Amherst vs Bowdoin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the coed, non-military LACs below Williams and Amherst, like Bowdoin, have ED2 to help reduce acceptance rates and increase yields.

Weaker schools offer ED2.

Stronger schools like Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Williams, Amherst, don't need to.


USNWR LAC:
Williams College #1
Amherst College #2
Pomona College #3
Swarthmore College #4
Bowdoin College#6
Carleton College #6
Claremont McKenna College #9
Middlebury College #11
Washington and Lee University#11
Vassar College #13
Davidson College #15
Grinnell College #15
Hamilton College #15
Colgate University #18
Haverford College #18
University of Richmond #18
Wesleyan University #18
Colby College #24
Bates College #25

I'd guess Swarthmore and Pomona do EDII not because they're weaker schools, but because it gives them more control of their incoming class. Those two are the two most diverse non-specialized LACs in the country: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/campus-ethnic-diversity

That does not sound completely reasonable. After all, wouldn't most top college want to "control" their incoming class? Also, regarding the USNSWR link on diverse schools, Wellesley and Amherst and similarly diverse to Swarthmore and Pomona. Not saying Swarthmore and Pomona are weak schools because they're both great schools, but the fact remains that most of the very top schools do not have two ED rounds.

Keep in mind that both Amherst and Williams have a higher percentage of athletes than Swarthmore (no football team, less sports crazy conference) and, especially, Pomona (Claremont colleges share many teams). Amherst and Williams would probably have to increase to filling 60% of their class with ED if they had an ED2; that is the stuff of “lesser” schools like Middlebury and Wesleyan.

As for the diversity issue, Swarthmore (33% white domestic) and Pomona (34%) are also more diverse than Amherst (39%) or Williams (50%). Williams bends over backwards to get more URMs, but it’s Williamstown. Amherst bends over backwards and in all sorts of pretzel turns and succeeds, but at the cost of most kids there being in an athlete group or a minority group. (Division 3 athletes at these schools are overwhelmingly white to the uninitiated). Huge social divide there…

If you are a URM, metropolitan Philadelphia or California not so far from Los Angeles is a much easier sell. So much easier that you might be cool committing to either school ED2 if you don’t get into a top Ivy. On the other hand, URMs need to be seriously convinced before they commit to somewhat rural Amherst and super rural Williamstown. Such is the stuff of the RD round.

There you go: two reasons. Not saying they are dispositive or “correct;” but they at least merit consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the coed, non-military LACs below Williams and Amherst, like Bowdoin, have ED2 to help reduce acceptance rates and increase yields.

Weaker schools offer ED2.

Stronger schools like Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Williams, Amherst, don't need to.


USNWR LAC:
Williams College #1
Amherst College #2
Pomona College #3
Swarthmore College #4
Bowdoin College#6
Carleton College #6
Claremont McKenna College #9
Middlebury College #11
Washington and Lee University#11
Vassar College #13
Davidson College #15
Grinnell College #15
Hamilton College #15
Colgate University #18
Haverford College #18
University of Richmond #18
Wesleyan University #18
Colby College #24
Bates College #25

I'd guess Swarthmore and Pomona do EDII not because they're weaker schools, but because it gives them more control of their incoming class. Those two are the two most diverse non-specialized LACs in the country: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/campus-ethnic-diversity

That does not sound completely reasonable. After all, wouldn't most top college want to "control" their incoming class? Also, regarding the USNSWR link on diverse schools, Wellesley and Amherst and similarly diverse to Swarthmore and Pomona. Not saying Swarthmore and Pomona are weak schools because they're both great schools, but the fact remains that most of the very top schools do not have two ED rounds.

Keep in mind that both Amherst and Williams have a higher percentage of athletes than Swarthmore (no football team, less sports crazy conference) and, especially, Pomona (Claremont colleges share many teams). Amherst and Williams would probably have to increase to filling 60% of their class with ED if they had an ED2; that is the stuff of “lesser” schools like Middlebury and Wesleyan.

