Williams for a male/non athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is the problem with SLACs in general imo

There’s quite a range though. Williams and a few others are at the high end in terms of athletes being around 40%. A school like Carleton will be around 20%. I personally think athlete v non-athlete is less of an issue than recruited athlete vs non-athlete. It’s not easy figuring out what % are walk-ons vs recruits but all have some walk-ons, probably more than lots of people realize.

I doubt this is true -- maybe more for women's sports than men's because of Title IX, but walking on to a team at a school like Williams is not easy. I also don't know why you would make this distinctions. Once walk ons are on the team, they're treated just like the recruited athletes. So the appropriate distinction is between varsity athletes and non-varsity athletes. Honestly, I think I'm not sure I'd want my kids to go to a NESCAC as a non-athlete (except Tufts, which is bigger).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is the problem with SLACs in general imo

There’s quite a range though. Williams and a few others are at the high end in terms of athletes being around 40%. A school like Carleton will be around 20%. I personally think athlete v non-athlete is less of an issue than recruited athlete vs non-athlete. It’s not easy figuring out what % are walk-ons vs recruits but all have some walk-ons, probably more than lots of people realize.

I doubt this is true -- maybe more for women's sports than men's because of Title IX, but walking on to a team at a school like Williams is not easy. I also don't know why you would make this distinctions. Once walk ons are on the team, they're treated just like the recruited athletes. So the appropriate distinction is between varsity athletes and non-varsity athletes. Honestly, I think I'm not sure I'd want my kids to go to a NESCAC as a non-athlete (except Tufts, which is bigger).

Some feel the athlete-non athlete divide is more significant when there’s a difference in academic qualifications that earned admission. That specific concern is lessened for athletes not recruited.

[Anonymous]

I attended Williams 30 years ago. Varsity athletics did play a major role, but there were also club sports, intramural sports and outing club opportunities for students who weren’t varsity athletes. There were all different levels of participation and I don’t recall the athlete-nonathlete divide being so pronounced socially. Some of my friends (male and female) who had no athletic or outdoor interests found opportunities for involvement in student government, the arts, campus publications, cultural affinity groups and service groups. To OP, there is definitely a place for someone like your son at Williams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Williams and several of my close friends from college have kids there (lots of legacy admits). Report is that it can be hard for non-athletes/non-outdoorsy kids - social life revolves around teams pretty often. One friend has a musician kid who has been happy - but it does sound like you need to have a passion to find your social group. And for many kids, that is their sport.

What if it’s a club team? Is that enough socially?

Yes! I went to Williams, and club sports were big. People were very into ultimate frisbee, rugby, etc. I think the importance of team sports is exaggerated on this board. I did not play one yet was still able to find a nice group of friends which actually included lots of athletes. Unlike my friends who played at div 1, sports were not all encompassing at Williams, so athletes had friends outside of their teams, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Williams and several of my close friends from college have kids there (lots of legacy admits). Report is that it can be hard for non-athletes/non-outdoorsy kids - social life revolves around teams pretty often. One friend has a musician kid who has been happy - but it does sound like you need to have a passion to find your social group. And for many kids, that is their sport.

What if it’s a club team? Is that enough socially?

Yes! I went to Williams, and club sports were big. People were very into ultimate frisbee, rugby, etc. I think the importance of team sports is exaggerated on this board. I did not play one yet was still able to find a nice group of friends which actually included lots of athletes. Unlike my friends who played at div 1, sports were not all encompassing at Williams, so athletes had friends outside of their teams, too.

Thanks. Out of curiosity, was it 40% recruited athlete back then? Perhaps there were more walk-ons? Or fewer sports? Or is it the case that such numbers were the same then but there was no discernible divide anyway? It’s clearly a great school regardless, but some people really are worried of feeling second class, so to speak, if not a varsity athlete.

[Anonymous]

Poster asked about walking on with a sub-16 5K and 4:30 mile. Yes, definitely.
Contact the coach!

[Anonymous]

no, 25 years ago, recruited athletes at these schools were 15-20%

[Anonymous]

Parents: If your son is thinking of a SLAC and not a recruited athelete and does not want to do a frat, a SLAC may not be the right place. My DS is at a different selective SLAC and is loving it but is on a sports team. He often comments to me that he does not know how other men could like the school if they are not on a team and not interested in a frat. He says it would be very boring and limiting. I am glad to have this perspective for my younger DS as he begins to look at schools. If your son is set on a SLAC, agree with prior poster that he should have a specific plan of joining a time-consuming club (e.g., acapella?) or club sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is the problem with SLACs in general imo

There’s quite a range though. Williams and a few others are at the high end in terms of athletes being around 40%. A school like Carleton will be around 20%. I personally think athlete v non-athlete is less of an issue than recruited athlete vs non-athlete. It’s not easy figuring out what % are walk-ons vs recruits but all have some walk-ons, probably more than lots of people realize.

I doubt this is true -- maybe more for women's sports than men's because of Title IX, but walking on to a team at a school like Williams is not easy. I also don't know why you would make this distinctions. Once walk ons are on the team, they're treated just like the recruited athletes. So the appropriate distinction is between varsity athletes and non-varsity athletes. Honestly, I think I'm not sure I'd want my kids to go to a NESCAC as a non-athlete (except Tufts, which is bigger).

