I feel like we don't talk enough that top LACs are 40%+ recruited athletes.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
If women want to be military officers, there’s nothing stopping them. You are hilarious. They have been so many court cases about abuse and rape… nothing to you and your white male posse I suppose. Sure the service academies may select for better diversity, but the resulting officer population is 70% — we could speculate on the reasons but as far your hiring process, it skews heavily WASP on all fronts. https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/08/05/90d128cb/active-component-demographic-report-june-2022.pdf |
Anonymous
The 70% is for the army. Navy and Air Force is closer to 80%. My point stands. |
Anonymous
|
My DD and DS are both college students. They played sports in high school, but were not good enough or committed enough to be recruited athletes. They do not play a sport in college.
I honestly think it's fine if recruited athletes get a preference in admission. It takes a lot of hard work and discipline to be able to play a sport at a high level. Most kids quit sports, unfortunately. (BTW, I wish high schools pressed the essential importance of fitness in everyday life. I know that there is PE, but at my younger DD's middle school, it is so focused on sports. I think it would be better to focus on fitness, for those who don't want to compete in a sport. It's sad to see the level of fitness of a lot of kids/teens in this country.) |
Anonymous
| So my son is heavily recruited by SLACs and LACs. He is still being HOUNDED and is a 2024. They also somehow produce "merit" money, which we all know is just disguised athletic scolarships. It makes it even worse that he is top 5% of his class. However he won't even look at a school that isn't ABET Accredited. Not sure why so many LACs go after athletes beucase it does not seem to me that athletics bring in much money, if any at all for these schools. |
Anonymous
ABET accredited? That's a pretty bizarrely low (and random) bar. After all, DeVry University, Central Ohio Technical College, and Trinidad State Junior College are all ABET accredited. Why don't you just say he wants to major in engineering and most LACs don't have an engineering major? Would he turn down Harvey Mudd just because it's a LAC? |
Anonymous
|
Some of the frustration with "white privilege" in the athletic context is likely based on studies and books which used data that's quickly become dated. There is currently an over representation of white NCAA athletes, but the magnitude, rate of change, and self-selection tendencies by certain groups for different division levels might be different than what's been implied in some posts on this thread.
The percentage of NCAA athletes that are non-Hispanic white has dropped by an average of almost 1% a year for the past ten years at all three NCAA levels (8% total overall drop for each, which seems very unlikely to be due to chance). At present, white athletes across all divisions combined make up about 3% more than in the general population (62 vs 59.) Over that period, Black athletes have been steady and also higher than their general population figure (16% vs 14%), so the percentage lost by whites over the last decade has gone to other groups. If the trend continues, total NCAA white athlete representation will be lower than the general population sometime around 2026 or 2027. At present, the most clearly underrepresented groups would include Hispanic (7% athletes vs 19% for general population) and Asian (2% vs 6%.) The percentage of white athletes is indeed higher at the D3 level (72%) than at the D1 (55%) where they already are underrepresented relative to the general population (59%). That difference is partly because the percentage of Black athletes is higher at D1 schools than at D3. An athlete already good enough to get recruited by a D1 school would receive even more interest at the D3 level if they chose to seek it. Black athletes are the only domestic group with a significantly larger share at the D1 level than D3 (20% vs 10%; Two or More Races also goes up but the numbers are much smaller, 6% vs 4%; of note, Intl is 7% vs 1%.) So it would appear it's more common for a given Black athlete than a given white one (or any other domestic group) to self-select D1 athletic scholarships and higher/pre-professional level of competition and greater institutional brand awareness (ie, universities tend to be better known generally) over going to smaller schools to have, on average, better access to professors and smaller classes. Also worth bearing in mind is that D3 schools will likely have the highest percentage of walk-ons. None of this has anything directly to do with the false claim made in the title of this thread. LACs as a group might average ~15% recruits per cohort, but certainly not "40%+." The NCAA offers a fairly thorough demographic database (it's updated through 22 despite the url saying 2018.) It doesn't separate out by recruit vs walk-on or by league, as far as I can tell. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2018/12/13/ncaa-demographics-database.aspx https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222 |
Anonymous
Anonymous
They “hound” every student-athlete with a pulse in a 200 mile radius because they would quite literally go bankrupt and close down without filling half of every class with kids who can’t hang up the sport ball dreams. |
Anonymous
When it rains you can sit in the dugout. |
Anonymous
|
Athletic recruits...Only in America.
I see the value but it takes a lot of getting used to. |
Anonymous
Why would anyone not on the team or dating someone on the team go to a random game? The other kids are busy doing their things. I could see taking time out from studying to see your roommate's theater production or concert since at least you get a cultural bump from that, but why take time out from studying or working on your own sport or EC to sit for hours watching grass grown on an amateur baseball field? 
|
Anonymous
|
You can calculate the data from CDS and US DoE OPE. Using these sources 35% of Williams students (745 out of 2097 attending) participated in at least one varsity sport. Even assuming ALL of the varsity students are recruited athletes, that is still 35% at tops.
Now here is the kicker. At Williams there are approx 186 recruited athletes per class (745/4), out of 1145 offered admission. That is only 16%. (People forget that the number of admits is higher than the number enrolled.) So for those who believe that recruited athletes take away admission opportunities at SLACs from non-athletes at a high level , that is not true. As far as the cultural differences go, these are more interest based than anything else. DS very strong academically, attends WASP, not recruited athlete, but also outdoorsy. Has easily made friends with the geeks and with the athletes. At WASP, many of the recruited athletes also have strong GPA and SAT scores and are all-rounders. I think this cultural divide is overblown. No need to scapegoat recruited athletes. Like in the real world, those with good interpersonal skills will make friends with everyone, those with poor interpersonal skills need to fix that. |
Anonymous
+1 indeed the LACs get a lot of all-rounders. I don't think it is a narrative issue with the STRIVERS poster, it is just ignorance. |
Anonymous
This is not a good argument. If you complain that smart athletes "take spots over academically qualified kids", then surely you can see that there are also "academically qualified kids" taking spots from kids more accomplished in other interests than they are. So what makes you think an ideal college class is only for the most academically qualified ? |
Anonymous
A athlete’s have higher GPAs and tend to give more money to the school when they graduate. |