Amherst College Paper Article on Athletic Recruiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understanding spending so much time and money on sports that you will never play again after college.
Tennis and golf? yes
lacrosse and field hockey? No

You would understand if you had a child who absolutely loved her or his sport and being part of a team. Mine wanted to take his chances on being able to play varsity baseball in college, and he is beyond excited that he's going to have the chance to do just that. There is joy in living in the moment . . . not everything needs to have a long-term payout.

Some people will never understand. A sport can become an identity, a sport field can feel like a second home, teammates can be life long friends and family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school has a budget. Money is allocated each year across many areas, including sports and other non-academic activities. Families have often endowed these programs in perpetuity, never having participated themselves, whether it be the concert hall, a pool, a hockey rink, etc. Why? Schools need well-rounded students. Schools need lessons beyond the classroom. Guess what? They are right.

None of these is a good justification for giving athletes a backdoor into the university. Athletes already get a holistic boost for being athletes, why isn't that enough for them?

These schools want to field teams which are elite and well beyond competitive. Doing so requires participation in the quest for talent because athletic talent combined with academic talent is a rare commodity and leaving to chance the ability to form a competitive team isn’t an option for these schools.

that's right - it has nothing to do with athletics making the students better people, as if it did, there would be little reason to choose to recruit for some sports but not others, or indeed recruit if any sport but not other valuable extracurriculars like music or debate.

But then the question is, why such a huge emphasis on a maximally competitive team for certain sports but not others, or even for other extracurricular activities like music or esports? You don't see schools giving likely letters or giving nearly as much weight to letters of support from the music director or the coaches of club teams or the esports coach.

Yes, I think the gripe is so many spots are allocated to sports, most of which generate little enthusiasm on campus. If there was some degree of equity with other, equally enriching and demanding, programs, that gripe would be vastly lessened.

The gripe is about scarcity and people preferences. There has never been a single applicant pool, there are multiple pools based on institutional priorities. Athletics is often seen as a large pool at small elite schools and one which has an admissions bar which few can meet which drives resentment because this pool is taking seats from their preferred pools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understanding spending so much time and money on sports that you will never play again after college.
Tennis and golf? yes
lacrosse and field hockey? No

If you had a kid that was a great athlete and went to the games, experienced the camaraderie, school community, grit and perseverance and often leadership built through sports, then maybe you'd understand. Like you, I questioned it. My older kids didn't fit this mold. Then a younger one did and it changed my understanding. Perception vs. Perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school has a budget. Money is allocated each year across many areas, including sports and other non-academic activities. Families have often endowed these programs in perpetuity, never having participated themselves, whether it be the concert hall, a pool, a hockey rink, etc. Why? Schools need well-rounded students. Schools need lessons beyond the classroom. Guess what? They are right.

None of these is a good justification for giving athletes a backdoor into the university. Athletes already get a holistic boost for being athletes, why isn't that enough for them?

These schools want to field teams which are elite and well beyond competitive. Doing so requires participation in the quest for talent because athletic talent combined with academic talent is a rare commodity and leaving to chance the ability to form a competitive team isn’t an option for these schools.

that's right - it has nothing to do with athletics making the students better people, as if it did, there would be little reason to choose to recruit for some sports but not others, or indeed recruit if any sport but not other valuable extracurriculars like music or debate.

But then the question is, why such a huge emphasis on a maximally competitive team for certain sports but not others, or even for other extracurricular activities like music or esports? You don't see schools giving likely letters or giving nearly as much weight to letters of support from the music director or the coaches of club teams or the esports coach.

Yes, I think the gripe is so many spots are allocated to sports, most of which generate little enthusiasm on campus. If there was some degree of equity with other, equally enriching and demanding, programs, that gripe would be vastly lessened.

The gripe is about scarcity and people preferences. There has never been a single applicant pool, there are multiple pools based on institutional priorities. Athletics is often seen as a large pool at small elite schools and one which has an admissions bar which few can meet which drives resentment because this pool is taking seats from their preferred pools.

The athlete pool gets a special separate admissions process. No other pool is based on an EC.

Why deny this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Recruited athletes get a huge thumb on the scale because of the American money-generating sports culture. Not because it builds character.

It is what it is. Why do the parents of these students push back on this? Why pretend it’s so hard to get special treatment? You and your kid benefit from this. You win!

Why pretend?

We do win.

