That is actually not True. Highly competitive sports are considered Tier 1 extra curricular based on time commitment. Colleges WILL differentiate between ECNL/DPL/GA and AYSO based on the level of competition and the time commitment. Just like baking club varies from Academic Decathlon.
Wynalda Perspective on US Soccer
- Thread starter watfly
- Start date
HOW DARE YOU interrupt one of Grace's rambling rants?
nope. Not if you aren’t on the sports recruited route. Again it just checks the sports extracurricular box (I’m open to the argument that ayso core would not wind up checking the sports extracurricular box at some schools but playing high school soccer most definitely would). It doesn’t give you any bigger umph, particularly given the time commitment. And if improperly marketed (eg the tech example) it can actually be a net negative in private schools (I saw this happen to at least 3 different kids at my ivy alma matter and oh an ecnl girl that stepped back to silver ayso United her junior year did get the same sports extracurricular box checked).
there are scenarios where baking club can actually exceed academic decathalon. Academic decathalon (like speech and debate or mick trial) is only ranked a tier 1 extracurricular if you pull down awards and it makes sense with your profile. But I can envision scenarios where baking club is ranked tier 1. I once had a kid who created a war games club at the school one of my kids now goes to. He got waitlisted and got in off the list because of that club. He was into games and theory and wrote about that for his essay, plus it helped his socialization and leadership scores. It’s not so much what you do but how passionately you do it and how it fits into the marketing plan you are presenting to the college, at least with respect to private schools, academic track.
Ivy league alma matter?
You know - you just about explained why high level soccer/sports or any activity, regardless of whether it is associated with the desired major, would be important to a school. It's not what the activity is, it's how passionate you get about it and how you can relate it back to future goals.
Absolutely! We don’t disagree. The only thing is that’s overwhelmingly hard to do with athletics unless you are going to continue with athletics in college…which means going the recruited as opposed to the athletic route if you are spending virtually all your free time on sports…otherwise it’s really hard (at least for private schools) to come up with an explanation for why you are spending all your time on x, are passionate about y, but haven’t done much with y, and you don’t plan to continue with x or plan to try to walk on but if you don’t get it you are fine and cool with it.
Correction:”As opposed to the academic route”
ps the games and theory kid did relate it back to his major (applied mathematics, which also helps because math is more in demand from the colleges than say pre law or pre med). That’s the easiest most logical way to make the extracurricular relevant. I suppose some kid somewhere may have written a convincing essay on social justice through soccer but I have a hard time picturing it.
reality is that if you are spending all your time at soccer (which before you even get to private training takes up 3-5 days a week on practice for mls and ecnl ball not to mention big travel on weekends) there is no good answer to the question if you love it so much why are you stopping
and to top it off they’ll raise the question: well you say you are passionate about this other thing and that’s why you are going to our college, to do it, so why haven’t you done anything with it yet if you are so passionate about it and say you love it so much that you want to dedicate 4 years in college to it (hence the drop off sophomore/ junior year when kids scramble to other activities).
"I do have a question , why hasn’t the Galaxy Academy been aa successful at developing kids like FC Dallas , Philly , and Ny Red Bulls ? That’s always been a head scratcher for me."
Coach selection and Galaxy Leadership are the reason why. Look at who CK has hired in the past as the director of the boys academy and the coaches appointed. The only coach (BK) that made strides there was fired for academy players not signing with Galaxy and yes BK can be a handful at times. They also fired JH who was a solid coach. Since GV came on board which is about the only thing CK has reluctantly done in his tenure that was smart in regards to the academy. GV has taken over the program and is trying to improve it. We could further discuss CK and Anschultz love of hiring ex-Galaxy players into key spots across the board, letting LAFC come into LA and stealing the market from them and providing fans a better product on and off the field. But that would move us away from the academy question.
As an alumnae interviewer for _my_ Ivy alma mater, @Grace T. has this pretty spot on. I've interviewed hundreds of kids and while almost none of them get in, the ones that do tend to be very passionate about one thing rather than "well rounded". You can tell right away if they're taking tap dancing because they freakin' love tap dancing or because they (or their parents) think it'll look good on their resume. If I were to interview a kid who spent most of their after-school time playing sports and most of the interview talking about sports, but weren't planning to play sports in college, I would wonder what they would do when they got to school.
