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

[Anonymous]

I think there is an issue with boys at SLACs who aren't athletes, particularly straight guys. But this has been discussed here before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think legacy preference and 70% of these "sports" are gone in next 5 years.

It's hard to argue for keeping either. Not one good defense in this forum, that's for sure.

No, there is one good defense, that has been posted a few times.

Private colleges can have sports if they want to. You don't get to say. They can give athletes preference if they want and admit who they want as long as they do not break the law. Just like any private organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think legacy preference and 70% of these "sports" are gone in next 5 years.

It's hard to argue for keeping either. Not one good defense in this forum, that's for sure.

No, there is one good defense, that has been posted a few times.

Private colleges can have sports if they want to. You don't get to say. They can give athletes preference if they want and admit who they want as long as they do not break the law. Just like any private organization.

So can public ones, as long as they are not discriminating against any protected class (which non-athlete isn't).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is an issue with boys at SLACs who aren't athletes, particularly straight guys. But this has been discussed here before.

Athletes are not just one dimensional while in school or after. There plenty who are great performers (I also love citing BuzzFeed whenever possible): https://www.buzzfeed.com/jeremyhayes/celebs-that-played-college-sports

The country singer Sam Hunt was also a good college QB.
Heck, Obama would have loved to have played basketball if he'd been good enough at Oxy (he obviously wasn't close to good enough for Columbia).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wesleyan

http://wesleyanargus.com/2022/10/06/separated-spaces-rethinking-dining-hall-divisions/

a divide between athletes and non-athletes that was so deeply ingrained in the culture that the dining hall itself was divided into rooms based on this distinction, as if the division was promoted by the school itself. Arriving on campus in the fall, I almost immediately noticed this in most sectors of social life, including in the dining hall.

Read the entire article. The author, a non-athlete, realized that any "divide" wasn't necessarily the result of athlete actions. And that athletes are actually a minority on campus.

It’s important to remember that athletes are also in the minority. And while the word “minority” may come with implications and assumptions that we may feel uncomfortable using to reference Wesleyan student athletes, in this context, numerically, they are a minority on campus. And so, in some ways, they are an outgroup. It is easy to blame groups without numerical strength for problems that exist in a given space, and I think many of us, myself included, have accidentally done this. There is comfort in blaming athletes solely for the divided nature of our campus culture because we know there are more non-athletes to back us up than athletes to argue with us.

The other problem is that a lot of the anti-athlete sentiment has a distinctive racist tinge. And yes, I know about sailing and all that. But it doesn’t change the fact that a lot of the anti-athlete sentiment started when athletics started to be used to bring Black students to these campuses, and the language used hasn’t changed much.

+1

Agree. Even though most of the athletes at highly selective SLACs are white (no mention of the women sports rosters - almost lilly white including basketball), some use "athletics" as a euphemism for "black and unqualified."

Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am laughing at this veneration of the “student athlete”. I’ve had two kids graduate high school and many of their friends went on to D3 schools to play their sports. Most of them were pretty average players on on a crappy MCPS high school team. Based on my observation, outside of the top SLACs, it’s not all that hard to get on a D3 team. I am honesty shocked some of these kids were recruited.

Look, there are lots of very high acceptance, random D3 schools where kids can play sports. Some parents and kids are myopic...they are absolutely going to play Sport X in some college somewhere, even though they know there is no Pro career after college and the school may not produce a great life outcome. The best HS/Travel coaches will reinforce that college is a 40 year decision, not a 4 year decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am laughing at this veneration of the “student athlete”. I’ve had two kids graduate high school and many of their friends went on to D3 schools to play their sports. Most of them were pretty average players on on a crappy MCPS high school team. Based on my observation, outside of the top SLACs, it’s not all that hard to get on a D3 team. I am honesty shocked some of these kids were recruited.

The hard thing is the academics. Running or skating or throwing a ball is not the hard part.

Outside of the top ten or so, SLACs are very easy admits, particularly for boys. My kid was recruited by tons of SLACs for his sport, but he had no interest because he was focused on academics and so he attends a D1 school. For the STEM education. No chance of competing as a freshman, but he trains with the team and hopes to compete in the next year or two. A SLAC would have been the mediocre choice - both for the education and the quality of the athletics.

