Anonymous wrote:Watch out for the schools where the athletes have their own dining facilities, gym and/or mostly take up their own dorms. At small schools, if the athletes are so sequestered together, it makes the school seem so much smaller to non-athletes.

We toured two SLACS where they specifically highlighted how they are trying to fight this problem.

Do any SLAC/D3 schools do things this way? My son is looking to play his sport D3 and we haven’t seen anything like separate dorms or dining facilities. (Athletic facilities yes)

At NESCAC schools it can make the school feel even smaller, for better or for worse. It’s a problem even at Ivies where there aren’t differentiated meal plans and there aren’t athletic scholarships. It also can create a school-within-a-school vibe that isn’t pleasant. A large proportion of the student body ends up being athletes because of the vast amount of varsity sports offered, and they tend to socialize together because of the time commitments of their sports. Each team gets multiple admits per year who are guaranteed admission outside of the regular admissions process. Even 2-3 of these “likelies” per team means that your class has hundreds of kids in it who were in their own, less rigorous admission process. Those students have dedicated workout facilities, their own access to things like weekend hot breakfast or extended dinner hours, special policies for missing academic obligations, and guess what? You’re paying the same tuition and room and board as them but get less. My then-freshman once showed up at early breakfast on a weekend and got screamed at by an assistant coach because the hot breakfast foods were only for game day athletes! It was the only place to eat early breakfast and he had no way of knowing that the hot line was athletes-only.

So it’s kind of sucky to be a NARP if athletes are pretty integrated into the student body and it’s a small school. The real winners are the ones who use their sport for admissions and then become a NARP!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda hate this term, and that it's used derogatorily to describe non-athletes. Schools which foster such strong athlete/non-athlete divides should reconsider what they're doing

Whether or not you like the term NARP, the divide is very rael at many--probably most--LACs/SLACs. Certainly the case at Middlebury & Amherst & Williams--although some experiences may be different.

The athlete divide at these schools was historically because of racism and classism. In the past, Black students were much more likely to be athletes; athletics was one of the first mechanisms that these schools used when they set about trying to increase their non-white student population. Black athlete students — many of whom were exceptional and driven, and turned down other schools with higher Black populations for these — arrived to campuses where many of the white students were openly hostile and racist. So they stuck together for their own safety. If they made friends with the white students at all, they were only the other athletes because those were the white students they could trust. Meanwhile, some of the other athletes were happy to build on that racist division for their own classist reasons: wealthy sports like fencing, for instance, provided a way for the children of wealthy families to identify and befriend each other. This isn’t just SLACs; this same thing happened at all of the elite schools, particularly in the Northeast.

As schools have made progress in recruiting Black and other non-white students who weren’t coming in for athletics, the athlete/non-athlete division has lessened. It isn’t as rigid as it used to be, at a lot of schools. So while it still exists, it’s less than it was ten or twenty years ago.

The above is not true. The divide existed/exists regardless of race or wealth.

Seems utterly factually incorrect to assert that athletes at elite schools are historically black. These schools had hardly any black students until a few decades ago and to this day their overall black populations are a fraction of the athlete population. So it’s mathematically impossible these schools’ athletic teams were ever predominantly black. A simple glance at the sports rosters of these schools disproves the assertion.

My God, you can’t read whatsoever. Nowhere in that post — literally nowhere — did it say that the athletic teams were predominantly Black. What it said, and what is absolutely factually correct, is that athletics was one of the early mechanisms that these schools used to diversify.

Man, white denialism of racism is WILD.

(Different poster than the one you are attacking.)

You may be unaware, but your posts seem to be based primarily in anger & racism, yet you freely accuse others of racism without any rational basis.

Okay. Let’s look at the posting history here. This started with the historically accurate observation that one of the early ways that overwhelmingly white schools in the Northeast tried to diversify their student bodies was to use athletic recruiting. That history is something that is not really debatable except for people who are trying to deny facts.

