Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted on another thread. After seeing DC go through the athletic recruiting process, I think that these smaller schools offer athletic recruiting as a way to hook student athletes who have very high academic stats. The hook is the opposite direction from Ivies or D1 powerhouses that let in athletes with lower academic stats.

DC and other recruits have the stats to get in without their sport. The schools are trying to attract these strong students who want to continue playing in college and commit them in ED1.

Just my observation. YMMV.

+1
DD swims and would definitely have just as good a shot as any other kid at getting into the schools talking to her about swimming. She could have a shot at higher ones but we are shopping merit. Probably the case that other high stats kids too are pulled by the ability to do their sport that they may not be able to do at a higher ranked LAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Limiting 100% athletic recruits to URM, FG, and LI would rid of the white DEI (it's really a shame at this point), while preserving the tradition and "cultural context".

[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.

I think you’re just looking for it to be that in hopes of finding a hook to calim discrimination. Different places and cultures value and enjoy different things.

Ping pong and badminton are not particularly popular in the US. They are seen as fun backyard games in the US and as not requiring as much in the way of strenuous workout activity here. Yes, in India, they would be highly valued. Just ans lacrosse and rowing would be less valued in India, if they would be valued at all.

Different places value different things. We need to accept that the qualities that are valued in the US are what they are, and work from there. If we want schools that value different accomplishments, we should look elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you’re just looking for it to be that in hopes of finding a hook to calim discrimination. Different places and cultures value and enjoy different things.

Ping pong and badminton are not particularly popular in the US. They are seen as fun backyard games in the US and as not requiring as much in the way of strenuous workout activity here. Yes, in India, they would be highly valued. Just ans lacrosse and rowing would be less valued in India, if they would be valued at all.

Different places value different things. We need to accept that the qualities that are valued in the US are what they are, and work from there. If we want schools that value different accomplishments, we should look elsewhere.

+1

[Anonymous]

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

Dear chicken, meet egg.

[Anonymous]

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.

Ha. Yeah. Ok. All the Ivies are much more competitive admit than either.

Is that true at your kids' HS? Because from ours the kids who go to WASP schools are in the top 10% of the grade, along with the kids who go to MIT and the unconnected kids who get into Harvard, Stanford and Duke. A 3.6 GPA with decent rigor and strong SAT from our HS is pretty much guaranteed an admit to Cornell, UChicago, Vanderbilt if they ED (and have a good chance RD). The vast majority of kids who go to Harvard from our school are legacy w/major money. Penn and Columbia are schools the billionaire kid w/o good GPAs usually go to. The ones who ED Williams and Amherst do it because those schools are their top choice and they would like to be done with college apps early - they know they don't have a better shot ED, but why not do it if you've already made your choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1 this

Has this trope ever once been quantified and verified anywhere? At all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1 this

Has this trope ever once been quantified and verified anywhere? At all?

Athletes are taller better looking than average. That is a huge advantage in the work world.

It would not surprise me if they have more school spirit and donate more.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

Not for an unhooked applying ED they aren’t. Much better chances ED at Cornell, Brown, Penn, Columbia etc. (not to say the chances at Cornell are good). Why is this so difficult to understand? I think this board has math problems. Athletes at Williams and Amherst apply and are admitted ED — 90% of them. That’s 70% of ED admits. I repeat, 70% of ED admits. Then we have Questbridge and like programs, also ED. Some big donors, some faculty brats, additional first gen at the ED round, and snatching up the South Dakota kid. That’s possibly 90% of ED slots.

A very smart unhooked kid has the same chances of getting in SCEA. Maybe even slightly higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1 this

Has this trope ever once been quantified and verified anywhere? At all?

It never controls for family income to begin with. It’s just a self-fulfilling prophecy to make the squash kids and their rich parents feel like their unfair edge is justified by “hard work.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1000

The pipeline to athletics recruits is designed to be the least inclusive and the least equitable. Zero effort is made to train, reach out to, and recruit URM, FG, and LI. It’s a disgrace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1000

The pipeline to athletics recruits is designed to be the least inclusive and the least equitable. Zero effort is made to train, reach out to, and recruit URM, FG, and LI. It’s a disgrace.

So colleges are now supposed to train kids in athletics for possible recruitment in the future? In what world does this make sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1 this

Has this trope ever once been quantified and verified anywhere? At all?

Yes, across many studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1000

The pipeline to athletics recruits is designed to be the least inclusive and the least equitable. Zero effort is made to train, reach out to, and recruit URM, FG, and LI. It’s a disgrace.

So colleges are now supposed to train kids in athletics for possible recruitment in the future? In what world does this make sense?

It makes sense because there is huge barriers for disadvantaged kids. All the money, the coach, the facilities, the travel, the equipment, or even as simple as the clothing, for an "athlete" is unimagineable to the disadvantaged kids. My son's volleyball team has a black teammate, the club team waived all the fees for him thanks to the donation, but he couldn't afford travelling so we volunteered to take that responsibility. But his athletic talent is 10x of my son's yet they are playing in the same club.

The high school sports are essentially inaccessible to disadvantaged kids. Everyone knows that yet colleges continue this inequitable practice. Rick Singers are busy working since the kids were five...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1000

The pipeline to athletics recruits is designed to be the least inclusive and the least equitable. Zero effort is made to train, reach out to, and recruit URM, FG, and LI. It’s a disgrace.

So colleges are now supposed to train kids in athletics for possible recruitment in the future? In what world does this make sense?

It makes sense because there is huge barriers for disadvantaged kids. All the money, the coach, the facilities, the travel, the equipment, or even as simple as the clothing, for an "athlete" is unimagineable to the disadvantaged kids. My son's volleyball team has a black teammate, the club team waived all the fees for him thanks to the donation, but he couldn't afford travelling so we volunteered to take that responsibility. But his athletic talent is 10x of my son's yet they are playing in the same club.

The high school sports are essentially inaccessible to disadvantaged kids. Everyone knows that yet colleges continue this inequitable practice. Rick Singers are busy working since the kids were five...

High school sports are essentially free and many require nothing to be purchased by the student except for shoes. An excellent athlete that can’t afford club sports will likely find scholarship opportunities for clubs and private schools as well as they are always looking for an edge. I wouldn’t be worried about disadvantaged kids finding athletic opportunities, but I would be worried about the youth sports machinery talking advantage of disadvantaged kids (and stupid wealthy kids for that matter). See Michael Oher.