If the story is: I love sports, but it turns out I'm not that great so I switched to... something else. That can work. Or even, I love soccer, but I would sit on the bench at a D1 school, so I dialed back (moved to EA or ECRL, say) so I can focus on academics and play D3 or maybe walk on D1 somewhere, that would work too, as long as they have something else they love. By jr. year, most kids should have a realistic idea about their college prospects and adjust accordingly.
If the story is: I love sports, but it turns out I'm not that great so I switched to... something else. That can work. Or even, I love soccer, but I would sit on the bench at a D1 school, so I dialed back (moved to EA or ECRL, say) so I can focus on academics and play D3 or maybe walk on D1 somewhere, that would work too, as long as they have something else they love. By jr. year, most kids should have a realistic idea about their college prospects and adjust accordingly.
I was a coordinator until Covid. Had a girl who stepped back from ecnl to play United silver. Her essay was about standing up to her dad who pushed her to ecnl soccer but she wanted to focus on marine biology including working for an aquarium. Probably would have gotten in had we had an actual strong marine biology program but she told me it worked out because she got a partial ride at a school in San Diego that actually did that work
there Was another kid who hit all the right notes: Latina, near perfect test scores, lgbtq, perfect letters of rec, beloved by classmates and several music awards. But she tanked the essay and interview because she wrote about her passion for music (even supposedly showed up to the interview wearing piano earrings) but then declared she wouldn’t continue music in college (even as a minor…didn’t submit a tape to the music dept even though they said they’d welcome her with open arms) because she’d be too busy as pre med and her parents wouldn’t allow it. the admissions officer tried to do everything to get her in since she was a high scoring minority but that just sank her.
So many things wrong with what's been relayed "all the right notes: Latina, near perfect test scores, lgbtq,"
Latina = Implied racism in that other races arent the preference.
Near perfect test scores = 100% agree with this decision.
LGBTQ = implied bias against other sexualities.
I get what you are trying to say + why you feel that certain identities appeal to schools acceptance criteria.
However to me it all feels like a fancy way for schools to exclude people they dont like.
All that being said the girl sounds a little dim because for most schools once you're in you can change majors. Also she could double major in music and pre-med.
I don’t necessarily disagree with that sentiment but certain minorities with solid grades and good tests scores are in very high demand because you can make your dei percentages without having to use affirmative action (hence why they were desperate for her). It’s going to get worse if scotus rules as expected in the Harvard case. It’s why all the schools are dropping their sat requirements: unless scotus sets hard quotas (which conservatives hate in other areas of the law) the schools will just switch to even more squishy criteria for evaluating like extracurriculars leadership hardship and social skills.
if your kids are going private try and avoid having them apply premed or prelaw. It Gets them assigned to a certain evaluation pool (Yale could fill its class with all the people who apply premed but for obvious reasons doesnt want to do that such as the Sanskrit professor Needs to justify their existence) and if they are apply pre med top 25 schools they are competing against kids whose doctor daddies got them nih internships, have bylines or thank yous on research papers, are legacies or who have letters of recommend authored by fauci himself.
Whatever gobbly goop let's you sleep at night. Racism is racism and it's wrong + now you're adding nepotism into the mix.
DEI is garbage + just racism in a different form.
Getting back to the original topic. The reason why soccer sucks in America is because it's not the #1 sport in the nation. (Football is)
RandomSoccerFan
GOLD
This is fun, can I play? For what it's worth, my better half has been a local alumnae interviewer for _our_ Ivy alma mater, and she can count on exactly zero fingers the number of times soccer has come up in discussion in 20+ years of interviews. And with the essential banning of SAT or any other standardized tests by most Ivies, and every applicant GPA scraping up against what's physically possible, everything continues to get increasingly squishy. If you haven't started and sold a company, been awarded multiple patents, excelled in various academic competitions, aren't a legacy, and can't differentiate yourself much from the other 30-50 equally impressive kids who want your spot - good luck. It's not that unqualified kids are getting in, as much as there continues to be a much larger pool of apparently qualified candidates than there are spots for admission. The squishier the measures, the more randomness seems to apply.
