Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits

[Anonymous]

Athletes get better jobs and are reliable donors. As are their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Athletes get better jobs and are reliable donors. As are their parents.

+1 this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all this reform talk wasn’t focused on the maybe 40 or so most “elite” schools it might be interesting but it just comes off as more striver prestige whore BS. Sorry your nerd son might have to settle for, dare I say, Emory!

I think the point is that nerd sons are wisely foregoing ED at Williams or Amherst since well over 80% of the slots go to athletes or first gen. They are “settling” for lower Ivies.

Who cares? Sorry but I don’t feel any despair that upper middle class kids in Fairfax are choosing to apply to Dartmouth instead of Williams.

Williams should care. The smartest kids a generation or so ago would sometimes go to Williams. Now, the smartest kids do not even apply: these kids are smart enough to know applying ED to Williams is a waste and that they better use their ED card where it might actually help them. Maybe they won’t get into a lower Ivy ED, but the ED application there at least gives a boost. If they are not admitted, they have Chicago, Hopkins, and a host of ED2 options…

I think you might need help. The concern over athletes and first gen is unhealthy. We know the game for you is prestige, but your kids is going be fine without Williams or Amherst. My bet is your kid is thinking about distance from you more than college ranking.

This is about college admissions. It is unhealthy for applicants to apply to schools where ED is a disadvantage. Glad that you so value getting this crucial information for applicants out there.

Unhealthy is the obsession over a few colleges. If has the academic chops for ED then surly they are smart enough to play the game. It seems the game has already played you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all this reform talk wasn’t focused on the maybe 40 or so most “elite” schools it might be interesting but it just comes off as more striver prestige whore BS. Sorry your nerd son might have to settle for, dare I say, Emory!

I think the point is that nerd sons are wisely foregoing ED at Williams or Amherst since well over 80% of the slots go to athletes or first gen. They are “settling” for lower Ivies.

Who cares? Sorry but I don’t feel any despair that upper middle class kids in Fairfax are choosing to apply to Dartmouth instead of Williams.

Williams should care. The smartest kids a generation or so ago would sometimes go to Williams. Now, the smartest kids do not even apply: these kids are smart enough to know applying ED to Williams is a waste and that they better use their ED card where it might actually help them. Maybe they won’t get into a lower Ivy ED, but the ED application there at least gives a boost. If they are not admitted, they have Chicago, Hopkins, and a host of ED2 options…

Very curious if it really was different a generation ago. I have a senior applying to LACs this year, mostly NESCACs and few others a notch down. Not an athlete, just a typical high stats kid with leadership ECs. It will be interesting to see what happens. Test scores etc are at or above the median at all these schools, but realize they are all still a crapshoot.

Haven’t these schools always had the same size rosters as today and so presumably athletics have always been prioritized?

The numbers are there; this was different even 10 years ago. ED being a disadvantage is a recent phenomenon — maybe 5 years ago — because a threshold was reached due to the heightened competitiveness of admissions generally (while the number of athletes stayed the same). It’s a feedback loop that is only beginning. (It does not apply to schools like Midd, where ED is still an advantage because 70% of the class is filled ED.)

When you think about it then, there are couple constants: class size and roster size. Those have not changed. The variable is the volume of applications. Suddenly when no one is getting in, it feels like only the athletes are getting in.

The reality maybe is that the schools are driving this via the common app, no supplements, and not even caring about demonstrated interest a lot of times. I’m the PP who has a senior looking at NESCACs. He is applying to 17 colleges, some require zero extra effort so, considering low acceptance rates, what not. That seems to be the root of the problem: the games these schools are playing to create the illusion of selectivity. Even the test optional thing is part of it. I think Dartmouth is doing it right: hard supplements and test required. Rankings and the chase
for selectivity etc are like a cancer within these schools.

As for the athletes, I’m thinking don’t hate the player, hate the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all this reform talk wasn’t focused on the maybe 40 or so most “elite” schools it might be interesting but it just comes off as more striver prestige whore BS. Sorry your nerd son might have to settle for, dare I say, Emory!

I think the point is that nerd sons are wisely foregoing ED at Williams or Amherst since well over 80% of the slots go to athletes or first gen. They are “settling” for lower Ivies.

