Social life for non athletic boy at mid sized private vs SLAC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:65% are not athletes.

As my kid said, don’t worry. There’s a subset of guys I’m going to avoid at ANY school and it’s about 1/3 of them. Do those guys overlap w the lax bros? Yes. So who cares?

+1

[Anonymous]

Agree that he might want to check out Carleton. 50/50 gender split, less athlete/non-athlete divide, and super friendly and inclusive culture. We know two kids who sound similar to your son who are recent grads and raved about their time there.

[Anonymous]

Emory, Rice, Davidson

[Anonymous]

If he’s artsy, he’ll be fine at any of these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is it easier for a somewhat nerdy, somewhat artsy boy not planning to play club sports to find friends at a mid sized private (brown, tufts, case western) where there are more people to choose from but it might be harder to find your people, or at a SLAC (WASP, Wesleyan, Haverford, Bates) where there is more more of a community and it is easier to meet people but not as many male friend options, especially if the varsity athletes tend to do their own thing. Not looking at schools where Greek is a big presence.

I think SLACs these days can be tough for boys who are not recruited athletes and have no interest in sports. The nature of these schools is that they are very small. Athletes generally keep to themselves. They have different schedules and priorities than other students. Which is normal. At larger D1 colleges that's not an issue at all. Athletes don't change the social vibe at Stanford or MIT or Brown or Case Western and so on.

But you can really feel that separation at small schools. Williams, Amherst, and Bowdoin are roughly 35-40 percent athletes. So too are Bates, Haverford, Colby and many others. That's a lot of guys who are generally taken out of the social pool when it comes to making friends.

I have two boys so we looked into this. Both smart, athletic, and very social. One was even recruited by a bunch of D3 schools for his sport. But he was interested in engineering, so SLACs didn't work for him. And neither wanted to be a full time athlete in college regardless. They both noped out of considering SLACs. Too small. Too limited in social opportunities. Too bifurcated for men. A SLAC is such a roll of the dice for the non-athlete guys. Maybe you get lucky and find a good friend group freshman year. But if you don't, you are out of options when you attend a school in the middle of nowhere that is smaller than most high schools. It's a substantial risk for guys not on the team.

Spoken by an ignorant parent without kids at a SLAC. Conjecture does not equal reality.

Clearly, honesty is not your best quality.

Clearly intelligence and integrity aren’t your best qualities.

Why the insults? The prior poster points out a risk even if some do find their way. These schools are really expensive (transferring almost always has its costs, indirect and direct) so there is more pressure than ever to make a sound choice.

My close high school teammate was a D3 All American at Haverford. He worked hard to have athlete and non athlete friends. At the time they had arguably the best coach in America, not just D3. A terrific intellect though so maybe just the right school for him. All I know is that when two of his non sports friends and classmates died in the World Trade Center he immediately reacted. There were no flights to New Jersey and he drove through the night from Chicago to be with fiancé’s and families. Don’t overlook the value of sincere effort anywhere.

I was a serious D1 athlete on scholarship at a very competitive school. To non athletes who may be turned off by athletes, remember that athletes can be self absorbed and monotonous grinds. It is a bit the nature of sport. No excuses for being self absorbed, but my non athlete friends put a little bit of effort in to crack the athletic shell and I am incredibly grateful they did. One of my best friends was a shy summa cum laude student who is now President of a LAC. She was gay, which played zero part in our friendship. We sat on the steps of one of the most famous athletic venues in the country every week with her encouraging me to stay at the school, make friends and study smarter but not necessarily harder. A sister I never had. I learned then the only relevant stereotype about gay people is that they are for the most part very resilient. I just was lucky enough to have someone willing to pay it forward. To an awkward straight guy athlete who needed a friend. Again effort pays off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think SLACs these days can be tough for boys who are not recruited athletes and have no interest in sports. The nature of these schools is that they are very small. Athletes generally keep to themselves. They have different schedules and priorities than other students. Which is normal. At larger D1 colleges that's not an issue at all. Athletes don't change the social vibe at Stanford or MIT or Brown or Case Western and so on.

But you can really feel that separation at small schools. Williams, Amherst, and Bowdoin are roughly 35-40 percent athletes. So too are Bates, Haverford, Colby and many others. That's a lot of guys who are generally taken out of the social pool when it comes to making friends.

I have two boys so we looked into this. Both smart, athletic, and very social. One was even recruited by a bunch of D3 schools for his sport. But he was interested in engineering, so SLACs didn't work for him. And neither wanted to be a full time athlete in college regardless. They both noped out of considering SLACs. Too small. Too limited in social opportunities. Too bifurcated for men. A SLAC is such a roll of the dice for the non-athlete guys. Maybe you get lucky and find a good friend group freshman year. But if you don't, you are out of options when you attend a school in the middle of nowhere that is smaller than most high schools. It's a substantial risk for guys not on the team.

I have a non-athlete son at one of these schools and view this statement as accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think medium vs small makes much difference initially. The key is still finding some kind of activity or community - art, newspaper, music, camping/outdoors club, community service, college radio - and sticking with it until you start to know some people and make friends.