As for the diversity issue, Swarthmore (33% white domestic) and Pomona (34%) are also more diverse than Amherst (39%) or Williams (50%). Williams bends over backwards to get more URMs, but it’s Williamstown. Amherst bends over backwards and in all sorts of pretzel turns and succeeds, but at the cost of most kids there being in an athlete group or a minority group. (Division 3 athletes at these schools are overwhelmingly white to the uninitiated). Huge social divide there…

If you are a URM, metropolitan Philadelphia or California not so far from Los Angeles is a much easier sell. So much easier that you might be cool committing to either school ED2 if you don’t get into a top Ivy. On the other hand, URMs need to be seriously convinced before they commit to somewhat rural Amherst and super rural Williamstown. Such is the stuff of the RD round.

There you go: two reasons. Not saying they are dispositive or “correct;” but they at least merit consideration.

You make it sound like athletes somehow get in with lower academic standards which is simply not the case. Unlike at Division 1 colleges, very few athletes get into Amherst or Williams if their academics don't measure up. The vast majority of recruited athletes are in the NESCAC A band with a handful in the B band and even fewer in the C band. There are no athletic scholarships so "dumb jocks" simply don't apply there in droves. There are also many non-recruited walk-ons in the various teams. Athletics adds to the diverse, multi-dimensional communities at Amherst and Williams.

With regards to diversity, there are many ways to look at it. For example, you can look at economic diversity where Amherst has 24% federal Pell Grant recipients vs Swarthmore's 20%. International students comprise about 11% of students at Amherst versus under 4% at Swarthmore.

[Anonymous]

^ You are so insecure. Nothing in PP’s post suggested athletes are not academically qualified. PP is correct that there is a HUGE divide at Amherst between athletes and non-athletes - it has a reputation for being the most divided campus socially in the NESCAC for this reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ You are so insecure. Nothing in PP’s post suggested athletes are not academically qualified. PP is correct that there is a HUGE divide at Amherst between athletes and non-athletes - it has a reputation for being the most divided campus socially in the NESCAC for this reason.

No, not insecure at all. Simply pointing out the misconceptions in PP's post if you had read it. I would suggest you are the one who is insecure or have problems with reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the coed, non-military LACs below Williams and Amherst, like Bowdoin, have ED2 to help reduce acceptance rates and increase yields.

Weaker schools offer ED2.

Stronger schools like Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Williams, Amherst, don't need to.


USNWR LAC:
Williams College #1
Amherst College #2
Pomona College #3
Swarthmore College #4
Bowdoin College#6
Carleton College #6
Claremont McKenna College #9
Middlebury College #11
Washington and Lee University#11
Vassar College #13
Davidson College #15
Grinnell College #15
Hamilton College #15
Colgate University #18
Haverford College #18
University of Richmond #18
Wesleyan University #18
Colby College #24
Bates College #25

I'd guess Swarthmore and Pomona do EDII not because they're weaker schools, but because it gives them more control of their incoming class. Those two are the two most diverse non-specialized LACs in the country: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/campus-ethnic-diversity

That does not sound completely reasonable. After all, wouldn't most top college want to "control" their incoming class? Also, regarding the USNSWR link on diverse schools, Wellesley and Amherst and similarly diverse to Swarthmore and Pomona. Not saying Swarthmore and Pomona are weak schools because they're both great schools, but the fact remains that most of the very top schools do not have two ED rounds.

Keep in mind that both Amherst and Williams have a higher percentage of athletes than Swarthmore (no football team, less sports crazy conference) and, especially, Pomona (Claremont colleges share many teams). Amherst and Williams would probably have to increase to filling 60% of their class with ED if they had an ED2; that is the stuff of “lesser” schools like Middlebury and Wesleyan.

As for the diversity issue, Swarthmore (33% white domestic) and Pomona (34%) are also more diverse than Amherst (39%) or Williams (50%). Williams bends over backwards to get more URMs, but it’s Williamstown. Amherst bends over backwards and in all sorts of pretzel turns and succeeds, but at the cost of most kids there being in an athlete group or a minority group. (Division 3 athletes at these schools are overwhelmingly white to the uninitiated). Huge social divide there…

If you are a URM, metropolitan Philadelphia or California not so far from Los Angeles is a much easier sell. So much easier that you might be cool committing to either school ED2 if you don’t get into a top Ivy. On the other hand, URMs need to be seriously convinced before they commit to somewhat rural Amherst and super rural Williamstown. Such is the stuff of the RD round.

