I think it is important to remember that if a recruit is still "working on " test scores, or hasn’t submitted an application, then that recruit is not being supported at all. A coach may have offered conditional support, or what has come to be known recently as a “non committable offer”. But until the recruit achieves the condition set out as a prerequisite for support, he or she has absolutely nothing. This exact scenario happened with a teammate of my son last year. An Ivy told him “if you can get x on the November ACT we can take you.” The kid did not achieve the score and is now happily playing elsewhere.
It is puzzling to me as well. Which is why I doubt it happens all that much, absent extenuating circumstances. Certainly any school which operated in that fashion as a matter of course would be at an immense disadvantage in recruiting against other schools in the conference. @varska’s example on that point is telling I think.
My son received his letter after the EA deadline, but before the RD deadline. Because he had the letter, he did not submit any additional applications. We had made a decision that if he did not receive the letter by December 1, we were going to make him apply to a couple other schools, just to cover himself. The trIcky part would have been deciding whether to switch his commitment to another school who had offered him support.
Here is the operative language from the 2011-2012 Ivy Manual, Part X, Section 3(a)
Assuming there was a lawyer or two hanging out in the Ivy League when the Ivy Common Agreement was drafted, the use of the word may has nothing to do with limiting the number of probalistic communications. It is used as a term of art to indicate that an act is permissive (in this case that admissions can, but is not required to, issue such communications) as opposed to required (admissions offices “shall” advise applicants). The use of the term in this context is consistent with the entire structure of the agreement, namely that in the Ivy League the tail (sports) does not wag the dog (admissions).
Also, for clarity’s sake, I think it is worthwhile to point out that the quote referring to “infrequent and compelling reasons” (from subsection (g)) is not intended to apply to the issuance of likely letters in general, but is actually a modifer from the previous subsection (f) to that quoted, to wit:
And not to continue to beat on this, but for those of you who are in the middle of recruiting, or are really interested in this, the Ivy Manual is a wealth of information, and has much to say on the topics under discussion. For example, here is what the League has to say about coaches talk of support and slots and what not.
All good advice. I guess the only thing I would add is that every school is allowed, at their discretion, to issue the LL. Some may only choose to do so if there is a compelling reason. My advice to those going through the process would be to provide that compelling reason and request the LL be issued.
All of this is very helpful and informative. I’ll just add that (at least in our older son’s case), the compelling reason can simply be, “I can’t commit to an OV unless I know that you will support me for a likely letter.” Other athletes may not be able to get that level of commitment at the OV stage, but I can’t see a recruit committing to his EA application without that level of assurance. Still I agree that the recruit may well have to directly ask for what he/she wants.
I think Ivy applicants, in particular, should understand this:
Ivies issue likely letters to some, not all athletes and non-athletes, prior to each of the standard decision announcement dates for Early and Regular Admission.
D3 schools, as far as I know, do not issue probabilistic communications (likely letters) to either athletes or non-athletes.
D1 schools that are part of the National Letter of Intent program do not issue likely letters to athletes (or non-athletes) prior to the early signing period of Nov 11-18 this year, the football signing period in early February, or the regular signing period that starts on April 13 next year.
My opinion is that it is a privilege to receive a likely letter, one that is not enjoyed by your friends applying to D1 athletic scholarship schools or D3s. Sure there is uncertainty and angst before final confirmation of admission is received, but NLIs get pulled right up to the last minute, and recruits get deferred and rejected from D3s too.
I think Ivy applicants (and their parents) should consider the receipt of a likely letter to be a privilege, not an entitlement. I guess it is ok to wish that every Ivy slotted athlete was required to get a likely letter, but then maybe all the Ivy tuba players and math geniuses and debaters should be notified of admission before the standard admission date too. And what about the D3 and NLI kids?
As varska says, try to provide a compelling reason to receive an Ivy likely letter. If you get one, try to be humble about your good fortune. If you don’t, go with the flow, commiserate with your D3 and NLI-school athlete and non-athlete friends, and try to avoid any unbecoming air of entitlement.
Again, the language quoted by @fenwaypark about “compelling reasons” specifically applies only to when a school may issue a likely letter in the absence of a complete application. I know that @varska did not intend to imply otherwise, but there is no written, league wide directive which I have been able to discover that limits the circumstances under which “probalistic communications” can be provided. Maybe a particular school makes a decision not to issue such communications, but man, would I look skeptically at a coach who told me he was supporting me but couldn’t send my name to admissions for a likely letter. Since most recruits in the Ivy are recruited by more than one school, I would think such a policy would cripple recruiting.
