You can't spell "lacrosse" without SLACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread exactly replicates the NARP vs Athlete divide on NECAC campuses, this is why my DS didn’t want to apply.

My DS also refused to apply to LAC because of this and he thought he might not fit in with the NARP crowd as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletes are ridiculed at Wesleyan by everyone except the athletes

Many of them do stand out but I think you are going overboard. Many of them are self-aware about their differences and try to blend in. And contrary to the rest of this thread, the vast majority of them are academically on par with (or even academically stronger than) non-athletes.

What are you talking about? They got in because they are athletes. Most rejected applicants were “academicallly on par.”

A huge percentage of athletes at these schools are academically on par with their peers. Perhaps being an athlete put them over the top when competing with roughly equivalent applicants. I think that is very different than the misperception that it is athletes who make up the bottom 25% or whatever of the class and that there are none who are 50% or higher.

I know a number of current and former student athletes who would likely would have gotten into their schools without being an athlete. But that doesn't fit people's narrative.

There is the root of your ignorance: recruited athletes have a fist on the scale — much more than a finger. If your DC was not an athlete, like every other applicant to top schools, admission would be extremely unlikely to occur. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletes are ridiculed at Wesleyan by everyone except the athletes

Many of them do stand out but I think you are going overboard. Many of them are self-aware about their differences and try to blend in. And contrary to the rest of this thread, the vast majority of them are academically on par with (or even academically stronger than) non-athletes.

What are you talking about? They got in because they are athletes. Most rejected applicants were “academicallly on par.”

A huge percentage of athletes at these schools are academically on par with their peers. Perhaps being an athlete put them over the top when competing with roughly equivalent applicants. I think that is very different than the misperception that it is athletes who make up the bottom 25% or whatever of the class and that there are none who are 50% or higher.

I know a number of current and former student athletes who would likely would have gotten into their schools without being an athlete. But that doesn't fit people's narrative.

There is the root of your ignorance: recruited athletes have a fist on the scale — much more than a finger. If your DC was not an athlete, like every other applicant to top schools, admission would be extremely unlikely to occur. Duh.

But, they are an athlete that has a specific skill that took a lot of time to craft. Pretty dumb to just dismiss all the hours of work put into that vs some bs non-profit or random club "leadership"

[Anonymous]

You can't spell "lacrosse" without SLACs

Can you say -- University of Delaware

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletes are ridiculed at Wesleyan by everyone except the athletes

Many of them do stand out but I think you are going overboard. Many of them are self-aware about their differences and try to blend in. And contrary to the rest of this thread, the vast majority of them are academically on par with (or even academically stronger than) non-athletes.

What are you talking about? They got in because they are athletes. Most rejected applicants were “academicallly on par.”

A huge percentage of athletes at these schools are academically on par with their peers. Perhaps being an athlete put them over the top when competing with roughly equivalent applicants. I think that is very different than the misperception that it is athletes who make up the bottom 25% or whatever of the class and that there are none who are 50% or higher.

I know a number of current and former student athletes who would likely would have gotten into their schools without being an athlete. But that doesn't fit people's narrative.

There is the root of your ignorance: recruited athletes have a fist on the scale — much more than a finger. If your DC was not an athlete, like every other applicant to top schools, admission would be extremely unlikely to occur. Duh.

But, they are an athlete that has a specific skill that took a lot of time to craft. Pretty dumb to just dismiss all the hours of work put into that vs some bs non-profit or random club "leadership"

There are many like extracurriculars requiring equal time. They are not valued equally. They get a finger on the scale for admission. Athletes get a fist. The fist is the problem for athletes — not the finger. Athletics should be treated like any other activity, as it was a generation or two ago.

If you still don’t get it, make a fist with your hand. Now stick out one finger. Not. The. Same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread exactly replicates the NARP vs Athlete divide on NECAC campuses, this is why my DS didn’t want to apply.

however bad you think it is, it’s much worse. Most athletes don’t care because they are hanging with their own peeps anyway, not the goth chick or film nerd from Williamsburg

Technically, NARPs wouldn't be those goth chicks or film nerd from Williamsburg either. NARPs are the regular people who aren't athletes.

