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: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.

Both schools are the size of high schools. Not sure what ppl are expecting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They did during admissions season; even if they didn’t say anything. My very high stats athlete chose (as in picked from, not applied to) from over a dozen schools that people whine about here on DCUM everyday. Her academics qualified her for admission but it was her athletics which gave her choice.

It will continue on at med school admissions time. Talk to some readers if you know any, athletes have huge advantages in med school admissions. If you can nail the grades and MCAT scores needed for a top school while being an athlete the rigor of med school isn’t a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bama is probably a better fit for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They did during admissions season; even if they didn’t say anything. My very high stats athlete chose (as in picked from, not applied to) from over a dozen schools that people whine about here on DCUM everyday. Her academics qualified her for admission but it was her athletics which gave her choice.

It will continue on at med school admissions time. Talk to some readers if you know any, athletes have huge advantages in med school admissions. If you can nail the grades and MCAT scores needed for a top school while being an athlete the rigor of med school isn’t a problem.

I think that's a very tiny percentage of athletes at college are able to do that today. A few generations ago, when there was less competition to get into med school and before women started joining the applicant pool for med school, I think it was easier. Now very few are able to perform academically at the highest level to get into med school while doing the same for a sport that takes up the majority of their time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Both schools are the size of high schools. Not sure what ppl are expecting.

a crowd as big as a typical high school game maybe? there are 4k undergrads between those two schools. this is apparently THE rivalry and they have a crowd of 75 kids? yeah, sports are SO important to the culture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They did during admissions season; even if they didn’t say anything. My very high stats athlete chose (as in picked from, not applied to) from over a dozen schools that people whine about here on DCUM everyday. Her academics qualified her for admission but it was her athletics which gave her choice.

It will continue on at med school admissions time. Talk to some readers if you know any, athletes have huge advantages in med school admissions. If you can nail the grades and MCAT scores needed for a top school while being an athlete the rigor of med school isn’t a problem.

I think that's a very tiny percentage of athletes at college are able to do that today. A few generations ago, when there was less competition to get into med school and before women started joining the applicant pool for med school, I think it was easier. Now very few are able to perform academically at the highest level to get into med school while doing the same for a sport that takes up the majority of their time.

I would guess that it is pretty hard to do it at the D1 level though I know two brothers who played P4 football (one at USC) who went on to med school. Their father is a well known orthopedic surgeon so it's the family business. I also know former athletes from Northeastern and Middlebury who are currently in Med school so there are kids who manage to do it. It does bring up an interesting question regarding kids at the SLACs that are constantly discussed. These schools have very high success rates for med school admissions (typically 80-90%) but they are small and typically send under 50 kids to med school in a given year. They also have relatively high percentages of athletes so it would be interesting to see athlete/non-athlete med school admissions data though I am sure that they wold be reluctant to provide it.

[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.

Anybody who thinks Division 3 athletes are something to cheer for is…a nerd. Go Irish!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, it’s not. I don’t think some would mind if it was a pinky on the scale like legacy or some other extracurricular; but it is not a pinky, more like a whole fist applying pressure. There is nothing like it.

[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?

Well, I for one am saying that a non-athlete kid is far more likely to get into a lower Ivy if applying ED. So it is more a matter of wasting your ED card if you apply to WASP-B and then needing to be comfortable leaving everything to RD.

Many top unhooked kids wisely decide to use their ED card elsewhere. They get in and are happy.

Williams therefore never sees the smartest of the smart anymore. This trend began only in the last 5 years, when it became clear that ED no longer offers any advantage. (Of course, athlete parents on this board think their kids are the smartest of the smart — and can never be told otherwise; but we can hardly resent them for their stupidity.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well, I for one am saying that a non-athlete kid is far more likely to get into a lower Ivy if applying ED. So it is more a matter of wasting your ED card if you apply to WASP-B and then needing to be comfortable leaving everything to RD.

Many top unhooked kids wisely decide to use their ED card elsewhere. They get in and are happy.

Williams therefore never sees the smartest of the smart anymore. This trend began only in the last 5 years, when it became clear that ED no longer offers any advantage. (Of course, athlete parents on this board think their kids are the smartest of the smart — and can never be told otherwise; but we can hardly resent them for their stupidity.)

Stupidity is WASP-B, a non-existent figment of your imagination.

And I doubt that a non-athlete has better EA odds at a lower Ivy but I'm not sure. The odds are low for anyone and the athletics would just be part of the package if they are not recruited.

[Anonymous]

Wait, med schools care about athletics? Please say I’m misunderstanding this.

I went to a slac and the athletes were embarrassingly unprepared in certain classes. It was uncomfortable for everyone and I wouldn’t want that for my DD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, med schools care about athletics? Please say I’m misunderstanding this.

I went to a slac and the athletes were embarrassingly unprepared in certain classes. It was uncomfortable for everyone and I wouldn’t want that for my DD

You didn’t go to a top SLAC. I just took a quick look at the girl’s volleyball roster for each of them and each team looks like it has 4 kids who are likely pre med along with a couple of CS and math majors for good measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well, I for one am saying that a non-athlete kid is far more likely to get into a lower Ivy if applying ED. So it is more a matter of wasting your ED card if you apply to WASP-B and then needing to be comfortable leaving everything to RD.

Many top unhooked kids wisely decide to use their ED card elsewhere. They get in and are happy.

Williams therefore never sees the smartest of the smart anymore. This trend began only in the last 5 years, when it became clear that ED no longer offers any advantage. (Of course, athlete parents on this board think their kids are the smartest of the smart — and can never be told otherwise; but we can hardly resent them for their stupidity.)

Stupidity is WASP-B, a non-existent figment of your imagination.

And I doubt that a non-athlete has better EA odds at a lower Ivy but I'm not sure. The odds are low for anyone and the athletics would just be part of the package if they are not recruited.

Think about this phrase. Think real hard. Take your time: I know you think slowly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Both schools are the size of high schools. Not sure what ppl are expecting.

a crowd as big as a typical high school game maybe? there are 4k undergrads between those two schools. this is apparently THE rivalry and they have a crowd of 75 kids? yeah, sports are SO important to the culture

Just to note this is the homecoming game. So all of those rabid alumni football fans are there — thousands of them — with their wallets open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you're kidding yourself if you think that SLACs give preferential ED admissions to most or all athletes.

Are you kidding? It is the quid pro quo for recruitment. No ED no support is the rule.

Correct (or more limited support, depending on the SLAC). At the school where my kid committed they were very up front about this at the general senior visit program. Almost half of the ED1 admits were committed athletes. Almost all had a positive pre-read and many had gotten a merit pre-read. The latter is available to all students who want to apply ED, not just recruits.

So half the spots were already spoken for with athletes who had passed the pre-read prior to applying ED? That's 100% acceptance rate for half the ED pool. Just imagine how low the acceptance rate for the other half of the ED pool if the final ED acceptance rate is only 15% Or even up to 30%? It's very misleading when half spots are claimed by athletes with a 100% acceptance rate through passing pre-read plus coach support.

My DS was going to apply ED to WASP+, but is now applying ED to WashU.

Tbh WashU is better than most of the SLACs discussed on this thread, except for maybe Williams. WashU is an excellent school with so many opportunities and a very supportive and LARGER alumni group compared to small LACs.

I work on Wall Street and am surrounded by peers who attended SLACs. I have never met a single WashU alum through my work. I always assumed you choose that school if you want to stay in the Midwest upon gradation. Just like you go to Oxford and Cambridge if you want to live in Europe and to UCLA & USC and the likes if you want to build your network for Hollywood/LA.