There you go: two reasons. Not saying they are dispositive or “correct;” but they at least merit consideration.

You make it sound like athletes somehow get in with lower academic standards which is simply not the case. Unlike at Division 1 colleges, very few athletes get into Amherst or Williams if their academics don't measure up. The vast majority of recruited athletes are in the NESCAC A band with a handful in the B band and even fewer in the C band. There are no athletic scholarships so "dumb jocks" simply don't apply there in droves. There are also many non-recruited walk-ons in the various teams. Athletics adds to the diverse, multi-dimensional communities at Amherst and Williams.

With regards to diversity, there are many ways to look at it. For example, you can look at economic diversity where Amherst has 24% federal Pell Grant recipients vs Swarthmore's 20%. International students comprise about 11% of students at Amherst versus under 4% at Swarthmore.

You seem to think there is not a problem that Amherst has, numerically (not even proportionally) more athletes than the University of Alabama, as discussed in Selingo’s book. As he describes it, being an athlete is not a thumb on the scale; it’s an entire fist. Hard to engage in any debate with apologists who rationalize that this is in any way OK, or remotely equitable in terms of socioeconomic background. Irrespective of the fuzzy notion that these athletes are “qualified,” the fact remains that, statistically, the vast majority would not have been admitted but for the fact that they were recruited athletes. Your belief that, say, Williams has walk-ons these days also reveals you have no idea what you are talking about…we are unfortunately at least a generation removed from those days.

In any event, not sure where you are getting your numbers. With the exception of Grinnell (the only school that does actually have walk-ons), Swarthmore has more international students than any top SLAC: 15%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ You are so insecure. Nothing in PP’s post suggested athletes are not academically qualified. PP is correct that there is a HUGE divide at Amherst between athletes and non-athletes - it has a reputation for being the most divided campus socially in the NESCAC for this reason.

No, not insecure at all. Simply pointing out the misconceptions in PP's post if you had read it. I would suggest you are the one who is insecure or have problems with reading comprehension.

something like 80% of the kids who apply to these schools are academically qualified. their own admissions people say this. harvard says 90%. so when people say, "but the athletes are academically qualified!" it's 100% meaningless. they got in bcs they're good at x sport. that's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ You are so insecure. Nothing in PP’s post suggested athletes are not academically qualified. PP is correct that there is a HUGE divide at Amherst between athletes and non-athletes - it has a reputation for being the most divided campus socially in the NESCAC for this reason.

No, not insecure at all. Simply pointing out the misconceptions in PP's post if you had read it. I would suggest you are the one who is insecure or have problems with reading comprehension.

something like 80% of the kids who apply to these schools are academically qualified. their own admissions people say this. harvard says 90%. so when people say, "but the athletes are academically qualified!" it's 100% meaningless. they got in bcs they're good at x sport. that's it.

You will never see a Varsity Blues-type scandal at any NESCAC school like what happened at Yale, Stanford, USC, Georgetown, etc. There are many more "dumb jocks" at Harvard percentage-wise as they need to do well in the Ivy League athletic conference! There is no such thing as a likely letter (essentially guaranteed admit) at NESCAC as they have at Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the coed, non-military LACs below Williams and Amherst, like Bowdoin, have ED2 to help reduce acceptance rates and increase yields.

Weaker schools offer ED2.

Stronger schools like Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Williams, Amherst, don't need to.


