Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.

It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.

This experiment exists....it is called Reed college.

Good point and Reed is a great school. Arguably though sports were never part of its identity. Sports are arguably part of the NESCAC and Ivy schools’ foundation. Take away the sport and the foundation is lost.

[Anonymous]

Wow, it's fascinating how mean spirited this has become - I'm always curious about the athletic recruiting hate, particularly toward NESCAC schools it seems. Is it because people are mad that there are fewer spots for their kids to go to those schools? But why do you want them at those schools if you don't like the culture or priorities?

You should probably not look to closely at, for example, medical school admissions. Or hiring at elite firms. Both look very favorably at varsity athletes because they know the traits that go along with that- the determination, teamwork, resilience, commitment, even physical fitness needed to play at that level - and they are not fielding teams. For similar reasons, they like military experience. The reason colleges need to recruit athletes instead of just taking the luck of the draw is because you need to actually fill positions - the same way a French horn player has a big edge when the orchestra at a college needs one.

If I were an admissions officer looking at applications from two kids - with one being a varsity athlete in a tough sport, and the other not, I would not care if the athlete had slightly lower grades - because depending on the sport, it is an enormous time commitment, requires great mental energy, and is just frankly exhausting. I have one kid who played 3 varsity sports in HS, and one who didn't play any - the non-athlete kid was super involved in HS and outside of school. Rehearsals after school, a pt job tutoring, various clubs and leadership positions. Straight As, high rigor, 1580 SAT. She was not nearly as busy as her sibling - she actually had weekends, she didn't get home exhausted (often bruised and sore, sometimes injured) 5x week from practice, have to shower, eat dinner, etc., before touching homework.

Yes, they want the teams, the school spirit, to play other schools in their conference. But they also want and need kids who can perform at that level, not athletically, but at life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.

It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.

This experiment exists....it is called Reed college.

And it is a miserable place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, it's fascinating how mean spirited this has become - I'm always curious about the athletic recruiting hate, particularly toward NESCAC schools it seems. Is it because people are mad that there are fewer spots for their kids to go to those schools? But why do you want them at those schools if you don't like the culture or priorities?

You should probably not look to closely at, for example, medical school admissions. Or hiring at elite firms. Both look very favorably at varsity athletes because they know the traits that go along with that- the determination, teamwork, resilience, commitment, even physical fitness needed to play at that level - and they are not fielding teams. For similar reasons, they like military experience. The reason colleges need to recruit athletes instead of just taking the luck of the draw is because you need to actually fill positions - the same way a French horn player has a big edge when the orchestra at a college needs one.

If I were an admissions officer looking at applications from two kids - with one being a varsity athlete in a tough sport, and the other not, I would not care if the athlete had slightly lower grades - because depending on the sport, it is an enormous time commitment, requires great mental energy, and is just frankly exhausting. I have one kid who played 3 varsity sports in HS, and one who didn't play any - the non-athlete kid was super involved in HS and outside of school. Rehearsals after school, a pt job tutoring, various clubs and leadership positions. Straight As, high rigor, 1580 SAT. She was not nearly as busy as her sibling - she actually had weekends, she didn't get home exhausted (often bruised and sore, sometimes injured) 5x week from practice, have to shower, eat dinner, etc., before touching homework.

Yes, they want the teams, the school spirit, to play other schools in their conference. But they also want and need kids who can perform at that level, not athletically, but at life.

The athlete-haters on DCUM are next-level crazy. Don’t take them too seriously.

[Anonymous]

Because they want athletic teams and kids to fill them.

[Anonymous]

The sports + school is unique to the US. My kid is in Europe and there are no sports associated with the university. He plays on an outside club team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former collegiate athletes are more likely to donate than non-athletes.

Many would-be employers prefer to hire collegiate athletes; having a heavy “roster” of them on campus improves post-graduation hiring numbers.

Some schools need male sports to mitigate what would be a heavily skewed student body, sex wise.

Many applicants view collegiate sports as part of the overall college experience and favor schools that offer them.

Some households will pay a higher tuition if it means an opportunity to play collegiate sports.

By this rationale, 35% athletes at Williams and Amherst is not nearly enough. These are top schools. Why not make it 60%? Or 70%, even? They can start out on JV teams, just like high school — but, of course, even if they are not officially NESCAC athletes until they are on varsity, nothing stops the school from giving them the same fist on the scale for admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, it's fascinating how mean spirited this has become - I'm always curious about the athletic recruiting hate, particularly toward NESCAC schools it seems. Is it because people are mad that there are fewer spots for their kids to go to those schools? But why do you want them at those schools if you don't like the culture or priorities?

You should probably not look to closely at, for example, medical school admissions. Or hiring at elite firms. Both look very favorably at varsity athletes because they know the traits that go along with that- the determination, teamwork, resilience, commitment, even physical fitness needed to play at that level - and they are not fielding teams. For similar reasons, they like military experience. The reason colleges need to recruit athletes instead of just taking the luck of the draw is because you need to actually fill positions - the same way a French horn player has a big edge when the orchestra at a college needs one.

If I were an admissions officer looking at applications from two kids - with one being a varsity athlete in a tough sport, and the other not, I would not care if the athlete had slightly lower grades - because depending on the sport, it is an enormous time commitment, requires great mental energy, and is just frankly exhausting. I have one kid who played 3 varsity sports in HS, and one who didn't play any - the non-athlete kid was super involved in HS and outside of school. Rehearsals after school, a pt job tutoring, various clubs and leadership positions. Straight As, high rigor, 1580 SAT. She was not nearly as busy as her sibling - she actually had weekends, she didn't get home exhausted (often bruised and sore, sometimes injured) 5x week from practice, have to shower, eat dinner, etc., before touching homework.

