Most Division 1 athletes don't go pro. 62 is the number of NBA draftees. Do you realize the level of athleticism and talent required to even play D3? Hobby? Not a hobby. More like a 2/3 time job with D1 being full-time. D1 's don't even take full course loads and are now at college with 3 a days and 1 or 2 classes.

Yes, I do. And I did. In my era we had Freddie Scott and Gene Fuget. D3 does not require a tremendous amount of athleticism. What is lacking in athleticism can be made up in enthusiasm. That was my 4-year experience (2 sports). Perhaps things have changed and everyone is super duper training for the Olympics and turning down Pro offers. As one doing regional interviews... I don't it

There are several scholar-athletes at both Amherst and Williams who have D1/National marks, times, and ability. Many are preparing for the Olympic trials....

Who and how many are "preparing" for Olympic trials at Amherst and Williams? How many Amherst and Williams athletes do you know off in the last 4 Olympic Games?

Unfortunately, Bowen's books suggest that this overemphasis on athletics is not limited to one or two schools -- it's pervasive throughout the Ivy League and the top SLACs. Here's an editorial that he wrote that appeared in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/22/opinion/playing-their-way-in.html?scp=1&sq=%22playing+their+way+in%22&st=nyt

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or why a kid who is a first class lacrosse player has so much more to offer a school than a really good all-around athlete who also plays the violin at a very advanced level who also happens to have better grades.

Not to be a jerk, but this part of your quote kinda shows that you may not fully understand the differences between the levels of college athletics.

The "first class lacrosse player" that you mention would likely be a DI or D2 athlete going to school on a least a partial athletic scholarship.

The "really good all-around athlete who also plays the violin at a very advanced level who also happens to have better grades" would fit the profile of a typical D3 athlete.

Good post. The problem that I have with this whole thread is that folks are being judgmental on what extracurricular activities are and should be important to a particular school. That what is great about America – choice! If you think that Williams and Amherst are too focused on athletics, find another school to your liking and apply there. There are a lot of good SLAC’s where athletics are just minor diversions. But just be mindful of one thing. A student with good grades who just “reads for fun” or has isolated extracurriculars is going to be at a disadvantage in the admissions process at a lot of top schools. These schools want to know what talent you have that will be a shared benefit to the college community. A kid who just goes to class and the library is not the type of kid most top SLAC’s want a lot of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I'm all for being physically fit, but I just don't understand the need to recruit Olympic caliber athletes. It's sad that there are very few "walk-on" positions on college teams any more. Everything has become so unnecessarily professional.

A PP here. Not to keep harping on this point, but all of the athletes at Williams ARE walk-ons. As D3 athletes, they do NOT receive athletic scholarships! Some schools do give leadership grants and stuff to athletes, but, every student is eligible for those if they have strong extracurriculars.

My daughter is a D3 athlete. She was recruited by some DI and DII scholarship schools but she is not Olympic caliber! She is good student and a good (not elite) athlete who chose to go D3 because of the academic benefits. She was not pressured to play her sport growing up or to specialize. She played two sports because she wanted to. She WAS pressured to get good grades and to be active in community service.

Overall, the tone of the OP and other has become increasing anit-athlete. You feel how you feel, but please be informed about what you are saying. All college athletic programs are not the same and there is HUGE difference between the athletic programs at the DI level (the big boys and the Ivies) and D3 (non scholarship athletes).

All the athletes at Williams are not walk-ons. No $ but the coaches interface with admissions AND select the players.
http://athletics.williams.edu/Factors_in_Admission_Decisions

http://athletics.williams.edu/NESCAC_Admission_Policies

Recruited D1-2-3 athletes get a "pre-read" from admissions then apply ED .

Exactly, this is how my DD experienced recruitment at both Amherst & Williams. She was highly courted through email and telephone calls by head and assistant coaches at both schools for several months, 3 or more times per week. And was told by both schools that she would receive an admissions' tip from the head coach. They never guaranteed her admission, but did give her a heads up that she looked good with admissions with statements like, "I'm 99.9% sure that you're in." She fit the schools admissions profile by qualifying academically (gpa & sat scores). Not a walk on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I'm all for being physically fit, but I just don't understand the need to recruit Olympic caliber athletes. It's sad that there are very few "walk-on" positions on college teams any more. Everything has become so unnecessarily professional.

A PP here. Not to keep harping on this point, but all of the athletes at Williams ARE walk-ons. As D3 athletes, they do NOT receive athletic scholarships! Some schools do give leadership grants and stuff to athletes, but, every student is eligible for those if they have strong extracurriculars.

My daughter is a D3 athlete. She was recruited by some DI and DII scholarship schools but she is not Olympic caliber! She is good student and a good (not elite) athlete who chose to go D3 because of the academic benefits. She was not pressured to play her sport growing up or to specialize. She played two sports because she wanted to. She WAS pressured to get good grades and to be active in community service.

