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

[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?

Ah, but clarinetists aren't recruited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the problem? How else are they supposed to field their teams?

This is backwards thinking. The mission of a college is not to field athletic teams and then fill in the rest of the academic seats with students as an afterthought. The mission of a school is to educate students. Because you want students to exercise and be fit and develop school spirit, you let them form athletic teams and compete with other schools. This is how college athletics started. You field the teams that current student are interested in playing, and you field those teams with existing students. If no one wants to play a given sport this year, you drop that team until enough kids sign up; but given the number of students athletes in the country, this is unlikely to be a problem anywhere. Pick your college, then try out for the team when you get there.

Mission of the college is to develop young people. Not just to educate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the problem? How else are they supposed to field their teams?

This is backwards thinking. The mission of a college is not to field athletic teams and then fill in the rest of the academic seats with students as an afterthought. The mission of a school is to educate students. Because you want students to exercise and be fit and develop school spirit, you let them form athletic teams and compete with other schools. This is how college athletics started. You field the teams that current student are interested in playing, and you field those teams with existing students. If no one wants to play a given sport this year, you drop that team until enough kids sign up; but given the number of students athletes in the country, this is unlikely to be a problem anywhere. Pick your college, then try out for the team when you get there.

Mission of the college is to develop young people. Not just to educate.

To educate and help develop a variety of interests rather than concentrating on and valuing one area of interest above all others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very tired topic. Parents without athletes hate the recruited athlete hook. We get it.

We also get it. Parents with kids in sports but not good in academics or intelligence hate the smart, hardworking, academically talented kids and denigrate them as STRIVERS!

Well, that didn't take long to fall into the "unqualified athlete" bit.
It is hard for many of you to believe, but there are kids who are good enough athletically to be recruited and simultaneously are smart, hardworking, and academically talented. And most of the time, these are the ones that end up at top LACs. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative. But it is the truth.

+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.

Strivers don't really care about LACs

[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?

It depends, is she going to major in math, science, or engineering? Then give me the smartest kids. I want her to run with the swift.
Is she looking for a husband, then give me the well rounded rich kids. I want her to meet rich kids who aren't too pointy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Did Rachel Maddow major in fencing maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the problem? How else are they supposed to field their teams?

This is backwards thinking. The mission of a college is not to field athletic teams and then fill in the rest of the academic seats with students as an afterthought. The mission of a school is to educate students. Because you want students to exercise and be fit and develop school spirit, you let them form athletic teams and compete with other schools. This is how college athletics started. You field the teams that current student are interested in playing, and you field those teams with existing students. If no one wants to play a given sport this year, you drop that team until enough kids sign up; but given the number of students athletes in the country, this is unlikely to be a problem anywhere. Pick your college, then try out for the team when you get there.

Mission of the college is to develop young people. Not just to educate.

This is why we call them developmental institutions and not educational institutions?
This conceit that they are "developing" young people is really a euphemism for socializing and indoctrinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the problem? How else are they supposed to field their teams?

This is backwards thinking. The mission of a college is not to field athletic teams and then fill in the rest of the academic seats with students as an afterthought. The mission of a school is to educate students. Because you want students to exercise and be fit and develop school spirit, you let them form athletic teams and compete with other schools. This is how college athletics started. You field the teams that current student are interested in playing, and you field those teams with existing students. If no one wants to play a given sport this year, you drop that team until enough kids sign up; but given the number of students athletes in the country, this is unlikely to be a problem anywhere. Pick your college, then try out for the team when you get there.

Mission of the college is to develop young people. Not just to educate.

This is why we call them developmental institutions and not educational institutions?
This conceit that they are "developing" young people is really a euphemism for socializing and indoctrinating.

stop trying to make "developmental institutions" happen. They're called "college" or "university", that's it. It's not Amherst Developmental Institution. FFS

[Anonymous]

Go to an Amherst Williams football game and you'll get it a little more.
Harvard Yale is only slightly better football and you'll get tens of thousands there in a way nothing else does on campus.
Rivalry games and homecoming events are huge for colleges small and big.

[Anonymous]

Sports are also one area where merit actually means something. Colleges can't agree on whether they care about test scores but pretty much all but Caltech agree on getting the best athletes they can who the AO will admit.

[Anonymous]

It is a little scary to hear friends say they are getting their kids into sports like squash and rowing for this reason. I doubt it will help them game the system. How focused parents are on top colleges from an early age is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sports are also one area where merit actually means something. Colleges can't agree on whether they care about test scores but pretty much all but Caltech agree on getting the best athletes they can who the AO will admit.

No, Caltech also agrees. Just that their athletes have to be exceptional students (more so than MIT)...however, CalTech still needs kids that know how to play baseball at a decent level if they want to field a baseball team and they want the best possible player they can get (of course, even a really good baseball player with a 1580 will take Stanford in a heartbeat, so they won't waste time pursuing someone too good). So, the baseball kid with a 1580 SAT and some minimal ECs will beat out some kid with a 1600 and much better ECs and awards.

Doesn't mean the baseball player will struggle academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are also one area where merit actually means something. Colleges can't agree on whether they care about test scores but pretty much all but Caltech agree on getting the best athletes they can who the AO will admit.

No, Caltech also agrees. Just that their athletes have to be exceptional students (more so than MIT)...however, CalTech still needs kids that know how to play baseball at a decent level if they want to field a baseball team and they want the best possible player they can get (of course, even a really good baseball player with a 1580 will take Stanford in a heartbeat, so they won't waste time pursuing someone too good). So, the baseball kid with a 1580 SAT and some minimal ECs will beat out some kid with a 1600 and much better ECs and awards.

Doesn't mean the baseball player will struggle academically.

+1

[Anonymous]

girl athletes at MIT can get in with excellent but not really unusually excellent stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am laughing at this veneration of the “student athlete”. I’ve had two kids graduate high school and many of their friends went on to D3 schools to play their sports. Most of them were pretty average players on on a crappy MCPS high school team. Based on my observation, outside of the top SLACs, it’s not all that hard to get on a D3 team. I am honesty shocked some of these kids were recruited.

Yes, it's about the top SLACs in competitive D3 conferences.

That's the subject in the title. Top.

We’re not talking DeSales here.