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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On a related topic, do any of the SLACs have a decent sports culture? Meaning, kids actually go to the football, basketball, etc. games and while they know they are not competing for the NCAA championship...at least care about winning whatever D3 division in which they compete?

It is comical that if you go to the MIT baseball field, they don't have just one set of bleachers...they literally just have one bleacher (other people call that a bench).

Not really. A very high number of recruited athletes quit after they get there.

Nearly half quit: : "NCSA analyzed the college roster data of over 1,400 schools across NCAA D1, D2, D3 and NAIA divisions between 2012 and 2017 and found that over 45% of underclassmen athletes are not listed on their college roster the following year." https://www.ncsasports.org/sites/default/files/NCSA-State-of-Recruiting-Report-2019.pdf

[Anonymous]

I don't think much weight should be put on athletics in admissions - definitely not as much as it gets. But it's nowhere close to 40%. The Post article says 13-36 percent of students at LACs were varsity athletes. Only some of those were recruited, and many of the recruited athletes would have been admitted anyway. I was officially a varsity athlete at a top LAC, but as a bench-warmer on a minor team. It certainly didn't help my application much, if at all. I knew a few students who were varsity athletes in a sport they didn't even play in high school.

[Anonymous]

Don't talk enough? Are you kidding? There's no end to the whining on DCUM about athletes getting recruited to SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On a related topic, do any of the SLACs have a decent sports culture? Meaning, kids actually go to the football, basketball, etc. games and while they know they are not competing for the NCAA championship...at least care about winning whatever D3 division in which they compete?

It is comical that if you go to the MIT baseball field, they don't have just one set of bleachers...they literally just have one bleacher (other people call that a bench).

Not really. A very high number of recruited athletes quit after they get there.

Nearly half quit: : "NCSA analyzed the college roster data of over 1,400 schools across NCAA D1, D2, D3 and NAIA divisions between 2012 and 2017 and found that over 45% of underclassmen athletes are not listed on their college roster the following year." https://www.ncsasports.org/sites/default/files/NCSA-State-of-Recruiting-Report-2019.pdf

Pffft the whole point of this study is to encourage parents to sign up for the NCSA scam:

"NCSA compared student-athletes who find their school through NCSA to student-athletes who did not use NCSA and found that overall, NCSA athletes are 18% more likely to stay on their team roster each year than non-NCSA athletes. While results varied by sport, data showed NCSA athletes consistently stayed on their team roster longer than non-NCSA athletes"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think much weight should be put on athletics in admissions -

Nobody cares what you think, least of all the top LACs who obviously do think lots of weight should be put on athletics in admissions.

[Anonymous]

It's simple their graduation rates are higher.

[Anonymous]

Apply to schools that aren't SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that is part of the culture. If you are going in as a non-athlete you know this and, in fact, our experience is that the tours tell you the % of student athletes. What is the problem? It's like going to University of Miami and then complaining that it is hot.

I've been on the tour circuit twice and nobody ever brings up % that are athletes. I dont think it's a number they boast about.

this includes two tours of Amherst, Williams and Bowdoin .. and zero mention

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

With students they admit for academics. How does your high school do it?

With very few exceptions, high schools in the DC area admit by geography (far and away most common) lottery (all the charters) or by a variety of factors including athletics (private). There are a few magnet programs and private schools that have other criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's simple their graduation rates are higher.

this is not true. graduation rates closely align with income. most kids at these schools are just fine and graduation rates reflect that

[Anonymous]

So? Vast majority of the athletes there are also great in academics. What’s it to you, OP?

[Anonymous]

OP, you gotta stop grinding the ax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think much weight should be put on athletics in admissions - definitely not as much as it gets. But it's nowhere close to 40%. The Post article says 13-36 percent of students at LACs were varsity athletes. Only some of those were recruited, and many of the recruited athletes would have been admitted anyway. I was officially a varsity athlete at a top LAC, but as a bench-warmer on a minor team. It certainly didn't help my application much, if at all. I knew a few students who were varsity athletes in a sport they didn't even play in high school.

williams, Amherst over 40%. Bowdoin over 45%. the top SLACs are super high %

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So? Vast majority of the athletes there are also great in academics. What’s it to you, OP?

it's made the campus cultures pretty shitty