Just to add some context to why something like this might happen, i.e., a coach supporting rather than recruiting an applicant (this kind of explanation can be found in earlier parts of the thread, but hoping this can be helpful to the newer people on the thread) . A small team such as Harvard has fewer recruiting spots than a large Div I team at, say, Notre Dame. If in a given year they really need more people in one weapon and already have full squads in the others, that’s going to mean that they have to focus on that, even if a fencer is otherwise qualified and might have even gotten a recruiting spot in a different year. Then the “supported” candidate can then be added as a walk-on to the team if they get in. I’m obviously not saying that I know this is the case, just may be an explanation for how this situation might arise. Hope that’s clear/helpful!
This is a great point. It is a very valuable strategy for smaller fencing programs to be able to fill-out their teams with walk-ons without burning an official recruitment slot. But this does mean that the applicant has to get in on his/her own. Another aspect of @SpaceVoyager 's post is how teams prioritize recruiting for squads that need the most inflow. To the extent to which your fencer’s gender and/or weapon is not of immediate need for a particular squad, but may still be of importance, that can be a factor in evaluating the relevance of your support. Of course, if your fencer is truly elite, this may also bolster the influence of support.
Hello, how significant is earning a medal at a NAC?
Obviously, one wants to be consistent in every tournament, but is one high finish enough to get one “recruited” later by a good academic D1/D3 in the process (once the top fencers are all slotted)?
Or would this likely be a “supported” situation-- or not even that?
There are lots of ways in which your fencer will be judged by a potential recruiting school. These not only include your fencer’s successes on the strip, but academic record and personal skills as may be exhibited in an interview with a prospective coach.
Since the early rounds of at least D1 recruiting are based on points lists, one high finish at a NAC will not get the job done. It may pique the interest of a D3, particularly if your fencer is generally in the top 16 or even the top 32, but I don’t see this as improving chances at a competitive D1 school.
Of course it also can depend on the timing of the result. If the top fencers have already been recruited in your fencer’s recruiting year, a medal at a NAC late in the season, seen by a coach with a slot to fill, can result in an offer. I believe @superdomestique can speak to this.
D3’s are looking for capable fencers, with strong academics, who can gain admission largely on their own. These are not often the landing site of the elite fencers. A fencer’s lone national medal, depending on the timing, might carry some weight, assuming the academics are competitive.
D1’s are looking for consistent, strong results over years of time, often extending to international competition as well. One result at a NAC is just not going to carry the day.
I agree with the others. Although my D had a recruited spot on a team she was very clear when speaking to coached if she was being offered a recruited spot or a coaches support letter to her application. We do know of another fencer in our club who had a support letter at an Ivy and although they didn’t get in at the time of ED’s and was deferred, they did finally get in during regular decision and is now on the fencing team. It was a nail biter. But they were in constant contact with the coach and their school counselor also checked with admissions to see if an athletic letter of support was accompanying the application. Feel free to DM me on more info on this as this was our first-hand experience regarding how a coaches support letter works. I will say though that depending on the school, the efficacy of a support letter and how much it actually tips the scale in favor of admission varies widely.
There seems to be a top tier of fencers who are consistently finishing high in tournaments. And then a larger tier of fencers above C and who are on the national points list, but won’t be actively recruited until the top tier shakes out. All these fencers have spent a lot of blood, sweat, tears and dollars and are pretty invested.
What’s this thread’s experience with any of these fencers who choose not to go down the recruiting path and to not fence in college? (to pursue other interests or a difficult major in college or for the freedom to choose their college and not be bound ED)
Does the many sacrifices made for fencing offer a hook that one needs to get into the top academic schools in ED/RD? (Getting an athletic rating of 2 at harvard for example). If so, where’s that line? B? C? national points list? medal at NAC?
Thanks in advance 
A “hook” refers to an institutional priority where someone within the school is advocating for you personally. For an athletic hook, it is a coach. It is someone in the development office for a kid whose parents are ultra-weathy donors. It is a faculty member for the kid of a professor.