USNWR LAC:
Williams College #1
Amherst College #2
Pomona College #3
Swarthmore College #4
Bowdoin College#6
Carleton College #6
Claremont McKenna College #9
Middlebury College #11
Washington and Lee University#11
Vassar College #13
Davidson College #15
Grinnell College #15
Hamilton College #15
Colgate University #18
Haverford College #18
University of Richmond #18
Wesleyan University #18
Colby College #24
Bates College #25

I'd guess Swarthmore and Pomona do EDII not because they're weaker schools, but because it gives them more control of their incoming class. Those two are the two most diverse non-specialized LACs in the country: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/campus-ethnic-diversity

That does not sound completely reasonable. After all, wouldn't most top college want to "control" their incoming class? Also, regarding the USNSWR link on diverse schools, Wellesley and Amherst and similarly diverse to Swarthmore and Pomona. Not saying Swarthmore and Pomona are weak schools because they're both great schools, but the fact remains that most of the very top schools do not have two ED rounds.

Keep in mind that both Amherst and Williams have a higher percentage of athletes than Swarthmore (no football team, less sports crazy conference) and, especially, Pomona (Claremont colleges share many teams). Amherst and Williams would probably have to increase to filling 60% of their class with ED if they had an ED2; that is the stuff of “lesser” schools like Middlebury and Wesleyan.

As for the diversity issue, Swarthmore (33% white domestic) and Pomona (34%) are also more diverse than Amherst (39%) or Williams (50%). Williams bends over backwards to get more URMs, but it’s Williamstown. Amherst bends over backwards and in all sorts of pretzel turns and succeeds, but at the cost of most kids there being in an athlete group or a minority group. (Division 3 athletes at these schools are overwhelmingly white to the uninitiated). Huge social divide there…

If you are a URM, metropolitan Philadelphia or California not so far from Los Angeles is a much easier sell. So much easier that you might be cool committing to either school ED2 if you don’t get into a top Ivy. On the other hand, URMs need to be seriously convinced before they commit to somewhat rural Amherst and super rural Williamstown. Such is the stuff of the RD round.

There you go: two reasons. Not saying they are dispositive or “correct;” but they at least merit consideration.

You make it sound like athletes somehow get in with lower academic standards which is simply not the case. Unlike at Division 1 colleges, very few athletes get into Amherst or Williams if their academics don't measure up. The vast majority of recruited athletes are in the NESCAC A band with a handful in the B band and even fewer in the C band. There are no athletic scholarships so "dumb jocks" simply don't apply there in droves. There are also many non-recruited walk-ons in the various teams. Athletics adds to the diverse, multi-dimensional communities at Amherst and Williams.

With regards to diversity, there are many ways to look at it. For example, you can look at economic diversity where Amherst has 24% federal Pell Grant recipients vs Swarthmore's 20%. International students comprise about 11% of students at Amherst versus under 4% at Swarthmore.

You seem to think there is not a problem that Amherst has, numerically (not even proportionally) more athletes than the University of Alabama, as discussed in Selingo’s book. As he describes it, being an athlete is not a thumb on the scale; it’s an entire fist. Hard to engage in any debate with apologists who rationalize that this is in any way OK, or remotely equitable in terms of socioeconomic background. Irrespective of the fuzzy notion that these athletes are “qualified,” the fact remains that, statistically, the vast majority would not have been admitted but for the fact that they were recruited athletes. Your belief that, say, Williams has walk-ons these days also reveals you have no idea what you are talking about…we are unfortunately at least a generation removed from those days.

In any event, not sure where you are getting your numbers. With the exception of Grinnell (the only school that does actually have walk-ons), Swarthmore has more international students than any top SLAC: 15%.

You can argue whether athletics benefit colleges or not or which colleges benefit more or less, but the fact remains that athletics is VERY important for the majority of top colleges besides the NESCACs including Stanford and the Ivies and yes, the University of Alabama. At least Amherst stopped giving legacy preferences while all the other NESCAC schools still do, so don't talk about being "equitable" when you just don't know. In terms of walk-ons, you don't seem to know what it means. https://williamsrecord.com/456464/sports/walk-ons-fill-out-team-rosters-this-spring-especially/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the coed, non-military LACs below Williams and Amherst, like Bowdoin, have ED2 to help reduce acceptance rates and increase yields.

Weaker schools offer ED2.

Stronger schools like Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Williams, Amherst, don't need to.


