<p>I’d sit in on all meetings during junior year, fogfog, for the reasons you say: more ears. Also, you can help coach your child on interviewing so that when he goes back for officials, he’s comfortable and able to communicate well. </p>
<p>However, here’s something to keep in mind: an Ivy coach I know well has told me that during recruiting, coaches are very tuned in to parent/child dynamics. Over-protective, controlling, overly-involved parents are seen as a big negative. This coach tells me they expect parents to attend the meetings, but they want to see the child function well without their constant guidance and prodding. They also want to see that it’s the child who has the drive to compete in college, and not the parents. </p>
<p>I saw my role as gathering info about the school and team before each meeting, and making it available to my kid to read so that she wouldn’t ask stupid questions during the meeting. Kid should have a basic knowledge of the league, the current team record, the competition schedule, the coaching staff, the facilities. (I don’t mean have all this stuff memorized, but have some familiarity with the program that would be available to anyone with a passing interest in the school). I also helped her develop a list of questions, and helped her make a single-page athletic and academic resume to hand over at the meeting. This had generally already been emailed, but updating it and making it available helped with any conversation lulls. </p>
<p>During the meetings and tours, I was silent but friendly. The coaches entertain recruits all the time. They know how to talk to kids. Your child will become more comfortable with this process over time. Give him a little help at the beginning, and chances are he will be very comfortable and adept with these visits very quickly.</p>
<p>I think Riverrunner has described optimal parent involvement well. The coaches want to see that the athlete is going to be able to function well independently and is truly interested in the program. It’s a mistake for parents to be the athlete’s spokesperson.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I just wanted to add to the idea that parents can be another set of eyes and ears. Coaches are recruiting year in and year out, and have lots of expertise in the process. However, for us (parents and athletes) often this is a one time experience - our learning curve is very steep. For an adolescent, who has minimal life experience negotiating anything - this is a really, really steep curve! </p>
<p>Occasionally, I hear parents voice the opinion that they should be completely hands off and that coaches expect that. I think that’s not in the athlete’s best interest or even expected by coaches. I believe parents should be closely involved in helping athletes interpret phone calls and e-mails and rehearsing how to frame the difficult questions such as “where do I stand in your list of recruits?” and “exactly how much influence does your support have in the admissions process?”. In our experience, coaches sought us out (parents) on occasion - asking to speak to us during phone calls to our athlete and setting up meetings during visits that included us with the child (in addition to meetings alone with athlete). I think they understand that parents do need to be involved and will have influence in this process, but want to know that the athlete is the driving force.</p>
<p>riverrunner - Great advise to all in the recruiting process. My wife and I used a very similiar strategy (to yours) in our approach with coaches. When it was a face to face meeting with a coach or other school representative, we remained in the background. The only time we spoke was when asked a question directly or when the discussion turned to finances. Otherwise, it was his show. My son learned how to conduct himself in this process, and I think matured a lot because of it. When we started this process, my son (somewhat shy & reserved) was very uncomfortable even talking to a coach on the phone. Now, I don’t think there is any situation (phone or face to face) he wouldn’t know how to handle. </p>
<p>Your comment about the coaches evaluating the parent/child relationship is so true. I saw it first hand many, many times, and I can’t blame the coaches. The coaches want to know they are getting a mature, well spoken young adult on their team.</p>
<p>Great advice here…
We want our student to drive this show and also realize the steep learning curve and limited life experience makes it challenging.</p>
<p>I would guess that until early fall…all of the questions should be general, team expectatios, balancing school/acadmic work and team expectations etc.</p>
<p>One prof eng friend of ours told us that our student should ask how many jrs and srs are on the team…(in that major) to see if the kids can handle it…
This engineer had been heavily recruited and was a student-athlete and did have to drop the sport to keep the academics.</p>
<p>Engineering students often must choose between success in classes and doing their sport- there is simply not enough time for both at HYPSM level schools, where students are required to graduate in 4 years.</p>
