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

[Anonymous]

I love it what DCUM goes totally mental over recruited athletes. Love it!!!

The reality is that our DCUM critics have no context to criticize. None. They don’t understand the commitment or the accomplishment.

These schools, however, see the value those kids bring, and that’s all that matters.

If it were so easy, your kid could have done it too.

[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.

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

It's time to flat out say it:

I smell envy. Envy and jealousy because there is a group of potential students who flat out perform better than your DC. In the Ivy league some of those students might slightly underperform your DC in academics; in the NESCAC, or at places like Swat, Pomona, and MIT it's more likely than not that they are at the same level or higher than dear Larla. But, in both cases these kids are better overall. Better because they achieved the same academic performance while devoting far less hours too academics because they were building skills in a completely different area that far surpass those of the typical "average excellent" candidate. They are far more attractive candidates than Larla because elite schools optimize for outcome by considering multiple success vectors in their input selection process (holistic admissions).

Larla played the game but lost and now you try to denigrate others in order to feel better about yourself. Your self soothing may help you feel better but we see it for what it is....pitiful.

I think you smell resentment not envy. People don't want athlete kids with EDs, concussions or groin/foot injuries, but they do want a meritocracy in college admissions. No one wants to be you or your child, but they do want a fairer system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

It's time to flat out say it:

I smell envy. Envy and jealousy because there is a group of potential students who flat out perform better than your DC. In the Ivy league some of those students might slightly underperform your DC in academics; in the NESCAC, or at places like Swat, Pomona, and MIT it's more likely than not that they are at the same level or higher than dear Larla. But, in both cases these kids are better overall. Better because they achieved the same academic performance while devoting far less hours too academics because they were building skills in a completely different area that far surpass those of the typical "average excellent" candidate. They are far more attractive candidates than Larla because elite schools optimize for outcome by considering multiple success vectors in their input selection process (holistic admissions).

Larla played the game but lost and now you try to denigrate others in order to feel better about yourself. Your self soothing may help you feel better but we see it for what it is....pitiful.

I think you smell resentment not envy. People don't want athlete kids with EDs, concussions or groin/foot injuries, but they do want a meritocracy in college admissions. No one wants to be you or your child, but they do want a fairer system.

Mic drop. I concur!

[Anonymous]

Top LACs need athletics because the alums want it. Amherst vs Williams is well attended. These schools do not want all nerds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top LACs need athletics because the alums want it. Amherst vs Williams is well attended. These schools do not want all nerds.

photo of Amherst vs Williams game. I guess well attended is relative?

https://williamsrecord.com/468250/sports/football-crushes-amherst-21-0-at-homecoming/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top LACs need athletics because the alums want it. Amherst vs Williams is well attended. These schools do not want all nerds.

photo of Amherst vs Williams game. I guess well attended is relative?

https://williamsrecord.com/468250/sports/football-crushes-amherst-21-0-at-homecoming/

That is a sparse, small crowd. I think football is not very popular at LACs (versus large state schools whose teams are big brands). My DD is at a top ten LAC and she says no one cares about it there either.

Having recruited athletes at LACs seems it add little to the other students' lives. It's just a lever to get in, like legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

It's time to flat out say it:

I smell envy. Envy and jealousy because there is a group of potential students who flat out perform better than your DC. In the Ivy league some of those students might slightly underperform your DC in academics; in the NESCAC, or at places like Swat, Pomona, and MIT it's more likely than not that they are at the same level or higher than dear Larla. But, in both cases these kids are better overall. Better because they achieved the same academic performance while devoting far less hours too academics because they were building skills in a completely different area that far surpass those of the typical "average excellent" candidate. They are far more attractive candidates than Larla because elite schools optimize for outcome by considering multiple success vectors in their input selection process (holistic admissions).

Larla played the game but lost and now you try to denigrate others in order to feel better about yourself. Your self soothing may help you feel better but we see it for what it is....pitiful.

I think you smell resentment not envy. People don't want athlete kids with EDs, concussions or groin/foot injuries, but they do want a meritocracy in college admissions. No one wants to be you or your child, but they do want a fairer system.

facts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

It's time to flat out say it:

I smell envy. Envy and jealousy because there is a group of potential students who flat out perform better than your DC. In the Ivy league some of those students might slightly underperform your DC in academics; in the NESCAC, or at places like Swat, Pomona, and MIT it's more likely than not that they are at the same level or higher than dear Larla. But, in both cases these kids are better overall. Better because they achieved the same academic performance while devoting far less hours too academics because they were building skills in a completely different area that far surpass those of the typical "average excellent" candidate. They are far more attractive candidates than Larla because elite schools optimize for outcome by considering multiple success vectors in their input selection process (holistic admissions).

