You can't spell "lacrosse" without SLACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This study from Amherst back in 2017 pretty much covers it all.

LAC/ NESCAC athletes are overwhelmingly whiter, wealthier and less academically qualified than other students at liberal arts colleges. They are admitted under differential standards, and once admitted cluster together in the same few dorms and majors. They are less likely to take science classes, write a thesis, or achieve academic distinction. They are a homogenous subculture on every campus, segregating themselves from everyone else and creating significant division among the overall community. The data don't lie.

If you are a lax bro, people assume you are a dumbass. Most likely because you are one (relatively speaking).

https://gazettenet.com/2017/02/08/amherst-college-assesses-athletics-in-report-7871942/

Try reading, the article doesn’t say what you believe that it does.

No, if you actually read the report linked to the article, it is far worse.

Read it. You’re wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:athletes are ridiculed at Wesleyan by everyone except the athletes

Many of them do stand out but I think you are going overboard. Many of them are self-aware about their differences and try to blend in. And contrary to the rest of this thread, the vast majority of them are academically on par with (or even academically stronger than) non-athletes.

What are you talking about? They got in because they are athletes. Most rejected applicants were “academicallly on par.”

A huge percentage of athletes at these schools are academically on par with their peers. Perhaps being an athlete put them over the top when competing with roughly equivalent applicants. I think that is very different than the misperception that it is athletes who make up the bottom 25% or whatever of the class and that there are none who are 50% or higher.

I know a number of current and former student athletes who would likely would have gotten into their schools without being an athlete. But that doesn't fit people's narrative.

There is the root of your ignorance: recruited athletes have a fist on the scale — much more than a finger. If your DC was not an athlete, like every other applicant to top schools, admission would be extremely unlikely to occur. Duh.

But, they are an athlete that has a specific skill that took a lot of time to craft. Pretty dumb to just dismiss all the hours of work put into that vs some bs non-profit or random club "leadership"

There are many like extracurriculars requiring equal time. They are not valued equally. They get a finger on the scale for admission. Athletes get a fist. The fist is the problem for athletes — not the finger. Athletics should be treated like any other activity, as it was a generation or two ago.

If you still don’t get it, make a fist with your hand. Now stick out one finger. Not. The. Same.

name one. I'll be waiting a long long time. And Im not talking about joke sports like fencing, rowing, lacrosse.

Please list all the joke sports. Sounds like we can agree to get rid of 1/2 the recruited athletes. As for what other kids may do with their time, you need to get out more. Maybe a parent group?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:athletes are ridiculed at Wesleyan by everyone except the athletes

NP. As someone very familiar with Wesleyan, this is flatly untrue except among a small group of socially maladjusted outcasts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hate for NESCAC athletes?? Are they any different from Div III athletes at places like Kenyon, Emory, Wash U, Washington and Lee, etc.?

W&L is closest comparable to Williams and Amherst both athletically and academically- Emory and WashU good schools but mid sports. Kenyon a joke in this group

Emory finished first in D3 sports last year, WashU finished fourth. W&L finished 13th. Middlebury was the highest scoring SLAC at 7th

hysterical - these schools have one good year and DCUM spouts it as gospel - no one considers Emory and WashU sports schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hate for NESCAC athletes?? Are they any different from Div III athletes at places like Kenyon, Emory, Wash U, Washington and Lee, etc.?

W&L is closest comparable to Williams and Amherst both athletically and academically- Emory and WashU good schools but mid sports. Kenyon a joke in this group

Emory finished first in D3 sports last year, WashU finished fourth. W&L finished 13th. Middlebury was the highest scoring SLAC at 7th

hysterical - these schools have one good year and DCUM spouts it as gospel - no one considers Emory and WashU sports schools

Please don't use the term "no one." Don't speak for others. You seem to be really passionate about this topic. I think you need a life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread exactly replicates the NARP vs Athlete divide on NECAC campuses, this is why my DS didn’t want to apply.

however bad you think it is, it’s much worse. Most athletes don’t care because they are hanging with their own peeps anyway, not the goth chick or film nerd from Williamsburg

how old are you people? goth chick?

film nerd from Williamsburg? that's what these kids aspire to be post college! yes, even the athletes. (have you been to Williamsburg in the last five years?) any 18yo Ethan Hawke type who grew up a 3mm condo in Williamsburg will be plenty popular at Williams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This study from Amherst back in 2017 pretty much covers it all.

LAC/ NESCAC athletes are overwhelmingly whiter, wealthier and less academically qualified than other students at liberal arts colleges. They are admitted under differential standards, and once admitted cluster together in the same few dorms and majors. They are less likely to take science classes, write a thesis, or achieve academic distinction. They are a homogenous subculture on every campus, segregating themselves from everyone else and creating significant division among the overall community. The data don't lie.

If you are a lax bro, people assume you are a dumbass. Most likely because you are one (relatively speaking).

https://gazettenet.com/2017/02/08/amherst-college-assesses-athletics-in-report-7871942/

Try reading, the article doesn’t say what you believe that it does.

No, if you actually read the report linked to the article, it is far worse.

Read it. You’re wrong.

DP here. I read the report and the facts check out with the top level comment's claims. Crazy fun fact I learned: there were 0 athletes majoring in math at Amherst when the report was written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hate for NESCAC athletes?? Are they any different from Div III athletes at places like Kenyon, Emory, Wash U, Washington and Lee, etc.?

W&L is closest comparable to Williams and Amherst both athletically and academically- Emory and WashU good schools but mid sports. Kenyon a joke in this group

Emory finished first in D3 sports last year, WashU finished fourth. W&L finished 13th. Middlebury was the highest scoring SLAC at 7th

hysterical - these schools have one good year and DCUM spouts it as gospel - no one considers Emory and WashU sports schools

Both Emory and WashU are perennial top 10 finishers across D3 sports. W&L is typically in the 25-35 bracket though they have been getting better over the past few years. Being a fan is fine but having a clue is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread exactly replicates the NARP vs Athlete divide on NECAC campuses, this is why my DS didn’t want to apply.

however bad you think it is, it’s much worse. Most athletes don’t care because they are hanging with their own peeps anyway, not the goth chick or film nerd from Williamsburg

how old are you people? goth chick?

film nerd from Williamsburg? that's what these kids aspire to be post college! yes, even the athletes. (have you been to Williamsburg in the last five years?) any 18yo Ethan Hawke type who grew up a 3mm condo in Williamsburg will be plenty popular at Williams.

Perhaps the better example is the Lena Dunham/St. Ann's/Oberlin type. Plenty of those still exist and don't co-exist well with the athlete types. Wesleyan definitely has its share, though I think it is overstated.