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

[Anonymous]

Some former athlete donors end up being huge for schools too, which probably skews amount data (as opposed to just giving rate).
The Koch brothers (basketball) at MIT, Josh Harris (wrestling) at Penn, Henry Kravis (golf) at CMC, and Gil Kemp (track & XC) at Swarthmore are a few examples of people who have given big amounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But there are so many needless slots set aside for weird exclusive sports. It's blatant backdoor affirmative action for pampered rich white kids who couldn't cut it otherwise.

It is obvious that these schools do not think these sports are "needless" or they would not have them.

And if you think these ultra-woke schools are providing "backdoor affirmative action for pampered rich white kids" then you are truly deluded.

Well... but it is backdoor affirmative action for pampered rich white kids. The hypocrisy of elite colleges today is to pander to just enough underserved communities while also keeping the pipeline for the rich and powerful wide open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You never know. A walk-on at Stanford who was recruited by some of the high-academic d3s is the Zoom CEO's son.
https://gostanford.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/roy-yuan/20086

They could be wrestling at Penn or golfing at CMC as was mentioned above.

Williams playing a home basketball or football game against Amherst is an actual event for the campus community. I can't think of anything else that has the same effect. College rivalries are great and at least a few sports are central to them (from giant like UM-OSU or Stanford-Cal to ancient like Harvard-Yale to tiny like Amherst-Williams or Swarthmore-Haverford).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But there are so many needless slots set aside for weird exclusive sports. It's blatant backdoor affirmative action for pampered rich white kids who couldn't cut it otherwise.

It is obvious that these schools do not think these sports are "needless" or they would not have them.

And if you think these ultra-woke schools are providing "backdoor affirmative action for pampered rich white kids" then you are truly deluded.

Well... but it is backdoor affirmative action for pampered rich white kids. The hypocrisy of elite colleges today is to pander to just enough underserved communities while also keeping the pipeline for the rich and powerful wide open.

Sports are getting better with outreach and growing their pipelines at least! I agree that athletic departments should shrink. I think more should cut the wealthiest sports and football, given the high number of players needed and the long-term impact of the injuries. Several very good schools don't have football programs, including Caltech, Swarthmore and Haverford.

[Anonymous]

These threads are always so funny. Sports aren’t going anywhere no matter how much you froth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don't care about the hook at all.

I just dislike the vibe at these very small schools that don't really have a sport culture, yet have a student body that is divided by sports!

It's like an upside down michigan or ND where sports bring the students together! and yet they're there to learn shit and not play games.

then don't go to school there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the problem? How else are they supposed to field their teams?

This is backwards thinking. The mission of a college is not to field athletic teams and then fill in the rest of the academic seats with students as an afterthought. The mission of a school is to educate students. Because you want students to exercise and be fit and develop school spirit, you let them form athletic teams and compete with other schools. This is how college athletics started. You field the teams that current student are interested in playing, and you field those teams with existing students. If no one wants to play a given sport this year, you drop that team until enough kids sign up; but given the number of students athletes in the country, this is unlikely to be a problem anywhere. Pick your college, then try out for the team when you get there.

And some schools both field teams and educate their student who on those teams. Again, what is the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there's a growing divide btw straight men and gay men on campus, because the athletic numbers reinforce division. Sports just takes up too much time. (related issue, the very small number of straight guys who aren't on a team)

it's a nuanced conversation that doesnt work here, but it's an issue.

So you don't think gay men can be athletic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the problem? How else are they supposed to field their teams?

Yeah, Right! They have to field their teams. Because their paramount mission and the reason they exist is to promote sports teams. NOT to educate. NOT to be fair in admissions decisions.
Who wants strivers who study hard and master subjects when they can admit happy go lucky rich kids whose parents put them through expensive sports from the time the kids are toddlers. Mind you, don’t ever call sports recruits strivers in sports!

Or, there are the majority of students who can both handle the academics while also contributing to a sports team. Some kids are naturally gifted and not groomed by their rich parents. Sorry your kid isn't one of them.

[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.

Believe it or not, there are kids who are both athletes and play instruments and/or act. Why are you assuming these kids are one-dimensional and being admitted to these elite schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we talk about how large state universities recruit “student” athletes who are basically free agent hired guns and are exploited and tossed aside. Why don’t we talk about how messed up it is that coaches are the highest paid employees at many institutions purportedly devoted to education? Why don’t we talk about how backwards it is that so many students are drawn to big state schools for the “culture” of drinking and spectating from the stands and cheering for “their” team of students who basically are not involved in the life of the university at all. And how ridiculous it is to prioritize this kind of thing when picking a university to attend when the whole point is to get an education?

Bottom line, why pick on SLACs. At least athletes in those schools are real students and their actual friends and classmates are in the stands.

FWIW, I know a number of kids from the DC area who are athletes at a variety of D1 and DIII schools. They are actual student-athletes, even the DI football players and basketball players I know. generally all-league in academics (B1G and PAC-12) and are using the system as it was designed - use the sport to achieve your goals and don't let the sport use and abuse you.

Your assumptions that these hired-gun free agent college athletes are not necessarily achieving in the classroom is misguided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Parents played too much football.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But there are so many needless slots set aside for weird exclusive sports. It's blatant backdoor affirmative action for pampered rich white kids who couldn't cut it otherwise.

Why can someone only be one thing in your eyes? If they are an athlete they are automatically assumed to be only that, as opposed to perhaps an intellectual peer who also happens to have spent a large amount of time devoting themselves to a sport and got good at it, along with having a high aptitude for academics. I find your attitude naive and tired.

Some athletes are certainly brilliant but others are not. Why can't you accept that? Have you ever talked to one of those sports buffs? For example, why would colleges need to offer special wrap-around tutoring and extra-easy majors if every athlete was such an intellectual powerhouse?

usually it is about managing time, given how much is taken by the demands of the coaches. Practice schedules are based on field or court availability, and a student cannot necesarily schedule their classes around practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Believe it or not, there are kids who are both athletes and play instruments and/or act. Why are you assuming these kids are one-dimensional and being admitted to these elite schools?

You're funny, because being a recruited athlete means you were literally admitted to college based on that one dimension.

Of course many kids can do sports and also have other talents. The PPs are only arguing that athletes should not be allowed to skip the line simply because they have some specific technical skill in some obscure segregated sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But there are so many needless slots set aside for weird exclusive sports. It's blatant backdoor affirmative action for pampered rich white kids who couldn't cut it otherwise.

Why can someone only be one thing in your eyes? If they are an athlete they are automatically assumed to be only that, as opposed to perhaps an intellectual peer who also happens to have spent a large amount of time devoting themselves to a sport and got good at it, along with having a high aptitude for academics. I find your attitude naive and tired.

Some athletes are certainly brilliant but others are not. Why can't you accept that? Have you ever talked to one of those sports buffs? For example, why would colleges need to offer special wrap-around tutoring and extra-easy majors if every athlete was such an intellectual powerhouse?

usually it is about managing time, given how much is taken by the demands of the coaches. Practice schedules are based on field or court availability, and a student cannot necesarily schedule their classes around practices.

Uh-huh. So many jocks majoring in theoretical physics.