I feel like we don't talk enough that top LACs are 40%+ recruited athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They care because the athletes donate a lot more money than other groups over the years and as a whole tend to be more successful career-wise. That’s really why they do it: the athletes donate back to the schools in ways other groups don’t.

And athletes tend to be from richer families, which is more likely why they have more money to donate and earn more. It’s a good way to affirmative action the rich which is good for the business of college.

(Sorry, replied to wrong post.)

I haven't seen data that supports the notion that families of athletes are more likely to donate.

There is data that successful D1 sports programs make schools money, but those aren't LACs, with the exception of outliers like Davidson.

It interesting that the highly ranked private schools that don't consider legacy status are primarily D3, either LAC (eg Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Carleton, Pomona, Wesleyan) or university (eg MIT, Caltech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon).

https://www.collegekickstart.com/blog/item/se...nsider-legacy-status

It is hilarious that people think colleges themselves don't have the data telling them which students are most likely to become donating alumni.

D3 sports are not revenue centers anywhere. There are other reasons colleges have sports teams. For all the people railing about sports here, many students think athletics add a lot to their college experience. As another PP notes, it's actually a relatively small percentage of D3 athletes who are recruited. A large number are walk-ons. That means they were admitted without any athletic hook. One would think those students are happy they have the opportunity to play.

It's almost as if people have forgotten that the Ivy League is an athletic conference. And a lot of the most prestigious SLACs also have long sports histories:

Bowdoin-- organized sports began in 1828, with gymnastics. The football field dates to 1896.

Williams-- the gym was built in 1886. Williams played in the first ever college baseball game against Amherst in 1859. Williams first played Amherst in football in 1884

Amherst--see above. Claims to have the oldest athletics program in the U.S. Ultimate frisbee got its start here in the 1960s.

Middlebury-- first official football team was organized in 1886

Do I need to go on? These old New England schools have always had big sports cultures. If that offends your kid, they should look elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college sports thing makes absolutely no sense. If someone is really athletic maybe they should go into the military or some other survival-type job. Meanwhile, going to university should really be more for intellectual pursuits, instead of playing mindless ball and doing keg stands.

What does that mean exactly? Colleges shouldn't offer sports? Or colleges shouldn't recruit? I think sports at colleges are valuable. I would rather see a kid manage stress with sports than certain other activities. Learning to manage time, take care of your body, and work as a team are useful life skills. I can see how a D1 team could increase overall stress particularly if you don't plan to go pro, but I think D3 teams are a very different scene. Club sports are sometimes a good alternative, but sometimes are not organized enough to be worth the time investment. As for recruiting, I see the arguments both ways, but there isn't really far greater recruiting at top LACs than at their top private university equivalents. It's a myth hatched from a misconception that athletes at the D3 level can only make the team if recruited; that's more often true with D1 than D3.

No, sports aren't worth all that extra money. I'd rather have tuition cut in half instead of subsidizing oversize football stadiums and gilded rec rooms for the jocks. Given the massive student debt tsunami it would be much better if colleges only focused on education.

I do agree with you that exercise is healthy for everyone. But you could accomplish that much more cheaply by simply having a couple rec leagues and regular gym facilities.

There's at least one academically strong college, an LAC, that doesn't offer NCAA sports: Reed. Guess what pastime they are most known for? But hey maybe that's the school for your family, and if so that's terrific. Perhaps it tells us something that more haven't followed their path, perhaps not, but I'm glad my kid goes to an LAC that gives him the opportunity to compete at a level he and his teammates consider fun while still making academics the clear priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They care because the athletes donate a lot more money than other groups over the years and as a whole tend to be more successful career-wise. That’s really why they do it: the athletes donate back to the schools in ways other groups don’t.

And athletes tend to be from richer families, which is more likely why they have more money to donate and earn more. It’s a good way to affirmative action the rich which is good for the business of college.

(Sorry, replied to wrong post.)

I haven't seen data that supports the notion that families of athletes are more likely to donate.

There is data that successful D1 sports programs make schools money, but those aren't LACs, with the exception of outliers like Davidson.

