Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits

[Anonymous]

I like sports. But I don’t think it takes more time or dedication than high level music or drama (those kids in musicals get home at 10pm for a third of the year). Or part time jobs. Who cares!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because it's rare to have a kid who is sufficiently talented and motivated across both axes. Replace "athletic abilities" with "banjo-playing abilities" and you'll understand understand why it makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

What a ridiculous response. Of course it matters. It happens to be that athletes are wealthier students and wealthy students donate. It's that simple. If people gave any $hit about sports at these schools, the games would be attended.

[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.

A friend told me she never understood the athlete thing until she went to an admitted students event and noticed all the “normal” (her word) kids there were athletes.

Are skateboarders not as normal as lacrosse players? If not, why only preferentially recruit for the latter?

[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.

A friend told me she never understood the athlete thing until she went to an admitted students event and noticed all the “normal” (her word) kids there were athletes.

Are skateboarders not as normal as lacrosse players? If not, why only preferentially recruit for the latter?

If the NCAA offered skateboarding and the college had a skateboarding team...then skateboarders would get recruited as well.

A football player doesn't get preferential treatment at UChicago...because they don't have a football team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What a ridiculous response. Of course it matters. It happens to be that athletes are wealthier students and wealthy students donate. It's that simple. If people gave any $hit about sports at these schools, the games would be attended.

You said “sports don’t matter to LACs.”’And your support for that argument was attendance. My point is that these LACs care about having athletes, whether you like it or not, so they do matter. And the LACs (ie the institutions) don’t care about attendance.

Even at major conferences, most sports are lightly attended. Look at an Ivy League track meet, or even an ACC meet. They are all lightly attended but nonetheless are an important part of what the institution is prioritizing

[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.

You are literally describing higher education in every other college in every other country in the world. And yet these schools have not devolved into the hellscapes that you are imagining.

America is probably the only place in the world where you can get into a competitive school based on how well you play a sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because it's rare to have a kid who is sufficiently talented and motivated across both axes. Replace "athletic abilities" with "banjo-playing abilities" and you'll understand understand why it makes no sense.

You severely underestimate the raw athletic talent required to play Division 3 sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A friend told me she never understood the athlete thing until she went to an admitted students event and noticed all the “normal” (her word) kids there were athletes.

Are skateboarders not as normal as lacrosse players? If not, why only preferentially recruit for the latter?

If the NCAA offered skateboarding and the college had a skateboarding team...then skateboarders would get recruited as well.

A football player doesn't get preferential treatment at UChicago...because they don't have a football team.

Of course they do https://athletics.uchicago.edu/sports/football/roster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like sports. But I don’t think it takes more time or dedication than high level music or drama (those kids in musicals get home at 10pm for a third of the year). Or part time jobs. Who cares!

Having had one of each - a high level music/performing arts kid who is now a music major and a varsity athlete, I disagree. But maybe your kids and your schools are different.

[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.

You are literally describing higher education in every other college in every other country in the world. And yet these schools have not devolved into the hellscapes that you are imagining.

America is probably the only place in the world where you can get into a competitive school based on how well you play a sport.

And yet so many of them want to come here college

[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.

You are literally describing higher education in every other college in every other country in the world. And yet these schools have not devolved into the hellscapes that you are imagining.

America is probably the only place in the world where you can get into a competitive school based on how well you play a sport.

Not exactly true or the Ivies would only follow minimum NCAA standards for athletic eligibility. Why is there such demand from foreign students to attend U.S. institutions? Either foreign universities are hellscapes or U.S. universities are just better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are literally describing higher education in every other college in every other country in the world. And yet these schools have not devolved into the hellscapes that you are imagining.

America is probably the only place in the world where you can get into a competitive school based on how well you play a sport.

Not exactly true or the Ivies would only follow minimum NCAA standards for athletic eligibility. Why is there such demand from foreign students to attend U.S. institutions? Either foreign universities are hellscapes or U.S. universities are just better.

Oxbridge, Sorbonne, UToronto, NUS, USyndney/Melbourne all seem fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are literally describing higher education in every other college in every other country in the world. And yet these schools have not devolved into the hellscapes that you are imagining.

America is probably the only place in the world where you can get into a competitive school based on how well you play a sport.

Not exactly true or the Ivies would only follow minimum NCAA standards for athletic eligibility. Why is there such demand from foreign students to attend U.S. institutions? Either foreign universities are hellscapes or U.S. universities are just better.

Oxbridge, Sorbonne, UToronto, NUS, USyndney/Melbourne all seem fine.

But if the foreign model is better why aren’t their schools better than US schools. We have this terrible system that rewards athletes with a “free” pass to elite colleges yet we have the most elite colleges. I think the system is working just fine. If you don’t like it send your kids to school in Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are literally describing higher education in every other college in every other country in the world. And yet these schools have not devolved into the hellscapes that you are imagining.

America is probably the only place in the world where you can get into a competitive school based on how well you play a sport.

Not exactly true or the Ivies would only follow minimum NCAA standards for athletic eligibility. Why is there such demand from foreign students to attend U.S. institutions? Either foreign universities are hellscapes or U.S. universities are just better.

Oxbridge, Sorbonne, UToronto, NUS, USyndney/Melbourne all seem fine.

But if the foreign model is better why aren’t their schools better than US schools. We have this terrible system that rewards athletes with a “free” pass to elite colleges yet we have the most elite colleges. I think the system is working just fine. If you don’t like it send your kids to school in Europe.

They often are. I don't really know what you expected me to respond with. Oxbridge is a peer of the top US institutions.