This is so incorrect (and ignorant) it must be a troll.

+1

But that is the essence of anonymous forums. Gotta filter out the nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Because these colleges are finishing schools for kids who will go into the Family Business after college, get a sales job, or otherwise live off a trust. They don't need book smarts; they will live off soft skills and relationships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am laughing at this veneration of the “student athlete”. I’ve had two kids graduate high school and many of their friends went on to D3 schools to play their sports. Most of them were pretty average players on on a crappy MCPS high school team. Based on my observation, outside of the top SLACs, it’s not all that hard to get on a D3 team. I am honesty shocked some of these kids were recruited.

Look, there are lots of very high acceptance, random D3 schools where kids can play sports. Some parents and kids are myopic...they are absolutely going to play Sport X in some college somewhere, even though they know there is no Pro career after college and the school may not produce a great life outcome. The best HS/Travel coaches will reinforce that college is a 40 year decision, not a 4 year decision.

Agree. For D3 SLAC sports, let's not put Amherst and Stevenson in the same bucket. Think T30 or so. There are levels to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wesleyan

http://wesleyanargus.com/2022/10/06/separated-spaces-rethinking-dining-hall-divisions/

a divide between athletes and non-athletes that was so deeply ingrained in the culture that the dining hall itself was divided into rooms based on this distinction, as if the division was promoted by the school itself. Arriving on campus in the fall, I almost immediately noticed this in most sectors of social life, including in the dining hall.

Read the entire article. The author, a non-athlete, realized that any "divide" wasn't necessarily the result of athlete actions. And that athletes are actually a minority on campus.

It’s important to remember that athletes are also in the minority. And while the word “minority” may come with implications and assumptions that we may feel uncomfortable using to reference Wesleyan student athletes, in this context, numerically, they are a minority on campus. And so, in some ways, they are an outgroup. It is easy to blame groups without numerical strength for problems that exist in a given space, and I think many of us, myself included, have accidentally done this. There is comfort in blaming athletes solely for the divided nature of our campus culture because we know there are more non-athletes to back us up than athletes to argue with us.

The other problem is that a lot of the anti-athlete sentiment has a distinctive racist tinge. And yes, I know about sailing and all that. But it doesn’t change the fact that a lot of the anti-athlete sentiment started when athletics started to be used to bring Black students to these campuses, and the language used hasn’t changed much.

+1

Agree. Even though most of the athletes at highly selective SLACs are white (no mention of the women sports rosters - almost lilly white including basketball), some use "athletics" as a euphemism for "black and unqualified."

Sad.

I think in this thread about SLACs, everyone knows it means rich white kids using an obscure sports to make up the 25th percentile (and below) as part of the freshman class.

It's a race neutral manner for these schools to keep admitting the same families who perpetuate the historical culture of the school.

Agree with others who said that if these schools got rid of Doubles Rowing team they'd be filled with book-smart kids of color, including primarily Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because these colleges are finishing schools for kids who will go into the Family Business after college, get a sales job, or otherwise live off a trust. They don't need book smarts; they will live off soft skills and relationships.

This is not only wrong but also an grave insult to all the hard working faculty and students in LAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because these colleges are finishing schools for kids who will go into the Family Business after college, get a sales job, or otherwise live off a trust. They don't need book smarts; they will live off soft skills and relationships.

This is not only wrong but also an grave insult to all the hard working faculty and students in LAC.

Don't answer bitter idiots like this, who lump 1,500 colleges with about 2,000 students each into one thing. It's probably a paid propogandist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wesleyan

http://wesleyanargus.com/2022/10/06/separated-spaces-rethinking-dining-hall-divisions/

a divide between athletes and non-athletes that was so deeply ingrained in the culture that the dining hall itself was divided into rooms based on this distinction, as if the division was promoted by the school itself. Arriving on campus in the fall, I almost immediately noticed this in most sectors of social life, including in the dining hall.