My DD is a NARP. One of the reasons she isn't interested in SLACs is because of this issue - Goth Chick/Film Nerd from Williamsburg isn't her type of people but she doesn't feel like she could be close to athletes because they would spend most of their time with their sport.

More and more NARP type kids are also choosing larger schools that aren't in the middle of nowhere. If SLACs didn't recruit those athletes, the schools would just be full of the artsy/alternative kids. How is that good for diversity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletes are ridiculed at Wesleyan by everyone except the athletes

Many of them do stand out but I think you are going overboard. Many of them are self-aware about their differences and try to blend in. And contrary to the rest of this thread, the vast majority of them are academically on par with (or even academically stronger than) non-athletes.

What are you talking about? They got in because they are athletes. Most rejected applicants were “academicallly on par.”

A huge percentage of athletes at these schools are academically on par with their peers. Perhaps being an athlete put them over the top when competing with roughly equivalent applicants. I think that is very different than the misperception that it is athletes who make up the bottom 25% or whatever of the class and that there are none who are 50% or higher.

I know a number of current and former student athletes who would likely would have gotten into their schools without being an athlete. But that doesn't fit people's narrative.

There is the root of your ignorance: recruited athletes have a fist on the scale — much more than a finger. If your DC was not an athlete, like every other applicant to top schools, admission would be extremely unlikely to occur. Duh.

Your reading comprehension stinks. What I am saying is that there are plenty of athletes at these schools who would have gotten in regardless of being an athlete. One can never 100% say someone would have gotten in. But it is very likely. To generalize and say every athlete benefitted from being an athlete is incredibly dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletes are ridiculed at Wesleyan by everyone except the athletes

Many of them do stand out but I think you are going overboard. Many of them are self-aware about their differences and try to blend in. And contrary to the rest of this thread, the vast majority of them are academically on par with (or even academically stronger than) non-athletes.

What are you talking about? They got in because they are athletes. Most rejected applicants were “academicallly on par.”

A huge percentage of athletes at these schools are academically on par with their peers. Perhaps being an athlete put them over the top when competing with roughly equivalent applicants. I think that is very different than the misperception that it is athletes who make up the bottom 25% or whatever of the class and that there are none who are 50% or higher.

I know a number of current and former student athletes who would likely would have gotten into their schools without being an athlete. But that doesn't fit people's narrative.

There is the root of your ignorance: recruited athletes have a fist on the scale — much more than a finger. If your DC was not an athlete, like every other applicant to top schools, admission would be extremely unlikely to occur. Duh.

But, they are an athlete that has a specific skill that took a lot of time to craft. Pretty dumb to just dismiss all the hours of work put into that vs some bs non-profit or random club "leadership"

There are many like extracurriculars requiring equal time. They are not valued equally. They get a finger on the scale for admission. Athletes get a fist. The fist is the problem for athletes — not the finger. Athletics should be treated like any other activity, as it was a generation or two ago.

If you still don’t get it, make a fist with your hand. Now stick out one finger. Not. The. Same.

name one. I'll be waiting a long long time. And Im not talking about joke sports like fencing, rowing, lacrosse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletes are ridiculed at Wesleyan by everyone except the athletes

Many of them do stand out but I think you are going overboard. Many of them are self-aware about their differences and try to blend in. And contrary to the rest of this thread, the vast majority of them are academically on par with (or even academically stronger than) non-athletes.

What are you talking about? They got in because they are athletes. Most rejected applicants were “academicallly on par.”

A huge percentage of athletes at these schools are academically on par with their peers. Perhaps being an athlete put them over the top when competing with roughly equivalent applicants. I think that is very different than the misperception that it is athletes who make up the bottom 25% or whatever of the class and that there are none who are 50% or higher.

I know a number of current and former student athletes who would likely would have gotten into their schools without being an athlete. But that doesn't fit people's narrative.

