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

[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.

You are profoundly delusional.

[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.

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

It is 100% true. We all know what you are really complaining about.

[Anonymous]

Alumni and current students get very upset when you try to take something away. I remember reading about how much trouble Swarthmore had cutting football over 20 years ago. Stanford and Brown had all kinds of trouble trying cut sports more recently. I don't see huge cuts coming.

[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.

The 25th percentile comment is the one that I don't think is correct for more obscure sports. The rich kid sports often have kids who have great numbers but still get the push into the class with the hook. It wouldn't surprise me if it is like what Princeton found with legacies, they've actually had higher SAT scores than average recently rather than lower.
SLAC admissions offices don't treat football and basketball the same as rowing and squash. The coaches understand this too. Some of them would love a move to something more formulaic like what the Ivy League uses.

[Anonymous]

“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

[Anonymous]

there are complaints from kids enrolled in their schools, not people who didn't get in. the call is coming from inside the house.

[Anonymous]

One of the reason our DS decided against enrolling at Amherst or William after admitted students visit, was athlete-non athlete divide.

[Anonymous]

Do people really see a full athlete/non-athlete divide?
With the big sports teams like football, baseball, softball, and lax, I get it. The track, XC, squash, and tennis kids and many others are not invited to out with the football team all the time and their teams are far too small to be so insular. SLACs are a lot like high school in how kids group and self segregate themselves. Talk of athlete and non-athlete divides miss a ton of nuance and it is different in what I've observed at a couple of good schools that don't have football.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there are complaints from kids enrolled in their schools, not people who didn't get in. the call is coming from inside the house.

Which schools? Who is really complaining? And what are they complaining about? That not everyone in the school is friends with everyone else? Guess what, that's life. Are they complaining that the athletes are friends with each other? Well, they do spend a lot of time together and have common interests. So that is logical. And from an academic standpoint, we have already beaten to death the notion that athletes are not qualified to be at their school. Regarding the schools we are talking about, athletes have been shown to meet or exceed the academic standards of the school.

I know! We need to ban all friendships and social groups that occur through sports at LACs. Instead, we will use a random number generator to assign social friend groups. Would that make you happy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people really see a full athlete/non-athlete divide?
With the big sports teams like football, baseball, softball, and lax, I get it. The track, XC, squash, and tennis kids and many others are not invited to out with the football team all the time and their teams are far too small to be so insular. SLACs are a lot like high school in how kids group and self segregate themselves. Talk of athlete and non-athlete divides miss a ton of nuance and it is different in what I've observed at a couple of good schools that don't have football.

it's not about being "asked to go out with the football team all the time". it's the time spent practicing and traveling to games, etc. It's a lot of travel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there are complaints from kids enrolled in their schools, not people who didn't get in. the call is coming from inside the house.

Which schools? Who is really complaining? And what are they complaining about? That not everyone in the school is friends with everyone else? Guess what, that's life. Are they complaining that the athletes are friends with each other? Well, they do spend a lot of time together and have common interests. So that is logical. And from an academic standpoint, we have already beaten to death the notion that athletes are not qualified to be at their school. Regarding the schools we are talking about, athletes have been shown to meet or exceed the academic standards of the school.

I know! We need to ban all friendships and social groups that occur through sports at LACs. Instead, we will use a random number generator to assign social friend groups. Would that make you happy?

you can read school newspapers on this for inside perspective. really dont think anyone here is going to convince you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Athlete parents and others (I'm not an athlete parent) reasonably disagree with the "less qualified" tag. Top schools have never just sought to fill their classes with kids who have the highest GPA and standardized test scores. That doesn't solely what makes you "qualified." Beyond being minimally qualified academically, other things (athletics and beyond) should matter a lot more. I think elite schools, bigger like Harvard or Yale, or smaller like Amherst or Swarthmore, would be better off treating more extracurriculars more like sports than eliminating a hook for sports.

[Anonymous]

At many D3 schools, you get an academic review before the coach will support your admission. Then you have to apply ED. If you aren't at least close to the medians, you aren't getting the academic sign off.