Amherst College Paper Article on Athletic Recruiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also every so often these slac schools use sports to increase their chances of gettting a top student.

My kids has 1580 SAT, 4.7 GPA, and will have 15 AP courses after senior year. Great leadership in a few different other areas besides the sport. Great service. Definitely a narrative. Ivy legacy.

But the kid wants to play the sport so it is looking like NESCAC or UAA league as not good enough to play at the Ivy.

This happens, but I doubt that often. More anecdata: a student-athlete classmate was talking about their 32 ACT and 3s on AP exams, in the context of saying how well prepared they felt for Amherst. Shortly after, they dropped the upper-level science class both had signed up for. My kid was a little perplexed about how the classmate was admitted in the first place. I had to explain athletes aren't necessarily held to the same standard they were. This was not a FGLI or URM.

Yea, well, your kid needs to get over their jealousy or insecurity or whatever it is when it comes to athletes. There’s no shame in having to drop an “upper level science class” at any top school no matter what your ACT score is.

Yeah, meanwhile my 1570 DC with nearly perfect GPA, published researched (not canned), etc. got waitlisted.

Yes, that's not fair. I can see how PP with the high stats athlete could get in over your kid, but not the lower-stats one. There should be more transparency about the hard academic stats for admitted athletes. Let stakeholders see the actual extent to which admissions standards are, or are not, modified. Let's also see the data on game attendance and alumni donations. My guess is none will be impressive, but let the data prove me wrong!

Agree. If there is nothing to hide, simply provide the data.

What would "showing this" look like?

Regarding donations, you are incorrect. Check out most major donations and you will see that they are made by athletes and former athletes. If yo were able to access the sites during the athletics annual fundraising drives you'd see anonymous donors tossing out $100K matching donations on some teams. Wealthly athletic alum support their old teams, especially from the helmet sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also every so often these slac schools use sports to increase their chances of gettting a top student.

My kids has 1580 SAT, 4.7 GPA, and will have 15 AP courses after senior year. Great leadership in a few different other areas besides the sport. Great service. Definitely a narrative. Ivy legacy.

But the kid wants to play the sport so it is looking like NESCAC or UAA league as not good enough to play at the Ivy.

This happens, but I doubt that often. More anecdata: a student-athlete classmate was talking about their 32 ACT and 3s on AP exams, in the context of saying how well prepared they felt for Amherst. Shortly after, they dropped the upper-level science class both had signed up for. My kid was a little perplexed about how the classmate was admitted in the first place. I had to explain athletes aren't necessarily held to the same standard they were. This was not a FGLI or URM.

Yea, well, your kid needs to get over their jealousy or insecurity or whatever it is when it comes to athletes. There’s no shame in having to drop an “upper level science class” at any top school no matter what your ACT score is.

Yeah, meanwhile my 1570 DC with nearly perfect GPA, published researched (not canned), etc. got waitlisted.

Yes, that's not fair. I can see how PP with the high stats athlete could get in over your kid, but not the lower-stats one. There should be more transparency about the hard academic stats for admitted athletes. Let stakeholders see the actual extent to which admissions standards are, or are not, modified. Let's also see the data on game attendance and alumni donations. My guess is none will be impressive, but let the data prove me wrong!

Agree. If there is nothing to hide, simply provide the data.

What would "showing this" look like?

Regarding donations, you are incorrect. Check out most major donations and you will see that they are made by athletes and former athletes. If yo were able to access the sites during the athletics annual fundraising drives you'd see anonymous donors tossing out $100K matching donations on some teams. Wealthly athletic alum support their old teams, especially from the helmet sports.

Link to this data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also every so often these slac schools use sports to increase their chances of gettting a top student.

My kids has 1580 SAT, 4.7 GPA, and will have 15 AP courses after senior year. Great leadership in a few different other areas besides the sport. Great service. Definitely a narrative. Ivy legacy.

But the kid wants to play the sport so it is looking like NESCAC or UAA league as not good enough to play at the Ivy.

It’s rarer…understand the NESCAC and UAA coaches think the same as Ivy coaches. They want to win games and will probably use their influence on the 1350 kid they really want and may tell your kid they have a roster spot if they are accepted on their own.

It almost counts against you if you are too strong on your own.

This is not true. There are limits on the number of 'B' band and 'C' band athletes (2 per sport plus 14 more for football/lacrosse) which means that the majority of recruits are 'A' band which is 'stats above the class mean'. As a whole NESCAC athletes have higher average stats than the general class but people overlook that because of the bump given to a small number.

Then schools should be willing to provide the hard data regarding their stats, correct?

What do you mean by hard data on stats? Those are NESCAC conference rules and well known. The NESCAC doesn't publish them (similar to the Ivy Leagues doesn't post the AI rules and their limits) but there are plenty of articles out there including this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a SLAC and am married to an athlete from that school. SLACs need athletes to make their student bodies more normal. It's not hard. They do a disproportionate amount of work in driving culture, and many of them end up in very successful careers. These schools need athletes, and the athletes need them. I don't know why this is so hard. Yes, they are slightly less smart than the brainiacs. Who cares?

