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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Yes it’s a hook like National Merit Finalist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Literally said it was a hook in the response. “…uses the hook…”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

[Anonymous]

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

Amherst has a miserably antagonistic atmosphere these days, Williams less so. At Amherst all sorts of groups hate each other. So, it’s not just an athlete divide. It’s literally all groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is ridiculous. I went to a very selective SLAC. There was someone on my freshman hall who was not academically qualified to be there. She had been planning to go to Colorado but got off the waitlist because of the coach’s pull.

And?

[Anonymous]

Maybe there needs to be a new thread? The title of this one not backed by data and is an exaggeration of about 3x. From available data, top LACs and top private universities have, overall, pretty similar recruiting percentages as there are more walk-ons at LACs and more teams at universities. But the topic of athletic recruiting in general is different with strong feelings both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

Is height going to be on the common app soon? The impact it might have on the disabled would probably make it illegal but the data on height is pretty strong if schools are looking for people who are going to earn $$ and lead.

[Anonymous]

Those who can, play a sport, combine it with appropriate level academics, and leverage that into a hook valued by many top LACs and universities.
Those who can't, complain and shout into the wind on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those who can, play a sport, combine it with appropriate level academics, and leverage that into a hook valued by many top LACs and universities.
Those who can't, complain and shout into the wind on DCUM.

By "can," you probably meant having the financial means to take classes in some exclusive racist sport, rather than any special physical ability? Because with enough coaching probably anyone can become decent at some random obscure sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please. You ever talk to the meatheads who get recruited for some expensive made-up thing like equestrian ski jumping? Many of those are total jocks who couldn't cut it in AP math but took baby algebra instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those who can, play a sport, combine it with appropriate level academics, and leverage that into a hook valued by many top LACs and universities.
Those who can't, complain and shout into the wind on DCUM.

By "can," you probably meant having the financial means to take classes in some exclusive racist sport, rather than any special physical ability? Because with enough coaching probably anyone can become decent at some random obscure sport.

NESCAC sponsors sports for men and women in: football, baseball/softball, soccer, rowing, lacrosse, tennis, golf, ice hockey, swimming & diving, track & field, cross country, and squash. I might have missed one or two.
Which are exclusive, racist, and obscure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those who can, play a sport, combine it with appropriate level academics, and leverage that into a hook valued by many top LACs and universities.
Those who can't, complain and shout into the wind on DCUM.

By "can," you probably meant having the financial means to take classes in some exclusive racist sport, rather than any special physical ability? Because with enough coaching probably anyone can become decent at some random obscure sport.

NESCAC sponsors sports for men and women in: football, baseball/softball, soccer, rowing, lacrosse, tennis, golf, ice hockey, swimming & diving, track & field, cross country, and squash. I might have missed one or two.
Which are exclusive, racist, and obscure?

Rowing and squash and golf are the first that come to mind. There’s also skiing.
But it generally takes money to be good in all of the sports. There’s paying for travel teams, coaching, conditioning, travel, equipment. Plus, you need parents who have the time to take kids to all of the games and practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those who can, play a sport, combine it with appropriate level academics, and leverage that into a hook valued by many top LACs and universities.
Those who can't, complain and shout into the wind on DCUM.

By "can," you probably meant having the financial means to take classes in some exclusive racist sport, rather than any special physical ability? Because with enough coaching probably anyone can become decent at some random obscure sport.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with playing a sport at a competitive level. Anyone doing college sports - even at the D3 level - has demonstrated grit, self-discipline, a good work ethic, and teamwork. A lot of companies, particularly on Wall Street, value college athletes.

I think the question here is that given how small SLACs are, what are the implications for the general student experience when 30-40 percent of students are competitive athletes. This is not a question at schools like Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, or Michigan, which all have a lot of D1 athletes. But as a proportion of the student population, the athletes are just another group among many.

At SLACs it's different. College athletes live separate lives. Training and travel take up an enormous amount of time. And it's only normal that their collegiate lives exist on a different plane from other students. People between the ages of 18-22 are pretty tribal. And there's this huge group of student athletes essentially living apart from other students. It's normal to wonder if non-athletes are going to feel like they're part of the greater whole at a college that is smaller than most MCPS high schools. It's not for everyone. A lot of kids need a bigger and more diverse environment to find their place. People should have their eyes open when considering SLACs, particularly, as has been mentioned here a few times, non-athlete straight boys. That's a small percentage of students at a lot of SLACs these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those who can, play a sport, combine it with appropriate level academics, and leverage that into a hook valued by many top LACs and universities.
Those who can't, complain and shout into the wind on DCUM.

By "can," you probably meant having the financial means to take classes in some exclusive racist sport, rather than any special physical ability? Because with enough coaching probably anyone can become decent at some random obscure sport.

NESCAC sponsors sports for men and women in: football, baseball/softball, soccer, rowing, lacrosse, tennis, golf, ice hockey, swimming & diving, track & field, cross country, and squash. I might have missed one or two.
Which are exclusive, racist, and obscure?

Rowing and squash and golf are the first that come to mind. There’s also skiing.
But it generally takes money to be good in all of the sports. There’s paying for travel teams, coaching, conditioning, travel, equipment. Plus, you need parents who have the time to take kids to all of the games and practices.

Also, sports like skiing, rowing and golf skew heavily white. Are you suggesting that white kids are simply better than black kids at these sports? Or are you willing to concede that there is something inherently inequitable when colleges create special admissions loopholes for super-expensive sports that only the rich and privileged can afford to play?