Then a poster, possibly two posters, replied with straight-up denials that this could be true, because of current team rosters or some non-sequitor. Which, of course, has nothing to do with a discussion of the historical origins of some of the divide between athletes and non-athletes. That sounds a lot like denialism: a refusal to look accurately and dispassionately at an ugly history.

I’m not sure how it is “racism” to observe the denialism of racism, particularly when the description is factually and historically accurate but okay. Hit dog hollers and all that.

Watch out for the schools where the athletes have their own dining facilities, gym and/or mostly take up their own dorms. At small schools, if the athletes are so sequestered together, it makes the school seem so much smaller to non-athletes.

We toured two SLACS where they specifically highlighted how they are trying to fight this problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda hate this term, and that it's used derogatorily to describe non-athletes. Schools which foster such strong athlete/non-athlete divides should reconsider what they're doing

Whether or not you like the term NARP, the divide is very rael at many--probably most--LACs/SLACs. Certainly the case at Middlebury & Amherst & Williams--although some experiences may be different.

The athlete divide at these schools was historically because of racism and classism. In the past, Black students were much more likely to be athletes; athletics was one of the first mechanisms that these schools used when they set about trying to increase their non-white student population. Black athlete students — many of whom were exceptional and driven, and turned down other schools with higher Black populations for these — arrived to campuses where many of the white students were openly hostile and racist. So they stuck together for their own safety. If they made friends with the white students at all, they were only the other athletes because those were the white students they could trust. Meanwhile, some of the other athletes were happy to build on that racist division for their own classist reasons: wealthy sports like fencing, for instance, provided a way for the children of wealthy families to identify and befriend each other. This isn’t just SLACs; this same thing happened at all of the elite schools, particularly in the Northeast.

As schools have made progress in recruiting Black and other non-white students who weren’t coming in for athletics, the athlete/non-athlete division has lessened. It isn’t as rigid as it used to be, at a lot of schools. So while it still exists, it’s less than it was ten or twenty years ago.

The above is not true. The divide existed/exists regardless of race or wealth.

Seems utterly factually incorrect to assert that athletes at elite schools are historically black. These schools had hardly any black students until a few decades ago and to this day their overall black populations are a fraction of the athlete population. So it’s mathematically impossible these schools’ athletic teams were ever predominantly black. A simple glance at the sports rosters of these schools disproves the assertion.

My God, you can’t read whatsoever. Nowhere in that post — literally nowhere — did it say that the athletic teams were predominantly Black. What it said, and what is absolutely factually correct, is that athletics was one of the early mechanisms that these schools used to diversify.

Man, white denialism of racism is WILD.

(Different poster than the one you are attacking.)

You may be unaware, but your posts seem to be based primarily in anger & racism, yet you freely accuse others of racism without any rational basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda hate this term, and that it's used derogatorily to describe non-athletes. Schools which foster such strong athlete/non-athlete divides should reconsider what they're doing

Whether or not you like the term NARP, the divide is very rael at many--probably most--LACs/SLACs. Certainly the case at Middlebury & Amherst & Williams--although some experiences may be different.

The athlete divide at these schools was historically because of racism and classism. In the past, Black students were much more likely to be athletes; athletics was one of the first mechanisms that these schools used when they set about trying to increase their non-white student population. Black athlete students — many of whom were exceptional and driven, and turned down other schools with higher Black populations for these — arrived to campuses where many of the white students were openly hostile and racist. So they stuck together for their own safety. If they made friends with the white students at all, they were only the other athletes because those were the white students they could trust. Meanwhile, some of the other athletes were happy to build on that racist division for their own classist reasons: wealthy sports like fencing, for instance, provided a way for the children of wealthy families to identify and befriend each other. This isn’t just SLACs; this same thing happened at all of the elite schools, particularly in the Northeast.

As schools have made progress in recruiting Black and other non-white students who weren’t coming in for athletics, the athlete/non-athlete division has lessened. It isn’t as rigid as it used to be, at a lot of schools. So while it still exists, it’s less than it was ten or twenty years ago.

The above is not true. The divide existed/exists regardless of race or wealth.

