There is an argument circulating in the rowing community that goes roughly like this: camps are a waste of money because recruiting comes down to erg scores and grades. Skip the camp. Buy a Concept2. Train at home. The numbers will speak for themselves.
Parts of this argument are correct. Erg scores and academic standing are the primary filters in college rowing recruitment. No athlete gets recruited without meeting the threshold numbers for their target programs. That part is not in dispute. What is in dispute — and what the argument gets fundamentally wrong — is the claim that meeting the threshold is the same as earning the spot. It is not. The filter gets your file opened. Everything that happens after that depends on a different set of variables entirely.
Having recruited for an Ivy League lightweight program and worked with hundreds of families through the recruiting process over the past fifteen years, the pattern is consistent: the athletes who navigate recruiting most successfully are not the ones with the fastest erg scores. They are the ones who demonstrate the depth, self-awareness, and communicative maturity that come from engaging seriously with the sport — not just optimizing a single number.
Do erg scores matter most for rowing recruiting?
Yes — as a filter. Men's heavyweight Division I programs generally require erg scores below 6:20 at the most competitive level, ranging to 6:30–6:45 at mid-tier programs. Women's open weight D1 ranges from roughly 7:15 at the most selective programs to 7:45 at developing ones. Lightweight thresholds are proportionally adjusted. D3 and club programs have broader ranges. For a complete breakdown of erg standards by division and weight class, we maintain a separate reference — but the principle is consistent across all tiers.
These numbers get an athlete into the conversation. They do not determine its outcome. At any competitive program, the recruiter receives inquiries from dozens — sometimes hundreds — of athletes who meet the erg and academic thresholds. The differentiation happens through what the recruiting process calls secondary selection: character, maturity, communication quality, coachability, and retention likelihood. Every one of these is assessed through how the athlete engages with the process itself.
What do college rowing coaches evaluate after the erg score?
Recruiting evaluation is a two-tiered process. Primary selection is objective — erg score, academics, standardized testing. It determines who enters the pool. Secondary selection is subjective — and it determines who gets the spot. The distinction matters because families who focus exclusively on primary selection (train the erg, get the grades) often neglect the qualities that secondary selection assesses.
College rowing programs fall on a spectrum between athletic development and athletic management. Development-oriented programs — which include many D1 programs and most D3 programs — recruit athletes they will develop over four years. They need recruits who are coachable, self-aware, and genuinely engaged with their own growth. An athlete whose entire rowing identity is an erg score has a narrower range to offer these programs than one who has invested in understanding the sport more deeply.
At the other end, management-oriented programs — typically the most heavily recruited D1 programs — seek athletes who arrive closer to ready. Even here, the erg is necessary but not sufficient. These coaches have learned through experience that the fastest incoming freshman is not always the one who contributes the most over four years. Retention is the recruiter's constant concern. Every athlete who quits before completing their eligibility represents a wasted slot — a slot that could have gone to someone slower but more committed.
This is why the qualities that show up in secondary selection — maturity, engagement, self-awareness, the ability to discuss what you're working on and why — carry real weight in the decision. They are indicators of whether the athlete will persist through the hardest parts of collegiate training.
Why is rowing camp experience relevant to recruiting if it doesn't lower your erg score?
Rowing is a late-start sport. Most high school rowers have two to four years of experience by the time they're being recruited — compared to ten or more for swimmers, gymnasts, or tennis players at the same stage. This compressed developmental window means coaches are not just asking "how fast is this athlete today?" They are asking "how fast will this athlete be after four years of collegiate training?" The answer depends on developmental trajectory, not just current output.
The analogy that clarifies this: telling a young rower to skip developmental camp and focus exclusively on erg training is like telling a student to skip high school, get a GED, and spend all their time prepping for the SAT. The student who falls in love with learning gets a better SAT score than the one who only prepped for the test — because engagement with the subject produces deeper, more durable ability than test preparation alone. The rower who falls in love with the sport through serious developmental experiences produces better erg scores over time — and is far more likely to still be rowing as a college senior.
