Reply to Do not waste ED on a SLAC. Very few unhooked (non-athlete, non-FGLI, non-legacy/donor) get in.

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Do not waste ED on a SLAC. Very few unhooked (non-athlete, non-FGLI, non-legacy/donor) get in."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools.  Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

[/quote]

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers. [/quote]

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.[/quote]

by this logic, many colleges should only have male teams:

Gender differences: Research has shown the effect of athletic success on giving can differ by gender. A Princeton University study found that male alumni whose teams had successful seasons while they were undergraduates, or in the years after, subsequently made larger donations to the athletic program. For female alumni, the effect was not statistically significant.

or maybe college should be male only since the number of men making donations above $1mm is much larger than the number of women making the donations. by a factor far greater than 3:1

[/quote]

Schools wouldn't recruit anywhere near the number of female athletes that they currently do if they weren't required to by Title 9.  It is not in their financial interest by any measure. [/quote]

50 years ago is wasn't but after 50+ years of  Title IX it is very much in the financial interest of these schools to support Women's sports. [/quote]

Do women’s sports have high attendance?

Do women athletes become big donors?

I’m skeptical of both.[/quote]

You’re skeptical but nobody really cares what you think. The dynamics of college attendance and success dictates that women be treated in accordance with their success. When title IX went into effect women were less than 10% of med school attendees. Now, over 50%. Time to move into the latest century mom.[/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