Overall, the tone of the OP and other has become increasing anit-athlete. You feel how you feel, but please be informed about what you are saying. All college athletic programs are not the same and there is HUGE difference between the athletic programs at the DI level (the big boys and the Ivies) and D3 (non scholarship athletes).

All the athletes at Williams are not walk-ons. No $ but the coaches interface with admissions AND select the players.
http://athletics.williams.edu/Factors_in_Admission_Decisions

http://athletics.williams.edu/NESCAC_Admission_Policies

Recruited D1-2-3 athletes get a "pre-read" from admissions then apply ED .

Could be that we are using different defintion of walk ons? In the current athletic world, a walk on at a scholarship school is someone who is a non scholarship player...whether that person was recruited or not.

The coaches interface with the admissions people - sure they do. But it is very rare that the D3 coach can get a kid in the school who is not within the range of admissions. I do not think anything is wrong with it. But then again, I have seen college band directors go to bat with admissions for students in the music program and I have seen a dance professor go to bat for my niece (a dance major).

Let me cut to the chase.....what's the point? What is the personal impact on you? Is your DC a non-athlete and you fear that DC is at a competitive disadvantage because of the number of athletes at Williams? I mean for every article or book that you post about why the "emphasis" on college athletic is problematic, I can cite an article or book that says it is a good thing for the students and the campus community. A lot of the posts here have portrayed the D3 athlete has having tunnel vision, not as high grades as non-athletes and other things - all generalizations and inaccuracies. I am simply pointing out that most of the student athletes at the D3 level are good well rounded students who deserve their admission and happen to have an extracurricular that is in demand. They should not be diminished because other kids chose differently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I'm all for being physically fit, but I just don't understand the need to recruit Olympic caliber athletes. It's sad that there are very few "walk-on" positions on college teams any more. Everything has become so unnecessarily professional.

A PP here. Not to keep harping on this point, but all of the athletes at Williams ARE walk-ons. As D3 athletes, they do NOT receive athletic scholarships! Some schools do give leadership grants and stuff to athletes, but, every student is eligible for those if they have strong extracurriculars.

My daughter is a D3 athlete. She was recruited by some DI and DII scholarship schools but she is not Olympic caliber! She is good student and a good (not elite) athlete who chose to go D3 because of the academic benefits. She was not pressured to play her sport growing up or to specialize. She played two sports because she wanted to. She WAS pressured to get good grades and to be active in community service.

Overall, the tone of the OP and other has become increasing anit-athlete. You feel how you feel, but please be informed about what you are saying. All college athletic programs are not the same and there is HUGE difference between the athletic programs at the DI level (the big boys and the Ivies) and D3 (non scholarship athletes).

All the athletes at Williams are not walk-ons. No $ but the coaches interface with admissions AND select the players.
http://athletics.williams.edu/Factors_in_Admission_Decisions

http://athletics.williams.edu/NESCAC_Admission_Policies

Recruited D1-2-3 athletes get a "pre-read" from admissions then apply ED .

Again, read William Bowen's book. Or at least the reviews of it; the first one on Amazon is very interesting. Here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Game-College-Sports-Educational/dp/0691123144/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308936306&sr=8-1. He and his coauthor have written two books on this topic, and each reaches the same conclusion that the emphasis on recruiting top-notch athletes at the Ivies and the SLACs has been extremely problematic.

Anonymous wrote:Or why a kid who is a first class lacrosse player has so much more to offer a school than a really good all-around athlete who also plays the violin at a very advanced level who also happens to have better grades.

Not to be a jerk, but this part of your quote kinda shows that you may not fully understand the differences between the levels of college athletics.

The "first class lacrosse player" that you mention would likely be a DI or D2 athlete going to school on a least a partial athletic scholarship.

The "really good all-around athlete who also plays the violin at a very advanced level who also happens to have better grades" would fit the profile of a typical D3 athlete.

Anonymous wrote: I'm all for being physically fit, but I just don't understand the need to recruit Olympic caliber athletes. It's sad that there are very few "walk-on" positions on college teams any more. Everything has become so unnecessarily professional.

A PP here. Not to keep harping on this point, but all of the athletes at Williams ARE walk-ons. As D3 athletes, they do NOT receive athletic scholarships! Some schools do give leadership grants and stuff to athletes, but, every student is eligible for those if they have strong extracurriculars.

My daughter is a D3 athlete. She was recruited by some DI and DII scholarship schools but she is not Olympic caliber! She is good student and a good (not elite) athlete who chose to go D3 because of the academic benefits. She was not pressured to play her sport growing up or to specialize. She played two sports because she wanted to. She WAS pressured to get good grades and to be active in community service.