Read the entire article. The author, a non-athlete, realized that any "divide" wasn't necessarily the result of athlete actions. And that athletes are actually a minority on campus.

It’s important to remember that athletes are also in the minority. And while the word “minority” may come with implications and assumptions that we may feel uncomfortable using to reference Wesleyan student athletes, in this context, numerically, they are a minority on campus. And so, in some ways, they are an outgroup. It is easy to blame groups without numerical strength for problems that exist in a given space, and I think many of us, myself included, have accidentally done this. There is comfort in blaming athletes solely for the divided nature of our campus culture because we know there are more non-athletes to back us up than athletes to argue with us.

The other problem is that a lot of the anti-athlete sentiment has a distinctive racist tinge. And yes, I know about sailing and all that. But it doesn’t change the fact that a lot of the anti-athlete sentiment started when athletics started to be used to bring Black students to these campuses, and the language used hasn’t changed much.

+1

Agree. Even though most of the athletes at highly selective SLACs are white (no mention of the women sports rosters - almost lilly white including basketball), some use "athletics" as a euphemism for "black and unqualified."

Sad.

I think in this thread about SLACs, everyone knows it means rich white kids using an obscure sports to make up the 25th percentile (and below) as part of the freshman class.

It's a race neutral manner for these schools to keep admitting the same families who perpetuate the historical culture of the school.

Agree with others who said that if these schools got rid of Doubles Rowing team they'd be filled with book-smart kids of color, including primarily Asians.

As is so often the case, what "everyone knows" is simply wrong and stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wesleyan

http://wesleyanargus.com/2022/10/06/separated-spaces-rethinking-dining-hall-divisions/

a divide between athletes and non-athletes that was so deeply ingrained in the culture that the dining hall itself was divided into rooms based on this distinction, as if the division was promoted by the school itself. Arriving on campus in the fall, I almost immediately noticed this in most sectors of social life, including in the dining hall.

Read the entire article. The author, a non-athlete, realized that any "divide" wasn't necessarily the result of athlete actions. And that athletes are actually a minority on campus.

It’s important to remember that athletes are also in the minority. And while the word “minority” may come with implications and assumptions that we may feel uncomfortable using to reference Wesleyan student athletes, in this context, numerically, they are a minority on campus. And so, in some ways, they are an outgroup. It is easy to blame groups without numerical strength for problems that exist in a given space, and I think many of us, myself included, have accidentally done this. There is comfort in blaming athletes solely for the divided nature of our campus culture because we know there are more non-athletes to back us up than athletes to argue with us.

The other problem is that a lot of the anti-athlete sentiment has a distinctive racist tinge. And yes, I know about sailing and all that. But it doesn’t change the fact that a lot of the anti-athlete sentiment started when athletics started to be used to bring Black students to these campuses, and the language used hasn’t changed much.

+1

Agree. Even though most of the athletes at highly selective SLACs are white (no mention of the women sports rosters - almost lilly white including basketball), some use "athletics" as a euphemism for "black and unqualified."

Sad.

This is just not true in a forum like this. People here side eye the ski and sailing teams at LACs. Not Bama football recruits, which nobody seems to care about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am laughing at this veneration of the “student athlete”. I’ve had two kids graduate high school and many of their friends went on to D3 schools to play their sports. Most of them were pretty average players on on a crappy MCPS high school team. Based on my observation, outside of the top SLACs, it’s not all that hard to get on a D3 team. I am honesty shocked some of these kids were recruited.

The hard thing is the academics. Running or skating or throwing a ball is not the hard part.

Outside of the top ten or so, SLACs are very easy admits, particularly for boys. My kid was recruited by tons of SLACs for his sport, but he had no interest because he was focused on academics and so he attends a D1 school. For the STEM education. No chance of competing as a freshman, but he trains with the team and hopes to compete in the next year or two. A SLAC would have been the mediocre choice - both for the education and the quality of the athletics.

This is so incorrect (and ignorant) it must be a troll.

It’s just one of the anti-SLAC obsessives on these boards. They are very weird.

Can you imagine writing something like the above about your own child? 😂 Certainly not the writing of a normal, healthy parent.