USNWR LAC:
Williams College #1
Amherst College #2
Pomona College #3
Swarthmore College #4
Bowdoin College#6
Carleton College #6
Claremont McKenna College #9
Middlebury College #11
Washington and Lee University#11
Vassar College #13
Davidson College #15
Grinnell College #15
Hamilton College #15
Colgate University #18
Haverford College #18
University of Richmond #18
Wesleyan University #18
Colby College #24
Bates College #25

I'd guess Swarthmore and Pomona do EDII not because they're weaker schools, but because it gives them more control of their incoming class. Those two are the two most diverse non-specialized LACs in the country: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/campus-ethnic-diversity

That does not sound completely reasonable. After all, wouldn't most top college want to "control" their incoming class? Also, regarding the USNSWR link on diverse schools, Wellesley and Amherst and similarly diverse to Swarthmore and Pomona. Not saying Swarthmore and Pomona are weak schools because they're both great schools, but the fact remains that most of the very top schools do not have two ED rounds.

Keep in mind that both Amherst and Williams have a higher percentage of athletes than Swarthmore (no football team, less sports crazy conference) and, especially, Pomona (Claremont colleges share many teams). Amherst and Williams would probably have to increase to filling 60% of their class with ED if they had an ED2; that is the stuff of “lesser” schools like Middlebury and Wesleyan.

As for the diversity issue, Swarthmore (33% white domestic) and Pomona (34%) are also more diverse than Amherst (39%) or Williams (50%). Williams bends over backwards to get more URMs, but it’s Williamstown. Amherst bends over backwards and in all sorts of pretzel turns and succeeds, but at the cost of most kids there being in an athlete group or a minority group. (Division 3 athletes at these schools are overwhelmingly white to the uninitiated). Huge social divide there…

If you are a URM, metropolitan Philadelphia or California not so far from Los Angeles is a much easier sell. So much easier that you might be cool committing to either school ED2 if you don’t get into a top Ivy. On the other hand, URMs need to be seriously convinced before they commit to somewhat rural Amherst and super rural Williamstown. Such is the stuff of the RD round.

There you go: two reasons. Not saying they are dispositive or “correct;” but they at least merit consideration.

You make it sound like athletes somehow get in with lower academic standards which is simply not the case. Unlike at Division 1 colleges, very few athletes get into Amherst or Williams if their academics don't measure up. The vast majority of recruited athletes are in the NESCAC A band with a handful in the B band and even fewer in the C band. There are no athletic scholarships so "dumb jocks" simply don't apply there in droves. There are also many non-recruited walk-ons in the various teams. Athletics adds to the diverse, multi-dimensional communities at Amherst and Williams.

With regards to diversity, there are many ways to look at it. For example, you can look at economic diversity where Amherst has 24% federal Pell Grant recipients vs Swarthmore's 20%. International students comprise about 11% of students at Amherst versus under 4% at Swarthmore.

You seem to think there is not a problem that Amherst has, numerically (not even proportionally) more athletes than the University of Alabama, as discussed in Selingo’s book. As he describes it, being an athlete is not a thumb on the scale; it’s an entire fist. Hard to engage in any debate with apologists who rationalize that this is in any way OK, or remotely equitable in terms of socioeconomic background. Irrespective of the fuzzy notion that these athletes are “qualified,” the fact remains that, statistically, the vast majority would not have been admitted but for the fact that they were recruited athletes. Your belief that, say, Williams has walk-ons these days also reveals you have no idea what you are talking about…we are unfortunately at least a generation removed from those days.

In any event, not sure where you are getting your numbers. With the exception of Grinnell (the only school that does actually have walk-ons), Swarthmore has more international students than any top SLAC: 15%.

