generally speaking, cheerleading does not move the admissions needle. Someone may be recruited to cheer at a particular school (as in, “you’ll make the squad”), but admissions generally doesn’t care and doesn’t take calls from cheer coaches. Have known a few girls who wound up cheering at major D1 programs. It’s not recruiting in the sense being discussed here.
For musical theater and for majors, you’re probably right. I’m not generally familiar with that world (though my Ds danced pretty seriously for a time). Auditioning for a spot at Tisch or Julliard is a different matter altogether. Musical theater is something about which I have zero knowledge, so will defer to you on that point as well.
Absolutely, they are not mutually exclusive. There are two main points being discussed here: waste of time for admissions purposes and waste of time as a use of the limited hours we have on this planet.
As to the first category, it is entirely dependent on how good the kid is at the sport. If they’re good enough, then one could argue it’s worth several SAT points and a few “B” grades, depending on where they want to go to school. So, hardly a waste of time.
As to the second category, I really appreciate the things people have said about the benefits inherent in playing a sport and working towards excellence through hard work and dedication. With or without an admission ticket to a college of choice, sports is a great way (though of course not the only way) to learn a great many good life lessons and practice dedication and focus. There is a reason why many employers love seeing sports on resumes. I’d bet @Catcherinthetoast would agree that Wall Street firms love ex-athletes and it comes up in interviews. My D who is at a pretty high level consulting firm doing pretty technical work said that her collegiate athletic experiences and accomplishments came up frequently in interviews. “We love [ ] here. If you can do that and major in something hard and do well, work will seem easy.” Things like that were often mentioned.
As to extra pressure … pffft. Please. A lot of things add pressure. In another thread there are people who haven’t had to take a standardized test in 20 years who are arguing to the death their existential importance. Those tests add a huge amount of pressure to the life of a young adult, especially given the “do or die” stakes associated with them. Most things are a mixed bag. That’s life. Managing the pressure (from any source) is the key, and thus represents another great life lesson conveyed through participation in sports! Again, there are other ways if sports isn’t for your kid. But a categorical claim that they’re a waste of time unless your kid is a D1 recruit is simply incorrect IMHO. And, to borrow the line of reasoning often employed by another CC poster, I’m sure legions of other people agree with my take.
There are a few that do. It is school dependent. Check out Ohio State and Minnesota dance and cheer teams at this year’s UDAs…it’s hardly coincidental that all that talent ends up at these two schools, which btw, for the last 5 years share the 1st and 2nd places as UDAs.
This whole discussion centers around having your child being passionate about something and committing to it. Doesn’t matter what it is. If your child is having fun and making new friends, it has served its purpose. I’ve seen too many parents micromanage their child’s path towards college and make their child miserable in the end.
Probably getting off track here, but my remaining question is whether it matters for admissions purposes. IDK what “UDA” is. There is recruiting and there is getting substantial consideration through admissions (setting aside financial assistance since that varies so much). Are the Buckeye cheerleaders admitted through a different track as are the other athletes?