Some of us have All-American, near-perfect GPAs, 1450 and higher SATs, AP/IB-loaded-up kids who are not better than yours; they just serve a function for Amherst and other schools.

Amherst and its competitors could easily fill a class with Indian and Chinese students that would run academic circles around all of us. That is your competition and threat. Not some kid you see as being less than yours because they played lacrosse at Deerfield.

You can't have everything both ways, can you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school has a budget. Money is allocated each year across many areas, including sports and other non-academic activities. Families have often endowed these programs in perpetuity, never having participated themselves, whether it be the concert hall, a pool, a hockey rink, etc. Why? Schools need well-rounded students. Schools need lessons beyond the classroom. Guess what? They are right.

None of these is a good justification for giving athletes a backdoor into the university. Athletes already get a holistic boost for being athletes, why isn't that enough for them?

These schools want to field teams which are elite and well beyond competitive. Doing so requires participation in the quest for talent because athletic talent combined with academic talent is a rare commodity and leaving to chance the ability to form a competitive team isn’t an option for these schools.

that's right - it has nothing to do with athletics making the students better people, as if it did, there would be little reason to choose to recruit for some sports but not others, or indeed recruit if any sport but not other valuable extracurriculars like music or debate.

But then the question is, why such a huge emphasis on a maximally competitive team for certain sports but not others, or even for other extracurricular activities like music or esports? You don't see schools giving likely letters or giving nearly as much weight to letters of support from the music director or the coaches of club teams or the esports coach.

Yes, I think the gripe is so many spots are allocated to sports, most of which generate little enthusiasm on campus. If there was some degree of equity with other, equally enriching and demanding, programs, that gripe would be vastly lessened.

The gripe is about scarcity and people preferences. There has never been a single applicant pool, there are multiple pools based on institutional priorities. Athletics is often seen as a large pool at small elite schools and one which has an admissions bar which few can meet which drives resentment because this pool is taking seats from their preferred pools.

The athlete pool gets a special separate admissions process. No other pool is based on an EC.

Why deny this?

If you think that rural kids and FGLI kids don’t have their own pools you are mistaken. Athletics has a pool because athletics is an institutional priority that goes back 150 years at many of these schools. The “little 3” was voted into the top 10 in all time college rivalries recently. Amherst won’t be making any changes to their recruiting practices.

[Anonymous]

My kids played sports in HS but not in college. All you whiners who bemoan athletes and the interest universities have in them need to wake up. Sports mean money, visibility, cache. Athletes who are able to play at the college level work very hard and do not have the typical college slacker experience. If your kid doesn't have athletic talent you need to help them cultivate another hook if you're so worried that they'll get "cheated" out of their shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understanding spending so much time and money on sports that you will never play again after college.
Tennis and golf? yes
lacrosse and field hockey? No

You would understand if you had a child who absolutely loved her or his sport and being part of a team. Mine wanted to take his chances on being able to play varsity baseball in college, and he is beyond excited that he's going to have the chance to do just that. There is joy in living in the moment . . . not everything needs to have a long-term payout.

Some people will never understand. A sport can become an identity, a sport field can feel like a second home, teammates can be life long friends and family.

You realize musicians can feel that way about the orchestra and theatre kids about performances, right? You act like sports is so special, and it's just not. ESPECIALLY at Amherst, where most teams are mediocre at best and games little attended. Michigan? Sure, we get it. But there athletes take up a much smaller percentage of admissions slots. That's why no one is griping about it.

[Anonymous]

Do these same people, mentally crushed by athletic admittance standards, have problems with Quest Bridge admits? I doubt it.

Did they cry when the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action? In public, they did, but behind closed doors, they were thrilled.

Are they the same people begging for inclusivity but would freak out when minorities move into their neighborhoods or take a seat at Amherst that was for them? Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understanding spending so much time and money on sports that you will never play again after college.
Tennis and golf? yes
lacrosse and field hockey? No

You would understand if you had a child who absolutely loved her or his sport and being part of a team. Mine wanted to take his chances on being able to play varsity baseball in college, and he is beyond excited that he's going to have the chance to do just that. There is joy in living in the moment . . . not everything needs to have a long-term payout.

Some people will never understand. A sport can become an identity, a sport field can feel like a second home, teammates can be life long friends and family.