Larla played the game but lost and now you try to denigrate others in order to feel better about yourself. Your self soothing may help you feel better but we see it for what it is....pitiful.

I think you smell resentment not envy. People don't want athlete kids with EDs, concussions or groin/foot injuries, but they do want a meritocracy in college admissions. No one wants to be you or your child, but they do want a fairer system.

facts

Nonsense, you resent the fact that they have unique value that your DC never will. Admissions is a combination of meritocracy aligning with institutional priority and recruiting athletes fit in a way that most do. You are correct on resentment, but the resentment is driven by envy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

It's time to flat out say it:

I smell envy. Envy and jealousy because there is a group of potential students who flat out perform better than your DC. In the Ivy league some of those students might slightly underperform your DC in academics; in the NESCAC, or at places like Swat, Pomona, and MIT it's more likely than not that they are at the same level or higher than dear Larla. But, in both cases these kids are better overall. Better because they achieved the same academic performance while devoting far less hours too academics because they were building skills in a completely different area that far surpass those of the typical "average excellent" candidate. They are far more attractive candidates than Larla because elite schools optimize for outcome by considering multiple success vectors in their input selection process (holistic admissions).

Larla played the game but lost and now you try to denigrate others in order to feel better about yourself. Your self soothing may help you feel better but we see it for what it is....pitiful.

I think you smell resentment not envy. People don't want athlete kids with EDs, concussions or groin/foot injuries, but they do want a meritocracy in college admissions. No one wants to be you or your child, but they do want a fairer system.

System is fair, your DC is too short for the ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top LACs need athletics because the alums want it. Amherst vs Williams is well attended. These schools do not want all nerds.

+100

https://sports.yahoo.com/article/whats-little-three-one-best-090805742.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top LACs need athletics because the alums want it. Amherst vs Williams is well attended. These schools do not want all nerds.

photo of Amherst vs Williams game. I guess well attended is relative?

https://williamsrecord.com/468250/sports/football-crushes-amherst-21-0-at-homecoming/

LOL that crowd size is pretty sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

It's time to flat out say it:

I smell envy. Envy and jealousy because there is a group of potential students who flat out perform better than your DC. In the Ivy league some of those students might slightly underperform your DC in academics; in the NESCAC, or at places like Swat, Pomona, and MIT it's more likely than not that they are at the same level or higher than dear Larla. But, in both cases these kids are better overall. Better because they achieved the same academic performance while devoting far less hours too academics because they were building skills in a completely different area that far surpass those of the typical "average excellent" candidate. They are far more attractive candidates than Larla because elite schools optimize for outcome by considering multiple success vectors in their input selection process (holistic admissions).

Larla played the game but lost and now you try to denigrate others in order to feel better about yourself. Your self soothing may help you feel better but we see it for what it is....pitiful.

I think you smell resentment not envy. People don't want athlete kids with EDs, concussions or groin/foot injuries, but they do want a meritocracy in college admissions. No one wants to be you or your child, but they do want a fairer system.

facts

Nonsense, you resent the fact that they have unique value that your DC never will. Admissions is a combination of meritocracy aligning with institutional priority and recruiting athletes fit in a way that most do. You are correct on resentment, but the resentment is driven by envy.

Trust me, my perfect stats DC does not envy your athlete. Of course, there aren't many in their high-level STEM classes. And ED admission was great for them.

[Anonymous]

Can we get back to topic? Are you saying non athlete kid with the stats to take a shot at WASP should actually wait until RD? Or just that s/he is not advantaged (much if at all) by going ED?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top LACs need athletics because the alums want it. Amherst vs Williams is well attended. These schools do not want all nerds.

+100

https://sports.yahoo.com/article/whats-little-three-one-best-090805742.html

Sorry but the picture posted tells the story. More players than fans. The kids at these schools don’t care about this at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we get back to topic? Are you saying non athlete kid with the stats to take a shot at WASP should actually wait until RD? Or just that s/he is not advantaged (much if at all) by going ED?

They should choose a larger school if they are considering a few different options for ED. Applying ED at Brown or Penn will move the needle more than it will at SLACs with 40+% athletes. If their top choice is a SLAC, just go for it anyway, it certainly won't hurt and is the best indicator of interest. Consider a SLAC with fewer athletes (Swarthmore, Carleton) than one with a larger percentage of athletes (Williams, Bowdoin) if you want ED to have more impact.