Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits

[Anonymous]

They don’t want all nerds!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Showing that rich families are more likely to donate and Div. 3 athletes are more likely to be rich. Which really has nothing to do with recruiting 35% athletes. Just recruit rich kids more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So...it is expensive and inaccessible. You literally just repeated their point.
Most sports don't have the scholarship or other funding opportunities as football/basketball. You need money to compete competitively in tennis, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would happen to a school like Hamilton if it dropped out of the NESCAC? In a generation it would have “really fallen off” and in two generations it would be lost in the academic wilderness.

Or what if Cornell dropped out of the Ivy League and U Rochester joined? It sounds preposterous, but what would these two schools look like in 50 or 75 years?

These school know they need to remain in their athletic leagues to remain as relevant as they are today. Thus they need to recruit
athletes that will keep them competitive in their conference. Many, many of these kids being recruited are exceptional students and they get priority in admissions because they offer something to the school beyond their grades and test scores. It’s a case of “and” not “or” for the most part. Yes there is the occasional football player with the 1250 SAT but that is the extreme exception.

And the ancient Greeks agreed with the American model. The mind and intellectual pursuit was inseparable from the body and the athletic.

Um, the ancient Greeks also had slaves. If they are truly exceptional, they would not — as you euphemistically describe for an entirely different admissions process — need “priority” in admissions now, would they?

Lots of kids are smart and have great GPAs and test scores. Some have the great academic stats plus they are excellent athlètes.

The athletes are prioritized because they have it all and then something else that the school wants. Any kid who puts the time and effort into both the academics and the athletics these schools are looking for can also be sought after by these schools.

This is the answer. Why can’t any kid develop the academic and athletic abilities these schools are looking for?

Because it's rare to have a kid who is sufficiently talented and motivated across both axes. Replace "athletic abilities" with "banjo-playing abilities" and you'll understand understand why it makes no sense.

Right. The kids who excel academically and athletically have something extra that the kids who only excel academically just don’t have.

This isn’t that hard: these schools value kids who work hard at very different endeavors, use their time efficiently and effectively, and keep at it even when it’s hard.

If that were true, excelling in musical theater or at an instrument would help as much as being a recruited athlete. But it just doesn’t

[Anonymous]

A CEO of a $100B+ market cap company once told me that he loves to hire one-time student athletes. He’s exact words were “they know how to compete and succeed, and they know how to do it on a team, without just stepping over their peers.”

He didn’t mention the musical theater or band kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: A CEO of a $100B+ market cap company once told me that he loves to hire one-time student athletes. He’s exact words were “they know how to compete and succeed, and they know how to do it on a team, without just stepping over their peers.”

He didn’t mention the musical theater or band kids.

I don't hire people right out of college (thank goodness) but I have hired several people I found out later were very serious musicians growing up - they tend to have a great work ethic, work well as a team (what is an orchestra if not a team) and also have good people skills. But I do agree we live in a very sports-focused culture

[Anonymous]

Athletic kids usually have better social skills required by Wall Street and corporate jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So...it is expensive and inaccessible. You literally just repeated their point.
Most sports don't have the scholarship or other funding opportunities as football/basketball. You need money to compete competitively in tennis, for example.

I going to simplify this for you: If a kid can ball, then there will be plenty of chances to play ball regardless of financial circumstances. The revenue sports are very accessible to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So...it is expensive and inaccessible. You literally just repeated their point.
Most sports don't have the scholarship or other funding opportunities as football/basketball. You need money to compete competitively in tennis, for example.

I going to simplify this for you: If a kid can ball, then there will be plenty of chances to play ball regardless of financial circumstances. The revenue sports are very accessible to everyone.

That’s just not true. Like obviously not true. Most high schools offer a limited amount of sports and most communities don’t have access to public facilities for anything that isn’t basketball. It’s weird to see someone be so lazy about their lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: A CEO of a $100B+ market cap company once told me that he loves to hire one-time student athletes. He’s exact words were “they know how to compete and succeed, and they know how to do it on a team, without just stepping over their peers.”

He didn’t mention the musical theater or band kids.

I don't hire people right out of college (thank goodness) but I have hired several people I found out later were very serious musicians growing up - they tend to have a great work ethic, work well as a team (what is an orchestra if not a team) and also have good people skills. But I do agree we live in a very sports-focused culture

This is not unique to people in athletics. Anyone who has worked on a productive team shares these traits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Athletic kids usually have better social skills required by Wall Street and corporate jobs.

I get that might be true for team sports - but do kids who fence or run track really have better social skills than average? My son was good at crew but quit because the kids were "weird" - that sport did not seem to attract kids with strong social skills either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When we talked about racism and inequality, college recruit sports is an appropriate place to start.
About 85% college lacrosse players are white, only 3-4% college lacrosse players are black.

Think about this, how disgusting it is. It was a game invented by native Americans. But no surprise. White reappropriated it to serve the white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would happen to a school like Hamilton if it dropped out of the NESCAC? In a generation it would have “really fallen off” and in two generations it would be lost in the academic wilderness.

Or what if Cornell dropped out of the Ivy League and U Rochester joined? It sounds preposterous, but what would these two schools look like in 50 or 75 years?

These school know they need to remain in their athletic leagues to remain as relevant as they are today. Thus they need to recruit
athletes that will keep them competitive in their conference. Many, many of these kids being recruited are exceptional students and they get priority in admissions because they offer something to the school beyond their grades and test scores. It’s a case of “and” not “or” for the most part. Yes there is the occasional football player with the 1250 SAT but that is the extreme exception.

And the ancient Greeks agreed with the American model. The mind and intellectual pursuit was inseparable from the body and the athletic.

Um, the ancient Greeks also had slaves. If they are truly exceptional, they would not — as you euphemistically describe for an entirely different admissions process — need “priority” in admissions now, would they?

Lots of kids are smart and have great GPAs and test scores. Some have the great academic stats plus they are excellent athlètes.

The athletes are prioritized because they have it all and then something else that the school wants. Any kid who puts the time and effort into both the academics and the athletics these schools are looking for can also be sought after by these schools.

This is the answer. Why can’t any kid develop the academic and athletic abilities these schools are looking for?

Because it's rare to have a kid who is sufficiently talented and motivated across both axes. Replace "athletic abilities" with "banjo-playing abilities" and you'll understand understand why it makes no sense.

Right. The kids who excel academically and athletically have something extra that the kids who only excel academically just don’t have.

This isn’t that hard: these schools value kids who work hard at very different endeavors, use their time efficiently and effectively, and keep at it even when it’s hard.

If that were true, excelling in musical theater or at an instrument would help as much as being a recruited athlete. But it just doesn’t

I was heavily involved in musical theatre in high school and I also played a team sport. Team sports simply require a a more intense commitment of time and focus. When I was in musical theatre rehearsals, there was always some amount of down time here and there when I could pull out my books and get some homework/studying done. Sports practices require full focus pretty much every minute- there’s no time to work a few math problems or a chapter of a text book in the middle of a sports practice.

Sports are also more physically demanding: the student just needs more rest after a two hour sports practice than after a two hour theatre rehearsal. The sports kid just has to have a tighter grasp of discipline and organization to make it work. Colleges recognize the skills developed by kids who can excel in both academics and sports, and they want those kids on their campuses.

[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: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.

Translation: it would be great if colleges cared about exactly what I care about and the government should force them to do so.