The knee jerk denialism of racism by supposedly liberal white people is always amazing to watch.

You appear--based on your posts in this thread--to be the only racist here.

Please do some fact checking before making such broad assertions which seem to be baseless.

Are you the same person who made up wholesale facts about the post that laid out the history of attempts to diversify via athletics and the racism those students encountered?

Are you nuts ?

No. I have no idea what you are spewing about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda hate this term, and that it's used derogatorily to describe non-athletes. Schools which foster such strong athlete/non-athlete divides should reconsider what they're doing

Whether or not you like the term NARP, the divide is very rael at many--probably most--LACs/SLACs. Certainly the case at Middlebury & Amherst & Williams--although some experiences may be different.

The athlete divide at these schools was historically because of racism and classism. In the past, Black students were much more likely to be athletes; athletics was one of the first mechanisms that these schools used when they set about trying to increase their non-white student population. Black athlete students — many of whom were exceptional and driven, and turned down other schools with higher Black populations for these — arrived to campuses where many of the white students were openly hostile and racist. So they stuck together for their own safety. If they made friends with the white students at all, they were only the other athletes because those were the white students they could trust. Meanwhile, some of the other athletes were happy to build on that racist division for their own classist reasons: wealthy sports like fencing, for instance, provided a way for the children of wealthy families to identify and befriend each other. This isn’t just SLACs; this same thing happened at all of the elite schools, particularly in the Northeast.

As schools have made progress in recruiting Black and other non-white students who weren’t coming in for athletics, the athlete/non-athlete division has lessened. It isn’t as rigid as it used to be, at a lot of schools. So while it still exists, it’s less than it was ten or twenty years ago.

The above is not true. The divide existed/exists regardless of race or wealth.

The knee jerk denialism of racism by supposedly liberal white people is always amazing to watch.

You appear--based on your posts in this thread--to be the only racist here.

Please do some fact checking before making such broad assertions which seem to be baseless.

Are you the same person who made up wholesale facts about the post that laid out the history of attempts to diversify via athletics and the racism those students encountered?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda hate this term, and that it's used derogatorily to describe non-athletes. Schools which foster such strong athlete/non-athlete divides should reconsider what they're doing

Whether or not you like the term NARP, the divide is very rael at many--probably most--LACs/SLACs. Certainly the case at Middlebury & Amherst & Williams--although some experiences may be different.

The athlete divide at these schools was historically because of racism and classism. In the past, Black students were much more likely to be athletes; athletics was one of the first mechanisms that these schools used when they set about trying to increase their non-white student population. Black athlete students — many of whom were exceptional and driven, and turned down other schools with higher Black populations for these — arrived to campuses where many of the white students were openly hostile and racist. So they stuck together for their own safety. If they made friends with the white students at all, they were only the other athletes because those were the white students they could trust. Meanwhile, some of the other athletes were happy to build on that racist division for their own classist reasons: wealthy sports like fencing, for instance, provided a way for the children of wealthy families to identify and befriend each other. This isn’t just SLACs; this same thing happened at all of the elite schools, particularly in the Northeast.

As schools have made progress in recruiting Black and other non-white students who weren’t coming in for athletics, the athlete/non-athlete division has lessened. It isn’t as rigid as it used to be, at a lot of schools. So while it still exists, it’s less than it was ten or twenty years ago.

The above is not true. The divide existed/exists regardless of race or wealth.

Seems utterly factually incorrect to assert that athletes at elite schools are historically black. These schools had hardly any black students until a few decades ago and to this day their overall black populations are a fraction of the athlete population. So it’s mathematically impossible these schools’ athletic teams were ever predominantly black. A simple glance at the sports rosters of these schools disproves the assertion.

My God, you can’t read whatsoever. Nowhere in that post — literally nowhere — did it say that the athletic teams were predominantly Black. What it said, and what is absolutely factually correct, is that athletics was one of the early mechanisms that these schools used to diversify.