<p>riverrunner & Runners2: Thank you so much for this very valuable perspective, and your advice will definitely be in my mind as my daughter and I approach two unofficial visits this month. This is really helpful - thank you!!</p>
<p>There are probably exceptions to every rule or generalization we make, but our S and several of his teammates have been successful in engineering programs and in their sport at an Ivy. I actually think that has been easier in that academically focused school as there has been an explicit understanding that their coursework came first - e.g. in conflicts between scheduling a required course and team practice, coaches expected that the athletes would have to take the course. I think the combination of engineering or architecture with a DI sports commitment may be more difficult in schools where the sport is made the first priority.</p>
<p>I do wonder if the prioritization of academics over athletics exists at Stanford, which is often used in the same breath as the Ivy League schools when talking about quality academics (especially in such a challenging field as engineering), but is not a member of that league, and also seems to enjoy a rather tremendous athletic standing.</p>
<p>Runners2, I agree with your assessment of Ivy coaches understanding the students’ priorities. Many (most?) Ivy coaches are Ivy alums, so they’ve walked the walk. They also understand none of their athletes have any economic motivation to keep showing up for practice. They rely on the kids’ passion for the sport, need for balance of fitness and academic pursuits during college, and personal integrity to stick with their commitment to the team as long as they can. D is premed and, while it’s challenging, she has felt completely supported by her coaches. Also, the whole team is in the same boat: there are no easy majors, and everyone must study on the bus rides and on Sundays. I was at an all-Ivy competition last spring, right before finals week, and every athlete not on the field had a book open. </p>
<p>I just reread that- it makes them sound like drones. I’m pretty sure books are not open much on Saturday night…</p>
<p>thrill: In my opinion, while Stanford does have high academic requirements of its recruits (generally speaking), athletics take over from academics once playing for the school. This is JUST MY OPINION before I upset anyone!!</p>
<p>Talking with another parent today–
a young man declined signing with a HYP after a last official visit because the Jrs and Srs at said HYP told him that it was horrible–all they did was study and train/play their sport…and how they struggled to stay afloat academically
he signed elsewhere–a school tops in the sport but not nearly at the same HYP level…</p>
<p>fogfog, your post illustrates why the Ivies and academically selective LACs are so interested in athletes with truly strong transcripts and test scores. These kids have a prayer of keeping up in the classroom and with their sport. </p>
<p>I think the admissions office knows it too, and won’t admit someone who is just going to be frustrated and overwhelmed, and ultimately quit the team or fail in the classroom. I applaud recruits who are reflective enough to make a choice that is right for them, and not get sucked into accepting a spot at a school that may be momentarily exciting, but painful in the long run.</p>
<p>My two cents on the topic at hand: from the schools interested in D, she narrowed down her college choices to 4 Ivies and Stanford. Obviously, academic quality was of top priority in her decision-making. The Ivies sold her the student first, athlete second concept. It made good sense to her initially, and still does in theory. The Ivies stressed to us that since admissions standards aren’t lowered for their athletes, no special accommodations or arrangements are required for athletes at their schools. The idea was almost that it would be insulting to offer tutoring or other special services just for the athletes, since the Ivies make certain they’re of the same academic caliber as everyone else. That made sense to us, since our D did indeed have Ivy-caliber GPA and SAT’s.</p>
<p>But slowly a nagging doubt entered our minds. Are athletes, especially 3-season athletes like my distance runner D would be, really the same as other students? Sure, non-athletes are heavily involved in EC’s too, but we weren’t convinced that the demands weren’t much greater on athletes given the reality of mandatory daily practices/training, weekend travel, and the greater need for sleep. Furthermore, the Ivies do compete in D1, and at least one of the Ivies was nationally competitive in D’s sport. So we wondered how different their training regimen could possibly be from that of a non-Ivy D1 school at the same level. Given that D wanted to join a strong team which would challenge her and help her reach her athletic potential, the question became “Which school will help me do that the best, given that all of them are top-notch academically?”</p>
