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

[Anonymous]

Why are people complaining that 30-40% of the students are athletes? That means 60-70% are not. They are artists, musicians, actors, whatever. That’s the majority. If anything the athletes should complain that there are too many non-athletes on their campus. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people complaining that 30-40% of the students are athletes? That means 60-70% are not. They are artists, musicians, actors, whatever. That’s the majority. If anything the athletes should complain that there are too many non-athletes on their campus. Ridiculous.

This sort of feeble statistical argument tells me you were probably a recruited athlete...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Those “white rich kid” sports DCUM loves to cry about involve such a tiny number of athletes they’re not even worth talking about. And no there is nothing inequitable about colleges recruiting those athletes or any other athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people complaining that 30-40% of the students are athletes? That means 60-70% are not. They are artists, musicians, actors, whatever. That’s the majority. If anything the athletes should complain that there are too many non-athletes on their campus. Ridiculous.

I totally agree with you. We shouldn’t also complain if 30% - 40% of Freshman class are only for Asians and Asian-American. That means 60 - 70% are not. They are White, Hispanic, African-American, Native American, two or more races, whatever. That is the majority. If anything, the Asians and Asian-Americans should complain there are too many non-Asians and non-Asian-Americans on their campus. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says a rich white who got into college because of such sports (and not of merit) and whose kids follow suit.

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?

Those “white rich kid” sports DCUM loves to cry about involve such a tiny number of athletes they’re not even worth talking about. And no there is nothing inequitable about colleges recruiting those athletes or any other athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s the problem? How else are they supposed to field their teams?

I was one of them and have my kids in field hockey, lax, and water polo (husband went to an Ivy with water polo so hedging with the sports). You’ve got to play the game, literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So your son is not an athlete? I went to Williams and was an athlete. I think non-athletes were called “noners” affectionately or maybe that’s what I called them in my head. Hard to say now. Williams doesn’t have sororities/fraternities so you party with your team(s) sometimes but other people can come and there are plenty of other parties. It’s not that big a deal. I find it hard to believe someone would turn down Williams and Amherst for another liberal arts school that likely had a similar situation with athletes/non-athletes. That sounds beyond stupid.

[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.

Yes it’s a hook like National Merit Finalist

No it’s not - NMFs don’t have 90% acceptance rates

[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?

I trust you don’t knock any other hooks then. They’re all qualified too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So your son is not an athlete? I went to Williams and was an athlete. I think non-athletes were called “noners” affectionately or maybe that’s what I called them in my head. Hard to say now. Williams doesn’t have sororities/fraternities so you party with your team(s) sometimes but other people can come and there are plenty of other parties. It’s not that big a deal. I find it hard to believe someone would turn down Williams and Amherst for another liberal arts school that likely had a similar situation with athletes/non-athletes. That sounds beyond stupid.

As great as Williams and Amherst are, there are always great reasons why someone might prefer other LACs. Of course Amherst and Williams don't have a monopoly on individual fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the problem? How else are they supposed to field their teams?

It should be like any given high school. Students try out for the teams when they arrive on campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people complaining that 30-40% of the students are athletes? That means 60-70% are not. They are artists, musicians, actors, whatever. That’s the majority. If anything the athletes should complain that there are too many non-athletes on their campus. Ridiculous.

Fair point.

There are purists who think colleges should only prioritize academic "merit" and not emphasize sports. The college experience for the majority of colleges involves athletics. 30% of colleges having athletes is fine. Some people can't cope.

[Anonymous]

No LAC has 40%+ recruited athletes. It’s about 1/3 that on average.

[Anonymous]

The 40% set-aside for athletes is just a massive loophole for students who probably would not otherwise get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 40% set-aside for athletes is just a massive loophole for students who probably would not otherwise get in.

It doesn’t exist, but otherwise you are spot on.