The real reason said out loud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We've just been through it. Yes, it's harder than many people believe. It adds an extra layer of stress and uncertainty to an already difficult process.

Yes, and it starts (in earnest) more than a year before the process starts for NARPs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also every so often these slac schools use sports to increase their chances of gettting a top student.

My kids has 1580 SAT, 4.7 GPA, and will have 15 AP courses after senior year. Great leadership in a few different other areas besides the sport. Great service. Definitely a narrative. Ivy legacy.

But the kid wants to play the sport so it is looking like NESCAC or UAA league as not good enough to play at the Ivy.

It’s rarer…understand the NESCAC and UAA coaches think the same as Ivy coaches. They want to win games and will probably use their influence on the 1350 kid they really want and may tell your kid they have a roster spot if they are accepted on their own.

It almost counts against you if you are too strong on your own.

This is not true. There are limits on the number of 'B' band and 'C' band athletes (2 per sport plus 14 more for football/lacrosse) which means that the majority of recruits are 'A' band which is 'stats above the class mean'. As a whole NESCAC athletes have higher average stats than the general class but people overlook that because of the bump given to a small number.

Then schools should be willing to provide the hard data regarding their stats, correct?

I wouldn't, because it would do nothing to quiet people such as yourself. You would just find another angle to complain. This isn't about facts, it's about emotion and how you feel about the subject. We both know that you aren't changing your mind no matter how much data you are given.

But, what do yo want to know? A bit of work on the internet and you can find what you are looking for.

A B band athlete basically has stats in the 25-50% range and C band athletes are in the 10-25% range. C band athletes can comprise of no more than 10% of recruited athletes so about a dozen kids across the board. Most of them are in helmet sports plus soccer and basketball. Many sports (like squash) cannot recruit any C band athletes at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article was anti recruiting athletes. As an experiment Amherst should just forgo recruiting athletes and fill all of their varsity sports with walk-ons. I suspect that they would lose very game, Donations would plummet, and school spirit would die.

There is no school spirit. Other than the Williams game, no one attends football games. The athletic department offers bribes to the first 100 students in attendance and they’ve never reached 100.

The athletic department bribes us to go to games???? Maybe I should start going...

Yeah, my kid wants to know more.

No more to know. Every game is free swag for the first 100 students. All you have to do is show up!

I have been to many games at Williams and this is not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also every so often these slac schools use sports to increase their chances of gettting a top student.

My kids has 1580 SAT, 4.7 GPA, and will have 15 AP courses after senior year. Great leadership in a few different other areas besides the sport. Great service. Definitely a narrative. Ivy legacy.

But the kid wants to play the sport so it is looking like NESCAC or UAA league as not good enough to play at the Ivy.

This happens, but I doubt that often. More anecdata: a student-athlete classmate was talking about their 32 ACT and 3s on AP exams, in the context of saying how well prepared they felt for Amherst. Shortly after, they dropped the upper-level science class both had signed up for. My kid was a little perplexed about how the classmate was admitted in the first place. I had to explain athletes aren't necessarily held to the same standard they were. This was not a FGLI or URM.

Yea, well, your kid needs to get over their jealousy or insecurity or whatever it is when it comes to athletes. There’s no shame in having to drop an “upper level science class” at any top school no matter what your ACT score is.

Yeah, meanwhile my 1570 DC with nearly perfect GPA, published researched (not canned), etc. got waitlisted.

So what? That doesn't mean the 32 didn't deserve to get in.

You mean the 32 who had "3s on AP exams" and "dropped the upper-level science class" they were taking? Yes, there is indeed a question of whether they deserve to get in over someone who has clearly demonstrated the ability to handle more academic rigor.

Amherst (like other elite colleges) presents a brand that their students are the intellectual cream of the crop. Cutting corners for the athletes undermines that.

This is some serious nonsense. You are among a very small minority who seems to believe that cutting corners for a few athletes undermines the image of schools like Amherst.

[Anonymous]

My DC is an athlete and did not pass the pre-reads at two NESCACs. He had close stats, but not 50%-tile, and would have been at least a B band recruit. Point is, the standards for my athlete we still high for admission - so high he got a polite "no" (again despite the athletic talent being there). No big deal, b/c DC had cast a wide net of various D1 and D3 schools and went elsewhere with no regrets, but just passing along that the two NESCAC schools definitely were keeping high standards even for a top athlete who ultimately went D1.

Also, my athlete practiced 20-ish hours a week (and sometimes many more with weekend long tournaments) and kept his grades up plus participated in all the other school/outside activities like clubs and volunteering that all the high-fliers do these days. Athletes have all the standard academic demands of high school AND hours of practice and athletic talent to add to the mix. These small schools should want to keep this kind of student around. These student athletes are hard working, smart with grit, dedicated and also tend to be sociable and great marketing for the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last time I looked, athletes also help with diversity? Am I missing something?

The diversity argument is a fair one for many sports. You can find some sports where they definitely help diversity. Golf, tennis, and volleyball all attract Asian kids for the West Coast but many sports are pretty white. Schools aren't going to cut sports though because doing so would disadvantage them in the Directors Cup competition where NESCAC teams are perennially among the very top teams with Williams having the greatest number of wins in D3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also every so often these slac schools use sports to increase their chances of gettting a top student.