<p>In the end, she chose Stanford, in part because their philosophy was that athletes aren’t just like other students. They absolutely do need more support if they are to perform on an elite level in both academics and athletics, and hopefully still have time for a little social life. Now, this support is not of the dumbing-down kind, but of the time-saving kind. Simple things like if career services is offering a resume-writing workshop for the student body, they’ll offer a special one for athletes over lunch to save them time.</p>
<p>On any given day, we could convince ourselves of the opposite point of view just as easily. Who knows if she made the right decision? I promise to report back in a year!</p>
<p>Interesting feedback, GFG. Certainly makes sense that Stanford is doing more to facilitate optimal performance from athletes than perhaps most Ivy’s are. </p>
<p>However, I wouldn’t want to leave others with the impression that the following is true for all the Ivy’s: “The idea was almost that it would be insulting to offer tutoring or other special services just for the athletes.” I know at our S’s Ivy there are tutors that are available specifically for athletes - both on a drop in basis for any athlete and as a strong recommendation for athletes judged to be at some risk of not being successful academically. So I don’t want to leave the impression that athletes are without academic support at the Ivy’s - that hasn’t been true in our experience.</p>
<p>Sounds like your daughter had terrific options and made the very best decision for her. Best of luck to her in her college career (both athletically & academically!) - do keep us posted about how it all works out!</p>
<p>I think the bottom line is that at every school, athletes live a different life than the student body at large (whatever the Ivies pretend). How could they not? For example, even at my son’s highly selective DIII LAC, he has no special accommodations that I am aware of. But he practices two hours per day, six days a week, even in the off season. Obviously, the student body at large just doesn’t do that. So naturally, most of his friends are athletes who have the same kind of regimen.</p>
<p>Mind you, I’m not dissatisfied with that state of affairs. My sense is that, in general, the athletes at his school have a much more hard-headed view of the world.</p>
<p>We’re all very familiar with the time commitment of our student-athletes. I’ve gotten to know some of my D’s friends at school who aren’t athletes, but are very involved in other activities that take up almost the same amount of time, and aren’t part of their academic track: one is a museum docent, another is a debater, one is in several music performance groups, and another is on the newspaper staff. I’m sure one of the reasons they were admitted to an Ivy was that it was clear they would continue to pursue their EC’s with great commitment, and keep up academically. I don’t think my daughter feels she’s got a heavier load than her friends, but rather that they are all representing their school and contributing to their community to the best of their abilities. They’re all working hard and maximizing their opportunities.</p>
<p>Absolutely, riverrunner. By all accounts being editor of an Ivy newspaper or a member of one of the well-known traveling music groups is just as intense as being an athlete. However, I think it also varies from team to team. Where your D is, if I remember correctly, the practice schedule was more flexible than at the other schools on my D’s list. I believe there were a couple of days per week when the girls were on their own to run and/or lift at their convenience as oppposed to having to attend a scheduled practice. That might appeal to some students and better allow them to take lab classes or whatever, whereas for other kids who hate training alone or aren’t disciplined, it could be a negative. It’s a great thing that our country has so many wonderful schools to choose from, since one size doesn’t fit all! (And as you know, RiverD’s school was my personal favorite.)</p>
<p>You’re exactly right about D’s choice of school, GFG. She was very careful to choose a place with some flexibility for athletes, and also where other students were passionate about their ECs. I suspect your D will find a similar culture next year as far as the general involvement of the students in all sorts of interesting things. The athletic piece is always such a wildcard, but I think she’s made a great decision, knowing her abilities and drive. And now it’s time to end this meeting of the GFG and RR mutual admiration society…:)</p>
<p>Yes, it is true that some nonathletes spend as much time as extracurricular activities as their varsity athlete colleagues but a) it is the exception rather than the rule b) they generally have much more flexibility in deciding WHEN they put in the time and c) they can choose to cut back on their commitments while continuing to be seen as valued contributors to their chosen extracurriculars</p>
<p>I’m not saying the educational experience of nonathletes at highly selective schools is better or worse (only one of my three is a college athlete). Just different.</p>