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: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.

[Anonymous]

this is an illuminating thread. thank you OP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I do. Japanese student and a DC private school kid who both joined soccer at Pomona. The team has 7 walk ons in total. This isn't completely improbable.

ok we have one example.

Yes. You asked for one and received one. What a ridiculous argument.

[Anonymous]

ED doesn’t help at Williams if unhooked and admissions flat out says that at info sessions. Combo of legacy/athletes/low income getting preference at ED. But Williams also seems to care more about both legacies and athletics than peer schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ED doesn’t help at Williams if unhooked and admissions flat out says that at info sessions. Combo of legacy/athletes/low income getting preference at ED. But Williams also seems to care more about both legacies and athletics than peer schools.

Yes, and there's all kinds of hooks during the ED rounds that overinflates the higher admission rate - recruited athletes who have already passed pre-reads and have coach support, legacies, FGLI, Questbridge matches, and nepo-baby/donor kids.

This leaves very few spots for normal high-achievers.

Those are just facts. It's too bad many on this thread don't want to accept it. I don't think OP wants to burst your bubble for no reason. Ofc you can apply where you want ED, just be prepared for a very likely rejection and prepare for it. But if the choice is between a SLAC and a bigger or mid-size college, pick the bigger one if you want a larger chance of getting accepted!

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

That’s great but it isn’t an lac, so this is a useless comparison.

[Anonymous]

I agree not to waste ED as an unhooked candidate for the most selective SLACs: Williams, Amherst, Swat, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Pomona, CMC, Carleton.

But it can be really effective for the next tier below the more selective LACs for the unhooked. Some good places to use ED if it's a top choice are: Wesleyan, Vassar, Smith, Midd, Grinnell, Skid, Macalester, Colby, Bates, Colgate, Trinity, Oxy, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I know a Bowdoin kid who this year walked onto women’s rugby. I wouldn’t be shocked if there are many many girls who had never played rugby before arriving onto campus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I know a Bowdoin kid who this year walked onto women’s rugby. I wouldn’t be shocked if there are many many girls who had never played rugby before arriving onto campus

I'm sure there are a few, maybe a handful of kids, that walk onto some less popular teams and add to numbers at the margin. But most of these teams are very competitive and I wouldn't be surprised if there are almost no walk-ons to the most popular sports that make up the bigger numbers at these SLACs - football, soccer, baseball/softball, water polo, track/x-country, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED doesn’t help at Williams if unhooked and admissions flat out says that at info sessions. Combo of legacy/athletes/low income getting preference at ED. But Williams also seems to care more about both legacies and athletics than peer schools.

Yes, and there's all kinds of hooks during the ED rounds that overinflates the higher admission rate - recruited athletes who have already passed pre-reads and have coach support, legacies, FGLI, Questbridge matches, and nepo-baby/donor kids.

This leaves very few spots for normal high-achievers.

Those are just facts. It's too bad many on this thread don't want to accept it. I don't think OP wants to burst your bubble for no reason. Ofc you can apply where you want ED, just be prepared for a very likely rejection and prepare for it. But if the choice is between a SLAC and a bigger or mid-size college, pick the bigger one if you want a larger chance of getting accepted!

Nope, my pi8 t was the opposite. Williams is the outlier and says so, for most slacs ED is an advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I know a Bowdoin kid who this year walked onto women’s rugby. I wouldn’t be shocked if there are many many girls who had never played rugby before arriving onto campus

I'm sure there are a few, maybe a handful of kids, that walk onto some less popular teams and add to numbers at the margin. But most of these teams are very competitive and I wouldn't be surprised if there are almost no walk-ons to the most popular sports that make up the bigger numbers at these SLACs - football, soccer, baseball/softball, water polo, track/x-country, etc.

Many slacs don’t have football teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree not to waste ED as an unhooked candidate for the most selective SLACs: Williams, Amherst, Swat, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Pomona, CMC, Carleton.

But it can be really effective for the next tier below the more selective LACs for the unhooked. Some good places to use ED if it's a top choice are: Wesleyan, Vassar, Smith, Midd, Grinnell, Skid, Macalester, Colby, Bates, Colgate, Trinity, Oxy, etc.

You do realize that the admit rate at Carleton and Wellesley is higher that at several of your “lower” tier schools. Get a clue, PP.

[Anonymous]

My kid’s 1st choice is Swat. Are you suggesting it will be harder for her to get in ED than RD? Esp since they have ED2.

She is 1st in her class at end of jr year at v competitive private that typically sends 1-2 kids to Swat. Highest rigor. She has leadership etc and 1530 (800 v). No national anything.

She wants to be done with this process. Is it really a bad idea for her to apply ED?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid’s 1st choice is Swat. Are you suggesting it will be harder for her to get in ED than RD? Esp since they have ED2.

She is 1st in her class at end of jr year at v competitive private that typically sends 1-2 kids to Swat. Highest rigor. She has leadership etc and 1530 (800 v). No national anything.

She wants to be done with this process. Is it really a bad idea for her to apply ED?

No, ignore op.