Top schools where sports *don’t matter*

[Anonymous]

Not a “top school” by your definition, perhaps, but Reed College offers an excellent liberal arts education and has no athletics— just PE classes and a few athletic clubs.

[Anonymous]

Duke Michigan and Syracuse sports don't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, if you allow yourself to look at the bigger picture, having a school that focuses on sports is better for the entire school. As others mentioned sports=donor money. You can't avoid this connection and its importance to have an alumni network available to help YOUR child find a job, provide athletic centers for YOUR child to exercise, etc. The thing that is so amazing about colleges is finding your way and what is enjoyable to you as an individual. This could be sports, this could be greek life or just for academic pursuits but lumping athletics at a school as some sort of pariah is incredibly short-sighted. It also seems you are making some big decisions on behalf of your child that are only a reflection of your beliefs. Let them decide what they want to experience for their college years.

Must be nice to be so rich that you can pay for your kids to just have fun and party for four years.

[Anonymous]

There are many colleges where sports aren't very important. Among the Ivies, Penn, Columbia, and Brown are less sporty than Harvard, Yale, Cornell, or Dartmouth. NYU isn't sporty at all; I went to grad school there and didn't even know where undergrads played sports. Engineering schools like MIT and Cal Tech tend to be less sporty. Others have mentioned Chicago. University of Rochester is D3 but sports aren't a big deal. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Anonymous]

I’m still super curious about where OP went to school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would turn this question around. Except for recruited athletes (which are a special case you can do nothing about), which colleges place significant importance on athletics over other ECs? You DO NOT need to have athletics in your application to get accepted to a top school and having athletics as an activity does not significantly increase an applicant's chances (except for being a recruited athlete) any more than any other activity. Participate in sports if that interests you; if it doesn't, don't give it a second thought.

I agree with this 100%. Why are people so focused on recruited athletes getting in the way of their precious child? [/quote]


A better question is why do we give recruited athletes an edge at all? How did we get here? Because the smaller schools followed the Ivy league in promoting football, that's why. It really makes no sense for my tiny slac to have a football team. Wait! They stopped it four years ago for financial reasons. See? That's how it should be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McGill. Get a great education without much, if any, focus on college sports from my the admissions committee or the student body

Are you serious? McGill doesn’t care about hockey? They also football, soccer, rugby, skiing, etc.

[Anonymous]

Because athletes bring in money for the school.

Better athletes, better teams, better PR, more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Duke Michigan and Syracuse sports don't matter.

A stupid comment. Don't these schools have football and basketball teams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvey Mudd does not care about sports at all.

Yes they do. Silly person.

No, they don't. I went there, silly person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many colleges where sports aren't very important. Among the Ivies, Penn, Columbia, and Brown are less sporty than Harvard, Yale, Cornell, or Dartmouth. NYU isn't sporty at all; I went to grad school there and didn't even know where undergrads played sports. Engineering schools like MIT and Cal Tech tend to be less sporty. Others have mentioned Chicago. University of Rochester is D3 but sports aren't a big deal. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

(

This is more nuanced. I went to an Ivy - student life/social life was not driven by sports culture (except perhaps for the people that were actually on those teams). However, recruited athletes definitely have an edge in terms of admission. Varsity Blues scandal is real! And, there were definitely certain classes and majors that were "favorites" for recruited athletes because the majors had fewer requirements. For example one major had a lot of athletes and most non-athletes in the major were double majors.

[Anonymous]

OP, you know it's actually a thing to just not go to games and you would probably never know "sports matter" at most schools. No one holds a gun to someone's head and say "go to the game or else."

[Anonymous]

Olin. Cooper Union. Have fun.

[Anonymous]

All of them?

If their profile is excellent and original, your kid doesn't need to have ever done any athletics whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.