You can argue whether athletics benefit colleges or not or which colleges benefit more or less, but the fact remains that athletics is VERY important for the majority of top colleges besides the NESCACs including Stanford and the Ivies and yes, the University of Alabama. At least Amherst stopped giving legacy preferences while all the other NESCAC schools still do, so don't talk about being "equitable" when you just don't know. In terms of walk-ons, you don't seem to know what it means. https://williamsrecord.com/456464/sports/walk-ons-fill-out-team-rosters-this-spring-especially/

No, that was a COVID thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ You are so insecure. Nothing in PP’s post suggested athletes are not academically qualified. PP is correct that there is a HUGE divide at Amherst between athletes and non-athletes - it has a reputation for being the most divided campus socially in the NESCAC for this reason.

There is a very significant social divide between athletes and NARPS (non-athlete regular person) at both Amherst & Middlebury. And it gets nasty sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the coed, non-military LACs below Williams and Amherst, like Bowdoin, have ED2 to help reduce acceptance rates and increase yields.

Weaker schools offer ED2.

Stronger schools like Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Williams, Amherst, don't need to.


USNWR LAC:
Williams College #1
Amherst College #2
Pomona College #3
Swarthmore College #4
Bowdoin College#6
Carleton College #6
Claremont McKenna College #9
Middlebury College #11
Washington and Lee University#11
Vassar College #13
Davidson College #15
Grinnell College #15
Hamilton College #15
Colgate University #18
Haverford College #18
University of Richmond #18
Wesleyan University #18
Colby College #24
Bates College #25

I'd guess Swarthmore and Pomona do EDII not because they're weaker schools, but because it gives them more control of their incoming class. Those two are the two most diverse non-specialized LACs in the country: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/campus-ethnic-diversity

That does not sound completely reasonable. After all, wouldn't most top college want to "control" their incoming class? Also, regarding the USNSWR link on diverse schools, Wellesley and Amherst and similarly diverse to Swarthmore and Pomona. Not saying Swarthmore and Pomona are weak schools because they're both great schools, but the fact remains that most of the very top schools do not have two ED rounds.

Keep in mind that both Amherst and Williams have a higher percentage of athletes than Swarthmore (no football team, less sports crazy conference) and, especially, Pomona (Claremont colleges share many teams). Amherst and Williams would probably have to increase to filling 60% of their class with ED if they had an ED2; that is the stuff of “lesser” schools like Middlebury and Wesleyan.

As for the diversity issue, Swarthmore (33% white domestic) and Pomona (34%) are also more diverse than Amherst (39%) or Williams (50%). Williams bends over backwards to get more URMs, but it’s Williamstown. Amherst bends over backwards and in all sorts of pretzel turns and succeeds, but at the cost of most kids there being in an athlete group or a minority group. (Division 3 athletes at these schools are overwhelmingly white to the uninitiated). Huge social divide there…

If you are a URM, metropolitan Philadelphia or California not so far from Los Angeles is a much easier sell. So much easier that you might be cool committing to either school ED2 if you don’t get into a top Ivy. On the other hand, URMs need to be seriously convinced before they commit to somewhat rural Amherst and super rural Williamstown. Such is the stuff of the RD round.

There you go: two reasons. Not saying they are dispositive or “correct;” but they at least merit consideration.

You make it sound like athletes somehow get in with lower academic standards which is simply not the case. Unlike at Division 1 colleges, very few athletes get into Amherst or Williams if their academics don't measure up. The vast majority of recruited athletes are in the NESCAC A band with a handful in the B band and even fewer in the C band. There are no athletic scholarships so "dumb jocks" simply don't apply there in droves. There are also many non-recruited walk-ons in the various teams. Athletics adds to the diverse, multi-dimensional communities at Amherst and Williams.

With regards to diversity, there are many ways to look at it. For example, you can look at economic diversity where Amherst has 24% federal Pell Grant recipients vs Swarthmore's 20%. International students comprise about 11% of students at Amherst versus under 4% at Swarthmore.

You seem to think there is not a problem that Amherst has, numerically (not even proportionally) more athletes than the University of Alabama, as discussed in Selingo’s book. As he describes it, being an athlete is not a thumb on the scale; it’s an entire fist. Hard to engage in any debate with apologists who rationalize that this is in any way OK, or remotely equitable in terms of socioeconomic background. Irrespective of the fuzzy notion that these athletes are “qualified,” the fact remains that, statistically, the vast majority would not have been admitted but for the fact that they were recruited athletes. Your belief that, say, Williams has walk-ons these days also reveals you have no idea what you are talking about…we are unfortunately at least a generation removed from those days.