You realize musicians can feel that way about the orchestra and theatre kids about performances, right? You act like sports is so special, and it's just not. ESPECIALLY at Amherst, where most teams are mediocre at best and games little attended. Michigan? Sure, we get it. But there athletes take up a much smaller percentage of admissions slots. That's why no one is griping about it.

This, 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understanding spending so much time and money on sports that you will never play again after college.
Tennis and golf? yes
lacrosse and field hockey? No

You would understand if you had a child who absolutely loved her or his sport and being part of a team. Mine wanted to take his chances on being able to play varsity baseball in college, and he is beyond excited that he's going to have the chance to do just that. There is joy in living in the moment . . . not everything needs to have a long-term payout.

Some people will never understand. A sport can become an identity, a sport field can feel like a second home, teammates can be life long friends and family.

Yep. That and music are a huge part of what keeps my DS focused and grounded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understanding spending so much time and money on sports that you will never play again after college.
Tennis and golf? yes
lacrosse and field hockey? No

You would understand if you had a child who absolutely loved her or his sport and being part of a team. Mine wanted to take his chances on being able to play varsity baseball in college, and he is beyond excited that he's going to have the chance to do just that. There is joy in living in the moment . . . not everything needs to have a long-term payout.

Some people will never understand. A sport can become an identity, a sport field can feel like a second home, teammates can be life long friends and family.

You realize musicians can feel that way about the orchestra and theatre kids about performances, right? You act like sports is so special, and it's just not. ESPECIALLY at Amherst, where most teams are mediocre at best and games little attended. Michigan? Sure, we get it. But there athletes take up a much smaller percentage of admissions slots. That's why no one is griping about it.

I have an athlete who is also a musician. They are both special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school has a budget. Money is allocated each year across many areas, including sports and other non-academic activities. Families have often endowed these programs in perpetuity, never having participated themselves, whether it be the concert hall, a pool, a hockey rink, etc. Why? Schools need well-rounded students. Schools need lessons beyond the classroom. Guess what? They are right.

None of these is a good justification for giving athletes a backdoor into the university. Athletes already get a holistic boost for being athletes, why isn't that enough for them?

These schools want to field teams which are elite and well beyond competitive. Doing so requires participation in the quest for talent because athletic talent combined with academic talent is a rare commodity and leaving to chance the ability to form a competitive team isn’t an option for these schools.

that's right - it has nothing to do with athletics making the students better people, as if it did, there would be little reason to choose to recruit for some sports but not others, or indeed recruit if any sport but not other valuable extracurriculars like music or debate.

But then the question is, why such a huge emphasis on a maximally competitive team for certain sports but not others, or even for other extracurricular activities like music or esports? You don't see schools giving likely letters or giving nearly as much weight to letters of support from the music director or the coaches of club teams or the esports coach.

Yes, I think the gripe is so many spots are allocated to sports, most of which generate little enthusiasm on campus. If there was some degree of equity with other, equally enriching and demanding, programs, that gripe would be vastly lessened.

Amen. Being a great athlete should be a boost. But no more than being a great cellist or a great actor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every school has a budget. Money is allocated each year across many areas, including sports and other non-academic activities. Families have often endowed these programs in perpetuity, never having participated themselves, whether it be the concert hall, a pool, a hockey rink, etc. Why? Schools need well-rounded students. Schools need lessons beyond the classroom. Guess what? They are right.

None of these is a good justification for giving athletes a backdoor into the university. Athletes already get a holistic boost for being athletes, why isn't that enough for them?

These schools want to field teams which are elite and well beyond competitive. Doing so requires participation in the quest for talent because athletic talent combined with academic talent is a rare commodity and leaving to chance the ability to form a competitive team isn’t an option for these schools.

that's right - it has nothing to do with athletics making the students better people, as if it did, there would be little reason to choose to recruit for some sports but not others, or indeed recruit if any sport but not other valuable extracurriculars like music or debate.

But then the question is, why such a huge emphasis on a maximally competitive team for certain sports but not others, or even for other extracurricular activities like music or esports? You don't see schools giving likely letters or giving nearly as much weight to letters of support from the music director or the coaches of club teams or the esports coach.

Yes, I think the gripe is so many spots are allocated to sports, most of which generate little enthusiasm on campus. If there was some degree of equity with other, equally enriching and demanding, programs, that gripe would be vastly lessened.

Amen. Being a great athlete should be a boost. But no more than being a great cellist or a great actor.

+2

[Anonymous]

My kid got into Dartmouth to play the Tuba. It is how you market yourself.