Overall, the tone of the OP and other has become increasing anit-athlete. You feel how you feel, but please be informed about what you are saying. All college athletic programs are not the same and there is HUGE difference between the athletic programs at the DI level (the big boys and the Ivies) and D3 (non scholarship athletes).

Anonymous wrote:Get serious. Kids that go to schools like Williams and Amherst are far from "athletes" in he real sense of the word. They have next to zero chance of taking their talents professionally (like for medicine, law and business). That said students will spend an inordinate amount of time doing just about anything ... even if they have a snow ball's chance in hell of becoming a professional and getting paid for those talents.

Very few divisonal 1 type athletes with realistic chances of getting paid for this talent as a professional at the next level are recruited to small liberal arts college like Amherst and Williams. This group is the exception to the rule at these schools. I would put athletics at these schools in the category of a hobby (regardless of the time spent at it) ... much like studio art, theatre, debating, and writing for the school paper (activities that some other students spend more time at than the athletes at their sports!)

Most Division 1 athletes don't go pro. 62 is the number of NBA draftees. Do you realize the level of athleticism and talent required to even play D3? Hobby? Not a hobby. More like a 2/3 time job with D1 being full-time. D1 's don't even take full course loads and are now at college with 3 a days and 1 or 2 classes.

Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious as to why our society values athletics so much more than musical or writing ability. Or why a kid who is a first class lacrosse player has so much more to offer a school than a really good all-around athlete who also plays the violin at a very advanced level who also happens to have better grades. I don't like the whole idea of kids specializing so early. Any activity (including the violin, I might add) that takes up more than 15 hours a week on the part of a teenager leaves so little time for reading for pleasure, backpacking, learning how to sew or fix a car, etc., when the academics are so demanding as well. I just hate to see kids under so much pressure, and, if we are going to encourage kids to focus on one activity early on, it seems like it would be a better use of their time to encourage them to do something more directly related to academics, such as playing music or working on the school newspaper. I'm all for being physically fit, but I just don't understand the need to recruit Olympic caliber athletes. It's sad that there are very few "walk-on" positions on college teams any more. Everything has become so unnecessarily professional.


And the legacy hook (and big donor hook) bothers me just as much as it does you. There is no reason for that.

I don't think our society values athletics more than musical or writing talents or other talents. That's just your perception. Lady Gaga will make millions this year. So will John Grisham. "Glee" is a big success.

I do think athletics present a unique set of challenges which develop a strengh of character. Trying to be among the elite in any field presents even greater challenges. One person's renaissance man is another's dilettante. As far as colleges go, I guessing that for every qualified athlete who applies there are 10 violinists so there is a supply and demand factor at work as well.

Anonymous wrote:Get serious. Kids that go to schools like Williams and Amherst are far from "athletes" in he real sense of the word. They have next to zero chance of taking their talents professionally (like for medicine, law and business). That said students will spend an inordinate amount of time doing just about anything ... even if they have a snow ball's chance in hell of becoming a professional and getting paid for those talents.

Very few divisonal 1 type athletes with realistic chances of getting paid for this talent as a professional at the next level are recruited to small liberal arts college like Amherst and Williams. This group is the exception to the rule at these schools. I would put athletics at these schools in the category of a hobby (regardless of the time spent at it) ... much like studio art, theatre, debating, and writing for the school paper (activities that some other students spend more time at than the athletes at their sports!)

There are several scholar-athletes at both Amherst and Williams who have D1/National marks, times, and ability. Many are preparing for the Olympic trials. They're also academically talented and know what their priorities are without having to compromise their education due to the dictates of their coaches/sports program. My DD was recruited heavily by both D1 & D3 (Amherst & Williams) schools because she's a talented athlete and brilliant student. As one PP put it, a twofer. Sure there are many athletes at D3 schools who are average at their sport, however it's not unusual to find elite athletes at these schools, they are provided an avenue to really display and further develop their talent.

I would urge everyone to read William Bowen's Reclaiming the Game:College Sports and Educational Values. Bowen, a former president of Princeton, makes a good case that the current emphasis on college sports at the Ivies and small liberal arts colleges is a big problem. Here's the link: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7577.html.

Get serious. Kids that go to schools like Williams and Amherst are far from "athletes" in he real sense of the word. They have next to zero chance of taking their talents professionally (like for medicine, law and business). That said students will spend an inordinate amount of time doing just about anything ... even if they have a snow ball's chance in hell of becoming a professional and getting paid for those talents.

Very few divisonal 1 type athletes with realistic chances of getting paid for this talent as a professional at the next level are recruited to small liberal arts college like Amherst and Williams. This group is the exception to the rule at these schools. I would put athletics at these schools in the category of a hobby (regardless of the time spent at it) ... much like studio art, theatre, debating, and writing for the school paper (activities that some other students spend more time at than the athletes at their sports!)