In any event, not sure where you are getting your numbers. With the exception of Grinnell (the only school that does actually have walk-ons), Swarthmore has more international students than any top SLAC: 15%.

You can argue whether athletics benefit colleges or not or which colleges benefit more or less, but the fact remains that athletics is VERY important for the majority of top colleges besides the NESCACs including Stanford and the Ivies and yes, the University of Alabama. At least Amherst stopped giving legacy preferences while all the other NESCAC schools still do, so don't talk about being "equitable" when you just don't know. In terms of walk-ons, you don't seem to know what it means. https://williamsrecord.com/456464/sports/walk-ons-fill-out-team-rosters-this-spring-especially/

No, that was a COVID thing.

Show the data

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ You are so insecure. Nothing in PP’s post suggested athletes are not academically qualified. PP is correct that there is a HUGE divide at Amherst between athletes and non-athletes - it has a reputation for being the most divided campus socially in the NESCAC for this reason.

There is a very significant social divide between athletes and NARPS (non-athlete regular person) at both Amherst & Middlebury. And it gets nasty sometimes.

This social divide is frankly inevitable when teammates practice for hours daily not to mention in competition with other schools in their conference. This teamwork is frankly one of the reason why Wall Street likes to hire student-athletes. Whether this divide is "significant" or "nasty" is debatable, but certainly not limited to any NESCAC school (Bowdoin has over 40% varsity athletes for example) or other top colleges or universities for that matter.

[Anonymous]

One tidbit about Amherst abandoning legacy preferences: it is a cover for their athletes. The admission boost to athletes and it’s disproportionate impact on wealthy, white students at Amherst had far surpassed that of legacy — by an order of magnitude.

Because of its smaller student population and much higher percentage of athletes, for example, Amherst without legacy and it’s 40% athletes is still more inequitable than Wesleyan, Middlebury, and Tufts with athletes and legacy both. So, no, Amherst is not “better” than the rest of the NESCAC on the equity front; it is at best middlin’.

If Amherst wants to really talk the talk, it will cut recruited athletes in half once the affirmative action decision comes down in a few weeks and or leave/reform NESCAC. Until it does, it’s shift away from legacy preferences needs to be called what it actually is: a marketing ploy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One tidbit about Amherst abandoning legacy preferences: it is a cover for their athletes. The admission boost to athletes and it’s disproportionate impact on wealthy, white students at Amherst had far surpassed that of legacy — by an order of magnitude.

Because of its smaller student population and much higher percentage of athletes, for example, Amherst without legacy and it’s 40% athletes is still more inequitable than Wesleyan, Middlebury, and Tufts with athletes and legacy both. So, no, Amherst is not “better” than the rest of the NESCAC on the equity front; it is at best middlin’.

If Amherst wants to really talk the talk, it will cut recruited athletes in half once the affirmative action decision comes down in a few weeks and or leave/reform NESCAC. Until it does, it’s shift away from legacy preferences needs to be called what it actually is: a marketing ploy.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One tidbit about Amherst abandoning legacy preferences: it is a cover for their athletes. The admission boost to athletes and it’s disproportionate impact on wealthy, white students at Amherst had far surpassed that of legacy — by an order of magnitude.

Because of its smaller student population and much higher percentage of athletes, for example, Amherst without legacy and it’s 40% athletes is still more inequitable than Wesleyan, Middlebury, and Tufts with athletes and legacy both. So, no, Amherst is not “better” than the rest of the NESCAC on the equity front; it is at best middlin’.

If Amherst wants to really talk the talk, it will cut recruited athletes in half once the affirmative action decision comes down in a few weeks and or leave/reform NESCAC. Until it does, it’s shift away from legacy preferences needs to be called what it actually is: a marketing ploy.

Eh, Ok, if that's what you want to believe. Sounds like you have axe to grind.