It interesting that the highly ranked private schools that don't consider legacy status are primarily D3, either LAC (eg Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Carleton, Pomona, Wesleyan) or university (eg MIT, Caltech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon).

https://www.collegekickstart.com/blog/item/se...nsider-legacy-status

It is hilarious that people think colleges themselves don't have the data telling them which students are most likely to become donating alumni.

D3 sports are not revenue centers anywhere. There are other reasons colleges have sports teams. For all the people railing about sports here, many students think athletics add a lot to their college experience. As another PP notes, it's actually a relatively small percentage of D3 athletes who are recruited. A large number are walk-ons. That means they were admitted without any athletic hook. One would think those students are happy they have the opportunity to play.

It's almost as if people have forgotten that the Ivy League is an athletic conference. And a lot of the most prestigious SLACs also have long sports histories:

Bowdoin-- organized sports began in 1828, with gymnastics. The football field dates to 1896.

Williams-- the gym was built in 1886. Williams played in the first ever college baseball game against Amherst in 1859. Williams first played Amherst in football in 1884

Amherst--see above. Claims to have the oldest athletics program in the U.S. Ultimate frisbee got its start here in the 1960s.

Middlebury-- first official football team was organized in 1886

Do I need to go on? These old New England schools have always had big sports cultures. If that offends your kid, they should look elsewhere.

I might agree with you if not for the consensus that these teams play to empty stands. If that is true, then the athletics are important to just the athletes and not to the student body at large.

Do the theater productions play to empty theaters? Honest question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They care because the athletes donate a lot more money than other groups over the years and as a whole tend to be more successful career-wise. That’s really why they do it: the athletes donate back to the schools in ways other groups don’t.

And athletes tend to be from richer families, which is more likely why they have more money to donate and earn more. It’s a good way to affirmative action the rich which is good for the business of college.

(Sorry, replied to wrong post.)

I haven't seen data that supports the notion that families of athletes are more likely to donate.

There is data that successful D1 sports programs make schools money, but those aren't LACs, with the exception of outliers like Davidson.

It interesting that the highly ranked private schools that don't consider legacy status are primarily D3, either LAC (eg Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Carleton, Pomona, Wesleyan) or university (eg MIT, Caltech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon).

https://www.collegekickstart.com/blog/item/se...nsider-legacy-status

It is hilarious that people think colleges themselves don't have the data telling them which students are most likely to become donating alumni.

D3 sports are not revenue centers anywhere. There are other reasons colleges have sports teams. For all the people railing about sports here, many students think athletics add a lot to their college experience. As another PP notes, it's actually a relatively small percentage of D3 athletes who are recruited. A large number are walk-ons. That means they were admitted without any athletic hook. One would think those students are happy they have the opportunity to play.

It's almost as if people have forgotten that the Ivy League is an athletic conference. And a lot of the most prestigious SLACs also have long sports histories:

Bowdoin-- organized sports began in 1828, with gymnastics. The football field dates to 1896.

Williams-- the gym was built in 1886. Williams played in the first ever college baseball game against Amherst in 1859. Williams first played Amherst in football in 1884

Amherst--see above. Claims to have the oldest athletics program in the U.S. Ultimate frisbee got its start here in the 1960s.

Middlebury-- first official football team was organized in 1886

Do I need to go on? These old New England schools have always had big sports cultures. If that offends your kid, they should look elsewhere.

I really don't follow. You are saying giving is not revenue? Or are you just saying the D3 schools offer sports for non financial reasons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wesleyan

http://wesleyanargus.com/2022/10/06/separated-spaces-rethinking-dining-hall-divisions/

a divide between athletes and non-athletes that was so deeply ingrained in the culture that the dining hall itself was divided into rooms based on this distinction, as if the division was promoted by the school itself. Arriving on campus in the fall, I almost immediately noticed this in most sectors of social life, including in the dining hall.

Read the entire article. The author, a non-athlete, realized that any "divide" wasn't necessarily the result of athlete actions. And that athletes are actually a minority on campus.

It’s important to remember that athletes are also in the minority. And while the word “minority” may come with implications and assumptions that we may feel uncomfortable using to reference Wesleyan student athletes, in this context, numerically, they are a minority on campus. And so, in some ways, they are an outgroup. It is easy to blame groups without numerical strength for problems that exist in a given space, and I think many of us, myself included, have accidentally done this. There is comfort in blaming athletes solely for the divided nature of our campus culture because we know there are more non-athletes to back us up than athletes to argue with us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very tired topic. Parents without athletes hate the recruited athlete hook. We get it.

We also get it. Parents with kids in sports but not good in academics or intelligence hate the smart, hardworking, academically talented kids and denigrate them as STRIVERS!

Parents of athletes know they are as good at academics and in intelligence as your dweeby kid. Try again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My recruited athlete has a 35 on his ACT, and a wGPA of 4.8. Why not recruit high stats athletes if their scores fall in the range of accepted students? Better than a legacy or child of a big donor.

Because if you fill 35% of a class with recruited athletes, it decreases the diversity of the class. And by diversity I include artists, musicians, poets, scientists, scholars, and yes, athletes. Sure, you can be both. But most recruited athletes spent a large chunk of their teenage years studying and playing their sport. They didn’t spend 25 hours per week on something else. And they are disproportionately wealthy, reducing another metric of diversity. And they tend to stick together, having a polarizing impact on campus akin to the Greek system, if the percentage is high.

As if you don't have to be rich to be top tier as an artist, musician, or scholar. As if the parents of those kids never paid for a ton of tutoring, coaching, trips to camps, and expensive musical instruments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They know that the athletes excel after graduation, make a lot of money, and donate to the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:do people need help googling?

Amherst:
https://amherststudent.com/article/bridging-amhersts-athletic-divide/

The divide is deeply harmful to both types of students. Athletes, seen as less intelligent by many non-athletes, can lack academic confidence, which may partly explain why while 49 percent of non-athletes write senior theses, only 16 percent of varsity athletes do.

Yeah, but Amherst is now such a miserable place that graduates warn their kids against attending. You should hear the stories. Everyone hates each other at Amherst, not just the athletes. It’s part of the culture now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They care because the athletes donate a lot more money than other groups over the years and as a whole tend to be more successful career-wise. That’s really why they do it: the athletes donate back to the schools in ways other groups don’t.

If the athletes at SLACs are as qualified as non-athletes, not sure why their being “recruited” would matter in terms of alumni engagement and donations.

Wouldn’t someone that was accepted, tried out, made the team be as attached to their school and an engaged donor as anyone?

I haven't seen data that supports the notion that families of athletes are more likely to donate.

There is data that successful D1 sports programs make schools money, but those aren't LACs, with the exception of outliers like Davidson.

It interesting that the highly ranked private schools that don't consider legacy status are primarily D3, either LAC (eg Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Carleton, Pomona, Wesleyan) or university (eg MIT, Caltech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon).

https://www.collegekickstart.com/blog/item/selective-institutions-that-don-t-consider-legacy-status

I’m sure you definitely know better than the investment committees of colleges with massive alumni donation programs! You should definitely send them a letter and tell them that actually, you don’t think there is data. They will definitely believe you over their own records. 👍

[Anonymous]

when not recruit 40% legit rich kids if you wanted "donors" 20 years from now. Believe me, rich kids have the stats too.

alumni donors are not that important. they pale when compared to one-off donations (and yeah, the future tech billionaires are not on the williams bball team) and the day to day churn of the bloated endowment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They care because the athletes donate a lot more money than other groups over the years and as a whole tend to be more successful career-wise. That’s really why they do it: the athletes donate back to the schools in ways other groups don’t.

And athletes tend to be from richer families, which is more likely why they have more money to donate and earn more. It’s a good way to affirmative action the rich which is good for the business of college.

(Sorry, replied to wrong post.)

I haven't seen data that supports the notion that families of athletes are more likely to donate.

There is data that successful D1 sports programs make schools money, but those aren't LACs, with the exception of outliers like Davidson.

