Do not waste ED on a SLAC. Very few unhooked (non-athlete, non-FGLI, non-legacy/donor) get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that's true at some schools. But most of these small schools have a dozen people show up to games/meets/matches. if that.

Athletics can also be a divisive element on campus. We've discussed this so many times here

You've discussed it but it isn't true. That is a fundamental issue.

DP: I don't suppose that parents will agree on this issue. My DC decided on a T20 over WASP bc of what they reported as the weird athlete/ non-athlete vibes at the accepted student event. Others didn't feel that, but some kids do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.

Notice that there was no mention that any of them were not academically qualified, because they were and they met an institutional priority.

People constantly want these schools to adjust their priorities to meet their preferences. Seems a bit like affirmative action to me.

But what does that mean? A PP posted a stat that only 11% of them would have been admitted without athletic preference. That suggests many are underqualified, at best.

You do understand that 11% or so is the typical admissions rate for Tufts. It suggests that without athletics they would be admitted like any typical applicant, not that they are underqualified at all.

It means nearly 90% of athletes currently attending elite schools would not have been admitted. Not the same thing!

It means that their results would look the same as the general pool. Pretty basic math mom.

An issue with grasping distinct contexts, it seems. It means 90% of admitted athletes shouldn't have been admitted because they don't meet the normally-very-high academic bar.

It means exactly what it says which is that 89% of the athletes wouldn't have passed holistic review just like the general pool.

Which means they shouldn't have been admitted but they were! Ffs.

It means no such thing, the vast majority of applicant to Tufts are rejected for no other reason than a lack of space. They are perfectly qualified for admission and success from an academic POV. Same for this group. It says that if you took two pools Athletes and non-athletes and admitted from them blindly you would get the same admittance rate! Recruited athlete is the ultimate hook, we all get that but the idea that they were not academically qualified is not supported by that statement. FFS this isn't hard!

NP. It literally says they would not have been admitted. It does not say they met the bar and their athletic ability pushed them over it.

Yes. They might have to pass a pre-read but they still would not have been admitted otherwise, according to the study. Are the pre-read metrics publicly available? No, for good reason.

But part of the holistic review is being a recruited athlete. It doesn't mean they aren't qualified academically.

as has been pointed out, most of these colleges say 90% of the applicants are qualified. it's the extras that push them over. some of you think lacrosse is as impressive as a regeneron winner - most of the world disagrees with you

The leap that you take to get to your conclusion in ridiculous. No one is saying that an academically qualified lacrosse recruit should get in while a Regeneron winner shouldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

NARPs have zero reason to be wary of these schools unless they are reading nonsensical drivel about Athletes vs NARPs on places like DCUM. Why do they need their own 'protected places'?

or reading from the students at the schools themselves and not the moms posting online

https://amherststudent.com/article/bridging-amhersts-athletic-divide/

You posted a single article from a child who wishes all sports were club sports only. I am sure that I can find some more of those for you with a quick college search but the number is small, and it is small for a reason.

You want more articles?

https://athletics.amherst.edu/news/2025/4/10/general-the-divide-a-community-converation.aspx

[Anonymous]

Or another

https://blackinblue.trinity.duke.edu/athletic-divide-how-perceptions-other-influence-campus-gap-between-varsity-student-athletes-and-0

[Anonymous]

This is a good one (or bad really)

https://williamsrecord.com/456140/sports/wood-party-rekindles-debate-on-athlete-culture/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a good one (or bad really)

https://williamsrecord.com/456140/sports/wood-party-rekindles-debate-on-athlete-culture/

You actually posted an article about a Covid party...wtf, get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

NARPs have zero reason to be wary of these schools unless they are reading nonsensical drivel about Athletes vs NARPs on places like DCUM. Why do they need their own 'protected places'?

or reading from the students at the schools themselves and not the moms posting online

https://amherststudent.com/article/bridging-amhersts-athletic-divide/

You posted a single article from a child who wishes all sports were club sports only. I am sure that I can find some more of those for you with a quick college search but the number is small, and it is small for a reason.

You want more articles?

https://athletics.amherst.edu/news/2025/4/10/general-the-divide-a-community-converation.aspx

There is nothing here. A conversation happened? Who attended? Was it a thoughtful group of people or five alienated kids who don't fit in anywhere and wish Amherst was what they idealized in their mind rather than what it actually is....please strive to do better and not waste peoples time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or another

https://blackinblue.trinity.duke.edu/athletic-divide-how-perceptions-other-influence-campus-gap-between-varsity-student-athletes-and-0

A generic article on a student survey about athletes at a Power Four University isn't very relevant. But you should read it (I know that you didn't because if you had you wouldn't have linked it) given that the Athletes come off as much nicer people in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a good one (or bad really)

https://williamsrecord.com/456140/sports/wood-party-rekindles-debate-on-athlete-culture/

Try this one:
https://williamsrecord.com/209568/opinions/whyd3-in-defense-of-athletic-recruitment/

Or:
https://williamsrecord.com/209563/opinions/recruited-athletes-belong-here-empirical-evidence-as-justification-for-the-continued-recruitment-of-varsity-athletes-at-the-college/

Maybe:
https://williamsrecord.com/209556/opinions/athletic-recruitment-is-not-the-problem-if-you-want-to-change-the-demographics-of-athletic-teams-change-the-demographics-of-the-school/

The last one is most helpful to you (though not very helpful) in that it mainly asks for wider access for lower SES groups as the answer to "white affirmative action"

[Anonymous]

Stinks when the kids on the playground who were picked first in kickball get a free pass into elite colleges.

[Anonymous]

Not really athletes define part of the culture and put lots of time and effort into their skills. Elite schools don’t want all nerds or kids playing the piano.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really athletes define part of the culture and put lots of time and effort into their skills. Elite schools don’t want all nerds or kids playing the piano.

nobody does. but do they really want 50% lax bros?

[Anonymous]

Midd question:

How much would ED help a qualified double legacy (& generational) kid? My first kid refused to even consider Midd. Next kid (current junior) might. I know a double legacy that EDd and got a Feb admission (which surprised me). I dont care if they apply or not, which is why I’m not researching myself!

[Anonymous]

LAX bros make big bucks and contribute big bucks when alums. Usually make more than cello grads.

[Anonymous]

It definitely still helps at larger LACs like Wesleyan, Richmond, and Middlebury. The percentage of athletes is lower.