I agree. You should. But this just isn’t the way it comes down.
Coaches do not send names to Admissions for likely letters. They send a list of names corresponding to the number of athletic recruitment slots they have been allocated. Each of those recruits is automatically eligible for a likely letter without the coach having to send their names a second time. Coaches do include notes indicating if there are competitive issues relating to NLI signing dates and other relevant factors. Then it is up to Admissions.
Recruits: if you ask a coach who has offered you a slot whether you will be supported for a likely letter, the proper response should be something along the lines of “Everyone who has one of my slots has the same level of my support, everyone who has one of my slots is eligible for a likely letter, I will give Admissions all the information they need, I hope all of you get one, but that is outside my control and subject to the discretion of Admissions.”
Worked for my current college athlete. It’s a given that if he had done something really stupid on his visit, that support would most likely have been withdrawn. It’s probably not always that important to ask before the OV; in his case, he needed that info. to decide where to go because his school limited him to 3 visits, and he had a tough choice to make between 4 great schools. So I guess I’d say ask early only if you really need to know.
Still, I guess I don’t see the difference between asking a coach where you stand on his/her list–always a good idea–and asking if you’ll be supported for a likely. If an athlete is, say, top 5 or 6 on the list, is a meh OV going to change the end result?
@fenwaypark : Likelies are, in fact, also used by Ivies to attract other particularly talented students–okay, maybe not tuba players, at least as far as I know, but math and science geniuses have gotten them, and talented URMs do as well.
I didn’t intend this discussion to be about what students deserve–I’m pretty ambivalent, in fact, about the edge athletes get in the admissions rat race.
At the same time, recruits should be fully aware, in any division, of what they can and can’t ask for–and they need to know exactly what coaches are promising and what the language that they are using means, especially since it does vary from one context to the next. In the OP’s case, for example, we don’t really know what the Ivy coach was offering since the only word he uses to describe it is “support.” Along those same lines, I think it would be foolish for a kid to commit to one school he likes slightly better over another without knowing, as specifically as possible, what kind of support each school is prepared to offer. This isn’t about entitlement so much as keeping one’s eyes wide open.
Apologies for the multiple postings, but an amendment to my Post 88 since it looks like fenway and I posted at the same time and it’s not clear that I was responding to varska’s post 86. Also, my post sounded more in your face than I intended. I meant to say that my kid asked for a likely slot before the OV to help him with decision making. Basically, it was his way of confirming that he was in the “if you don’t do anything stupid, you’re on the list” group of recruits rather than the more borderline group. This probably worked for him because his sport season was done in mid-summer–I can see how it might not work well for sports with fall seasons.
Thanks for that reminder, classicalmama, and I know it is a long thread, but I have said that at least three times in the last couple of days:
Ivy recruits: I think there is only the remotest of chances that the following will happen: Ivy coach recruits you. You submit and get a positive pre-read from Admissions–AI and everything else are A-OK. Coach offers you one of the team’s precious allocated slots. You remain in school and out of jail. Admissions rejects you. Coach is left with a hole in the roster.
If that is the rare scenario you are worried about, I can understand why you would push the coach for a likely, and the comfort and certainty it provides. But in any case, an honest coach can only say that Admissions has all the relevant information, express hope that you get the likely, and remind you it is entirely up to Admissions. Coach can also tell you what percentage of recruits in prior years received LLs.
Sure, it is a privilege to be in a position to know you are able to attend a school with a single digit admission rate because you happen to have a skill that the school desires. I don’t think anyone disputes that. However, and FWIW, I know three kids who received likely letters from Brown. Two were athletes, one was not. For the two athletes, the issuance of a likely letter was a deliberate process and a crucial piece of the decision to apply and ultimately attend the school. For the non athlete, the letter came as a surprise after he applied and was perceived as a real nice gesture. Like it or not, certain categories of kids will have a different experience choosing a college than others, based on how the particular class of applicant is viewed by the school. I have been through this process with a kid who was a recruited athlete, and am going through it now with one who is not. Are there advantages in being a recruit? Sure. The process ends much earlier, but then again it starts much earlier too. The athlete kid pretty much got to choose which school from his list he got to attend, but on the other hand his list was of necessity much smaller than the non athlete’s.
