Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion How to get noticed by college admissions officers?

A 7th grader that I know is already talking to colleges about a women's lacrosse scholarship, so it is possible that early commitment is a lot more widespread than people think. She is planning to "commit" next year.

I was shocked to hear about it, because it is so young to choose a college for the future, but the family has multiple kids to put through college at approximately the same time so a scholarship would probably be very welcomed.

I know a really good male soccer player that got a full ride at Notre Dame in his junior year.

But soccer seems a real commodity. A good girl soccer player from Toronto got a 90% from a school in Texas. Don't know which one.

I quoted on a similar thread from an article in the recent Stanford Magazine about legacy admissions. The claim in the article is that being legacy is just one check box, the admit department has no idea who has donated what and only calls the alumni office to see if the member is active. And that amount of donation is irrelevant. They claim legacy only helps if a student is competitive in all other aspects.

This seems as way to young to select for athletic ability. And seems like a huge pressure to put on a child. I have seen kids who were good at athletics burn out in H.S., or get injured.

I don't think that giving a verbal in 8th grade is really so bad. Sure, you might get hurt, might not keep improving, but there is no written commitment. The kid or the coach can choose not to honor the agreement. Also, there might be a new coach at the school by the time the kid goes off to college - and new coaches don't always take the former coach's picks.

And I don't understand the comment in the NYT article that middle school verbals are somehow against NCAA rules. Prior to 9th grade, kids can talk to college coaches anytime, anywhere. I have told my HS kids to say nothing more than, "Hi" to anyone they think might be a coach in their sport(s).

In any case, high SAT/ACT scores and a high GPA are a better bet to get some great (merit) scholarships.

I think Cal Newport's book "How to Be a High School Superstar: A Revolutionary Plan to Get into College by Standing Out (Without Burning Out)" is interesting. Here is an essay of his.

http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/03/...surprising-psychology-of-impressiveness/
How to Get Into Stanford with B’s on Your Transcript: Failed Simulations & the Surprising Psychology of Impressiveness
March 26th, 2010

[/quote]
similar thread from an article in the recent Stanford Magazine about legacy admissions. The claim in the article is that being legacy is just one check box, the admit department has no idea who has donated what and only calls the alumni office to see if the member is active. And that amount of donation is irrelevant. They claim legacy only helps if a student is competitive in all other aspects. [/quote]

According to DH, when he was calling classmates looking for a donation, they had lists with the wealth of the alumni, what the target was for the donation, all the donations so far. And a big donor is definitely going to brought to the notice of the admit department.

But as my previous stories reported, the scores have to be there.

Really like the article Bostonian. Thanks.

There were stories about Meg Whitman and her son Griff Harsh that were all over the media here in CA when she was a gubernatorial candidate. There were accusations that her $30 million donation to Princeton got her son a lot special treatment (not just in college admissions).

So, it is entirely possible that $100 mil might get you a free ride. Not knowing people so wealthy, I can only base my specualtion on what I read in the media

If you can donate 100 million, you don't need a full ride.