Some feel the athlete-non athlete divide is more significant when there’s a difference in academic qualifications that earned admission. That specific concern is lessened for athletes not recruited.

This is ridiculous because nobody knows who is recruited or not outside of the coaches and maybe some members of the team. I have a DS at an Ivy who was a walk on -- so, no, he got no help in the admissions process and is an incredibly strong student. But when he tells the non-athletes at his school or his professors that he's a member of a varsity team, he doesn't say, "oh, and btw, I was a walk on so I'm actually just as smart as everyone else." Naturally, people will assume he's not as smart/qualified as his non-athlete classmates, but they quickly realize they're wrong. Also, if you think there aren't very smart recruited athletes at these schools, you are naive. Many of my kid's recruited teammates are super bright and talented. Plus, my son considered Williams/Amherst and would have been recruited there...trust me, his qualifications are not less than the non-athletes.

[Anonymous]

I am one of the PP who attended Williams and knows current students. I loved it - I was also a club athlete.

The other thing about Williams in particular that you should consider is that it is geographically isolated. The vast majority of social life in on campus only. Other SLAC, even those with the same percentages of athletes, may be more attractive to OP's son based on location closer to an urban center.

OP - was there something in particular your son liked about Williams compared to other SLACs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents: If your son is thinking of a SLAC and not a recruited athelete and does not want to do a frat, a SLAC may not be the right place. My DS is at a different selective SLAC and is loving it but is on a sports team. He often comments to me that he does not know how other men could like the school if they are not on a team and not interested in a frat. He says it would be very boring and limiting. I am glad to have this perspective for my younger DS as he begins to look at schools. If your son is set on a SLAC, agree with prior poster that he should have a specific plan of joining a time-consuming club (e.g., acapella?) or club sport.

does Williams even have frats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is the problem with SLACs in general imo

There’s quite a range though. Williams and a few others are at the high end in terms of athletes being around 40%. A school like Carleton will be around 20%. I personally think athlete v non-athlete is less of an issue than recruited athlete vs non-athlete. It’s not easy figuring out what % are walk-ons vs recruits but all have some walk-ons, probably more than lots of people realize.

I doubt this is true -- maybe more for women's sports than men's because of Title IX, but walking on to a team at a school like Williams is not easy. I also don't know why you would make this distinctions. Once walk ons are on the team, they're treated just like the recruited athletes. So the appropriate distinction is between varsity athletes and non-varsity athletes. Honestly, I think I'm not sure I'd want my kids to go to a NESCAC as a non-athlete (except Tufts, which is bigger).

Some feel the athlete-non athlete divide is more significant when there’s a difference in academic qualifications that earned admission. That specific concern is lessened for athletes not recruited.

This is ridiculous because nobody knows who is recruited or not outside of the coaches and maybe some members of the team. I have a DS at an Ivy who was a walk on -- so, no, he got no help in the admissions process and is an incredibly strong student. But when he tells the non-athletes at his school or his professors that he's a member of a varsity team, he doesn't say, "oh, and btw, I was a walk on so I'm actually just as smart as everyone else." Naturally, people will assume he's not as smart/qualified as his non-athlete classmates, but they quickly realize they're wrong. Also, if you think there aren't very smart recruited athletes at these schools, you are naive. Many of my kid's recruited teammates are super bright and talented. Plus, my son considered Williams/Amherst and would have been recruited there...trust me, his qualifications are not less than the non-athletes.

If one buys into the whole notion of an athlete v non-athlete divide at a small college (some clearly do) then the more differences the more the divide. Supposedly on the whole recruited athletes have lower academic qualifications and tend to have a somewhat different distribution of majors. Test optional policies feed this narrative. It’s not about people knowing who got what treatment in admissions as much as it’s about the theory there are different behaviors once on campus between students who are there because of their academic achievements, interests, and habits vs those who would not have earned entry without sports. Anecdotes of a brilliant recruit or a not so brilliant non-recruit doesn’t change the reports of very different qualifications, and very different qualifications can reasonably be expected to lead to very different behaviors. Having more walk-ons counters that somewhat by having a lower percentage of lower qualifications. Also having more walk-ons provides a path for the regular admits to mix more by joining the teams, blurring the divide further. I think all schools have some walk-ons but how many and in what sports is really speculative without official data, which isn’t regularly reported. My understanding is that a generation ago there were more walk-ons, particularly at the high academic schools. Also a generation ago test optional wasn’t broadly a thing. So there’s at least some reason to suspect there’s more of a divide than there used to be. Even decades ago many in academia already felt the divide was a problem. A former president of Princeton wrote a couple books lamenting the over-emphasis of athletics in colleges in the 2000s if I recall. Schools could perhaps counter this by being more transparent about recruit numbers, qualifications, and outcomes; opting not to be perpetuates the perception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents: If your son is thinking of a SLAC and not a recruited athelete and does not want to do a frat, a SLAC may not be the right place. My DS is at a different selective SLAC and is loving it but is on a sports team. He often comments to me that he does not know how other men could like the school if they are not on a team and not interested in a frat. He says it would be very boring and limiting. I am glad to have this perspective for my younger DS as he begins to look at schools. If your son is set on a SLAC, agree with prior poster that he should have a specific plan of joining a time-consuming club (e.g., acapella?) or club sport.

does Williams even have frats?

No. Williams banned fraternities in 1962.