I feel like we don't talk enough that top LACs are 40%+ recruited athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a very tired topic. Parents without athletes hate the recruited athlete hook. We get it.

I have one athlete and one who won't do sports in college (though is also an athlete). I hate the recruited athlete edge, even though one of mine will very likely be recruited. It ridiculous in higher education that these kids can get a preread and early and easy admission...I'll play when it helps my child but it doesn't change the fact that it is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My recruited athlete has a 35 on his ACT, and a wGPA of 4.8. Why not recruit high stats athletes if their scores fall in the range of accepted students? Better than a legacy or child of a big donor.

Because if you fill 35% of a class with recruited athletes, it decreases the diversity of the class. And by diversity I include artists, musicians, poets, scientists, scholars, and yes, athletes. Sure, you can be both. But most recruited athletes spent a large chunk of their teenage years studying and playing their sport. They didn’t spend 25 hours per week on something else. And they are disproportionately wealthy, reducing another metric of diversity. And they tend to stick together, having a polarizing impact on campus akin to the Greek system, if the percentage is high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My recruited athlete has a 35 on his ACT, and a wGPA of 4.8. Why not recruit high stats athletes if their scores fall in the range of accepted students? Better than a legacy or child of a big donor.

The problem is that recruited athletes with the minimum stats or above push ahead of kids equally or way more qualified. It doesn't even need to be about unqualified kids taking spots, but that less qualified kids take spots. Cherry picking your son out to say, "See! Athletes are smart!!!!!" doesn't help your stance. Of course, there are some that are 75% or higher in stats but: a) that is not the minority; and b) they take spots over more acadmically qualified kids.

P.S. A weighted GPA of a 4.8 is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that is part of the culture. If you are going in as a non-athlete you know this and, in fact, our experience is that the tours tell you the % of student athletes. What is the problem? It's like going to University of Miami and then complaining that it is hot.

This. Whyyyyy do you care. It's a private school they can do whatever they want.
Do you also complain that a steak house doesn't have enough vegan options?
They want to admit a lot of strong athletes. They don't care if they are not as strong academically.
OK, so maybe it's not the right place for you?

[Anonymous]

I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in? Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes? Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college? Sorry lots of questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The high academic SLACs are great. If you are a recruited athlete or join Greek life, your social life will be fine. If not, you better be an extrovert.

I always thought SLACs were good for
nerdy introverts? Maybe some of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My recruited athlete has a 35 on his ACT, and a wGPA of 4.8. Why not recruit high stats athletes if their scores fall in the range of accepted students? Better than a legacy or child of a big donor.

The problem is that recruited athletes with the minimum stats or above push ahead of kids equally or way more qualified. It doesn't even need to be about unqualified kids taking spots, but that less qualified kids take spots. Cherry picking your son out to say, "See! Athletes are smart!!!!!" doesn't help your stance. Of course, there are some that are 75% or higher in stats but: a) that is not the minority; and b) they take spots over more acadmically qualified kids.

P.S. A weighted GPA of a 4.8 is dumb.

Is 3.97 unweighted GPA better?

[Anonymous]

The reason many people care is because it seemingly takes out a large category of schools that appeal to non-sports focused kids who otherwise would love to be at a top academic school with small classes, open curriculum and great resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The reason many people care is because it seemingly takes out a large category of schools that appeal to non-sports focused kids who otherwise would love to be at a top academic school with small classes, open curriculum and great resources.

Yes. I figured (posted above) my nerdy, humanities kid would prefer such a setting. I didn’t realize sports and Greek life were big in SLACs.

[Anonymous]

I guess I don’t understand the point of offering sports where it would appear there are few fans at any games even the traditionally popular sports.

It would be one thing if all of Williams came out for the big Amherst game…but it sounds like that is not at all what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually didn’t know this because I went to a slac that didn’t do this. Kids played sports for fun. The Williams numbers are crazy and make me think less of what might have been a dream reach school for me and DC.

Where can a humanities student go to get away from this? For STEM I assume MIT admission is still uninfluenced by athletics?

My daughters’ school sends 2-3 kids per year to MIT. All athletes. Yes, they are great, smart kids but not at the top of the class by any means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually didn’t know this because I went to a slac that didn’t do this. Kids played sports for fun. The Williams numbers are crazy and make me think less of what might have been a dream reach school for me and DC.

Where can a humanities student go to get away from this? For STEM I assume MIT admission is still uninfluenced by athletics?

My daughters’ school sends 2-3 kids per year to MIT. All athletes. Yes, they are great, smart kids but not at the top of the class by any means.

Reed has no varsity sports. Cal tech really doesn’t recruit whatsoever, though they do have varsity sports.

[Anonymous]

Why don’t we talk about how large state universities recruit “student” athletes who are basically free agent hired guns and are exploited and tossed aside. Why don’t we talk about how messed up it is that coaches are the highest paid employees at many institutions purportedly devoted to education? Why don’t we talk about how backwards it is that so many students are drawn to big state schools for the “culture” of drinking and spectating from the stands and cheering for “their” team of students who basically are not involved in the life of the university at all. And how ridiculous it is to prioritize this kind of thing when picking a university to attend when the whole point is to get an education?

Bottom line, why pick on SLACs. At least athletes in those schools are real students and their actual friends and classmates are in the stands.

[Anonymous]

I have an athletic DD who does not want to play her sport in college, but is interested in a SLAC/LAC. I kind of worry she might have trouble finding her people if the social structure is built around the varsity sports teams. Are there any LAC's that do not have that reputation? She really wants a small school and they all seem to have at least 30% varsity athletes. Any first hand experience with a non-varsity athlete thriving in this environment. If so, what school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we talk about how large state universities recruit “student” athletes who are basically free agent hired guns and are exploited and tossed aside. Why don’t we talk about how messed up it is that coaches are the highest paid employees at many institutions purportedly devoted to education? Why don’t we talk about how backwards it is that so many students are drawn to big state schools for the “culture” of drinking and spectating from the stands and cheering for “their” team of students who basically are not involved in the life of the university at all. And how ridiculous it is to prioritize this kind of thing when picking a university to attend when the whole point is to get an education?

Bottom line, why pick on SLACs. At least athletes in those schools are real students and their actual friends and classmates are in the stands.

I think there is legitimate reason to decry the entire athlete-college industrial complex. For D1, it would seem the NCAA will continue to diminish in power and probably within 5 years, colleges will pay students directly to compete in sports. It is unclear if those athletes will even have to maintain any facade of going to actually going to college.

All this trickles down to D3. D3 coaches are all gunning to become D1 coaches and don’t care much about the academic performance of their athletes.

My kid is getting recruited for a sport and you now have D3 coaches at places like Bates and Colby advertising how many of their players used the transfer portal to transfer to a D1 (places like Richmond, Davidson and Ivy schools). It is now a one-and-mentality that D3 isn’t the end…it’s a minor league for academic D1.