The reason that the process in the Ivy is different than at NLI schools and D3 schools is that for the most part, NLI schools do not pose an admissions hurdle to the recruit once past NCAA eligibility standards (Stanford being the one exception of which I am aware). Most D3 schools similarly do not have anywhere near the crazy admit rates that the Ivys do, so the pressure to make sure there is admissions as well as athletic support is lessened. Of course, the NESCAC stands as the biggest exception, and ten minutes on this board will disclose a number of problems and challenges faced by recruits when dealing with that conference. The likely letter process was designed to and does in fact eliminate those types of challenges.
Most importantly, the purpose of this board is to provide the most accurate information possible to parents and students who are often aswim in the unfamiliar world of college recruiting. To that end, I think it is wisest to deal with what is, even if that is perceived as prideful.
@fenwaypark : I was responding to specifically to this quote, not to your previous statements. I clearly need to quote more when I respond.
It’s a privilege to get into any college, partly because of one’s athletic ability–I don’t particularly prize Ivies over other great schools. They happen to be where my kids’ sport is most competitive (give or take a few other big D1s). I’m will Ohiodad–the likely is a tool to help kids make good decisions, and not really any more a privilege or entitlement than an NLI.
Respectfully, I think that this is trying to draw a distinction that doesn’t in actuality exist. I think there is universal agreement that the decision whether to issue a likely letter is in the hands of admissions. I also have not read of anyone who said there has to be two submissions of names, one for “support” and one for a likely letter.
As a general point, it is inconceivable to me that any coach in the Ivy league is unaware of the process used by the admissions office in reviewing applications from recruits, or who would offer support to a recruit without knowing what that support means for his recruiting efforts in the current and future cycle. If for some reason they are unaware, like they are a recent hire going through the process for the first time, each school has an admissions liaison in the athletic office (or an athletic liaison in the admissions office) who is certainly aware of the process.
There are clear rules that are set out in the Ivy Manual and the Common Agreement that detail how the athletic office interacts with admissions for purposes of recruiting. Absent evidence to the contrary, I believe it is wise to assume that the process works as it is laid out in writing, and that the process as laid out is done for a purpose. The AI system makes coordination between the athletic office and the admissions office crucial. I assume that was a deliberate and intentional choice, so the egg heads could ensure the jocks didn’t start running the asylum.
Put another way, the literal meaning of what you are describing is that the Ivy process is akin to the MIT process. The coach can only tell a recruit he submitted his name on a list, but can not tell the recruit what that means (which would violate Section 3(e)), or whether admissions is inclined to act favorably on it (violative of Section 3(e) and probably (c)). I am pretty sure that is not what you meant, and it is obviously not the way recruiting occurs in the Ivy League.
Absolutely wrong, that is not the literal meaning of anything I have said, and I do not want anyone casually reading this to get that misleading impression.
Not correct. Ivy coaches can and do tell recruits that a slot has been granted, that a pre-read has been positive, and how many recruits who have received slots in previous years have been rejected. I think this should be the message to potential applicants who may be reading this.
making such a statement as to how many recruits have been rejected would be a violation of the following, if for no other reason than it is an implication of a better than normal chance at admission.
The overarching point is that under the clear language of the agreement, a system of a coach submitting a list of names to admissions and then washing his hands of the process would have to work like the MIT process we were discussing way back at the beginning of this thread in the dawn of time. There is no way for the coach to indicate any type of positive support other than through the admissions office without running afoul of Section 3.
I don’t know all the ins and outs of the rules, but I have heard of Ivy coaches telling recruits, “admissions has approved your Likely Letter and it’s in the mail”.
I’m not sure if that’s within the exact letter of the rules but in that case the coach is just relaying what admissions has decided, just a bit in advance of the physical letter arriving.
@bluewater2015, in keeping with the spirit of this thread, I’ll counter your statement with a contrary anecdote
When my my daughter went through the Ivy recruiting process, the coach told her she was on the list he submitted to admissions and to let him know as soon as she heard from them (admissions). She got a call from admissions telling her they would be sending a LL and she, in turn called her coach to let him know.
Was the whole thing a charade? Possibly, but she said he did seem genuinely excited to hear the news.
@varska that’s a great story and probably a nicer way to do it than what I mentioned.
In any event, I hope you know that between this site, your book and your blog you are helping athletes and parents navigate through a process that is not particularly easy to understand, especially for those who don’t happen to have older siblings, teammates or high school/club coaches who have been through the process with the Ivies or other top academic schools.
