Wesleyan University drops Legacy Preferences in Admissions Decisions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recruited athlete has shown merit to a school, which isn't like a legacy or someone given a preference for something they can't change (like where they were born or their racial category).
You may want schools to limit their teams or even eliminate sports (keeping some of the ultra-elite ones is questionable at best but ask Stanford about trying to get rid of them) but you should recognize there is a clear difference when someone has an actual skill that has been developed that is valued by American colleges.

Doesn't the fact that athletes graduate at high rates from the most elite schools (like most everyone else does too) make people think the purely academic portion of applicant profiles really should play less of a role in admissions decisions? Schools should be doing more in admissions for standouts in the top few % nationally and internationally in areas like debate, orchestra, band, dance and art rather than less for athletes (though I do think the number of sports should go down at most schools). Those people can impact the campus community too and offer a lot post-graduation with some of the same EQ and team building you get as an athlete. The recruited athlete discussion here misses a lot.

It’s zero sum. They aren’t admitting as many of those kids because 25% of the class is taken up by athletes. It leads to less diversity in the broadest sense. That isn’t lost on anyone. It’s a massive problem.

Is 25% too much? If so, why? There would still be plenty of room for the standouts from those other non-sports activities, right? Giving more real admissions preference would make the singing, robotics, debate, dancing, and art better too! Having more people involved in real campus activities would be great. That strong attachment would be good for the school too since they want donors! What I saw was too many of were people who basically did nothing once they got to college. Getting in was like the actual accomplishment rather than the start of the journey. They did fine since just about everyone graduates but didn't add much beyond the few that were truly passionate about particular subject areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recruited athlete has shown merit to a school, which isn't like a legacy or someone given a preference for something they can't change (like where they were born or their racial category).
You may want schools to limit their teams or even eliminate sports (keeping some of the ultra-elite ones is questionable at best but ask Stanford about trying to get rid of them) but you should recognize there is a clear difference when someone has an actual skill that has been developed that is valued by American colleges.

Doesn't the fact that athletes graduate at high rates from the most elite schools (like most everyone else does too) make people think the purely academic portion of applicant profiles really should play less of a role in admissions decisions? Schools should be doing more in admissions for standouts in the top few % nationally and internationally in areas like debate, orchestra, band, dance and art rather than less for athletes (though I do think the number of sports should go down at most schools). Those people can impact the campus community too and offer a lot post-graduation with some of the same EQ and team building you get as an athlete. The recruited athlete discussion here misses a lot.

It’s zero sum. They aren’t admitting as many of those kids because 25% of the class is taken up by athletes. It leads to less diversity in the broadest sense. That isn’t lost on anyone. It’s a massive problem.

Is 25% too much? If so, why? There would still be plenty of room for the standouts from those other non-sports activities, right? Giving more real admissions preference would make the singing, robotics, debate, dancing, and art better too! Having more people involved in real campus activities would be great. That strong attachment would be good for the school too since they want donors! What I saw was too many of were people who basically did nothing once they got to college. Getting in was like the actual accomplishment rather than the start of the journey. They did fine since just about everyone graduates but didn't add much beyond the few that were truly passionate about particular subject areas.

There are so many categories of great applicants. Why are you so comfortable giving one in four spots to athletes? I’d prefer a more diverse student body. What percentage do the orchestra kids get? The actors? Singers? Painters? Poets? Scientists? Film makers? Apparently you value athletics over those things. I do not.

[Anonymous]

Some schools do have niche ECs they recruit for. I agree it would be a net positive to see more recognize and try to maximize excellence in other areas beyond NCAA sports too.
I would encourage people who don't want to see sports play a big role on campus or in admissions to check out the elite universities in Europe. My mom had wanted me to look at Trinity. The US isn't the only ballgame in town so to speak Many of them also don't give legacies a preference either!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recruited athlete has shown merit to a school, which isn't like a legacy or someone given a preference for something they can't change (like where they were born or their racial category).
You may want schools to limit their teams or even eliminate sports (keeping some of the ultra-elite ones is questionable at best but ask Stanford about trying to get rid of them) but you should recognize there is a clear difference when someone has an actual skill that has been developed that is valued by American colleges.