Who cares? Sorry but I don’t feel any despair that upper middle class kids in Fairfax are choosing to apply to Dartmouth instead of Williams.

Williams should care. The smartest kids a generation or so ago would sometimes go to Williams. Now, the smartest kids do not even apply: these kids are smart enough to know applying ED to Williams is a waste and that they better use their ED card where it might actually help them. Maybe they won’t get into a lower Ivy ED, but the ED application there at least gives a boost. If they are not admitted, they have Chicago, Hopkins, and a host of ED2 options…

Your fantasy world is so weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all this reform talk wasn’t focused on the maybe 40 or so most “elite” schools it might be interesting but it just comes off as more striver prestige whore BS. Sorry your nerd son might have to settle for, dare I say, Emory!

I think the point is that nerd sons are wisely foregoing ED at Williams or Amherst since well over 80% of the slots go to athletes or first gen. They are “settling” for lower Ivies.

Who cares? Sorry but I don’t feel any despair that upper middle class kids in Fairfax are choosing to apply to Dartmouth instead of Williams.

Williams should care. The smartest kids a generation or so ago would sometimes go to Williams. Now, the smartest kids do not even apply: these kids are smart enough to know applying ED to Williams is a waste and that they better use their ED card where it might actually help them. Maybe they won’t get into a lower Ivy ED, but the ED application there at least gives a boost. If they are not admitted, they have Chicago, Hopkins, and a host of ED2 options…

Very curious if it really was different a generation ago. I have a senior applying to LACs this year, mostly NESCACs and few others a notch down. Not an athlete, just a typical high stats kid with leadership ECs. It will be interesting to see what happens. Test scores etc are at or above the median at all these schools, but realize they are all still a crapshoot.

Haven’t these schools always had the same size rosters as today and so presumably athletics have always been prioritized?

The numbers are there; this was different even 10 years ago. ED being a disadvantage is a recent phenomenon — maybe 5 years ago — because a threshold was reached due to the heightened competitiveness of admissions generally (while the number of athletes stayed the same). It’s a feedback loop that is only beginning. (It does not apply to schools like Midd, where ED is still an advantage because 70% of the class is filled ED.)

When you think about it then, there are couple constants: class size and roster size. Those have not changed. The variable is the volume of applications. Suddenly when no one is getting in, it feels like only the athletes are getting in.

The reality maybe is that the schools are driving this via the common app, no supplements, and not even caring about demonstrated interest a lot of times. I’m the PP who has a senior looking at NESCACs. He is applying to 17 colleges, some require zero extra effort so, considering low acceptance rates, what not. That seems to be the root of the problem: the games these schools are playing to create the illusion of selectivity. Even the test optional thing is part of it. I think Dartmouth is doing it right: hard supplements and test required. Rankings and the chase
for selectivity etc are like a cancer within these schools.

As for the athletes, I’m thinking don’t hate the player, hate the game.

I bet the number of athletes trying to squeeze through the funnel is way up too. Especially women vs back in the day, even when rosters are a constant. You don’t see that in the admissions numbers but my guess is a generation ago if you were at a feeder and an athlete it was easier to slide in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all this reform talk wasn’t focused on the maybe 40 or so most “elite” schools it might be interesting but it just comes off as more striver prestige whore BS. Sorry your nerd son might have to settle for, dare I say, Emory!

I think the point is that nerd sons are wisely foregoing ED at Williams or Amherst since well over 80% of the slots go to athletes or first gen. They are “settling” for lower Ivies.

They “settling” for lower Ivies because also can’t get in there. They are going to Pitt and UMD and that is good for everybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would happen to a school like Hamilton if it dropped out of the NESCAC? In a generation it would have “really fallen off” and in two generations it would be lost in the academic wilderness.

Or what if Cornell dropped out of the Ivy League and U Rochester joined? It sounds preposterous, but what would these two schools look like in 50 or 75 years?

These school know they need to remain in their athletic leagues to remain as relevant as they are today. Thus they need to recruit
athletes that will keep them competitive in their conference. Many, many of these kids being recruited are exceptional students and they get priority in admissions because they offer something to the school beyond their grades and test scores. It’s a case of “and” not “or” for the most part. Yes there is the occasional football player with the 1250 SAT but that is the extreme exception.

