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

[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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

by this logic, many colleges should only have male teams:

Gender differences: Research has shown the effect of athletic success on giving can differ by gender. A Princeton University study found that male alumni whose teams had successful seasons while they were undergraduates, or in the years after, subsequently made larger donations to the athletic program. For female alumni, the effect was not statistically significant.

or maybe college should be male only since the number of men making donations above $1mm is much larger than the number of women making the donations. by a factor far greater than 3:1

Schools wouldn't recruit anywhere near the number of female athletes that they currently do if they weren't required to by Title 9. It is not in their financial interest by any measure.

Didn’t Stanford try to get rid of some sports teams a few years ago — to admit more “real,” top students — but had to abandon this plan because of Title IX lawsuit threats? Title IX: affirmative action for rich white women.

[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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

This canard has already been debunked upthread. Tell me, what is the ratio of pre-existing wealth of recruited athlete families compared to the rest of the class? There is your answer. The rich kids will still enroll absent athletics. In any event, Reed’s endowment is just fine, thank you very much.

Nothing has been debunked, that the PP was merely the findings of an Amherst committee on athletics. Findings which have been found to be true in other studies. The hypothesis that you can align athlete family wealth to giving and that the prime determinant is interesting but irrelevant to the conversation. It is a fact that athletic giving is higher than non-athlete. You state that the rich will come citing Reed as an example, I wouldn't count on that. The wealthy have options that most do not and they will act on their preferences. These students have been practicing athletics for many many years and athletics have been part of the culture of these schools for many many years. It is a symbiotic combination which isn't interested in changing because of your whims.

Reed has a healthy endowment, especially relative to the size of its student body but that endowment is a small fraction of the endowment of most of the schools in this discussion.

Reed has a typical family income significantly lower than the schools that are part of the conversation, their graduates mid-career earnings are among the lowest for elite colleges and the share of students from the top 10% who are attending Reed has been declining since the 90's. Overall I would say that the elite schools are responding to their market incentives much to your dismay.

[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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

by this logic, many colleges should only have male teams:

Gender differences: Research has shown the effect of athletic success on giving can differ by gender. A Princeton University study found that male alumni whose teams had successful seasons while they were undergraduates, or in the years after, subsequently made larger donations to the athletic program. For female alumni, the effect was not statistically significant.

or maybe college should be male only since the number of men making donations above $1mm is much larger than the number of women making the donations. by a factor far greater than 3:1

Single sex schools are an anachronism so I'd say that is a no go. Logic would indicate that schools should optimize for their target audience and everything indicates that these schools are doing just that.

[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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

by this logic, many colleges should only have male teams:

Gender differences: Research has shown the effect of athletic success on giving can differ by gender. A Princeton University study found that male alumni whose teams had successful seasons while they were undergraduates, or in the years after, subsequently made larger donations to the athletic program. For female alumni, the effect was not statistically significant.

or maybe college should be male only since the number of men making donations above $1mm is much larger than the number of women making the donations. by a factor far greater than 3:1

Schools wouldn't recruit anywhere near the number of female athletes that they currently do if they weren't required to by Title 9. It is not in their financial interest by any measure.

50 years ago is wasn't but after 50+ years of Title IX it is very much in the financial interest of these schools to support Women's sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

by this logic, many colleges should only have male teams:

Gender differences: Research has shown the effect of athletic success on giving can differ by gender. A Princeton University study found that male alumni whose teams had successful seasons while they were undergraduates, or in the years after, subsequently made larger donations to the athletic program. For female alumni, the effect was not statistically significant.

or maybe college should be male only since the number of men making donations above $1mm is much larger than the number of women making the donations. by a factor far greater than 3:1

Schools wouldn't recruit anywhere near the number of female athletes that they currently do if they weren't required to by Title 9. It is not in their financial interest by any measure.

Didn’t Stanford try to get rid of some sports teams a few years ago — to admit more “real,” top students — but had to abandon this plan because of Title IX lawsuit threats? Title IX: affirmative action for rich white women.

No; Stanford tried to eliminate a mix of men's and Women's sport's but not to admit more "real" top students. Student academics were never mentioned and would not have been a factor at all. The attempt happened during Covid and the school said that it was intended to make the Athletic department financially self-sufficient.

The attempt did not go well for Stanford across multiple fronts. They ended up with a potential Title IX investigation, fraud lawsuits, revolt by high profile Alumni, and bad press from the US Olympic committee because 10 of the proposed sports were Olympic sports.

Wealthy Alumni quickly stepped up to close the supposed budget gap and Stanford was backed into a corner. The end result was a complete capitulation by Stanford and a full reversal of the cuts. Pretty solid example of the importance of even obscure sports to influential constituencies within elite schools and why you won't see any deemphasizing of sports at elite colleges.