Yes, they want the teams, the school spirit, to play other schools in their conference. But they also want and need kids who can perform at that level, not athletically, but at life.

What is a "tough sport" ?

This seems excessively dramatic ? (And I played multiple sports including very successful football & wrestling programs. Also, boxing, soccer, distance running, & tennis.)

[Anonymous]

The question is irrelevant. These schools value sports, and they will keep doing that regardless of how mad it makes DCUM. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would happen to a school like Hamilton if it dropped out of the NESCAC? In a generation it would have “really fallen off” and in two generations it would be lost in the academic wilderness.

Or what if Cornell dropped out of the Ivy League and U Rochester joined? It sounds preposterous, but what would these two schools look like in 50 or 75 years?

These school know they need to remain in their athletic leagues to remain as relevant as they are today. Thus they need to recruit
athletes that will keep them competitive in their conference. Many, many of these kids being recruited are exceptional students and they get priority in admissions because they offer something to the school beyond their grades and test scores. It’s a case of “and” not “or” for the most part. Yes there is the occasional football player with the 1250 SAT but that is the extreme exception.

And the ancient Greeks agreed with the American model. The mind and intellectual pursuit was inseparable from the body and the athletic.

Um, the ancient Greeks also had slaves. If they are truly exceptional, they would not — as you euphemistically describe for an entirely different admissions process — need “priority” in admissions now, would they?

Lots of kids are smart and have great GPAs and test scores. Some have the great academic stats plus they are excellent athlètes.

The athletes are prioritized because they have it all and then something else that the school wants. Any kid who puts the time and effort into both the academics and the athletics these schools are looking for can also be sought after by these schools.

This is the answer. Why can’t any kid develop the academic and athletic abilities these schools are looking for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former collegiate athletes are more likely to donate than non-athletes.

Many would-be employers prefer to hire collegiate athletes; having a heavy “roster” of them on campus improves post-graduation hiring numbers.

Some schools need male sports to mitigate what would be a heavily skewed student body, sex wise.

Many applicants view collegiate sports as part of the overall college experience and favor schools that offer them.

Some households will pay a higher tuition if it means an opportunity to play collegiate sports.

By this rationale, 35% athletes at Williams and Amherst is not nearly enough. These are top schools. Why not make it 60%? Or 70%, even? They can start out on JV teams, just like high school — but, of course, even if they are not officially NESCAC athletes until they are on varsity, nothing stops the school from giving them the same fist on the scale for admissions.

The numbers at schools like Williams are driven by the number of supported sports. Are you suggesting that they add more sports?

Actually there are specific rules prevented unlimited recruiting support. Rules that are agreed upon among the NESCAC schools regarding the number of Athletes below the schools typical admissions criteria who are eligible for recruiting support. Regarding JV teams, schools used to have them but they have been mostly dropped because of a lack of interest believed in part to be caused by the increased level of skill required for most varsity teams. This means that most JV players never made it to varsity. It has actually become so hard to find schools with JV teams that they resorted to playing high schools and club teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former collegiate athletes are more likely to donate than non-athletes.

Many would-be employers prefer to hire collegiate athletes; having a heavy “roster” of them on campus improves post-graduation hiring numbers.

Some schools need male sports to mitigate what would be a heavily skewed student body, sex wise.

Many applicants view collegiate sports as part of the overall college experience and favor schools that offer them.

Some households will pay a higher tuition if it means an opportunity to play collegiate sports.

By this rationale, 35% athletes at Williams and Amherst is not nearly enough. These are top schools. Why not make it 60%? Or 70%, even? They can start out on JV teams, just like high school — but, of course, even if they are not officially NESCAC athletes until they are on varsity, nothing stops the school from giving them the same fist on the scale for admissions.

Why the hostility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.

It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.

Sports are not that important to LACs. Jesus. No one cares about your not-even half-attended games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?

Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.

It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.

Sports are not that important to LACs. Jesus. No one cares about your not-even half-attended games.

Spectator attendance is not the point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, it's fascinating how mean spirited this has become - I'm always curious about the athletic recruiting hate, particularly toward NESCAC schools it seems. Is it because people are mad that there are fewer spots for their kids to go to those schools? But why do you want them at those schools if you don't like the culture or priorities?

You should probably not look to closely at, for example, medical school admissions. Or hiring at elite firms. Both look very favorably at varsity athletes because they know the traits that go along with that- the determination, teamwork, resilience, commitment, even physical fitness needed to play at that level - and they are not fielding teams. For similar reasons, they like military experience. The reason colleges need to recruit athletes instead of just taking the luck of the draw is because you need to actually fill positions - the same way a French horn player has a big edge when the orchestra at a college needs one.

If I were an admissions officer looking at applications from two kids - with one being a varsity athlete in a tough sport, and the other not, I would not care if the athlete had slightly lower grades - because depending on the sport, it is an enormous time commitment, requires great mental energy, and is just frankly exhausting. I have one kid who played 3 varsity sports in HS, and one who didn't play any - the non-athlete kid was super involved in HS and outside of school. Rehearsals after school, a pt job tutoring, various clubs and leadership positions. Straight As, high rigor, 1580 SAT. She was not nearly as busy as her sibling - she actually had weekends, she didn't get home exhausted (often bruised and sore, sometimes injured) 5x week from practice, have to shower, eat dinner, etc., before touching homework.

Yes, they want the teams, the school spirit, to play other schools in their conference. But they also want and need kids who can perform at that level, not athletically, but at life.

They presumably value the academics and overall prestige.

The issue isn't with schools valuing athletics, it's with giving specific sports an extra special admissions process that other athletic ECs don't get for some reason.