does athletics dominate SLAC's like Amherst, Bowdoin, etc?

[Anonymous]

At least at Williams (and I think this generally true at most NESCAC schools), each coach gets a small number of "tips" each year, which can be used to get kids in with otherwise below average (though likely still very strong) academic credentials. The total number of "tips" in each admissions class has been going down. I think it may be below 70 at this point, so some teams will only get 1 or 2. Coaches can also use "protect" slots, in which kids who are academically above average for the applications process "get in" because their coach asks for it, and it doesn't negatively impact the academic profile of the class.

Here is a more detailed discussion of the process: http://ephblog.com/2019/10/21/guide-to-athletic-admissions-2/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least at Williams (and I think this generally true at most NESCAC schools), each coach gets a small number of "tips" each year, which can be used to get kids in with otherwise below average (though likely still very strong) academic credentials. The total number of "tips" in each admissions class has been going down. I think it may be below 70 at this point, so some teams will only get 1 or 2. Coaches can also use "protect" slots, in which kids who are academically above average for the applications process "get in" because their coach asks for it, and it doesn't negatively impact the academic profile of the class.

Here is a more detailed discussion of the process: http://ephblog.com/2019/10/21/guide-to-athletic-admissions-2/

That is generally accurate though I would hardly recommend the source in general as an unbiased website, quite the opposite.

IME ... very hard to walk on to a major sport even at DIII/NESCAC/SLAC I’m familiar with (baseball IME). Many good athletes not continuing to play in college, so you have to be quite good to not already be on the radar screen ime, though it may vary.

[Anonymous]

PP here from 14:57. Agreed that the author of the EphBlog article has definite views on this, and many other things, though he does try to be factually accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here from 14:57. Agreed that the author of the EphBlog article has definite views on this, and many other things, though he does try to be factually accurate.

[Anonymous]

My kid attended Bowdoin. Kid was an athlete in high school but not an amazing one, was absolutely not an athletic recruit. Did walk onto a team at Bowdoin but it was rugby so most people hadn’t played before.

It didn’t dominate the social scene. Yes, the kids on the teams might hang out but it’s not much different from any club. The kids putting on plays or doing some sort of volunteer activity together might hang out also.

[Anonymous]

My DS was a swimmer at Swarthmore. For the record, he also was accepted to Williams-all regular decision. He was not a “tipped” athlete because he was high stats. Socially, an athlete has a built in social component from day one with his teammates of various academic years. The bonus for swimming is that it is coed. This group is in addition to their freshman dorm and fellow classmates. Maybe some sports have a fan base, but it’s not swimming in my experience.

[Anonymous]

Former Amherst athlete here. One aspect that skews the numbers slightly is that a lot of athletes play two sports. So the number of recruited athletes is a little lower than it seems on paper. My experience was that the athletes tended to be more prominent socially during freshman year but that many became less “jocky” as they found other interests or even stopped playing on a team (because there are no athletic scholarships there are no requirements that you have to stay on a team if you’d prefer not to).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former Amherst athlete here. One aspect that skews the numbers slightly is that a lot of athletes play two sports. So the number of recruited athletes is a little lower than it seems on paper. My experience was that the athletes tended to be more prominent socially during freshman year but that many became less “jocky” as they found other interests or even stopped playing on a team (because there are no athletic scholarships there are no requirements that you have to stay on a team if you’d prefer not to).

Generally, and frequently, at SLACs and everywhere else quite frankly, kids drop playing sports when it becomes clear to them that they will not get much, if any, playing time. It's always too much work to be on a team and not play. The old saying is that there is no "I" in "Team" -- and that is right. But, there are two "I"s in "Playing Time". Typically, half of the kids who start out playing a sport as freshman are done by their Junior year. That does not mean that they leave campus. They instead find themselves with much more time to do other things. The thing about all sports - even at a SLAC, is that the coach's job and pay depends on: (1) winning within the school's expected parameters (2) winning within the school's expected parameters (3) winning within the school's expected parameters (4) making sure athletes on the team represent the school appropriately (don't get in trouble, don't flunk out); and (5) athletes on the team do okay academically and eventually graduate. So the coach is focused on winning.

"I"

[Anonymous]

Anecdote of one: DD’s good friend transferred out of Bowdoin a couple of years ago (after her freshman year) feeling that athletes were a dominant presence.

[Anonymous]

All SLACS I know have student populations that are at least 25% to a third if not more of the student population. If you aren't an athlete or get along easily with athletes, the SLAC experience can suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Academics definitely dominate at LACs. And the proper term is "LACs," not "SLACs."

They’re different terms actually. SLAC is a selective liberal arts college. LACs are liberal arts colleges overall, not necessarily selective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics definitely dominate at LACs. And the proper term is "LACs," not "SLACs."

They’re different terms actually. SLAC is a selective liberal arts college. LACs are liberal arts colleges overall, not necessarily selective.

You resurrected a pre-pandemic thread just so that you could miss its point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The short answer is no, not in the least....academics dominate. I graduated from a Nescac and I have a DC at one currently and we were/are both on sports teams and whilst we took athletics seriously, everything was subordinate to academics. Socially the teams tend to be tight because of the amount of time spent with one another but every student has a diverse group of friends and the overall atmosphere is one of inclusivity.

How are you able to answer if you were on a sports team? Yes, academics may dominate, but you still belonged to the 40% group under discussion.

[Anonymous]

NP- I read this the same way. I went to a NESCAC and was an athlete. My experience was a bit different though. Most of my freshman year, my friend group was through my sport but by spring, that had evolved and my friend group was mostly outside my team (although I stayed friends with my teammates). I do think athletics have an oversize influence at these small schools, especially for boys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The short answer is no, not in the least....academics dominate. I graduated from a Nescac and I have a DC at one currently and we were/are both on sports teams and whilst we took athletics seriously, everything was subordinate to academics. Socially the teams tend to be tight because of the amount of time spent with one another but every student has a diverse group of friends and the overall atmosphere is one of inclusivity.

Really interesting response, thank you. I totally believe that the athletes are scholars and that is most important to them, but I think the rest of your response may actually confirm my concern -- 40% of the student body has a group that they are tight with, and they are inclusive of others, but that could still mean that the non-athletes feel like they are tagging along with the nice athletes who are willing to include them in the group -- rather than having a group they feel 100% a part of and central to. Not because the athletes are doing anything wrong, but just because of the normal dynamics at play regarding who you spend the most time with and therefore get closest to.

[Anonymous]

Yes, academics are the most important, but socially I think athletics play a huge role at Amherst (also an alum).

Anonymous wrote:Amherst grad here. Academics by far dominates over athletics. Not even close. Hell, the a capella group at Amherst is more popular than the athletic teams.