Reply to I feel like we don't talk enough that top LACs are 40%+ recruited athletes.

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "I feel like we don't talk enough that top LACs are 40%+ recruited athletes. "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I’m not American so I don’t understand this phenomenon. I can understand big state schools where having a big football team
might draw money or attention to school. Why would a SLAC care if someone fences or sails?Is it a way for well off but academically mediocre students to get in?  Or do these students have the same qualifications as the non-athletes?  Doesn’t it hurt the schools reputation as an academic-centered college?  Sorry lots of questions. [/quote]

They care because the athletes donate a lot more money than other groups over the years and as a whole tend to be more successful career-wise. That’s really why they do it: the athletes donate back to the schools in ways other groups don’t. [/quote]

And athletes tend to be from richer families, which is more likely why they have more money to donate and earn more. It’s a good way to affirmative action the rich which is good for the business of college. [/quote]

(Sorry, replied to wrong post.)

I haven't seen data that supports the notion that families of athletes are more likely to donate.

There is data that successful D1 sports programs make schools money, but those aren't LACs, with the exception of outliers like Davidson.

It interesting that the highly ranked private schools that don't consider legacy status are primarily D3, either LAC (eg Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Carleton, Pomona, Wesleyan) or university (eg MIT, Caltech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon).

https://www.collegekickstart.com/blog/item/se...nsider-legacy-status [/quote]

It is hilarious that people think colleges themselves don't have the data telling them which students are most likely to become donating alumni.

D3 sports are not revenue centers anywhere. There are other reasons colleges have sports teams. For all the people railing about sports here, many students think athletics add a lot to their college experience. As another PP notes, it's actually a relatively small percentage of D3 athletes who are recruited. A large number are walk-ons. That means they were admitted without any athletic hook. One would think those students are happy they have the opportunity to play.

It's almost as if people have forgotten that the Ivy League is an athletic conference. And a lot of the most prestigious SLACs also have long sports histories:

Bowdoin-- organized sports began in 1828, with gymnastics. The football field dates to 1896.

Williams-- the gym was built in 1886. Williams played in the first ever college baseball game against Amherst in 1859. Williams first played Amherst in football in 1884

Amherst--see above. Claims to have the oldest athletics program in the U.S. Ultimate frisbee got its start here in the 1960s.

Middlebury-- first official football team was organized in 1886

Do I need to go on? These old New England schools have always had big sports cultures. If that offends your kid, they should look elsewhere.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics