Social Divide at SLACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Well adjusted kids? Ok. Judge much?

Not at all. Athletes are a minority at any of these schools yet people talk like a non-athlete is completely out of water. People also talk about boys having it harder than girls which is funny given that the gender ratios at top SLACs has a much better balance than at top Publics and the number of female athletes is basically equal to that of males because of Title IX. There is plenty of room foe everyone to find "their people". This is just a continuation of the anti-athlete bias that certain groups carry.

You don’t understand Title IX. For instance, at Williams 39% of males are athletes and 28% of females.

I understand Title IX well. Might want to check on Williams, the actual number of athletes is about the same for both sexes. You might want to check your understanding of Title IX.

Well, I guess you got caught being….let’s leave it at that.
Williams has not only 100 more athletes, but fewer male students. Here’s the cite and your apology for being is accepted in advance:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not sure what your were trying to say but I’m pretty sure that you didn’t succeed.

The 39% vs 28% isn’t significant given the size of the school. I’m pretty sure that the 25 boys per class more than girls is ok under Title IX and is roughly equivalent as the first poster said. Not exact but equivalent. Not ok to the poster above who obviously feels that there are too many athletes but it meets the spirit of Title IX.

Williams isn’t going to cut any men’s sports programs so if they felt that they weren’t in compliance they would add more female athletes.

First poster was wrong. As are you. Title IX does mean even numbers. A 100 more male than female athletes in a school is not “roughly the same.” Nor is 39% to 28%. It’s OK to admit you are wrong. Your welcome for the education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Well adjusted kids? Ok. Judge much?

Not at all. Athletes are a minority at any of these schools yet people talk like a non-athlete is completely out of water. People also talk about boys having it harder than girls which is funny given that the gender ratios at top SLACs has a much better balance than at top Publics and the number of female athletes is basically equal to that of males because of Title IX. There is plenty of room foe everyone to find "their people". This is just a continuation of the anti-athlete bias that certain groups carry.

You don’t understand Title IX. For instance, at Williams 39% of males are athletes and 28% of females.

I understand Title IX well. Might want to check on Williams, the actual number of athletes is about the same for both sexes. You might want to check your understanding of Title IX.

Well, I guess you got caught being….let’s leave it at that.
Williams has not only 100 more athletes, but fewer male students. Here’s the cite and your apology for being is accepted in advance:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not sure what your were trying to say but I’m pretty sure that you didn’t succeed.

The 39% vs 28% isn’t significant given the size of the school. I’m pretty sure that the 25 boys per class more than girls is ok under Title IX and is roughly equivalent as the first poster said. Not exact but equivalent. Not ok to the poster above who obviously feels that there are too many athletes but it meets the spirit of Title IX.

Williams isn’t going to cut any men’s sports programs so if they felt that they weren’t in compliance they would add more female athletes.

First poster was wrong. As are you. Title IX does mean even numbers. A 100 more male than female athletes in a school is not “roughly the same.” Nor is 39% to 28%. It’s OK to admit you are wrong. You’re welcome for the education.

Sorry. Does *not* mean even numbers.

As an aside, you also don’t know athletics at the Div. 3 level. It is not “25 per class.” There are far more freshman recruited athletes due to attrition. Probably 45% of freshman males, for instance — maybe even 50%. Freshman year is what matters for peer groups etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Well adjusted kids? Ok. Judge much?

Not at all. Athletes are a minority at any of these schools yet people talk like a non-athlete is completely out of water. People also talk about boys having it harder than girls which is funny given that the gender ratios at top SLACs has a much better balance than at top Publics and the number of female athletes is basically equal to that of males because of Title IX. There is plenty of room foe everyone to find "their people". This is just a continuation of the anti-athlete bias that certain groups carry.

You don’t understand Title IX. For instance, at Williams 39% of males are athletes and 28% of females.

I understand Title IX well. Might want to check on Williams, the actual number of athletes is about the same for both sexes. You might want to check your understanding of Title IX.

Well, I guess you got caught being….let’s leave it at that.
Williams has not only 100 more athletes, but fewer male students. Here’s the cite and your apology for being is accepted in advance:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not sure what your were trying to say but I’m pretty sure that you didn’t succeed.

The 39% vs 28% isn’t significant given the size of the school. I’m pretty sure that the 25 boys per class more than girls is ok under Title IX and is roughly equivalent as the first poster said. Not exact but equivalent. Not ok to the poster above who obviously feels that there are too many athletes but it meets the spirit of Title IX.

Williams isn’t going to cut any men’s sports programs so if they felt that they weren’t in compliance they would add more female athletes.

First poster was wrong. As are you. Title IX does mean even numbers. A 100 more male than female athletes in a school is not “roughly the same.” Nor is 39% to 28%. It’s OK to admit you are wrong. Your welcome for the education.

If this is the case could you explain the lack of title IX complaints? It seems like it would be cut and dried if you were correct. A school with the wealth and visibility of Williams would surely avoid such a suit if at all possible so one must assume that they are confident of compliance.

Your attempt at “education” unfortunately is inadequate, incomplete, and incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Well adjusted kids? Ok. Judge much?

Not at all. Athletes are a minority at any of these schools yet people talk like a non-athlete is completely out of water. People also talk about boys having it harder than girls which is funny given that the gender ratios at top SLACs has a much better balance than at top Publics and the number of female athletes is basically equal to that of males because of Title IX. There is plenty of room foe everyone to find "their people". This is just a continuation of the anti-athlete bias that certain groups carry.

You don’t understand Title IX. For instance, at Williams 39% of males are athletes and 28% of females.

I understand Title IX well. Might want to check on Williams, the actual number of athletes is about the same for both sexes. You might want to check your understanding of Title IX.

Well, I guess you got caught being….let’s leave it at that.
Williams has not only 100 more athletes, but fewer male students. Here’s the cite and your apology for being is accepted in advance:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not sure what your were trying to say but I’m pretty sure that you didn’t succeed.

The 39% vs 28% isn’t significant given the size of the school. I’m pretty sure that the 25 boys per class more than girls is ok under Title IX and is roughly equivalent as the first poster said. Not exact but equivalent. Not ok to the poster above who obviously feels that there are too many athletes but it meets the spirit of Title IX.

Williams isn’t going to cut any men’s sports programs so if they felt that they weren’t in compliance they would add more female athletes.

First poster was wrong. As are you. Title IX does mean even numbers. A 100 more male than female athletes in a school is not “roughly the same.” Nor is 39% to 28%. It’s OK to admit you are wrong. You’re welcome for the education.

Sorry. Does *not* mean even numbers.

As an aside, you also don’t know athletics at the Div. 3 level. It is not “25 per class.” There are far more freshman recruited athletes due to attrition. Probably 45% of freshman males, for instance — maybe even 50%. Freshman year is what matters for peer groups etc.

Given that we are discussing Williams what is obvious is that you have no knowledge of NESCAC recruiting rules which preclude your hypothesis.

[Anonymous]

I think non-athlete issue is really more of a problem for HS athletes who aren't competitive enough to be recruited for the SLAC team. If you were Varsity Soccer captain in your 2,000 kid HS, and then you go to Williams and you are not even able to make the team at a 2,000 kid college (because you aren't MLS Next and weren't recruited), your self-identity is impacted more than anything. You're not all of a sudden going to see yourself as a theatre kid, or a robotics kid, or whatever. So if my kid was a HS athlete, and not recruited to a SLAC, I would make sure they think through the effects of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think non-athlete issue is really more of a problem for HS athletes who aren't competitive enough to be recruited for the SLAC team. If you were Varsity Soccer captain in your 2,000 kid HS, and then you go to Williams and you are not even able to make the team at a 2,000 kid college (because you aren't MLS Next and weren't recruited), your self-identity is impacted more than anything. You're not all of a sudden going to see yourself as a theatre kid, or a robotics kid, or whatever. So if my kid was a HS athlete, and not recruited to a SLAC, I would make sure they think through the effects of that.

College can also be an opportunity to try new things and redefine oneself. If my kid was a high school athlete, he would probably know early on whether playing at the college level would be a possibility . If he wasn’t good enough to play in college, he wouldn’t approach his college search with that expectation in mind. For kids who enjoy sports, places like Williams also offer intramural/club opportunities.

[Anonymous]

These college LACs social divide threads are silly.

Divide or not, it all needs context. LACs are small student bodies. Amherst for example has a huge campus footprint for the 1900 or so students. I have a kid at Amherst who is not an athlete. She came in with the same questions and concerns.

They ALL eventually figure out there is no real divide because there is NO REAL "win" for either side. Think about just limiting yourself to 50% of people in an already small campus where one is an athlete and one is not. And then think about the gender divide within that 50% ...NOT sustainable to just ignore each oither.

The "other" side doesnt offer better housing, better party, better classes, athlete vs non-athlete..... they are all just kinda in the same boat. So whether they are all out at 2 am on a weekend, eating 'ok' pizza at the downtown joint or they are eating at the ONE small dining hall on campus or working out at the ONE gym for the whole school, there just isn't enough room to be so selective with friends or to be mean to "non" athletes.

These kids value academics primarily, they are talented and super curious and so they connect in that fashion. The rigor of the school matches that very well. Most Amherst kids eventually go to UMASS for the bigger 'fun' but find plenty to do in the the main town or close by areas.

Last thing I'll say in regard to the social divide about athletes in LACs. Having watched plenty of D3 sports beyond NESCAC ( I attended a D3 school) , it's not even close to the same level as D1 for all the reasons that you suspect. But the key here, is that your kids, athletes or not, know the same thing and that's why this is not the most important thing to them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Well adjusted kids? Ok. Judge much?

Not at all. Athletes are a minority at any of these schools yet people talk like a non-athlete is completely out of water. People also talk about boys having it harder than girls which is funny given that the gender ratios at top SLACs has a much better balance than at top Publics and the number of female athletes is basically equal to that of males because of Title IX. There is plenty of room foe everyone to find "their people". This is just a continuation of the anti-athlete bias that certain groups carry.

You don’t understand Title IX. For instance, at Williams 39% of males are athletes and 28% of females.

I understand Title IX well. Might want to check on Williams, the actual number of athletes is about the same for both sexes. You might want to check your understanding of Title IX.

Well, I guess you got caught being….let’s leave it at that.
Williams has not only 100 more athletes, but fewer male students. Here’s the cite and your apology for being is accepted in advance:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not sure what your were trying to say but I’m pretty sure that you didn’t succeed.

The 39% vs 28% isn’t significant given the size of the school. I’m pretty sure that the 25 boys per class more than girls is ok under Title IX and is roughly equivalent as the first poster said. Not exact but equivalent. Not ok to the poster above who obviously feels that there are too many athletes but it meets the spirit of Title IX.

Williams isn’t going to cut any men’s sports programs so if they felt that they weren’t in compliance they would add more female athletes.

First poster was wrong. As are you. Title IX does mean even numbers. A 100 more male than female athletes in a school is not “roughly the same.” Nor is 39% to 28%. It’s OK to admit you are wrong. Your welcome for the education.

If this is the case could you explain the lack of title IX complaints? It seems like it would be cut and dried if you were correct. A school with the wealth and visibility of Williams would surely avoid such a suit if at all possible so one must assume that they are confident of compliance.

Your attempt at “education” unfortunately is inadequate, incomplete, and incorrect.

Disproportion in athlete gender numbers is not inconsistent with Title IX, contrary to the original poster’s assertion. Nobody is claiming but you that Williams is a Title IX violation. Have fun with your straw man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Well adjusted kids? Ok. Judge much?

Not at all. Athletes are a minority at any of these schools yet people talk like a non-athlete is completely out of water. People also talk about boys having it harder than girls which is funny given that the gender ratios at top SLACs has a much better balance than at top Publics and the number of female athletes is basically equal to that of males because of Title IX. There is plenty of room foe everyone to find "their people". This is just a continuation of the anti-athlete bias that certain groups carry.

You don’t understand Title IX. For instance, at Williams 39% of males are athletes and 28% of females.

I understand Title IX well. Might want to check on Williams, the actual number of athletes is about the same for both sexes. You might want to check your understanding of Title IX.

Well, I guess you got caught being….let’s leave it at that.
Williams has not only 100 more athletes, but fewer male students. Here’s the cite and your apology for being is accepted in advance:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not sure what your were trying to say but I’m pretty sure that you didn’t succeed.

The 39% vs 28% isn’t significant given the size of the school. I’m pretty sure that the 25 boys per class more than girls is ok under Title IX and is roughly equivalent as the first poster said. Not exact but equivalent. Not ok to the poster above who obviously feels that there are too many athletes but it meets the spirit of Title IX.

Williams isn’t going to cut any men’s sports programs so if they felt that they weren’t in compliance they would add more female athletes.

First poster was wrong. As are you. Title IX does mean even numbers. A 100 more male than female athletes in a school is not “roughly the same.” Nor is 39% to 28%. It’s OK to admit you are wrong. You’re welcome for the education.

Sorry. Does *not* mean even numbers.

As an aside, you also don’t know athletics at the Div. 3 level. It is not “25 per class.” There are far more freshman recruited athletes due to attrition. Probably 45% of freshman males, for instance — maybe even 50%. Freshman year is what matters for peer groups etc.

Given that we are discussing Williams what is obvious is that you have no knowledge of NESCAC recruiting rules which preclude your hypothesis.

Do not defend the indefensible. 45% (or more) freshman male athletes is absurd.

[Anonymous]

I graduated from Williams, and it really wasn’t an issue at all. Sure in season athletes for certain sports spend a ton of time with each other bc they travel a lot, need dining halls open at off hours, etc. Once you’re on to the next season, it’s all mixed up again. I’ve visited non-athlete relatives who are current students, and they have no idea re this so called divide.
The theater kids seem to be really cliquey but that’s it. Maybe bc many athletes there play two sports, it’s not as divided up by teams as some other schools where your sport is your identity? Again, looking at younger relatives, the one who plays a div 1 sport is almost exclusively with her team bc they have year round training, which isn’t really a thing to that extent at div 3.