You may have a really impressive EC, but it is not a hook unless your admission is an institutional priority (if the school for some reason wanted to prioritize fencers) and/or a person on the inside is advocating for you because of that activity.
If you are targeting a school that does have a fencing program, being a great fencer is less of an impressive EC (because the school already has a lot of great fencers, perhaps the best fencers). Harvard, for example, is going to take fencers that are recruited and will represent the school. I don’t know that Harvard is going to be terribly impressed by a B fencer that doesn’t plan to continue fencing.
That said, for a school without an NCAA fencing program, being a high level fencer can make you appear unique. (For example, at Dartmouth (all club)or Cornell (mens club).) But it is no different than being a national competitor in debate or chess or piano. All of those things are interesting and different and require a lot of time and energy. Being at a high level at anything is great. But it is not a hook.
There are only a small handful of dedicated recruitment spots at a small number of “top” schools (depending on your definition of what “top” is, and I’m guessing by your reference to Harvard you are talking about the most selective schools in the country). Outside of that, no sport - not fencing nor any other sport - is a hook. AOs at highly selective schools aren’t keen on kids who have dedicated all of their time to a recruitable sport but weren’t recruited. Why would they be; they already had to take who the coach wanted.
There are selective schools that would welcome a C or above. This also really depends on weapon and gender. Being a female does make it easier. There are a lot of moving parts, and they move constantly. There’s certainly no harm (in my opinion) to contacting coaches at a wide range of schools regularly and seeing if you get any bites.
If your child really wants to fence and has a C or above, I’m sure they will find a team that will welcome them.
Unfortunately there is a great misimpression that competitive fencing leads to Ivy League admission. That largely is not the case.
This is a great answer, but I would also caution that not all highly selective schools that don’t have fencing teams are enthused about sports continued as a primary (particularly the only) activity, even if there are accomplishments at the national level.
My spouse interviews for a T10 college, which from observation is a school that does look favorably upon accomplishments in sports. But we know a student who was nationally accomplished (but not recruited) in a less-popular sport that the school didn’t have a team in, and that sport was the student’s main EC. The student was not accepted.
Highly selective schools maybe have a few spots a year for a recruited fencer, but hundreds of spots for students who demonstrate accomplishment in a myriad of academic subjects and/or leadership. I’d encourage any fencer to also consider broadening their interests, even though I personally am well aware of the time and financial sacrifices required to be a competitive fencer these days.
Fencing is a great sport. It taught our child so much, and I’m grateful my son has participated in it all these years. It is helping his college process. But I’ve also seen a too many families and kids suffer, too. Putting all eggs in one basket in hopes of landing a top college (combined with a rigid and narrow definition of what a top college is) can lead to a lot of emotional and financial pain.
Hi all … Just chiming in with a note about academics (something I’ve said before but maybe worth repeating for newer readers). My son was recruited to one of the “selective” (competitive, difficult to get into) schools and the coach was pretty clear that one reason the coach wanted him (maybe over other high performing fencers) was because of his strong academics. This meant that there would be no issues with the admissions office reading (i.e., he clearly met the expectations of the school) and also that he could handle the demands of a rigorous academic environment along with the Div 1 sports schedule. For some students, those things together have proven overwhelming and then the student may end up dropping the team (this can be a real issue for students with sports scholarships (not as relevant for Ivies and other schools that don’t have financial strings attached to the sports, but a fencer leaving a team mid-season is not great for the team)).
This is all to say that IMO students will benefit from making sure they don’t let their academics suffer while spending all their time on fencing (or any other sport) – of course education is inherently a good thing, and also if they do well, even reasonably so (don’t need to be valedictorians), that will help in any college application. I know this sounds so obvious, but I have met more than one parent who mistakenly thought “well, it’s OK if they [take an easier academic load/let their grades slip/don’t study for the SAT/ etc.] because they are highly ranked.”