Doesn't the fact that athletes graduate at high rates from the most elite schools (like most everyone else does too) make people think the purely academic portion of applicant profiles really should play less of a role in admissions decisions? Schools should be doing more in admissions for standouts in the top few % nationally and internationally in areas like debate, orchestra, band, dance and art rather than less for athletes (though I do think the number of sports should go down at most schools). Those people can impact the campus community too and offer a lot post-graduation with some of the same EQ and team building you get as an athlete. The recruited athlete discussion here misses a lot.

It’s zero sum. They aren’t admitting as many of those kids because 25% of the class is taken up by athletes. It leads to less diversity in the broadest sense. That isn’t lost on anyone. It’s a massive problem.

Is 25% too much? If so, why? There would still be plenty of room for the standouts from those other non-sports activities, right? Giving more real admissions preference would make the singing, robotics, debate, dancing, and art better too! Having more people involved in real campus activities would be great. That strong attachment would be good for the school too since they want donors! What I saw was too many of were people who basically did nothing once they got to college. Getting in was like the actual accomplishment rather than the start of the journey. They did fine since just about everyone graduates but didn't add much beyond the few that were truly passionate about particular subject areas.

There are so many categories of great applicants. Why are you so comfortable giving one in four spots to athletes? I’d prefer a more diverse student body. What percentage do the orchestra kids get? The actors? Singers? Painters? Poets? Scientists? Film makers? Apparently you value athletics over those things. I do not.

No, I'm saying with 70-90% of the class being non-athletes depending on the highly selective school, they should be applying the same method they do with athletics to other ECs that also add a ton to campus life. I'd also say cut some of those elite sports like sailing and squash that no one attends anyway but the bigger change I'd like to see is giving more help in admissions to more activity groups. Treating athletes in the way they are isn't the problem to me. It is how they treat the top few % in other activities they claim to value. Elite schools should cut down on admitting so many joiners with nothing but a few ECs and pretty high #s. Having directors, leaders, and professors at the school involved in a tip-like process (like coaches use) would also be good because actual experts at the school would be signaling to admissions the strength of an applicant in a desired area. Now, the admissions officer has no idea how great someone is outside of a few awards and maybe an LOR.

[Anonymous]

I dont know why colleges have more sports than your average high school school. Football, basketball, swimming, tennis? Okay. Sailing, squash, fencing, water polo? Why?

I literally don't understand what these low/no spectator sports adds to a school? I played club sports and those were great, added a lot to school spirit, helped with community and mental health, I'm sure. Clubs cost the school very little and require no tips on the admission side. Just make these sports club sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why colleges have more sports than your average high school school. Football, basketball, swimming, tennis? Okay. Sailing, squash, fencing, water polo? Why?

I literally don't understand what these low/no spectator sports adds to a school? I played club sports and those were great, added a lot to school spirit, helped with community and mental health, I'm sure. Clubs cost the school very little and require no tips on the admission side. Just make these sports club sports.

Totally agree that the athletic departments are huge at a lot of top schools. Harvard, Stanford, Notre Dame, and Duke offer among the largest numbers of sports in the country. Harvard and Stanford are #1 and 2!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why colleges have more sports than your average high school school. Football, basketball, swimming, tennis? Okay. Sailing, squash, fencing, water polo? Why?

I literally don't understand what these low/no spectator sports adds to a school? I played club sports and those were great, added a lot to school spirit, helped with community and mental health, I'm sure. Clubs cost the school very little and require no tips on the admission side. Just make these sports club sports.

Totally agree that the athletic departments are huge at a lot of top schools. Harvard, Stanford, Notre Dame, and Duke offer among the largest numbers of sports in the country. Harvard and Stanford are #1 and 2!