[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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

Maybe we should question why the student experience seems to be that athletes are the only ones invested in donating to the college or why they earn more than others

Maybe recruited athletes know that they received an unfair advantage during college entry and want to give back later in life when they reap the benefits they know on a gut level that they did not deserve?

[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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

Maybe we should question why the student experience seems to be that athletes are the only ones invested in donating to the college or why they earn more than others

Maybe recruited athletes know that they received an unfair advantage during college entry and want to give back later in life when they reap the benefits they know on a gut level that they did not deserve?

Doubt it. But since they mostly just give to the sports programs, who cares? They do little to benefit their universities as a whole.

[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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

Maybe we should question why the student experience seems to be that athletes are the only ones invested in donating to the college or why they earn more than others

Maybe recruited athletes know that they received an unfair advantage during college entry and want to give back later in life when they reap the benefits they know on a gut level that they did not deserve?

+1

[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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

Maybe we should question why the student experience seems to be that athletes are the only ones invested in donating to the college or why they earn more than others

It could be that the skills that athletes develop over 10-15 years in their sport lead to high incomes and assets post-graduation compared to other academic skills. They learn to build comraderie, be decisive, take losses, bounce back, be loyal, take risks, etc. Or a half-step away, it could be that athletes are naturally inclined to have those personality traits already, and the schools know it, just they just take advantage of the correlation.

[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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

This canard has already been debunked upthread. Tell me, what is the ratio of pre-existing wealth of recruited athlete families compared to the rest of the class? There is your answer. The rich kids will still enroll absent athletics. In any event, Reed’s endowment is just fine, thank you very much.

Nothing has been debunked, that the PP was merely the findings of an Amherst committee on athletics. Findings which have been found to be true in other studies. The hypothesis that you can align athlete family wealth to giving and that the prime determinant is interesting but irrelevant to the conversation. It is a fact that athletic giving is higher than non-athlete. You state that the rich will come citing Reed as an example, I wouldn't count on that. The wealthy have options that most do not and they will act on their preferences. These students have been practicing athletics for many many years and athletics have been part of the culture of these schools for many many years. It is a symbiotic combination which isn't interested in changing because of your whims.

Reed has a healthy endowment, especially relative to the size of its student body but that endowment is a small fraction of the endowment of most of the schools in this discussion.

Reed has a typical family income significantly lower than the schools that are part of the conversation, their graduates mid-career earnings are among the lowest for elite colleges and the share of students from the top 10% who are attending Reed has been declining since the 90's. Overall I would say that the elite schools are responding to their market incentives much to your dismay.

actually that Amherst data is not correct. hold up.

A 2017 study showed the following trends in alumni giving from Amherst graduates from the 1960s:
Donation rate: A higher percentage of former athletes donated to Amherst College compared to non-athletes (76% vs. 56%).
Significant donors: Although former athletes made up 48% of the alumni body, they accounted for 78% of donors who gave $1 million or more in cumulative gifts.
Recency: The information is based on older graduating classes and may not represent the giving patterns of recent alumni.
National trends in alumni giving
Other studies of alumni giving at various institutions confirm that former athletes often exhibit higher rates of donations compared to non-athletes, especially when their team experienced success during their time at the school.
In a 2017 working paper from Princeton University, researchers found that for male alumni who played a varsity sport, a conference championship win during their senior year was associated with 8% higher annual donations to the athletic program.
Factors that influence alumni giving
Besides participation in athletics, research suggests that other factors influence giving patterns, including:
Alumni satisfaction: Greater satisfaction with a student's overall experience, including academics, correlates with increased giving.
Team performance: For some schools, particularly those with major sports programs, athletic success can boost alumni donations and application rates. However, this is not always a major factor at smaller, liberal arts colleges.
Solicitation approach: Direct and specific requests for donations, such as for a particular project, can be more successful than general appeals.
Donor wealth and proximity: An alumnus's net worth and proximity to campus after graduation also correlate with higher donation rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

by this logic, many colleges should only have male teams:

Gender differences: Research has shown the effect of athletic success on giving can differ by gender. A Princeton University study found that male alumni whose teams had successful seasons while they were undergraduates, or in the years after, subsequently made larger donations to the athletic program. For female alumni, the effect was not statistically significant.

or maybe college should be male only since the number of men making donations above $1mm is much larger than the number of women making the donations. by a factor far greater than 3:1

Schools wouldn't recruit anywhere near the number of female athletes that they currently do if they weren't required to by Title 9. It is not in their financial interest by any measure.

50 years ago is wasn't but after 50+ years of Title IX it is very much in the financial interest of these schools to support Women's sports.

