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][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]
Maybe we should question why the student experience seems to be that athletes are the only ones invested in donating to the college or why they earn more than others [/quote]

Maybe recruited athletes know that they received an unfair advantage during college entry and want to give back later in life when they reap the benefits they know on a gut level that they did not deserve?[/quote]
That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.[/quote]

It's time to flat out say it:

I smell envy. Envy and jealousy because there is a group of potential students who flat out perform better than your DC. In the Ivy league some of those students might slightly underperform your DC in academics; [b]in the NESCAC, or at places like Swat, Pomona, and MIT it's more likely than not that they are at the same level or higher than dear Larla.[/b] But, in both cases these kids are better overall. Better because they achieved the same academic performance while devoting far less hours too academics because they were building skills in a completely different area that far surpass those of the typical "average excellent" candidate. They are far more attractive candidates than Larla because elite schools optimize for outcome by considering multiple success vectors in their input selection process (holistic admissions).

Larla played the game but lost and now you  try to denigrate others in order to feel better about yourself. Your self soothing may help you feel better but we see it for what it is....pitiful.[/quote]

They aren’t as academically as strong as non athletes [/quote]

The copium never ceases. They actually are, do a bit of research on NESCAC banding or MITs recruiting standards. After that just sit back and cry because in the real world these kids will eat yours as a snack.[/quote]
Amherst did a study on this; I would cite it but why bother. The apple does not fall far from the parent of athlete tree.[/quote]

I am happy to cite it for you, I know it well.

[url]https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/PlaceOfAthleticsAtAmherst_Secure_1.pdf[/url]

You might want to actually read it as you will find most of what you believe is unsupported. You will find that the vast majority of athletes are indistinguishable from the non-athlete student body. You will also find that athletes graduate at higher rates, have higher levels of satisfaction with the school (even as they felt the sting of negative perceptions from people like yourself) and give at a higher rate as well none of which is very supportive of your narrative.[/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