It interesting that the highly ranked private schools that don't consider legacy status are primarily D3, either LAC (eg Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Carleton, Pomona, Wesleyan) or university (eg MIT, Caltech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon).

https://www.collegekickstart.com/blog/item/se...nsider-legacy-status

It is hilarious that people think colleges themselves don't have the data telling them which students are most likely to become donating alumni.

D3 sports are not revenue centers anywhere. There are other reasons colleges have sports teams. For all the people railing about sports here, many students think athletics add a lot to their college experience. As another PP notes, it's actually a relatively small percentage of D3 athletes who are recruited. A large number are walk-ons. That means they were admitted without any athletic hook. One would think those students are happy they have the opportunity to play.

It's almost as if people have forgotten that the Ivy League is an athletic conference. And a lot of the most prestigious SLACs also have long sports histories:

Bowdoin-- organized sports began in 1828, with gymnastics. The football field dates to 1896.

Williams-- the gym was built in 1886. Williams played in the first ever college baseball game against Amherst in 1859. Williams first played Amherst in football in 1884

Amherst--see above. Claims to have the oldest athletics program in the U.S. Ultimate frisbee got its start here in the 1960s.

Middlebury-- first official football team was organized in 1886

Do I need to go on? These old New England schools have always had big sports cultures. If that offends your kid, they should look elsewhere.

I really don't follow. You are saying giving is not revenue? Or are you just saying the D3 schools offer sports for non financial reasons?

I was reacting to the implication above that a D3 school could be making money off athletics like a big state school might. (Although actually, very few colleges at any level make money off sports teams.)

Giving is revenue, of course.

D3 schools offer sports for financial reasons, sure (alumni giving) but also for a lot of non-financial reasons. And sports have been closely aligned with US colleges for over 150 years. It's kind of crazy for people to argue that athletics don't belong in college-- the two have been intertwined for almost 200 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wesleyan

http://wesleyanargus.com/2022/10/06/separated-spaces-rethinking-dining-hall-divisions/

a divide between athletes and non-athletes that was so deeply ingrained in the culture that the dining hall itself was divided into rooms based on this distinction, as if the division was promoted by the school itself. Arriving on campus in the fall, I almost immediately noticed this in most sectors of social life, including in the dining hall.

Read the entire article. The author, a non-athlete, realized that any "divide" wasn't necessarily the result of athlete actions. And that athletes are actually a minority on campus.

It’s important to remember that athletes are also in the minority. And while the word “minority” may come with implications and assumptions that we may feel uncomfortable using to reference Wesleyan student athletes, in this context, numerically, they are a minority on campus. And so, in some ways, they are an outgroup. It is easy to blame groups without numerical strength for problems that exist in a given space, and I think many of us, myself included, have accidentally done this. There is comfort in blaming athletes solely for the divided nature of our campus culture because we know there are more non-athletes to back us up than athletes to argue with us.

yes! a minority! this is what I said at the very top: who will think of the poor sailing team kids?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:do people need help googling?

Amherst:
https://amherststudent.com/article/bridging-amhersts-athletic-divide/

The divide is deeply harmful to both types of students. Athletes, seen as less intelligent by many non-athletes, can lack academic confidence, which may partly explain why while 49 percent of non-athletes write senior theses, only 16 percent of varsity athletes do.

Yeah, but Amherst is now such a miserable place that graduates warn their kids against attending. You should hear the stories. Everyone hates each other at Amherst, not just the athletes. It’s part of the culture now.

This is a joke, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:do people need help googling?

Amherst:
https://amherststudent.com/article/bridging-amhersts-athletic-divide/

The divide is deeply harmful to both types of students. Athletes, seen as less intelligent by many non-athletes, can lack academic confidence, which may partly explain why while 49 percent of non-athletes write senior theses, only 16 percent of varsity athletes do.

lol if you think the athletes care if the non-athletes "see them as less intelligent".

The athletes have a higher graduation rate than the non-athletes, so they're not lacking in academic achievement despite their supposed lack of "academic confidence" (whatever the hell that is).