Do women’s sports have high attendance?

Do women athletes become big donors?

I’m skeptical of both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

by this logic, many colleges should only have male teams:

Gender differences: Research has shown the effect of athletic success on giving can differ by gender. A Princeton University study found that male alumni whose teams had successful seasons while they were undergraduates, or in the years after, subsequently made larger donations to the athletic program. For female alumni, the effect was not statistically significant.

or maybe college should be male only since the number of men making donations above $1mm is much larger than the number of women making the donations. by a factor far greater than 3:1

Schools wouldn't recruit anywhere near the number of female athletes that they currently do if they weren't required to by Title 9. It is not in their financial interest by any measure.

50 years ago is wasn't but after 50+ years of Title IX it is very much in the financial interest of these schools to support Women's sports.

Do women’s sports have high attendance?

Do women athletes become big donors?

I’m skeptical of both.

You’re skeptical but nobody really cares what you think. The dynamics of college attendance and success dictates that women be treated in accordance with their success. When title IX went into effect women were less than 10% of med school attendees. Now, over 50%. Time to move into the latest century mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

This canard has already been debunked upthread. Tell me, what is the ratio of pre-existing wealth of recruited athlete families compared to the rest of the class? There is your answer. The rich kids will still enroll absent athletics. In any event, Reed’s endowment is just fine, thank you very much.

Nothing has been debunked, that the PP was merely the findings of an Amherst committee on athletics. Findings which have been found to be true in other studies. The hypothesis that you can align athlete family wealth to giving and that the prime determinant is interesting but irrelevant to the conversation. It is a fact that athletic giving is higher than non-athlete. You state that the rich will come citing Reed as an example, I wouldn't count on that. The wealthy have options that most do not and they will act on their preferences. These students have been practicing athletics for many many years and athletics have been part of the culture of these schools for many many years. It is a symbiotic combination which isn't interested in changing because of your whims.

Reed has a healthy endowment, especially relative to the size of its student body but that endowment is a small fraction of the endowment of most of the schools in this discussion.

Reed has a typical family income significantly lower than the schools that are part of the conversation, their graduates mid-career earnings are among the lowest for elite colleges and the share of students from the top 10% who are attending Reed has been declining since the 90's. Overall I would say that the elite schools are responding to their market incentives much to your dismay.

actually that Amherst data is not correct. hold up.

A 2017 study showed the following trends in alumni giving from Amherst graduates from the 1960s:
Donation rate: A higher percentage of former athletes donated to Amherst College compared to non-athletes (76% vs. 56%).
Significant donors: Although former athletes made up 48% of the alumni body, they accounted for 78% of donors who gave $1 million or more in cumulative gifts.
Recency: The information is based on older graduating classes and may not represent the giving patterns of recent alumni.
National trends in alumni giving
Other studies of alumni giving at various institutions confirm that former athletes often exhibit higher rates of donations compared to non-athletes, especially when their team experienced success during their time at the school.
In a 2017 working paper from Princeton University, researchers found that for male alumni who played a varsity sport, a conference championship win during their senior year was associated with 8% higher annual donations to the athletic program.
Factors that influence alumni giving
Besides participation in athletics, research suggests that other factors influence giving patterns, including:
Alumni satisfaction: Greater satisfaction with a student's overall experience, including academics, correlates with increased giving.
Team performance: For some schools, particularly those with major sports programs, athletic success can boost alumni donations and application rates. However, this is not always a major factor at smaller, liberal arts colleges.
Solicitation approach: Direct and specific requests for donations, such as for a particular project, can be more successful than general appeals.
Donor wealth and proximity: An alumnus's net worth and proximity to campus after graduation also correlate with higher donation rates.

You tried selective highlighting but overall you proved the apps comment using the data that they likely used. Nice job!

[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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

Maybe we should question why the student experience seems to be that athletes are the only ones invested in donating to the college or why they earn more than others

Maybe recruited athletes know that they received an unfair advantage during college entry and want to give back later in life when they reap the benefits they know on a gut level that they did not deserve?

Pretty sure that’s they would fully and correctly believe that you are just a jealous little NARP or more accurately you are merely a NPC in their world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

Maybe we should question why the student experience seems to be that athletes are the only ones invested in donating to the college or why they earn more than others

Maybe recruited athletes know that they received an unfair advantage during college entry and want to give back later in life when they reap the benefits they know on a gut level that they did not deserve?

Pretty sure that’s they would fully and correctly believe that you are just a jealous little NARP or more accurately you are merely a NPC in their world.

Genuine question - what is an NCP or a NARP? I've never heard these terms. Are you a middle schooler or high schooler? Your comment reads "young" and defensive.