While I’m here, I also want to support @toandfro in the suggestion that students broaden their interests. Or pursue the interests that they have in addition to fencing. This is obviously just my opinion but life is short and students should consider opportunities to try things while they can! Maybe students are also interested in music, chess, theater, robotics, whatever. Maybe that will become a side interest that provides relaxation or an opportunity to socialize. Or maybe, the other interest becomes their passion and fencing is the side gig that provides physical exercise and fun, and also makes them more well rounded in an application. I know a couple cases where the students were primarily musicians but they were interesting to colleges because they also had an interesting sport they pursued, even if they weren’t podium performers (even just fenced on a high school team).
Sorry for rambling … last thought is that in the end, fencing should be something the student enjoys doing … it is fun!
Like my good friend @SpaceVoyager , our fencer was also recruited at a top Ivy fencing program. Although it may seem a bit rudimentary, we had our fencer go through a few exercises to both stress the importance of academics, as well as the school itself, and to imagine a world absent of fencing. First, we had our fencer look through school curriculum with the name of the school blacked-out. We hoped this would focus on academics, independent of the school reputation (including for fencing) and location. Second, we visited most of the schools with competitive fencing programs, but also elite schools with less competitive programs, D3 schools, and even schools without a major program. The perspective was pretty eye-opening as our fencer actually liked some of the schools with less competitive programs and loved a couple of the schools with no fencing at all. Finally, we asked our fencer to imagine college life without fencing and to extend that to post-fencing life. This, too, was informative because even the most diehard understands that fencing at the highes levels, from NCAA to Olympics, has a normal end.
I am not here to preach about correct choices. After all, with all of the exercises, our fencer did attend an Ivy with a top fencing program. However, I think our fencer chose well and entered college understanding it was a path to the end of the non-vet fencing career. Well into grad school, post a stellar academic and NCAA fencing experience, the lookbacks and regrets are fading as new opportunities and challenges present themselves.
As an aside, several years ago I was sitting with several fencers on the Senior international team squad. They were lamenting about the end of their fencing careers and how much they had not accomplished. I told them that, at the age of early 20-something it was natural to be consumed about what they had not achieved. But, as time goes on, they would come to look back on how much they had achieved. This has proved true for most of the young fencers in that group.
Congratulations to those whose fencers were recruited to top Ivy fencing programs, and I apologize if I come off as preachy. I feel that both at my club and more generally there is a widespread misimpression that committing to fencing leads to an Ivy admittance. Even the poster above – it is not nothing to get a fencer good enough to be a C or above – it requires time, work, money and effort – asked a question that reflects confusion about this.
Such a misimpression is natural, as it has been heavily fed by media articles that both don’t understand the sport deeply and have focused on college admissions from a perspective of equity (and are instead read as a how-to guide).
Top Ivy recruitment purely through fencing is great. It is also rare. I think it is important for families to have a perspective on the odds.
Many years ago I posted here that a child should get into serious competitive fencing because that child really loves serious competitive fencing, and not because a parent is hoping for a specific outcome. I encouraged my fencer to be a student first and perhaps even pursue, even in a small way, an interest outside of fencing, if for no other reason than to have a source of pride outside of a very competitive sport where even the very best can have down days and where the pressure to perform when being evaluated for recruitment can be very high.
I’ve been happy with this formula, which is why I would encourage others to consider it. And yes, I’ve been happy with the outcome as well, fencing and otherwise.
Was just reminiscing with my kid whose NCAA fencing career is now finished. Reviewing some of his early events, we noticed the following that might be of interest to those reading this thread:
Amongst the 30ish competitors at his very first competition (Y10), 25% ended up fencing at an Ivy, Stanford, or MIT, 41% total fenced in an NCAA event.
At the largest (>100) Y12 SYC he competed in, 17% eventually fenced for an Ivy, Stanford, or MIT, and 36% ultimately fenced in an NCAA event.