+1

[Anonymous]

Does he like to drink? that is the key question. If he does like to drink, then he will do fine anywhere. However, a lot of schools, especially small schools in the middle of nowhere, there’s nothing else to do but drink. If he does not like to drink, he might find himself more socially isolated.

I’m sure people are going to sputter that their kid is at a small school, doesn’t drink and is doing just great, but the fact is that drinking is a huge part of college culture and has been for many decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does he like to drink? that is the key question. If he does like to drink, then he will do fine anywhere. However, a lot of schools, especially small schools in the middle of nowhere, there’s nothing else to do but drink. If he does not like to drink, he might find himself more socially isolated.

I’m sure people are going to sputter that their kid is at a small school, doesn’t drink and is doing just great, but the fact is that drinking is a huge part of college culture and has been for many decades.

Very true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think SLACs these days can be tough for boys who are not recruited athletes and have no interest in sports. The nature of these schools is that they are very small. Athletes generally keep to themselves. They have different schedules and priorities than other students. Which is normal. At larger D1 colleges that's not an issue at all. Athletes don't change the social vibe at Stanford or MIT or Brown or Case Western and so on.

But you can really feel that separation at small schools. Williams, Amherst, and Bowdoin are roughly 35-40 percent athletes. So too are Bates, Haverford, Colby and many others. That's a lot of guys who are generally taken out of the social pool when it comes to making friends.

I have two boys so we looked into this. Both smart, athletic, and very social. One was even recruited by a bunch of D3 schools for his sport. But he was interested in engineering, so SLACs didn't work for him. And neither wanted to be a full time athlete in college regardless. They both noped out of considering SLACs. Too small. Too limited in social opportunities. Too bifurcated for men. A SLAC is such a roll of the dice for the non-athlete guys. Maybe you get lucky and find a good friend group freshman year. But if you don't, you are out of options when you attend a school in the middle of nowhere that is smaller than most high schools. It's a substantial risk for guys not on the team.

I have a non-athlete son at one of these schools and view this statement as accurate.

I was worried about this when my fairly shy non-athlete non-artsy son selected a SLAC. It was rough at first but he has made a ton of friends and is very happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think SLACs these days can be tough for boys who are not recruited athletes and have no interest in sports. The nature of these schools is that they are very small. Athletes generally keep to themselves. They have different schedules and priorities than other students. Which is normal. At larger D1 colleges that's not an issue at all. Athletes don't change the social vibe at Stanford or MIT or Brown or Case Western and so on.

But you can really feel that separation at small schools. Williams, Amherst, and Bowdoin are roughly 35-40 percent athletes. So too are Bates, Haverford, Colby and many others. That's a lot of guys who are generally taken out of the social pool when it comes to making friends.

I have two boys so we looked into this. Both smart, athletic, and very social. One was even recruited by a bunch of D3 schools for his sport. But he was interested in engineering, so SLACs didn't work for him. And neither wanted to be a full time athlete in college regardless. They both noped out of considering SLACs. Too small. Too limited in social opportunities. Too bifurcated for men. A SLAC is such a roll of the dice for the non-athlete guys. Maybe you get lucky and find a good friend group freshman year. But if you don't, you are out of options when you attend a school in the middle of nowhere that is smaller than most high schools. It's a substantial risk for guys not on the team.

I have a non-athlete son at one of these schools and view this statement as accurate.

As do I and several friends. Patently false based on our collective experience. But at least you and I speak from fact, not conjecture. The poster above is making a lot of assumptions for someone with zero boots on the ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does he like to drink? that is the key question. If he does like to drink, then he will do fine anywhere. However, a lot of schools, especially small schools in the middle of nowhere, there’s nothing else to do but drink. If he does not like to drink, he might find himself more socially isolated.

I’m sure people are going to sputter that their kid is at a small school, doesn’t drink and is doing just great, but the fact is that drinking is a huge part of college culture and has been for many decades.

Very true.

This is true even at larger schools. DS is a very very light drinker. He goes to parties if they are associated with one of his clubs. Otherwise he won't seek them out. So, it is difficult at times finding things to do on the weekends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have a non-athlete son at one of these schools and view this statement as accurate.

As do I and several friends. Patently false based on our collective experience. But at least you and I speak from fact, not conjecture. The poster above is making a lot of assumptions for someone with zero boots on the ground.

I am the commenter from above. I suppose what I would say I agree with is: as a non-athlete coming into the school without a preset group of friends/acquaintances, and without a set of events and activities to stimulate this socialization, the NA student's initial social opportunities and interactions are often based on initial living arrangements, which can lead to 'luck of the draw' friendships and socialization. This can be different when 30% or more of your hallway (or building, or whatever) already has social engagements and friend groups, versus a large school where it can be less than 10% of your "hallway".

As the responding poster has said, this is just based on my limited experience with a child in this environment and I fully understand that everyone will have different experiences and views on this.