Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits

[Anonymous]

I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

[Anonymous]

I think for the SLACs, it helps bring in men. Especially straight non artsy ones. And full pay families who want their son to play college lacrosse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

It is still too much, but JHU is 10% athletes (Rochester is 9%) while Williams is over a third. In that sense, your R1 analogy falls flat.
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

[Anonymous]

University of Texas (Austin) has 581 athletes — and 39,600 undergrads.
Williams College has 680 athletes — and 2,100 undergrads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

It is still too much, but JHU is 10% athletes (Rochester is 9%) while Williams is over a third. In that sense, your R1 analogy falls flat.
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

JHU listed 60 men's lacrosse player on ope.ed.gov website.

But if you go to the school's roster:
https://hopkinssports.com/sports/mens-lacrosse/roster
There are 99 players.

It's more than 10% athletes.

[Anonymous]

It’s a way for these schools to maintain their white student population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

It is still too much, but JHU is 10% athletes (Rochester is 9%) while Williams is over a third. In that sense, your R1 analogy falls flat.
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

JHU listed 60 men's lacrosse player on ope.ed.gov website.

But if you go to the school's roster:
https://hopkinssports.com/sports/mens-lacrosse/roster
There are 99 players.

It's more than 10% athletes.

Possibly data from a different year, counting injured non-playing kids, practice players etc. Trust the government reported data more than your website perusal. And even if it is 11%, it does not compare with 35-40% now does it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a way for these schools to maintain their white student population.

It is literally true that the majority of white kids at Williams are student athletes. Of course, it works both ways: why on earth would a white, straight non-athlete willingly become an outcast there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

It is still too much, but JHU is 10% athletes (Rochester is 9%) while Williams is over a third. In that sense, your R1 analogy falls flat.
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Their analogy doesn’t fall flat, it’s just that the schools are larger. MIT has the largest athletics program in D3. JHU, WashU, Emory, and MIT compete against Williams, Amherst, Middlebury and W&L for the top spots in D3 year after year. They are all very serious about athletics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:University of Texas (Austin) has 581 athletes — and 39,600 undergrads.
Williams College has 680 athletes — and 2,100 undergrads.

I think you meant 691 athletes at UT Austin, and I wonder how much you know about the costs of and emphasis on the mens’ football program at Texas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

It is still too much, but JHU is 10% athletes (Rochester is 9%) while Williams is over a third. In that sense, your R1 analogy falls flat.
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Their analogy doesn’t fall flat, it’s just that the schools are larger. MIT has the largest athletics program in D3. JHU, WashU, Emory, and MIT compete against Williams, Amherst, Middlebury and W&L for the top spots in D3 year after year. They are all very serious about athletics.

Oh, OK, I guess they are the same after all — 3-4X the proportion means nothing. Carry on!

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:University of Texas (Austin) has 581 athletes — and 39,600 undergrads.
Williams College has 680 athletes — and 2,100 undergrads.

I think you meant 691 athletes at UT Austin, and I wonder how much you know about the costs of and emphasis on the mens’ football program at Texas?

I meant 581 because that’s what it says (if you can add). https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

As for your second point, I think my point in selecting IT to illustrate the absurdity went -whoosh!— right over your head. I guess you were busy adding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

It is still too much, but JHU is 10% athletes (Rochester is 9%) while Williams is over a third. In that sense, your R1 analogy falls flat.
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Their analogy doesn’t fall flat, it’s just that the schools are larger. MIT has the largest athletics program in D3. JHU, WashU, Emory, and MIT compete against Williams, Amherst, Middlebury and W&L for the top spots in D3 year after year. They are all very serious about athletics.

Oh, OK, I guess they are the same after all — 3-4X the proportion means nothing. Carry on!

Nobody is talking about proportion, the OP was asking about importance and athletics success are just as important at these schools as at the top SLACs based on how much effort they put into fielding the best teams in the country. Carry on!

[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.

You work for a college that gives merit aid and is an easy admit for athletes and non-athletes alike. We don’t care.