Man, white denialism of racism is WILD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda hate this term, and that it's used derogatorily to describe non-athletes. Schools which foster such strong athlete/non-athlete divides should reconsider what they're doing

Whether or not you like the term NARP, the divide is very rael at many--probably most--LACs/SLACs. Certainly the case at Middlebury & Amherst & Williams--although some experiences may be different.

The athlete divide at these schools was historically because of racism and classism. In the past, Black students were much more likely to be athletes; athletics was one of the first mechanisms that these schools used when they set about trying to increase their non-white student population. Black athlete students — many of whom were exceptional and driven, and turned down other schools with higher Black populations for these — arrived to campuses where many of the white students were openly hostile and racist. So they stuck together for their own safety. If they made friends with the white students at all, they were only the other athletes because those were the white students they could trust. Meanwhile, some of the other athletes were happy to build on that racist division for their own classist reasons: wealthy sports like fencing, for instance, provided a way for the children of wealthy families to identify and befriend each other. This isn’t just SLACs; this same thing happened at all of the elite schools, particularly in the Northeast.

As schools have made progress in recruiting Black and other non-white students who weren’t coming in for athletics, the athlete/non-athlete division has lessened. It isn’t as rigid as it used to be, at a lot of schools. So while it still exists, it’s less than it was ten or twenty years ago.

The above is not true. The divide existed/exists regardless of race or wealth.

The knee jerk denialism of racism by supposedly liberal white people is always amazing to watch.

You appear--based on your posts in this thread--to be the only racist here.

Please do some fact checking before making such broad assertions which seem to be baseless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most SLACs have approximately 30% of athletes: 70% are NOT athletes.

The non athletes should be able to find their group.

It's not like high school didn't have athletics.

Right. So the issue then becomes whether or not one prefers a repeat of the high school experience in college.

Most colleges and universities have athletics. It will be "repeat" if one does not play a sport. Find other things to do. There are many clubs, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda hate this term, and that it's used derogatorily to describe non-athletes. Schools which foster such strong athlete/non-athlete divides should reconsider what they're doing

Whether or not you like the term NARP, the divide is very rael at many--probably most--LACs/SLACs. Certainly the case at Middlebury & Amherst & Williams--although some experiences may be different.

The athlete divide at these schools was historically because of racism and classism. In the past, Black students were much more likely to be athletes; athletics was one of the first mechanisms that these schools used when they set about trying to increase their non-white student population. Black athlete students — many of whom were exceptional and driven, and turned down other schools with higher Black populations for these — arrived to campuses where many of the white students were openly hostile and racist. So they stuck together for their own safety. If they made friends with the white students at all, they were only the other athletes because those were the white students they could trust. Meanwhile, some of the other athletes were happy to build on that racist division for their own classist reasons: wealthy sports like fencing, for instance, provided a way for the children of wealthy families to identify and befriend each other. This isn’t just SLACs; this same thing happened at all of the elite schools, particularly in the Northeast.

As schools have made progress in recruiting Black and other non-white students who weren’t coming in for athletics, the athlete/non-athlete division has lessened. It isn’t as rigid as it used to be, at a lot of schools. So while it still exists, it’s less than it was ten or twenty years ago.

The above is not true. The divide existed/exists regardless of race or wealth.

Seems utterly factually incorrect to assert that athletes at elite schools are historically black. These schools had hardly any black students until a few decades ago and to this day their overall black populations are a fraction of the athlete population. So it’s mathematically impossible these schools’ athletic teams were ever predominantly black. A simple glance at the sports rosters of these schools disproves the assertion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda hate this term, and that it's used derogatorily to describe non-athletes. Schools which foster such strong athlete/non-athlete divides should reconsider what they're doing

Whether or not you like the term NARP, the divide is very rael at many--probably most--LACs/SLACs. Certainly the case at Middlebury & Amherst & Williams--although some experiences may be different.

