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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Athletes are just unqualified dumb rich white kids” is what people say when their non-athlete kid got rejected and it’s easier to believe an athlete “stole” their kids spot than to accept that their kid just isn’t very remarkable.

Both things can be true. I think it’s more the case that athlete parents either deny their kids are less qualified or believe that the gritty teamwork they learn and long hours their kids spend justify their lower qualifications. It’s a hook and the only people who deny it are the recipients.

Or, the athlete is just as or more qualified academically than the non-athlete, still accepts and uses the hook, and then becomes the target of vitriol by the non-athlete's parents who believe the athlete "stole" the spot.

Sure but it’s a hook. Admit it.

Does anyone dispute it is a hook in elite college admissions? That is totally different than saying particular people are not qualified. I think people agree that being on a coach's list helps!
Some things carry over generally. Being tall and athletic is a hook generally in the working world too, right?

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

Doesn't the recent Princeton data show their legacies have higher average SAT scores? Having a hook doesn't necessarily mean even pure numbers are lower.

All DCUM parents with access to a search engine should have reasonably known 20+ years ago that athletic excellence can help with college admissions when paired with academic achievement. I wonder why more didn't help put their kids in a position to succeed. So many parents on DCUM talk about putting kids first and sacrificing. Don't hate the players when you've known the game for decades. US colleges, elite academic schools included, have viewed athletic ability as merit for a long time.
Investing in some extracurriculars early on really is smarter than others if you are looking at it purely from a college admissions standpoint. I think people should let their kids do what they are passionate about but if you are just looking for the best admissions combo, there has been clear data out there since The Shape of the River that excellence in sports is the way to go.

That’s all fine but either all hooks are good or all hooks are bad. You shouldn’t pick and choose based on whether it helps your kid. You’ve already admitted institutional priorities matter.

All hooks don't have to be good or bad. Many people view athletes as having merit in terms of admissions (their talent and academic profiles combine to get them in). In contrast, legacies don't have a cultivated talent (they are lucky in birth). It could be perfectly reasonable to distinguish between these hooks. Schools like MIT and Hopkins make this distinction.

When I see a kid who is recruited, I think this kid has parents who could afford to take them around for tournaments and afford private coaches. There is not much talent requird to hit the ball against a wall since age 6. Fencing and squash are played by very few kids. Access to facilities is a real issue. In addition, these kids take less rigorous courses to keep up their GPA. Most athletes dont take up rigorous majors.

Not true- my son is a D3 swimmer at a competitive school. Most of the teammates are engineering or pre med. they work hard and are very good at time management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They all meet the threshold standard of academics required to succeed at college. More rigorous the college is, the higher the threshold. That said, when they all meet the threshold, each has some interest areas where they excel at. For some it is Physics, some Mathematics, some Clarinet, Some X-Country Running, some Fencing.

Would you send your child to a college where the entire class was selected from rank 1 to 100 based on Mathematics scores alone? Or would you send your child to a college where there are kids who meet academic standards but have different areas they excel in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The reason many people care is because it seemingly takes out a large category of schools that appeal to non-sports focused kids who otherwise would love to be at a top academic school with small classes, open curriculum and great resources.

It doesn't. Nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The reason we don't talk enough about the fact the top LACs are 40% recruited athletes is that it's simply not close to being true.

I have looked at every link at this thread. Not one backs up the claim.

As many on this thread have already pointed out, one may be on a varsity team without being recruited for it. For the LAC haters who prefer D1 universities, this may be a novel concept, but it's actually pretty common at LACs. My son was told by six different LAC coaches they would welcome him to their team if enrolled, but that he would not be recruited. That was fine for us. He likes the comraderie and exercise of being on a competitive team, but was still able to get into top LACs. He is a walk-on athlete at Carleton and regularly competed against other colleges even in his first year.

It is far less likely that a student will walk on to a D1 team, let alone play. One of the main advantages of LACs is that *for some* it is easier to pursue their interests. Interested in continuing with varsity sports but not a recruited athlete (let alone a D1 recruited athlete)? Go to an LAC. Interested in summer research but don't want to compete with grad students? Go to an LAC. Our same child got a paid research job working one on one with a professor upon his first request.

Yes, there was a link in the thread to a Williams page stating 33% of their students play varsity sports. Besides the fact that Williams probably has the highest ratio of teams to students, that doesn't mean 33% of those athletes were recruited. As the xfactoradmissions article mentions, 20-50% of college athletes are walk-ons. That number will be closer to the low end for D1 and closer to the high end for D3.

Perhaps the most useful link in the thread was the one to the Washington Post article. There have been several citations of the percentages from the table of varsity athletes, but that's actually not the most relevant part of the article. The most helpful part for our purposes is the discussion after the table that actually talks about how many students were recruited at each school that chose to disclose those numbers. There were three private D1 schools ranked in the top 30: Duke, Brown, and Yale. (Large publics are obviously going to have much smaller percentages of athletes.) There were four LACs ranked in the top 30: Davidson, Colgate, Richmond, and CMC. One can divide the numbers of recruited athletes by the numbers of first year students at each school to get the % of recruits. For the three private D1 universities, that number comes to 12%. For the four LACs, that number comes to 16%. Note however that Davidson is an outlier, both in terms of the percentage of recruits and the fact that it is one of the few LACs that chooses to compete against D1 schools in all the major sports they offer. If excluding them, the percentage of recruited athletes for the remaining three drops to 13%.

I hope this helps.

+1 The most sane take in this sorry thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.)