Everyone will have their own interpretation and explanation, but I thought this was remarkable. What other activity would exhibit similar results at 10 and 12 years of age?
Personally love this exercise (and the stroll down the memory piste). AskFred is a wonderful resource for going back to the start of your fencer’s competitive history. Following @helmut ’s lead, I looked back on my fencers first year of y10 competition (the level at which our fencer started competing). Looking through local, regional, and national tournaments, 30-40% of the fencers who competed in those events went on to fence in the NCAA. Many of those at Ivies and other elite schools.
Clearly, this means that the majority (even large majority) of those who start the sport do not take it into college at the NCAA level. However, as Helmut points out, I think that’s a pretty good shot; far more than any other NCAA sport of which I am aware.
This is a super interesting exercise! I need to go back and look at D22s first competitions. I have a feeling it might be similar.
I wonder if these sort of percentages will continue with the rise in popularity of fencing. My youngest fenced Y12 at this past Summer Nationals and there were more than 200 kids in his event!
Just wanted to share this resource if you aren’t using it already since a few folks have been referencing past results etc.
Can someone give me some idea how the pools at NACs and JO are generated? I felt there is lack of transparency on how they are done, and some times the new pool will come out right before the event. And it seems pools will favor particular fencer from certain club/coach when the world team qualification was on the line. Am I wrong or the pools can be manipulated if the committee wants to under the influence of certain powerful coach?
Hi Zinc04. Welcome to the community!
Fencers are pre-seeded based on national rank in the age group of the event, followed by rating/year, e.g., an A20 is seeded lower than an A22.
There are usually large groups of fencers who are unranked and have the same rating/year. These are assigned randomly but there is a default to separate members of the same club. This may even include division, e.g., a NY division fencer may be separated from another NY fencer.
The pools are not finalized until after registration for the event closes. This is because who is fencing and the total number affect the way in which the pools are generated. That is why pools do not come out until close proximity to the start of the event.
At least in theory, I guess there could be “manipulation” but it would be at the lowest levels of seeding. The top ranked and/or rated fencers are locked. The only “manipulation” would come in the form of ties and to which pools those fencers are allocated. Frankly, if you are a “powerful” coach it is because you represent and are focused on top fencers with national ranking which locks in their pools.
Hope this helps.
I have worked bout committee at SYCs, RJCCs, and ROCs, but not NACs. I believe NACs use the same FencingTime software (at least they used to a few years ago).
As @BrooklynRye mentioned, there is no flexibility for gaming the assignment of top-ranked fencers (those with rankings). The software does that, and the rules are hard-wired. Once you get past the ranked fencers, the software continues with the rules that BrooklynRye mentioned. If there are a lot of unranked fencers of the same rating (say B23) – then I believe the software randomly assigns out those B23 fencers to pools before moving down to B22, B21, B20, C24, C23 and so on. It will follow rules as mentioned to make sure no fencers of the same club (and division, if possible) are in the same pool, but sometimes that’s not possible and the software highlighted conflicts to the bout committee, and the bout committee chair then resolved conflicts manually to the extent possible.
I’ll also note that even referees for pools are assigned by the software to avoid conflicts with referees being assigned fencers from their home club, etc.
There was no room for gamesmanship in this process at all. The bout committee chairs I have worked with, if a club coach approached them about changing pool assignments, would have immediately shut them down. They are people of high integrity.
Just doing some back of the envelope math, if there are about 50 NCAA fencing programs and each one recruits 1 fencer per weapon per year, that’s 50 NCAA places a year. And if there are about 200 fencers in an age group per year at nationals, that is 100 fencers in each graduation year (since it’s a 2 year age group). Crunching these numbers suggests that about 50% of fencers who fence at nationals end up in the NCAA. Of course lots of confounding effects here but nevertheless, the odds are pretty decent actually for a fencer competing in nationals at say Y12 to end up fencing in college. Although I would say that for players on high level club teams in other sports, the odds that these players continue in college is probably even higher.