The athlete divide at these schools was historically because of racism and classism. In the past, Black students were much more likely to be athletes; athletics was one of the first mechanisms that these schools used when they set about trying to increase their non-white student population. Black athlete students — many of whom were exceptional and driven, and turned down other schools with higher Black populations for these — arrived to campuses where many of the white students were openly hostile and racist. So they stuck together for their own safety. If they made friends with the white students at all, they were only the other athletes because those were the white students they could trust. Meanwhile, some of the other athletes were happy to build on that racist division for their own classist reasons: wealthy sports like fencing, for instance, provided a way for the children of wealthy families to identify and befriend each other. This isn’t just SLACs; this same thing happened at all of the elite schools, particularly in the Northeast.

As schools have made progress in recruiting Black and other non-white students who weren’t coming in for athletics, the athlete/non-athlete division has lessened. It isn’t as rigid as it used to be, at a lot of schools. So while it still exists, it’s less than it was ten or twenty years ago.

The above is not true. The divide existed/exists regardless of race or wealth.

The knee jerk denialism of racism by supposedly liberal white people is always amazing to watch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My non-athlete, straight, not-too-political son is thriving at a D1 SLAC. Three weeks in, and he already has a wide variety of friends, including athletes and students that plan to major/minor in music. I can't disagree more strongly with the comment that "mainstreamish non-athlete might find themselves socially isolated." Definitely school dependent so research each institution and speak with current students to get a feel for the culture.

Which D-1 LAC ???

Three weeks in may be a bit too early to assess & judge a school's environment & effects of its campus culture.

I think Davidson is the only real D1 SLAC.

Colgate is also a D1 SLAC

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda hate this term, and that it's used derogatorily to describe non-athletes. Schools which foster such strong athlete/non-athlete divides should reconsider what they're doing

Whether or not you like the term NARP, the divide is very rael at many--probably most--LACs/SLACs. Certainly the case at Middlebury & Amherst & Williams--although some experiences may be different.

The athlete divide at these schools was historically because of racism and classism. In the past, Black students were much more likely to be athletes; athletics was one of the first mechanisms that these schools used when they set about trying to increase their non-white student population. Black athlete students — many of whom were exceptional and driven, and turned down other schools with higher Black populations for these — arrived to campuses where many of the white students were openly hostile and racist. So they stuck together for their own safety. If they made friends with the white students at all, they were only the other athletes because those were the white students they could trust. Meanwhile, some of the other athletes were happy to build on that racist division for their own classist reasons: wealthy sports like fencing, for instance, provided a way for the children of wealthy families to identify and befriend each other. This isn’t just SLACs; this same thing happened at all of the elite schools, particularly in the Northeast.

As schools have made progress in recruiting Black and other non-white students who weren’t coming in for athletics, the athlete/non-athlete division has lessened. It isn’t as rigid as it used to be, at a lot of schools. So while it still exists, it’s less than it was ten or twenty years ago.

The above is not true. The divide existed/exists regardless of race or wealth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda hate this term, and that it's used derogatorily to describe non-athletes. Schools which foster such strong athlete/non-athlete divides should reconsider what they're doing

Whether or not you like the term NARP, the divide is very rael at many--probably most--LACs/SLACs. Certainly the case at Middlebury & Amherst & Williams--although some experiences may be different.

The athlete divide at these schools was historically because of racism and classism. In the past, Black students were much more likely to be athletes; athletics was one of the first mechanisms that these schools used when they set about trying to increase their non-white student population. Black athlete students — many of whom were exceptional and driven, and turned down other schools with higher Black populations for these — arrived to campuses where many of the white students were openly hostile and racist. So they stuck together for their own safety. If they made friends with the white students at all, they were only the other athletes because those were the white students they could trust. Meanwhile, some of the other athletes were happy to build on that racist division for their own classist reasons: wealthy sports like fencing, for instance, provided a way for the children of wealthy families to identify and befriend each other. This isn’t just SLACs; this same thing happened at all of the elite schools, particularly in the Northeast.

As schools have made progress in recruiting Black and other non-white students who weren’t coming in for athletics, the athlete/non-athlete division has lessened. It isn’t as rigid as it used to be, at a lot of schools. So while it still exists, it’s less than it was ten or twenty years ago.