Back to your regularly scheduled soccer discussion...
Like I said I don’t necessarily disagree with you on dei.
football outside of the receiver and qb positions is a low skill sport. Body type is the most important for the line. Limited season, limited training, if you are the right size can jump in late to positions other than qb. The shenanigans far exceed club soccer. My best guess is up to 20% of elite athletes are on some kind of ped. Girls football starts next year: if it takes hold in college it’s really going to mess up other girls scholarships since that money must come from somewhere
Europe and the nba belies the idea that it’s a problem soccer is the 3rd or 4th sports. Basketball is third in most of Europe. Given our size we should be punching better (not necessarily finalists but better). It’s a problem with our training and that college is a more attractive option than the mls.
the real culprit is international admits.
Oh and unless you also think athletic preferences are garbage (that we should be like Europe and have everything be a meritocracy determined by test scores, not sports and no sports scholarships), opposing legacy, dei and foreign preferences is a bit of casting stones.
No, anyone can play sports, and anyone can get good grades if they apply themselves.
DEI defines winners and losers based on things you cant achieve by practicing + getting better at (Ethnicity, Sexuality, etc). This is what makes DEI racist.
No not everyone can excel at sports. For boys particularly if they are short it’s a huge handicap.
and it’s a school which means it should be about the best academically, not who can be the best at a sport. Europe does not have athletic preferences. Otherwise you are just arguing your preference (sports) should be exempt but everyone else’s (dei, legacy, foreign) is wrong.
You can excel in anything and it can all be added to your college application. Sports just happens to be something that is easily quantifiable.
DEI rewards or rejects based on things you cant excel in Ethnicity / Race. Again this is why its racist.
The reason I commented like I have in this thread is to hopefully show that just because Colleges are using things like DEI for admissions doesnt mean it's right or ethical. If you feel Dei is racist dont highlight what people need to do to walk the tightrope when being surrounded by it. Just call it out for what it is, racism.
And reguarding this thread MLS is a league and Clubs that play in MLS are franchises. In other countries Clubs are their own business and the league they play in can vary. The franchise model is less competitive because it doesnt really matter if you win or lose. You'll still be playing in MLS league next season
RandomSoccerFan
GOLD
Up to what level of the discipline would you say the former holds true? Anyone can excel on a decent U12 team with dedication and effort? Anyone can excel on a state top-10 U17 team? Anyone can excel on a D1 team? Is this as applicable for soccer, as say football, basketball, or any other competitive sport? At some point - and reasonable people can disagree at which point - it is no longer "try hard enough and everyone can succeed". It's a positive viewpoint, it just turns out to be overly simplistic and less accurate the closer folks get to the pointy end.
Same with grades. Yes - a dedicated high school student should expect to be able to have stellar grades in most cases, given a certain level of aptitude and whatever effort is necessary. But a few short months after the world's smartest 18 year-old (in their own viewpoint) jumps from the high school talent pool into that university they were bright enough and lucky enough to enroll in - a good number of them are faced with core courses with the mean set at a C-, entirely intended to weed out all those who can't continue to float their way to the top. Suddenly a good number of them realize that hard work alone which got them there, simply isn't enough for them to excel as they were so able to prior. And others learn that their brilliance no longer masks their lack of effort. Depending on the field, it really does take aptitude, attitude, and yes, effort as well - all 3 are required to progress.
Eh. This isn't entirely wrong, but it's just as far from being entirely right. It's just a weak argument. The world doesn't define winners or losers solely on the basis of skills that can be improved by practicing and getting better. Nature doesn't work that way. Societal development doesn't work that way. Nothing really works that way.
Now striving to get closer that outcome, where all people have a fair shot at "winning" regardless of their starting hand, seems generally admirable as a concept to most everybody. But everyone tends to define their own advantages as fair, and everybody else's as unfair. It's no wonder that progress is slow and choppy, but it's not stagnant forevermore.