The data supports this. Research compiled from multiple training studies shows that newer rowers improve at 8–10% per training cycle while experienced rowers improve at 1–3%. This means the developmental trajectory matters more than the current number. A sophomore pulling 7:15 who has been rowing for eighteen months and is on a steep improvement curve is a more attractive recruit than a senior pulling 7:00 who has been stuck at that time for a year. Coaches know how to read trajectories. An athlete with developmental depth — evidenced by camp experience, technical vocabulary, and the ability to discuss their own growth — signals a trajectory that an erg score alone cannot communicate.
What should a rowing camp actually do for your athlete?
A four-day collegiate camp will not dramatically change an erg score. Any program that promises otherwise is overstating what is possible in that timeframe. What a good camp does is expose an athlete to the sport at a higher level — different coaching, different athletes, different environments — and develop the relationship with rowing that sustains long-term commitment.
The right format depends on the athlete's stage:
Short-format programs (three to five days) provide exposure, inspiration, and perspective. They are the right starting point for younger athletes, ages 13 to 15, or those newer to the sport. Look for staff-to-athlete ratios of 1:5 or better, structured individual feedback (video review, written assessments, individual coaching conversations — not just group instruction), and a clear separation between coaching staff and operations staff.
Immersion programs (one to four weeks) provide sustained technical development, small-boat training that builds skills sweep rowing cannot replicate, structured reflection that develops coaching IQ, and the experience of training seriously in an environment designed for it. These are right for athletes with one to three years of experience who want focused improvement. Look for admissions-based cohorts (which ensure training-level compatibility), staff-to-athlete ratios of 1:3 to 1:4, and intentional use of the non-rowing hours — because a significant part of the learning happens in evening reflection sessions, video review, and peer conversation.
Neither format is inherently better. They serve different athletes at different stages. And for some athletes, the right answer is not to do a camp this summer — perhaps they need to build base fitness at home, or their family's budget is better spent elsewhere. That honest assessment is itself a sign of a program that prioritizes the athlete over enrollment numbers.
How do you tell if a rowing camp is worth the investment?
Five questions that separate a worthwhile program from a generic one:
What is the staff-to-athlete ratio during water sessions? Anything above 1:6 limits the amount of individual attention your athlete will receive. Coaching is a per-athlete activity — a coach watching twelve athletes sees patterns; a coach watching four sees individuals.
Is there structured individual feedback? Video review, written assessments, one-on-one coaching conversations. Group instruction is fine as a baseline, but development requires individualized input. The athlete should leave camp with specific, actionable information about their rowing — not just a general sense of having trained hard.
Does the camp offer small-boat exposure? Singles, pairs, and doubles develop technique faster because there is no crew to mask individual errors. Programs that include small boats alongside sweep provide a more complete developmental experience.
What does the coaching staff do full-time? Full-time collegiate or national-level coaching represents a reasonable baseline for serious instruction. The depth of a coach's daily work shows up in the quality of their feedback.
Are coaching and operations staff separate? If the same people coaching your athlete are also managing housing, dietary needs, and transportation logistics, coaching quality suffers. Two-team staffing — coaching staff focused on coaching, operations staff focused on everything else — is a structural marker of a program that takes instruction seriously.
Does attending a university camp help with recruiting to that university?
Attending a camp at a school you're interested in can help you evaluate that program's coaching culture — which is genuinely valuable. You learn how the coaches communicate, what the facilities feel like, and whether the environment matches your expectations. But it rarely moves the needle on a recruiting decision. Rowing recruiting is driven by erg scores, academics, and direct communication between athlete and coach — not by camp attendance.
One additional note: third-party recruiting services — companies that promise to connect athletes with college coaches — are ineffective at selective programs. Coaches at competitive programs do not use them. Using one can actually signal a lack of engagement with the process, because it suggests the athlete isn't doing the work of understanding programs and communicating directly. The recruiting process rewards athletes who have done that work themselves — because the process itself is the evaluation.
The families who approach camp as a way to understand the sport more deeply — rather than as a recruiting tactic — tend to produce athletes who are more successful in the recruiting process. The preparation isn't the point. The development is. An athlete who can talk about what they learned about themselves at camp, what they're working on technically, and why they want to row at a specific program communicates something the erg score cannot. The irony of the "just focus on your erg" advice, taken to its logical conclusion, is that it produces athletes who are less prepared for the conversation that determines whether the erg score actually matters.