My kids has 1580 SAT, 4.7 GPA, and will have 15 AP courses after senior year. Great leadership in a few different other areas besides the sport. Great service. Definitely a narrative. Ivy legacy.

But the kid wants to play the sport so it is looking like NESCAC or UAA league as not good enough to play at the Ivy.

This happens, but I doubt that often. More anecdata: a student-athlete classmate was talking about their 32 ACT and 3s on AP exams, in the context of saying how well prepared they felt for Amherst. Shortly after, they dropped the upper-level science class both had signed up for. My kid was a little perplexed about how the classmate was admitted in the first place. I had to explain athletes aren't necessarily held to the same standard they were. This was not a FGLI or URM.

Yea, well, your kid needs to get over their jealousy or insecurity or whatever it is when it comes to athletes. There’s no shame in having to drop an “upper level science class” at any top school no matter what your ACT score is.

Yeah, meanwhile my 1570 DC with nearly perfect GPA, published researched (not canned), etc. got waitlisted.

Yes, that's not fair. I can see how PP with the high stats athlete could get in over your kid, but not the lower-stats one. There should be more transparency about the hard academic stats for admitted athletes. Let stakeholders see the actual extent to which admissions standards are, or are not, modified. Let's also see the data on game attendance and alumni donations. My guess is none will be impressive, but let the data prove me wrong!

Agree. If there is nothing to hide, simply provide the data.

What would "showing this" look like?

Regarding donations, you are incorrect. Check out most major donations and you will see that they are made by athletes and former athletes. If you were able to access the sites during the athletics annual fundraising drives you'd see anonymous donors tossing out $100K matching donations on some teams. Wealthy athletic alum support their old teams, especially from the helmet sports.

Link to this data?

What part of this are you struggling with? We aren't in that season but if you wait until next fall and start watching schools athletics social media you will likely be able to access some of the sites and see for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DC is an athlete and did not pass the pre-reads at two NESCACs. He had close stats, but not 50%-tile, and would have been at least a B band recruit. Point is, the standards for my athlete we still high for admission - so high he got a polite "no" (again despite the athletic talent being there). No big deal, b/c DC had cast a wide net of various D1 and D3 schools and went elsewhere with no regrets, but just passing along that the two NESCAC schools definitely were keeping high standards even for a top athlete who ultimately went D1.

Also, my athlete practiced 20-ish hours a week (and sometimes many more with weekend long tournaments) and kept his grades up plus participated in all the other school/outside activities like clubs and volunteering that all the high-fliers do these days. Athletes have all the standard academic demands of high school AND hours of practice and athletic talent to add to the mix. These small schools should want to keep this kind of student around. These student athletes are hard working, smart with grit, dedicated and also tend to be sociable and great marketing for the school.

I am happy to hear that your student athlete ended up somewhere that they wanted to go. People don't realize how tough it really is; they prefer to make assumptions based on their feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last time I looked, athletes also help with diversity? Am I missing something?

The diversity argument is a fair one for many sports. You can find some sports where they definitely help diversity. Golf, tennis, and volleyball all attract Asian kids for the West Coast but many sports are pretty white. Schools aren't going to cut sports though because doing so would disadvantage them in the Directors Cup competition where NESCAC teams are perennially among the very top teams with Williams having the greatest number of wins in D3.

Again, guess you didn’t read the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a SLAC and am married to an athlete from that school. SLACs need athletes to make their student bodies more normal. It's not hard. They do a disproportionate amount of work in driving culture, and many of them end up in very successful careers. These schools need athletes, and the athletes need them. I don't know why this is so hard. Yes, they are slightly less smart than the brainiacs. Who cares?

The real reason said out loud.

Exactly! Everyone is afraid to say it, but this is the reason colleges will never get rid of recruiting athletes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DC is an athlete and did not pass the pre-reads at two NESCACs. He had close stats, but not 50%-tile, and would have been at least a B band recruit. Point is, the standards for my athlete we still high for admission - so high he got a polite "no" (again despite the athletic talent being there). No big deal, b/c DC had cast a wide net of various D1 and D3 schools and went elsewhere with no regrets, but just passing along that the two NESCAC schools definitely were keeping high standards even for a top athlete who ultimately went D1.

Also, my athlete practiced 20-ish hours a week (and sometimes many more with weekend long tournaments) and kept his grades up plus participated in all the other school/outside activities like clubs and volunteering that all the high-fliers do these days. Athletes have all the standard academic demands of high school AND hours of practice and athletic talent to add to the mix. These small schools should want to keep this kind of student around. These student athletes are hard working, smart with grit, dedicated and also tend to be sociable and great marketing for the school.

True. Plus, they are always battling pain and injuries while doing all those fantastic things in and out of school. My DC had three big injuries in high school, each kept them off the field for months, but they stayed away from painkillers so they could stay awake, not drowsy at school. Never mind the countless hours spent in PT and trainers office. They didn’t get recruited by a NESCAC school but thankfully got recruited by another top 30 great college. The coach was especially impressed with their grades despite of the injuries.