There is the root of your ignorance: recruited athletes have a fist on the scale — much more than a finger. If your DC was not an athlete, like every other applicant to top schools, admission would be extremely unlikely to occur. Duh.

But, they are an athlete that has a specific skill that took a lot of time to craft. Pretty dumb to just dismiss all the hours of work put into that vs some bs non-profit or random club "leadership"

There are many like extracurriculars requiring equal time. They are not valued equally. They get a finger on the scale for admission. Athletes get a fist. The fist is the problem for athletes — not the finger. Athletics should be treated like any other activity, as it was a generation or two ago.

If you still don’t get it, make a fist with your hand. Now stick out one finger. Not. The. Same.

First of all, sports have never been treated "like any other activity".

Next, it's not a "problem" that athletes get preferential treatment. Colleges can choose who they want for "non-academic" reasons. They have never simply ordered the applicants by academic merit and taken the top 200 or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletes are ridiculed at Wesleyan by everyone except the athletes

Many of them do stand out but I think you are going overboard. Many of them are self-aware about their differences and try to blend in. And contrary to the rest of this thread, the vast majority of them are academically on par with (or even academically stronger than) non-athletes.

What are you talking about? They got in because they are athletes. Most rejected applicants were “academicallly on par.”

A huge percentage of athletes at these schools are academically on par with their peers. Perhaps being an athlete put them over the top when competing with roughly equivalent applicants. I think that is very different than the misperception that it is athletes who make up the bottom 25% or whatever of the class and that there are none who are 50% or higher.

I know a number of current and former student athletes who would likely would have gotten into their schools without being an athlete. But that doesn't fit people's narrative.

There is the root of your ignorance: recruited athletes have a fist on the scale — much more than a finger. If your DC was not an athlete, like every other applicant to top schools, admission would be extremely unlikely to occur. Duh.

But, they are an athlete that has a specific skill that took a lot of time to craft. Pretty dumb to just dismiss all the hours of work put into that vs some bs non-profit or random club "leadership"

There are many like extracurriculars requiring equal time. They are not valued equally. They get a finger on the scale for admission. Athletes get a fist. The fist is the problem for athletes — not the finger. Athletics should be treated like any other activity, as it was a generation or two ago.

If you still don’t get it, make a fist with your hand. Now stick out one finger. Not. The. Same.

I’ve heard this “fist/finger” rant before. Love how much this person hates athletes. Sadly, I think they’d be a little disappointed if they knew what NESCAC recruiting looked like a generation ago (early 90s). Same complaints about the athlete/NARP divide. Same complaints about the perceived lesser qualifications of NESCAC athletes. Only now these complaints are amplified by social media and to some extent the common app allowing students to chase prestige with greater ease (kids were not applying to 20 schools in the 90s). Sports is a huge part of the culture of these schools. They are some of the highest performing in DIII. It doesn’t matter if you don’t see the value in XC or crew. Apologies if the deep pocketed alums don’t come to homecoming to see your kid play the violin. Many of them come to see football or field hockey (or lax in the spring). Plenty of other options out there if you don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread exactly replicates the NARP vs Athlete divide on NECAC campuses, this is why my DS didn’t want to apply.

however bad you think it is, it’s much worse. Most athletes don’t care because they are hanging with their own peeps anyway, not the goth chick or film nerd from Williamsburg

Technically, NARPs wouldn't be those goth chicks or film nerd from Williamsburg either. NARPs are the regular people who aren't athletes.

My DD is a NARP. One of the reasons she isn't interested in SLACs is because of this issue - Goth Chick/Film Nerd from Williamsburg isn't her type of people but she doesn't feel like she could be close to athletes because they would spend most of their time with their sport.

More and more NARP type kids are also choosing larger schools that aren't in the middle of nowhere. If SLACs didn't recruit those athletes, the schools would just be full of the artsy/alternative kids. How is that good for diversity?