Agree that it takes a lot of hard work and discipline. Kudos to those that do it. And while I understand your point on fitness, isn't sport a more fun way to do fitness. Really no child wants to do yoga or run on a treadmill for fitness, it's boring. Sports is the fund way to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They all meet the threshold standard of academics required to succeed at college. More rigorous the college is, the higher the threshold. That said, when they all meet the threshold, each has some interest areas where they excel at. For some it is Physics, some Mathematics, some Clarinet, Some X-Country Running, some Fencing.

Would you send your child to a college where the entire class was selected from rank 1 to 100 based on Mathematics scores alone? Or would you send your child to a college where there are kids who meet academic standards but have different areas they excel in?

You can't tell the difference between a sports hobby and an academic study, at a school? How many students major in fencing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They all meet the threshold standard of academics required to succeed at college. More rigorous the college is, the higher the threshold. That said, when they all meet the threshold, each has some interest areas where they excel at. For some it is Physics, some Mathematics, some Clarinet, Some X-Country Running, some Fencing.

Would you send your child to a college where the entire class was selected from rank 1 to 100 based on Mathematics scores alone? Or would you send your child to a college where there are kids who meet academic standards but have different areas they excel in?

most colleges say that half their applicants meet their "threshold" for things like sat and gpa. so the recruited athlete part is the one and only thing that puts them over the top

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.)

Agree that it takes a lot of hard work and discipline. Kudos to those that do it. And while I understand your point on fitness, isn't sport a more fun way to do fitness. Really no child wants to do yoga or run on a treadmill for fitness, it's boring. Sports is the fund way to do it.

Playing the sport isn't what creates fitness. The exercise in the gym and the running around the track creates fitness and improves sport performance. The sport is a reward for kids who work hard in the gym workouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They all meet the threshold standard of academics required to succeed at college. More rigorous the college is, the higher the threshold. That said, when they all meet the threshold, each has some interest areas where they excel at. For some it is Physics, some Mathematics, some Clarinet, Some X-Country Running, some Fencing.

Would you send your child to a college where the entire class was selected from rank 1 to 100 based on Mathematics scores alone? Or would you send your child to a college where there are kids who meet academic standards but have different areas they excel in?

most colleges say that half their applicants meet their "threshold" for things like sat and gpa. so the recruited athlete part is the one and only thing that puts them over the top

The meet the athlete threshold which is different from the academic threshold. The athletic threshold students largely aren't in the same classes as the academic threshold students, just as they aren't in the same sports teams, for better for for worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They all meet the threshold standard of academics required to succeed at college. More rigorous the college is, the higher the threshold. That said, when they all meet the threshold, each has some interest areas where they excel at. For some it is Physics, some Mathematics, some Clarinet, Some X-Country Running, some Fencing.

Would you send your child to a college where the entire class was selected from rank 1 to 100 based on Mathematics scores alone? Or would you send your child to a college where there are kids who meet academic standards but have different areas they excel in?

most colleges say that half their applicants meet their "threshold" for things like sat and gpa. so the recruited athlete part is the one and only thing that puts them over the top

The meet the athlete threshold which is different from the academic threshold. The athletic threshold students largely aren't in the same classes as the academic threshold students, just as they aren't in the same sports teams, for better for for worse.

These broad generalizations are ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They all meet the threshold standard of academics required to succeed at college. More rigorous the college is, the higher the threshold. That said, when they all meet the threshold, each has some interest areas where they excel at. For some it is Physics, some Mathematics, some Clarinet, Some X-Country Running, some Fencing.

Would you send your child to a college where the entire class was selected from rank 1 to 100 based on Mathematics scores alone? Or would you send your child to a college where there are kids who meet academic standards but have different areas they excel in?

You can't tell the difference between a sports hobby and an academic study, at a school? How many students major in fencing?

Rachel Maddow? Is that you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They all meet the threshold standard of academics required to succeed at college. More rigorous the college is, the higher the threshold. That said, when they all meet the threshold, each has some interest areas where they excel at. For some it is Physics, some Mathematics, some Clarinet, Some X-Country Running, some Fencing.

Would you send your child to a college where the entire class was selected from rank 1 to 100 based on Mathematics scores alone? Or would you send your child to a college where there are kids who meet academic standards but have different areas they excel in?

You can't tell the difference between a sports hobby and an academic study, at a school? How many students major in fencing?

Rachel Maddow? Is that you?

Does anyone understand this comment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

They all meet the threshold standard of academics required to succeed at college. More rigorous the college is, the higher the threshold. That said, when they all meet the threshold, each has some interest areas where they excel at. For some it is Physics, some Mathematics, some Clarinet, Some X-Country Running, some Fencing.

Would you send your child to a college where the entire class was selected from rank 1 to 100 based on Mathematics scores alone? Or would you send your child to a college where there are kids who meet academic standards but have different areas they excel in?

Is there a separate bucket for the student who plays clarinet such that they would know before the ED application deadline (or even the summer before that deadline) that they are already as good as admitted? Why are athletics valued so much more highly than the other interest areas?

This is the perennial debate and having it here again and again won’t change anything. So students should be aware if the schools they are looking at have different application processes and different acceptance rates for athletes than for non-athletes and plan accordingly.

[Anonymous]

These schools are overpriced and overrated. I don’t give them much thought at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On a related topic, do any of the SLACs have a decent sports culture? Meaning, kids actually go to the football, basketball, etc. games and while they know they are not competing for the NCAA championship...at least care about winning whatever D3 division in which they compete?

It is comical that if you go to the MIT baseball field, they don't have just one set of bleachers...they literally just have one bleacher (other people call that a bench).

When it rains you can sit in the dugout.

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?

Because some people like watching baseball?? Your "burn" is idiotic.