Wesleyan--not a good player

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a Wes a,um, I will just say that I would prefer there be NO athletic recruit slots and that coaches had ZERO pull in admissions. So if this is a sign Wes is not letting in athletes who aren’t otherwise great candidates for admission, kudos to Wes.

Same and agree. I have other thoughts but won’t share them here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wes is bottom tier for athletics, so not surprising they don't use recruiting the way the upper tier NESCAC schools do. At a Midd, Williams, or Bowdoin they will tout their 99% recruit admit rate as a sign their system works.

This is actually not true. Wesleyan has become much more competitive in a number of sports.

[Anonymous]

I can confirm that Wesleyan did indeed reject kids who were moved from ED1 to ED2, the assumption on the part of my DD and others, was that for whatever reason they weren't accepted ED1 but something about their candidacy was appealing enough to send them to ED2, and not reject them outright or defer to RD. We assumed (wrongly) that this was a positive sign and that it would work in our favor. No such luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has been discussed at length in CC forums over the past couple months. It sounds like the 25 athlete number is legit and came from the admissions office in discussions with surprised families.

25 kids who passed a prescreen and were were promised coach support?

[Anonymous]

That still doesn't make much sense. I could see a situation where perhaps admissions indicated that first semester grades might get a student over the hump, but surely that would be disclosed to the student. The school must provide some rationale for making the suggestion. And, in the athletic context, it really makes no sense, as ED1 will have taken away most (or all) of the athletic spots.

[Anonymous]

I’m not a big supporter of the SLAC athletic recruiting but it’s crappy if anyone was strung along. If they want to change their system, great. But don’t toy with people. Start next year. (If that’s what happened- I have no knowledge beyond what’s been written here (and possibly over on CC).)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's the point of those who are ok with the kids not getting in. The idea for the athlete is that he or she may be able to get in to a school with somewhat lower stats because of the status as an athlete. So maybe your sport lets you get in to a better school irrespective of whether that means you get aid.

The stats can not be low. The athletes have to be competitive on the field and academically.

Yes, but stats can be lower than someone who applies who is not an athlete. You cannot be the bottom of the barrel but you definitely don’t have to be a pointy kid to get in as an athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been discussed at length in CC forums over the past couple months. It sounds like the 25 athlete number is legit and came from the admissions office in discussions with surprised families.

25 kids who passed a prescreen and were were promised coach support?

If 25 kids were promised coach support and passed the prescreen that is really bad. How many sports have coaches that operate in this way? It is so odd that they all be at the same college. I still think this sounds like the the kids thought they had supported applications when they did not.

If the coaches are not being clear with recruits, I would avoid getting involved with this school. Make sure you are absolutely clear if the player has or does not have support through admissions at wes or anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's the point of those who are ok with the kids not getting in. The idea for the athlete is that he or she may be able to get in to a school with somewhat lower stats because of the status as an athlete. So maybe your sport lets you get in to a better school irrespective of whether that means you get aid.

The stats can not be low. The athletes have to be competitive on the field and academically.

Yes, but stats can be lower than someone who applies who is not an athlete. You cannot be the bottom of the barrel but you definitely don’t have to be a pointy kid to get in as an athlete.

I had a roommate at Wesleyan who had been waitlisted and then got in because of a coach’s support. She never would’ve been accepted otherwise and was not a good student.

[Anonymous]

I would be fine with ending athletic admissions but obviously that should be done up front, not telling kids one thing and then changing your mind.

Likewise I don't get why the school would ever ask kids to move from ED1 to ED2? Either you think they are good enough to be an early admit or you don't. Seems pretty crappy to string kids along like that.

[Anonymous]

There is a long thread on College Confidential about this, in case it hasn't been mentioned yet

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/t/wesleyan-ed-fall-admission-2022-discussion/3595190/60

OP's post here seems close to the mark....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be fine with ending athletic admissions but obviously that should be done up front, not telling kids one thing and then changing your mind.

Likewise I don't get why the school would ever ask kids to move from ED1 to ED2? Either you think they are good enough to be an early admit or you don't. Seems pretty crappy to string kids along like that.

The answer is the school is more concerned with yield than the applicants. I was skeptical when the point was first raised but there are enough CC posters to confirm W actually does this. What a second-rate BS practice. The admins are garbage people.

[Anonymous]

Any proof of this besides assertions on message boards? News reports? Higher Ed websites with bylines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be fine with ending athletic admissions but obviously that should be done up front, not telling kids one thing and then changing your mind.

Likewise I don't get why the school would ever ask kids to move from ED1 to ED2? Either you think they are good enough to be an early admit or you don't. Seems pretty crappy to string kids along like that.

The answer is the school is more concerned with yield than the applicants. I was skeptical when the point was first raised but there are enough CC posters to confirm W actually does this. What a second-rate BS practice. The admins are garbage people.

Lol…..what does yield have to do with an ED applicant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a long thread on College Confidential about this, in case it hasn't been mentioned yet

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/t/wesleyan-ed-fall-admission-2022-discussion/3595190/60

OP's post here seems close to the mark....

Wow. That is really sleazy.