Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

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; 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. 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.

They aren’t as academically as strong as non athletes

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.

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.

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

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

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.

I guess you didn’t read this: “It is not surprising, given the difference in academic qualifications at the time of admission, that athletic factor athletes graduate with slightly lower grade point averages…” (p. 16, emphasis added). Glad that’s settled.

Or how about the fact that 49% of non-athletes write theses, and only 16% of athletes?

Anonymous wrote:I've done this math myself and think it's true - worse at some schools with higher athletes accounting for 35% or more.

But the it's hard to know how many athletes are recruited or in those ED pools, as you point out. I know kids who started a sport once they got to Bowdoin, etc. Rowing, rugby, even mainstays like golf and tennis. These kids were too busy grinding in HS to join the golf team.

But in any case, I think you're right that ED doesn't help. And the numbers can be misleading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

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; 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. 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.

They aren’t as academically as strong as non athletes

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

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; 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. 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.

They aren’t as academically as strong as non athletes

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

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; 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. 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.

They aren’t as academically as strong as non athletes

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Didn’t Stanford try to get rid of some sports teams a few years ago — to admit more “real,” top students — but had to abandon this plan because of Title IX lawsuit threats? Title IX: affirmative action for rich white women.

No; Stanford tried to eliminate a mix of men's and Women's sport's but not to admit more "real" top students. Student academics were never mentioned and would not have been a factor at all. The attempt happened during Covid and the school said that it was intended to make the Athletic department financially self-sufficient.

The attempt did not go well for Stanford across multiple fronts. They ended up with a potential Title IX investigation, fraud lawsuits, revolt by high profile Alumni, and bad press from the US Olympic committee because 10 of the proposed sports were Olympic sports.

Wealthy Alumni quickly stepped up to close the supposed budget gap and Stanford was backed into a corner. The end result was a complete capitulation by Stanford and a full reversal of the cuts. Pretty solid example of the importance of even obscure sports to influential constituencies within elite schools and why you won't see any deemphasizing of sports at elite colleges.

Yes, it was a Title IX issue. And yes, Stamford did say it was to free up more academic slots.

No it wasn't, and no they didn't. Why are you lying? There is so much information available on this event that you just look foolish.

I'm looking at the letter and FAQ as we speak. As far as Title IX goes they only referenced it tangentially in saying that they believed they would still be in compliance with after the reduction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

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; 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. 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.

They aren’t as academically as strong as non athletes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

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; 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. 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Didn’t Stanford try to get rid of some sports teams a few years ago — to admit more “real,” top students — but had to abandon this plan because of Title IX lawsuit threats? Title IX: affirmative action for rich white women.

No; Stanford tried to eliminate a mix of men's and Women's sport's but not to admit more "real" top students. Student academics were never mentioned and would not have been a factor at all. The attempt happened during Covid and the school said that it was intended to make the Athletic department financially self-sufficient.

The attempt did not go well for Stanford across multiple fronts. They ended up with a potential Title IX investigation, fraud lawsuits, revolt by high profile Alumni, and bad press from the US Olympic committee because 10 of the proposed sports were Olympic sports.

Wealthy Alumni quickly stepped up to close the supposed budget gap and Stanford was backed into a corner. The end result was a complete capitulation by Stanford and a full reversal of the cuts. Pretty solid example of the importance of even obscure sports to influential constituencies within elite schools and why you won't see any deemphasizing of sports at elite colleges.

Yes, it was a Title IX issue. And yes, Stamford did say it was to free up more academic slots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Didn’t Stanford try to get rid of some sports teams a few years ago — to admit more “real,” top students — but had to abandon this plan because of Title IX lawsuit threats? Title IX: affirmative action for rich white women.

No; Stanford tried to eliminate a mix of men's and Women's sport's but not to admit more "real" top students. Student academics were never mentioned and would not have been a factor at all. The attempt happened during Covid and the school said that it was intended to make the Athletic department financially self-sufficient.

The attempt did not go well for Stanford across multiple fronts. They ended up with a potential Title IX investigation, fraud lawsuits, revolt by high profile Alumni, and bad press from the US Olympic committee because 10 of the proposed sports were Olympic sports.

Wealthy Alumni quickly stepped up to close the supposed budget gap and Stanford was backed into a corner. The end result was a complete capitulation by Stanford and a full reversal of the cuts. Pretty solid example of the importance of even obscure sports to influential constituencies within elite schools and why you won't see any deemphasizing of sports at elite colleges.

Yes, it was a Title IX issue. And yes, Stamford did say it was to free up more academic slots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Didn’t Stanford try to get rid of some sports teams a few years ago — to admit more “real,” top students — but had to abandon this plan because of Title IX lawsuit threats? Title IX: affirmative action for rich white women.

No; Stanford tried to eliminate a mix of men's and Women's sport's but not to admit more "real" top students. Student academics were never mentioned and would not have been a factor at all. The attempt happened during Covid and the school said that it was intended to make the Athletic department financially self-sufficient.

The attempt did not go well for Stanford across multiple fronts. They ended up with a potential Title IX investigation, fraud lawsuits, revolt by high profile Alumni, and bad press from the US Olympic committee because 10 of the proposed sports were Olympic sports.

Wealthy Alumni quickly stepped up to close the supposed budget gap and Stanford was backed into a corner. The end result was a complete capitulation by Stanford and a full reversal of the cuts. Pretty solid example of the importance of even obscure sports to influential constituencies within elite schools and why you won't see any deemphasizing of sports at elite colleges.