And the ancient Greeks agreed with the American model. The mind and intellectual pursuit was inseparable from the body and the athletic.

Um, the ancient Greeks also had slaves. If they are truly exceptional, they would not — as you euphemistically describe for an entirely different admissions process — need “priority” in admissions now, would they?

Lots of kids are smart and have great GPAs and test scores. Some have the great academic stats plus they are excellent athlètes.

The athletes are prioritized because they have it all and then something else that the school wants. Any kid who puts the time and effort into both the academics and the athletics these schools are looking for can also be sought after by these schools.

This is the answer. Why can’t any kid develop the academic and athletic abilities these schools are looking for?

Because it's rare to have a kid who is sufficiently talented and motivated across both axes. Replace "athletic abilities" with "banjo-playing abilities" and you'll understand understand why it makes no sense.

Right. The kids who excel academically and athletically have something extra that the kids who only excel academically just don’t have.

This isn’t that hard: these schools value kids who work hard at very different endeavors, use their time efficiently and effectively, and keep at it even when it’s hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If all this reform talk wasn’t focused on the maybe 40 or so most “elite” schools it might be interesting but it just comes off as more striver prestige whore BS. Sorry your nerd son might have to settle for, dare I say, Emory!

This is trying hard. Emory is in the 40 most elite schools in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all this reform talk wasn’t focused on the maybe 40 or so most “elite” schools it might be interesting but it just comes off as more striver prestige whore BS. Sorry your nerd son might have to settle for, dare I say, Emory!

I think the point is that nerd sons are wisely foregoing ED at Williams or Amherst since well over 80% of the slots go to athletes or first gen. They are “settling” for lower Ivies.

Williams and Amherst are low ivy( ie Cornell) level. Maybe lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all this reform talk wasn’t focused on the maybe 40 or so most “elite” schools it might be interesting but it just comes off as more striver prestige whore BS. Sorry your nerd son might have to settle for, dare I say, Emory!

This is trying hard. Emory is in the 40 most elite schools in the country.

So, I wasn't the only one confused at the analogy? Because which 40 schools are better than Emory?

[Anonymous]

Another problem with athletic recruiting is that they choose some random obsolete sports like lacrosse or rowing that no one cares or watches.

What happens to someone who is really good at ping pong? Or badminton? Think about how popular they are in the rest of the world, e.g., in India. But no, colleges don’t care at all. So they are not about what they say this is about.

It’s all about getting white DEI at place.

[Anonymous]

It would be great if colleges committed to devote athletic recruits 100% to URM, FG, and LI. Our next president should have a compact with colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in the DMV but work for a small PA college that recently added a football team. Athletics are great for recruiting non-athlete students. It's one of those things that some student are interested in, as part of their college experience, even if they don't play. The year after the team was added, applications to the college went up significantly.

I get that for spectator sports but what about sports like sailing, racquetball and fencing? No one really watches those - I always assumed they were ways of attracting more full pay students while technically being need blind. Those sports cost money!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another problem with athletic recruiting is that they choose some random obsolete sports like lacrosse or rowing that no one cares or watches.

What happens to someone who is really good at ping pong? Or badminton? Think about how popular they are in the rest of the world, e.g., in India. But no, colleges don’t care at all. So they are not about what they say this is about.

It’s all about getting white DEI at place.

Colleges operating in America naturally reflect American sports culture, just as universities elsewhere prioritize their own regional traditions. This isn't bias, it's context. Your underlying accessibility critique also cuts both ways: becoming elite at table tennis or badminton requires expensive specialized coaching, equipment, and tournament travel, not just casual play.

And lacrosse specifically shouldn't be dismissed as elitist when it's a traditional Native American sport providing collegiate opportunities for indigenous students, and it has genuinely expanded as a youth sport across different communities. Colleges reasonably value sports that build campus community, connect with alumni networks, and have established competitive infrastructure. Expecting schools to treat niche sports (in the American context) equally to established American sports is absurd; it's asking colleges to ignore their cultural context and the practical realities of building athletic programs that serve their communities.