Obscure sports are side doors into the schools for wealthy full pay kids whose parents have the means to get their kid personal coaches and trainers. The schools expect the money that was spent on training in their youth then get rolled into the university as donations.

A kid might not be a recruiter athlete, but Coach still has a roster to fill.

[Anonymous]

A pre-read in and of itself is a huge advantage. Every other applicant has no clue how they come across to admissions until it’s too late to make changes to their application strategy - especially what is more and more a crucial decision, where to ED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why colleges have more sports than your average high school school. Football, basketball, swimming, tennis? Okay. Sailing, squash, fencing, water polo? Why?

I literally don't understand what these low/no spectator sports adds to a school? I played club sports and those were great, added a lot to school spirit, helped with community and mental health, I'm sure. Clubs cost the school very little and require no tips on the admission side. Just make these sports club sports.

Just like some schools teach lots more subjects and have more courses than your average high school or other colleges, some schools have lots more extracurriculars, including varsity sports, than your average high school or other colleges. That's why there are different schools for different applicant preferences. Some applicants prefer the more intense schedule, competition, coaching, and rigor of varsity sports to club sports and they feel those sports generate more school spirit and help with community and individual health more than club sports. Other applicants like the kinds of kids schools with those sports attract and the vibe it creates on campus.

This really isn't different from choosing among schools generally. If you think a school with a pre-professional focus diverts slots and resources to kids who you think aren't sufficiently intellectual for you, you choose another school. Similarly, if you want a school that has very few sports and the ones they do have are only club sports, you can choose a different school that is a better fit for you (Reed, for instance).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

Apparently, you don't know the hook a recruited athlete has in college admissions regardless of division, and especially for the selective Division 3 colleges like Wesleyan.

We're not merely talking about Johnny or Sally playing a high school sport as an extracurricular activity.

Yes, I do understand that recruited athletes have a huge leg up I college admissions. What I’m challenging is your assertion that 800 Wes students are RECRUITED athletes. I seriously doubt that. You haven’t provided any evidence for that.

It’s possible that 800 of the students might say they play a sport, but that doesn’t mean that they were all recruited in the admissions sense.

NP: is recruited athlete the same as varsity athletes? According to this link 25% of the students at Wesleyan are varsity athletes.

https://www.koppelmangroup.com/blog/2023/4/1/college-athletic-recruiting-for-wesleyan

If you read this article, it states that typical requirements aren’t lowered at Wesleyan if you apply as an athlete and so not sure athletes are given any special favors as such.

[Anonymous]

Faculty tuition assistance makes a lot of sense (plus its a baked into the compensation package). Legacy and donor preferences need to go.

[Anonymous]

Today I remembered that a school called Wesleyan still exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why colleges have more sports than your average high school school. Football, basketball, swimming, tennis? Okay. Sailing, squash, fencing, water polo? Why?

I literally don't understand what these low/no spectator sports adds to a school? I played club sports and those were great, added a lot to school spirit, helped with community and mental health, I'm sure. Clubs cost the school very little and require no tips on the admission side. Just make these sports club sports.

Totally agree that the athletic departments are huge at a lot of top schools. Harvard, Stanford, Notre Dame, and Duke offer among the largest numbers of sports in the country. Harvard and Stanford are #1 and 2!

Obscure sports are side doors into the schools for wealthy full pay kids whose parents have the means to get their kid personal coaches and trainers. The schools expect the money that was spent on training in their youth then get rolled into the university as donations.

A kid might not be a recruiter athlete, but Coach still has a roster to fill.

Seems messed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the dumbest neighborhood kids is on his way to Harvard via athletics. It’s kind of funny. He is the last kid you would associate with Harvard or academic excellence.

One of your neighbors is lucky enough to being going to Harvard but you are on DCUM shi**ing on them?

With neighbors like you who needs enemies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Faculty tuition assistance makes a lot of sense (plus its a baked into the compensation package). Legacy and donor preferences need to go.

It all needs to go.