I’m sorry, we talking about Oberlin or Vassar? Pretty sure if you toured Williams, Colgate, Middlebury, or Bowdoin the vibe would be pretty far from Goth Chick/Film Nerd. Hell, I was even surprised at how “normie” Wesleyan was on a campus visit. No need to create this straw man to complain about the athlete admissions bump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletes are ridiculed at Wesleyan by everyone except the athletes

Many of them do stand out but I think you are going overboard. Many of them are self-aware about their differences and try to blend in. And contrary to the rest of this thread, the vast majority of them are academically on par with (or even academically stronger than) non-athletes.

What are you talking about? They got in because they are athletes. Most rejected applicants were “academicallly on par.”

A huge percentage of athletes at these schools are academically on par with their peers. Perhaps being an athlete put them over the top when competing with roughly equivalent applicants. I think that is very different than the misperception that it is athletes who make up the bottom 25% or whatever of the class and that there are none who are 50% or higher.

I know a number of current and former student athletes who would likely would have gotten into their schools without being an athlete. But that doesn't fit people's narrative.

There is the root of your ignorance: recruited athletes have a fist on the scale — much more than a finger. If your DC was not an athlete, like every other applicant to top schools, admission would be extremely unlikely to occur. Duh.

But, they are an athlete that has a specific skill that took a lot of time to craft. Pretty dumb to just dismiss all the hours of work put into that vs some bs non-profit or random club "leadership"

There are many like extracurriculars requiring equal time. They are not valued equally. They get a finger on the scale for admission. Athletes get a fist. The fist is the problem for athletes — not the finger. Athletics should be treated like any other activity, as it was a generation or two ago.

If you still don’t get it, make a fist with your hand. Now stick out one finger. Not. The. Same.

First of all, sports have never been treated "like any other activity".

Next, it's not a "problem" that athletes get preferential treatment. Colleges can choose who they want for "non-academic" reasons. They have never simply ordered the applicants by academic merit and taken the top 200 or whatever.

They can choose whomever they want. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

This study from Amherst back in 2017 pretty much covers it all.

LAC/ NESCAC athletes are overwhelmingly whiter, wealthier and less academically qualified than other students at liberal arts colleges. They are admitted under differential standards, and once admitted cluster together in the same few dorms and majors. They are less likely to take science classes, write a thesis, or achieve academic distinction. They are a homogenous subculture on every campus, segregating themselves from everyone else and creating significant division among the overall community. The data don't lie.

If you are a lax bro, people assume you are a dumbass. Most likely because you are one (relatively speaking).

https://gazettenet.com/2017/02/08/amherst-college-assesses-athletics-in-report-7871942/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread exactly replicates the NARP vs Athlete divide on NECAC campuses, this is why my DS didn’t want to apply.

however bad you think it is, it’s much worse. Most athletes don’t care because they are hanging with their own peeps anyway, not the goth chick or film nerd from Williamsburg

Technically, NARPs wouldn't be those goth chicks or film nerd from Williamsburg either. NARPs are the regular people who aren't athletes.

My DD is a NARP. One of the reasons she isn't interested in SLACs is because of this issue - Goth Chick/Film Nerd from Williamsburg isn't her type of people but she doesn't feel like she could be close to athletes because they would spend most of their time with their sport.

More and more NARP type kids are also choosing larger schools that aren't in the middle of nowhere. If SLACs didn't recruit those athletes, the schools would just be full of the artsy/alternative kids. How is that good for diversity?

I’m sorry, we talking about Oberlin or Vassar? Pretty sure if you toured Williams, Colgate, Middlebury, or Bowdoin the vibe would be pretty far from Goth Chick/Film Nerd. Hell, I was even surprised at how “normie” Wesleyan was on a campus visit. No need to create this straw man to complain about the athlete admissions bump.

Also, I’ve been hearing a lot about kids moving away from SLACs in favor of bigger schools, often southern schools. That hasn’t really borne out this year IMO. Many SLACs reported record numbers of applicants this year. And from what I can tell, it was mostly big schools working those waitlists well into August. Seems like some kids are still into the SLAC experience.

[Anonymous]

What the hate for NESCAC athletes?? Are they any different from Div III athletes at places like Kenyon, Emory, Wash U, Washington and Lee, etc.?